The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: clack on August 18, 2015, 01:02:47 PM



Title: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on August 18, 2015, 01:02:47 PM
1) Was this ever said by anyone?
2) If it was said, was it said by Mike, or, as some say, a record exec?
3) If this was said, was it said in relation to Pet Sounds, or to SMiLE?
4) And what was this "formula"? Does it refer to subject matter, to lyrical style (direct or allusive?), to album sequencing, to song structure, to recording technique, or to something else?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: ontor pertawst on August 18, 2015, 01:10:59 PM
After we crack this one, I say we get our teen gang working on the "Murry and the sh*t on the plate" legend. It's like Rashomon!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 18, 2015, 01:43:46 PM
After we crack this one, I saw we get our teen gang working on the " Murry and the sh*t on the plate" legend.

Hey, I'll have you know one of those books helped solve whether or not Van was stuck with the entirety of the gas bill during the SIP sessions....

(http://i.imgur.com/hcKgeRM.jpg)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on August 18, 2015, 02:52:16 PM
1) Was this ever said by anyone?
2) If it was said, was it said by Mike, or, as some say, a record exec?
3) If this was said, was it said in relation to Pet Sounds, or to SMiLE?
4) And what was this "formula"? Does it refer to subject matter, to lyrical style (direct or allusive?), to album sequencing, to song structure, to recording technique, or to something else?

1) Was this ever said by anyone?
2) If it was said, was it said by Mike, or, as some say, a record exec?
3) If this was said, was it said in relation to Pet Sounds, or to SMiLE?
4) And what was this "formula"? Does it refer to subject matter, to lyrical style (direct or allusive?), to album sequencing, to song structure, to recording technique, or to something else?

COMMENT:   In the course of authoring a book or scripting a movie, it sometimes becomes necessary to take here-say and innuendo collected from numerous interviews of third-hand accessories, and focus what is being communicated in the story being told in print or on the screen into a concise statement or action. The statement can be a formulation of many viewpoints that the author of the book/movie wishes to use as a pivot point in the plot or documentation. Having said that, it is well within Mr. Gaines privilege as an author to concoct such an event as being real, even though it may not have happened exactly as it is written – this is the “screen play” application of writing.

This is a writer's license, a vehicle used to make a point. Looks like this little story was also picked up by the writer of Love and Mercy, thus magnifying an imaginary event into a virtual event on the screen. And we all know that if it's in the movies it must be real.  

I will say this: it may be a sentiment that Michael discussed with several people – who later were interviewed – upon analyses by the author, a consensus may be reached by a consistency about Michel’s concerns stated in each interview. To make the point about this realization to the reader, the author modifies an event to give the impression to the reader the same conclusion the author has deduced from all his interviews. He can’t describe all the interviews, no time. So all these attitudes noted by the author are condensed into an event, hence Michael may have made it well know how he felt about abandoning the Surf motif, but actually never confronted Brian with his sentiment in an angry confrontation. I would put the way Michael is portrayed confronting Brian about the formula as pure theatrics.  

As I said before, Michael went on (after this supposed ‘formula’ statement) to support, write, sing, and promote many non-surf motif songs. But that was on the creative level. What about the touring level?

Michael may have been heard saying something like “we’ve got to stay with the formula” with regard to his touring shows. You will note that Brian has his own band, and Mike + Bruce are “The Beach Boys” as an official act representing the music of that group. The two acts are different. Brian does a few standards, but adds his own music. Whereas, the Mike + Bruce show is about nostalgia, surfing magic, reliving your youth, -- hence, the old formula, girls, beach, cars, fun and summer love. This is the personification of Michael staying with “the formula.” And Bruce is right there in his Hawaiian shirt and creased shorts.

STORY:   One afternoon I observed Brian in the studio pacing around. Soon Carl, then Alan, Michael, Dennis and Bruce all showed up for session work. They talked about what songs they wanted worked on that day. But soon Brian said he wanted to have a business meeting. Everyone said, oh come on Brian, can’t we do this later?” But Brian insisten on a meeting at that time. What he said surprised me. He said, “ I want to change the name of The Beach Boys to The Beach. He went on to say how they are not “boys” anymore so why should be beach boys?  Well this went on for ten minutes or so, and then Brian wrote out a statement on a piece of paper that read, “The Beach Boys official change their name to The Beach.” Brian actually got four of the six to sign the paper. Then everyone was ready to start recording and Brian was in a good frame of mind. That evening I was cleaning up and found the slip of paper Brian had written with its signatures. I still have it. It is legally meaningless, but just a memento now. (I haven’t seen it for several years, but it’s around here somewhere). The point is that during these business meetings, many things are said, just the same as during any business meeting, and you can take anything made during a discussion, out of context, to serve your needs. – or to tell a story.

Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper
 




Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: chaki on August 18, 2015, 03:22:35 PM
Wow that's amazing. I genuinly think changing the name to "The Beach" would have been a brilliant, career defining move. The connotation and imagery of "The Beach" is so heavy. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Moon Dawg on August 18, 2015, 03:36:54 PM
Changing the name of the band that deep into a career would have been a terrible mistake. Maybe not an obvious one, in say 1970, but ultimately a career killer. Please.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: bgas on August 18, 2015, 03:43:37 PM
1) Was this ever said by anyone?
2) If it was said, was it said by Mike, or, as some say, a record exec?
3) If this was said, was it said in relation to Pet Sounds, or to SMiLE?
4) And what was this "formula"? Does it refer to subject matter, to lyrical style (direct or allusive?), to album sequencing, to song structure, to recording technique, or to something else?



COMMENT:   In the course of authoring a book or scripting a movie, it sometimes becomes necessary to take here-say and innuendo collected from numerous interviews of third-hand accessories, and focus what is being communicated in the story being told in print or on the screen into a concise statement or action. The statement can be a formulation of many viewpoints that the author of the book/movie wishes to use as a pivot point in the plot or documentation. Having said that, it is well within Mr. Gaines privilege as an author to concoct such an event as being real, even though it may not have happened exactly as it is written – this is the “screen play” application of writing.

This is a writer's license, a vehicle used to make a point. Looks like this little story was also picked up by the writer of Love and Mercy, thus magnifying an imaginary event into a virtual event on the screen. And we all know that if it's in the movies it must be real.  

I will say this: it may be a sentiment that Michael discussed with several people – who later were interviewed – upon analyses by the author, a consensus may be reached by a consistency about Michel’s concerns stated in each interview. To make the point about this realization to the reader, the author modifies an event to give the impression to the reader the same conclusion the author has deduced from all his interviews. He can’t describe all the interviews, no time. So all these attitudes noted by the author are condensed into an event, hence Michael may have made it well know how he felt about abandoning the Surf motif, but actually never confronted Brian with his sentiment in an angry confrontation. I would put the way Michael is portrayed confronting Brian about the formula as pure theatrics.  

As I said before, Michael went on (after this supposed ‘formula’ statement) to support, write, sing, and promote many non-surf motif songs. But that was on the creative level. What about the touring level?

Michael may have been heard saying something like “we’ve got to stay with the formula” with regard to his touring shows. You will note that Brian has his own band, and Mike + Bruce are “The Beach Boys” as an official act representing the music of that group. The two acts are different. Brian does a few standards, but adds his own music. Whereas, the Mike + Bruce show is about nostalgia, surfing magic, reliving your youth, -- hence, the old formula, girls, beach, cars, fun and summer love. This is the personification of Michael staying with “the formula.” And Bruce is right there in his Hawaiian shirt and creased shorts.

STORY:   One afternoon I observed Brian in the studio pacing around. Soon Carl, then Alan, Michael, Dennis and Bruce all showed up for session work. They talked about what songs they wanted worked on that day. But soon Brian said he wanted to have a business meeting. Everyone said, oh come on Brian, can’t we do this later?” But Brian insisten on a meeting at that time. What he said surprised me. He said, “ I want to change the name of The Beach Boys to The Beach. He went on to say how they are not “boys” anymore so why should be beach boys?  Well this went on for ten minutes or so, and then Brian wrote out a statement on a piece of paper that read, “The Beach Boys official change their name to The Beach.” Brian actually got four of the six to sign the paper. Then everyone was ready to start recording and Brian was in a good frame of mind. That evening I was cleaning up and found the slip of paper Brian had written with its signatures. I still have it. It is legally meaningless, but just a memento now. (I haven’t seen it for several years, but it’s around here somewhere). The point is that during these business meetings, many things are said, just the same as during any business meeting, and you can take anything made during a discussion, out of context, to serve your needs. – or to tell a story.

Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper
 

None of us were there, not even you, Stephen, when David Anderle  heard  Mike talking.
Everyone can doubt all they want, but his( DA's) comments are in print and he's, unfortunately, not here to comment.
the only person(s) still around that were there would seem to be Brian and Mike.
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on August 18, 2015, 03:58:35 PM
COMMENT:
Don't you see? This was Brian's way of saying he wanted to move away from The Beach Boys and their surfing motif. He wished to evolve to melodies beyond. It was Brian's way of reaching out and saying, we need to evolve beyond our boyhood. We are not boys, we are now men. Beach Men -- well I don't like that, I heard him say, but I do like the beach.  So let's be The Beach from now on. What do you say, he said. More discussion follows and then they sign the paper so as to get back to recording. Brian was in a good mood that day. I expect that even though he knew this was just an exercise, he did make his point to his fellows.

In hindsight, this may have been the beginning of what became the Michael formula statement. 
~swd


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 04:21:11 PM
 bgas - Just for a minute I'm gonna play devils advocate. I think the account of Capitol not wanting to lose their cash cow is more credible. I think they tried to keep the guys "down" to devote their resources for "experimental music" to another band. These guys were in their early 20's, and hardly a match for the sharks.

If Brian and Mike take these recordings to present to Capitol, and are given the "don't mess with the formula" speech, and the result is that very shortly after Pet Sounds the band decides to formulate their own label?  Out of the blue?

The timing is just too telling. People just don't leave a good situation.  It seems this was the beginning of Brother Records.  Why then, unless they were rejected?

It makes absolutely no sense to me that took the rejections of their own work product lying down.  I cannot fathom at that young age, they would make that huge decision to break out on their own, if they weren't getting shafted from the industry. And a form of revolt that they all signed on for.  No one breaks away from a big and lucrative operation unless they are getting shafted.  

And I agree with SWD.  Calling them "Beach" (during a time when bands were changing names trying to be cool) (or thinking they were) or whatever and changing the known brand might have been the dumbest thing they ever could have done.

It would have been a sell-out to their roots.  And people could always allege afterwards, that they "forgot where they came from."  And that they were ashamed of their earlier work which had all the earmarks of brilliance.





Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: chaki on August 18, 2015, 04:35:08 PM
I know you are all going to disagree with me but I think changing the name to The Beach would actually have eventually legitimized the later albums legacies rather than harmed them. Sunflower by The Beach.. man that's would have been so awesome.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 18, 2015, 04:56:25 PM
I know you are all going to disagree with me but I think changing the name to The Beach would actually have eventually legitimized the later albums legacies rather than harmed them. Sunflower by The Beach.. man that's would have been so awesome.

I'm in full agreement.  I believe the name change could have altered the negative perception of the band and would have had almost no negative affect on the perception of the earlier work .

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 18, 2015, 05:13:28 PM
And they would have reverted back to The Beach Boys after the release of Endless Summer.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 18, 2015, 05:15:20 PM
Wasn't the don't f with the formula in the 2 part RS article?  Are Nolan and Gaines still alive that we can verify their source for the quote, or if they were taking artistic liberties to make a point about Mike's overall attitude?

The timing of this supposed quote is Around Pet Sounds but David Anderle wasn't really involved until GV and Smile, right?  Did Brian relate the story to David after the fact?  It would be nice to get some answers about this.  Mike has commented on this and denies he said it.  He also denies he was critical or disapproving of Pet Sounds or  Smile other than a few lyrics from the latter, yetBrian and the Vosse posse/Van Dyke definitely felt otherwise.

It is a mistake to assume "don't f with the formula"means Mike wanted to do more surf and car songs.  How many surf and car songs are on Today and Summer Days, Summer Nights?  Yet those didn't bother Mike and fell within whatever formula he thought they needed to follow for commercial success.  Mike may not have been the hippest Beach Boy but he surely realized surf and car songs in 1965 and 1966 was not going to compete with Rubber Soul and Revolver.  He just didn't want to take the music and lyrics too far from the sound and themes they had been doing.  

Without Gaines or Nolan I don't think we'll ever resolve if Mike said this, or even something like it.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Autotune on August 18, 2015, 05:25:05 PM
Gaines used to post here until some nerd fanboy chased him away by pointing inaccurate minutiae. It'd be great if he showed up again.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 05:27:26 PM
The comment isn't in the Crawdaddy interview.

I wonder how GV would not be seen as fucking with the formula?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 18, 2015, 05:32:02 PM

Mike has commented on this and denies he said it.  He also denies he was critical or disapproving of Pet Sounds or  Smile other than a few lyrics from the latter, yetBrian and the Vosse posse/Van Dyke definitely felt otherwise.
 

And that discrepancy is truly at the heart of the matter. Latter day Mike seems to go out of his way to minimize his issues with that material, but these guys obviously picked up deeply on a negative vibe. Does *anyone* really believe it was a minimal disagreement over "a few" lyrics, and that there wasn't additionally some deep resentment going on which probably greatly colored his attitude?  Anyone?

I just wish Mike could own up to that and say that he had deep resentment over the songwriting snafu, being passed over as a lyricist, feeling less wanted than before, and that these emotions may have inadvertently informed and amplified some of his actions at the time, and that it wasn't ALL just about a minor quibble over a few lyrics. These are all understandable, if some regrettable things to have happened, but trying to skirt part of the reasons only makes the whole thing seem like a cover-up, and unfortunately makes many people have no empathy for him. I have empathy for him feeling misunderstood, but feel sad that he is missing an opportunity to be better understood.

For all the many, many interviews he's given over the years, as many times as he's been asked about this era and his differences, I don't know why he's never addressed any of this himself whatsoever. It's the elephant in the room.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 05:34:43 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 18, 2015, 05:36:54 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

Do you really believe, honestly, that Mike doesn't try to downplay past actions of his which are widely seen as being worthy of criticism? And that sometimes he may go too far in that regard? Not saying it's not understandable for someone who is as picked on as he is to be defensive, but don't you think that it's possible to go too far with that? Ever?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
Gaines used to post here until some nerd fanboy chased him away by pointing inaccurate minutiae. It'd be great if he showed up again.

Is this his website and contact page?

http://www.stevengaines.com/index.html


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 05:39:08 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

Do you really believe, honestly, that Mike doesn't try to downplay past actions of his which are widely seen as being worthy of criticism? And that sometimes he may go too far in that regard? Not saying it's not understandable for someone who is as picked on as he is to be defensive, but don't you think that it's possible to go too far with that? Ever?

Yes, I believe he doesn't.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 05:49:28 PM
Stephen, when did you become involved with the Beach Boys? It has probably already been figured out but I wondered if you associate it with a particular concert or something?  Thanks.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Moon Dawg on August 18, 2015, 05:51:04 PM
Gaines used to post here until some nerd fanboy chased him away by pointing inaccurate minutiae. It'd be great if he showed up again.

  It wasn't me, but Gaines got a lot of stuff wrong that was easily verified.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 18, 2015, 05:54:14 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

Do you really believe, honestly, that Mike doesn't try to downplay past actions of his which are widely seen as being worthy of criticism? And that sometimes he may go too far in that regard? Not saying it's not understandable for someone who is as picked on as he is to be defensive, but don't you think that it's possible to go too far with that? Ever?
Why do you not believe anything Mike has stated? You look for reasons not believe his comments. Mike has stated that he never said it and I will take him at his word, especially after reading Stephen's statements on the subject.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 18, 2015, 05:58:15 PM
This is like the 3rd Mike Love PR whitewash this week. ::)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
This is like the 3rd Mike Love PR whitewash this week. ::)
Smile Brian - why do "you" think that BRI was formed?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 18, 2015, 06:09:25 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

Do you really believe, honestly, that Mike doesn't try to downplay past actions of his which are widely seen as being worthy of criticism? And that sometimes he may go too far in that regard? Not saying it's not understandable for someone who is as picked on as he is to be defensive, but don't you think that it's possible to go too far with that? Ever?
Why do you not believe anything Mike has stated? You look for reasons not believe his comments. Mike has stated that he never said it and I will take him at his word, especially after reading Stephen's statements on the subject.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not "not believe anything Mike has stated", and I don't believe I said anything like that.  

Regarding the quote and time period in question: it's one thing for Mike to state that a few issues "issues with a few lyrics" (I'm paraphrasing) were reasons for his actions. And I am sure that they were in fact part of the reasons, so I believe that statement has truth to it; now were those reasons the ONLY reasons? Not sure about that. Are you so sure? If there are a few things that were not addressed in his reasons, because they are tough emotional things to discuss, that simply means that I think there's additionally more to the story than what he said, not that the reasons he offered are patently false.  

Am I certain he never said the infamous quote (or that he DID in fact say it)? Certainly not. I do, however, think it's quite likely that if he didn't say it, that he implied it in so many words.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 18, 2015, 06:13:04 PM
What does Mike Love being a disenting member to BW's new creative direction to the point of "don't f*** with the formula" have to do with BRI. The L&M movie shows him opposed to the new direction even if he doesn't use those exact words. Mike wanted the fame and easy money of the early hits with him on lead to continue. Not the Wilsons singing songs of H&V and cabinessence.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 06:25:34 PM
What does Mike Love being a disenting member to BW's new creative direction to the point of "don't f*** with the formula" have to do with BRI. The L&M movie shows him opposed to the new direction even if he doesn't use those exact words. Mike wanted the fame and easy money of the early hits with him on lead to continue. Not the Wilsons singing songs of H&V and cabinessence.
It is disrespectful to Brian, who was in a growth process from Day one.  Each album was building up to Pet Sounds (and beyond) - and this is all contemporaneous.  

The "formula issue" is attributed to the record company who threw them under the bus.  

The L & M movie shows that Mike was "reasonable under the circumstances" and if you want to find some other interpretation, that is your right.  Brian is on record saying Mike's character was treated well and exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.  

Having six people agree to pull away and form their own company midstream is "telling" in that there was a bigger problem than lyrics and /or artistic differences.  One of six members just doesn't have that kind of drag.  That's just not democratic.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 18, 2015, 06:31:30 PM
This is like the 3rd Mike Love PR whitewash this week. ::)
So, you are saying Mike is lying and Stephen's comments hold no weight in your eyes?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 18, 2015, 06:31:56 PM
What does Mike Love being a disenting member to BW's new creative direction to the point of "don't f*** with the formula" have to do with BRI. The L&M movie shows him opposed to the new direction even if he doesn't use those exact words. Mike wanted the fame and easy money of the early hits with him on lead to continue. Not the Wilsons singing songs of H&V and cabinessence.
It is disrespectful to Brian, who was in a growth process from Day one.  Each album was building up to Pet Sounds (and beyond) - and this is all contemporaneous.  

The "formula issue" is attributed to the record company who threw them under the bus.  

The L & M movie shows that Mike was "reasonable under the circumstances" and if you want to find some other interpretation, that is your right.  Brian is on record saying Mike's character was treated well and exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.  

Having six people agree to pull away and form their own company midstream is "telling" in that there was a bigger problem than lyrics and /or artistic differences.  One of six members just doesn't have that kind of drag.  That's just not democratic.

There is absolutely no reason why a band, by definition, needs to be democratic. Some bands are and some bands are not. Nobody complains when a director calls the shots on a film. One thing is for sure… Guilt trips shouldn't be used as leverage.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 06:36:53 PM
What does Mike Love being a disenting member to BW's new creative direction to the point of "don't f*** with the formula" have to do with BRI. The L&M movie shows him opposed to the new direction even if he doesn't use those exact words. Mike wanted the fame and easy money of the early hits with him on lead to continue. Not the Wilsons singing songs of H&V and cabinessence.
It is disrespectful to Brian, who was in a growth process from Day one.  Each album was building up to Pet Sounds (and beyond) - and this is all contemporaneous.  

The "formula issue" is attributed to the record company who threw them under the bus.  

The L & M movie shows that Mike was "reasonable under the circumstances" and if you want to find some other interpretation, that is your right.  Brian is on record saying Mike's character was treated well and exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.  

Having six people agree to pull away and form their own company midstream is "telling" in that there was a bigger problem than lyrics and /or artistic differences.  One of six members just doesn't have that kind of drag.  That's just not democratic.

There is absolutely no reason why a band, by definition, needs to be democratic. Some bands are and some bands are not. Nobody complains when a director calls the shots on a film.
The fact remains  that this group of guys made a conscious decision in that time frame, to reform as a new business, and legally reduced to writing, a new organization. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 18, 2015, 06:37:05 PM
Yeah the "democratic" BBs forced BW to give up redwood on brother records through guilt tripping BW to tears at Wally heider's. Somebody should ask Mike if he regrets giving up three dog night and signing the pickle brothers instead to brother records.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Moon Dawg on August 18, 2015, 06:39:56 PM
  Oh gosh, I sense another 30 pages of Mike Love bashing in the offing. Is he really worth your time? :lol


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 06:41:53 PM
Yeah the "democratic" BBs forced BW to give up redwood on brother records through guilt tripping BW to tears at Wally heider's. Somebody should ask Mike if he regrets giving up three dog night and signing the pickle brothers instead to brother records.
Smile Brian - I was not at whatever this event was and neither were you.  I had no idea what the Pickle Brothers has to do with this.  But I did see them.

Do you mean signing to tour as a warm up act?

Thanksgiving Tour 1967
Buffalo Springfield
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Soul Survivors
Pickle Brothers - who had already been on Ed Sullivan on 5/28/1967.  Those other three warm up bands were very impressive in their own right.  Especially The Buffalo Springfield.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 18, 2015, 07:20:36 PM
This is background info that has been covered extensively on this board, regarding BRI, how The Pickle Brothers came into the fold and who they were, what "Brother" was being set up to become for the band members, the whole nine yards.

But to sum up, one of the key elements in setting up BRI was to allow the individual band members to scout, sign, and produce/develop outside artists with the goal of having them release records on the Brother label (distributed by Capitol as part of the 1967 lawsuit settlement that concerned money owed the band due to a practice exposed by David Anderle, involving accountant Nick Grillo and attorney Abe Sommers), and those projects would make money for the label and therefore the band.

Brian wanted to sign Redwood and started producing what was intended to be an album for them. We know how that turned out, eventually Mike approached Redwood with a compromise to do a single instead, as the Beach Boys did not want Brian producing an album for Redwood and using original songs as part of it.

Mike brought in The Pickle Brothers. Have you heard the actual recordings? A parody of Ode To Billy Joe and another forgettable track that has the young narrator saying how much he hates everything. Comedy gold. The Pickle Brothers themselves had a showbiz connection in that one of their relatives happened to be one of the bigger power brokers in showbiz in the 60's, a very known figure in the world of agents and representation. How did they get TV gigs? Put it this way...I doubt it was their "Dracula Skit" that won them that slot. That's one to investigate. This board has some of the most detailed info you'll find on the Pickle Brothers minus the members themselves.

Carl a few years later brought in The Flame as his signing. That one it could be argued ended up being the best one of the bunch, since the Beach Boys picked up two new members who could play their asses off and soon joined the live band for one of its best eras ever. And Blondie got the lead on Sail On Sailor, perhaps the most successful single they had during this time.

So that was it. Apart from Mike's Pickle Brothers attempt, he didn't add much that lasted to the Brother label. That version of Let The Wind Blow by "Amy"? Some dabbling with Craig Vincent Smith who took his songwriting royalties from getting the song Salesman on a Monkees album and traveled the globe seeking enlightenment only to return to LA sorta/kinda spaced out and looking for a record deal?

Brian went with the plan, he brought in Redwood, they had at least one full-blown production on tape but it got short-circuited when the band essentially said they didn't want him producing Redwood.

Yeah, so...isn't that why Brother was set up in the first place?

Anyway.

Another person involved from the beginning was Michael Vosse. Contrary to the revisionists and outright misinformed souls who try to paint him as a hanger-on, Vosse had a background in television production, graphic design and freelance writing. That was him selling interviews with Brian and Zappa to Capitol to publish in Teen Set. Vosse was to head up Brother Films, which as an arm of the larger Brother corporation being planned (mostly structured in real-world terms by Anderle and Grillo) was to have released film and video media as another profit-generating arm of the Brother structure. That didn't happen either. By May 1967 Vosse left, saying he had nothing to do. He soon joined forces with another graphic artist, they went to the then-new A&M label with Alpert and Moss, and started an in-house design department. Vosse also began working on the Monterey Pop project, designing the official program and doing other organizational tasks to stage the festival.

Hardly a hanger-on...and had it been followed through, he would have been overseeing the film department at Brother.

So that's that, in a nutshell as small as I could make it.

Brother was set up to give the freedom to the band members to work with outside artists, produce and record both outside and within "The Beach Boys", produce and release films, and a host of other related things.

Think of it as the template for what the Beatles tried to do with Apple Corps a year or so later. Because that's what it was to have been built into.

Any corrections are welcome, as usual. But that's a surface-level rundown of what went into Brother and how it was being planned to take shape as 1966 turned into 1967. I stand by this info and will gladly provide more if necessary to set the record straight.





Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: bgas on August 18, 2015, 07:37:12 PM
It'd be nice if if someone could find the members of the Pickle brothers and get them to sit for interviews. I'm thinking they're all not really in tyouch with each other after all this time.
Maybe they'd have saved some memorabilia/pictures of their time with the BBs...

I can't remember: has there ever been a definite take on AMY?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 18, 2015, 07:41:32 PM
You talk up and Anderle and Vosse, yet these guys did a terrible job running Brother Records. These guys got nothing accomplished. Did a shitty job running interference for Brian. Let the guys sign dubious talent. These guys had no managerial skills. Sounds more like they used the band as a pay day. They may have or may not have been good at AR or other technical aspects, but ran Brother into the ground before it could get off the ground.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 18, 2015, 07:43:22 PM
This is background info that has been covered extensively on this board, regarding BRI, how The Pickle Brothers came into the fold and who they were, what "Brother" was being set up to become for the band members, the whole nine yards.

But to sum up, one of the key elements in setting up BRI was to allow the individual band members to scout, sign, and produce/develop outside artists with the goal of having them release records on the Brother label (distributed by Capitol as part of the 1967 lawsuit settlement that concerned money owed the band due to a practice exposed by David Anderle, involving accountant Nick Grillo and attorney Abe Sommers), and those projects would make money for the label and therefore the band.

Brian wanted to sign Redwood and started producing what was intended to be an album for them. We know how that turned out, eventually Mike approached Redwood with a compromise to do a single instead, as the Beach Boys did not want Brian producing an album for Redwood and using original songs as part of it.

Mike brought in The Pickle Brothers. Have you heard the actual recordings? A parody of Ode To Billy Joe and another forgettable track that has the young narrator saying how much he hates everything. Comedy gold. The Pickle Brothers themselves had a showbiz connection in that one of their relatives happened to be one of the bigger power brokers in showbiz in the 60's, a very known figure in the world of agents and representation. How did they get TV gigs? Put it this way...I doubt it was their "Dracula Skit" that won them that slot. That's one to investigate. This board has some of the most detailed info you'll find on the Pickle Brothers minus the members themselves.

Carl a few years later brought in The Flame as his signing. That one it could be argued ended up being the best one of the bunch, since the Beach Boys picked up two new members who could play their asses off and soon joined the live band for one of its best eras ever. And Blondie got the lead on Sail On Sailor, perhaps the most successful single they had during this time.

So that was it. Apart from Mike's Pickle Brothers attempt, he didn't add much that lasted to the Brother label. That version of Let The Wind Blow by "Amy"? Some dabbling with Craig Vincent Smith who took his songwriting royalties from getting the song Salesman on a Monkees album and traveled the globe seeking enlightenment only to return to LA sorta/kinda spaced out and looking for a record deal?

Brian went with the plan, he brought in Redwood, they had at least one full-blown production on tape but it got short-circuited when the band essentially said they didn't want him producing Redwood.

Yeah, so...isn't that why Brother was set up in the first place?

Anyway.

Another person involved from the beginning was Michael Vosse. Contrary to the revisionists and outright misinformed souls who try to paint him as a hanger-on, Vosse had a background in television production, graphic design and freelance writing. That was him selling interviews with Brian and Zappa to Capitol to publish in Teen Set. Vosse was to head up Brother Films, which as an arm of the larger Brother corporation being planned (mostly structured in real-world terms by Anderle and Grillo) was to have released film and video media as another profit-generating arm of the Brother structure. That didn't happen either. By May 1967 Vosse left, saying he had nothing to do. He soon joined forces with another graphic artist, they went to the then-new A&M label with Alpert and Moss, and started an in-house design department. Vosse also began working on the Monterey Pop project, designing the official program and doing other organizational tasks to stage the festival.

Hardly a hanger-on...and had it been followed through, he would have been overseeing the film department at Brother.

So that's that, in a nutshell as small as I could make it.

Brother was set up to give the freedom to the band members to work with outside artists, produce and record both outside and within "The Beach Boys", produce and release films, and a host of other related things.

Think of it as the template for what the Beatles tried to do with Apple Corps a year or so later. Because that's what it was to have been built into.

Any corrections are welcome, as usual. But that's a surface-level rundown of what went into Brother and how it was being planned to take shape as 1966 turned into 1967. I stand by this info and will gladly provide more if necessary to set the record straight.
Thanks very much for that.   I had no idea that unsavory practices resulted in a suit in 1967.  And there is no question, I'm no big fan of warm up acts.  That team (minus the comedians) had major hits in that window.

And even if you weren't a BB fan, you might want to see The Buffalo Springfield, Soul Survivors or Strawberry Alarm Clock.  It reduced the setlist of hits they (BB's) could perform live.  And, many would not believe it, but often they would be horrified that Barbara Ann was one of the first numbers in the set.

Most would not know that BRI had "signing" or some version of "promotion of other acts" that seems to have given them some latitude to "horizontally" expand their business.  But a lot of business expansion is "trial and error."
 
Who knew that Teen Set was an extension of the business?  :lol

You explained a lot, and well.  Thanks again!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 18, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
You talk up and Anderle and Vosse, yet these guys did a terrible job running Brother Records. These guys got nothing accomplished. Did a shitty job running interference for Brian. Let the guys sign dubious talent. These guys had no managerial skills. Sounds more like they used the band as a pay day. They may have or may not have been good at AR or other technical aspects, but ran Brother into the ground before it could get off the ground.

Even by the board's standards, that's nuts. Totally inaccurate. Do you know the story, do you know the background? For the record...and this may sting a bit...

Brother Records is still in existence and is a multi-million dollar corporate interest with a board of directors and a viable name. It's now called BRI, Brother Records. Plain and simple. Every Beach Boys product, tour program, t-shirt and bumper sticker has the Brother imprint. It makes and generates money.

If there were no David Anderle, there would be no BRI today. If there were no Brian bringing David Anderle in to form Brother records, there would be no BRI. If David Anderle had not brought Nick Grillo and Abe Sommers among others into the planning stages of Brother Records, it's possible no one would have even thought about the questionable practices Capitol was using on artists like The Beach Boys to skim money owed to them and being done through an antiquated "breakage" clause in contracts that dated back to the era of 78rpm discs but which was used as a contract loophole to essentially cheat artists.

Anderle-Grillo-Sommers found it through audits of the books, and THAT was the whole foundation of the lawsuit that led to Capitol agreeing to distribute Brother Records and be on board with it in 1967. Major label distribution clout, a structure getting put in place...see how important that major label involvement is to any new label, or any artist, or venture.

The same logo that was chosen for Brother in 1967 is still in use. That's me standing in front of the statue in my board avatar, outside the MFA in Boston.

Without Anderle, it wouldn't have developed. Period. End of story.

Vosse's involvement ended quite simply, he was originally given a job to do at Brother and the job ended up not existing when he left in April/May 1967 to find other work with record labels and related interests. He eventually got into TV news production, and was an Emmy-winning TV news producer in California for decades until he retired. Ever see his rock history documentary? The one he produced that got screened on TV? That's good stuff.

So again, there is the way it happened in reality and that's what most consider "the facts". That is what i laid out, the facts. Very few opinions mixed in, other than that the Pickle Brothers weren't funny.

Brother Records still exists as BRI. Who was there to set it up? How did it get set up and funded in the first place? Them's the facts. Not what's in your reply above.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on August 18, 2015, 08:24:49 PM
You talk up and Anderle and Vosse, yet these guys did a terrible job running Brother Records. These guys got nothing accomplished. Did a shitty job running interference for Brian. Let the guys sign dubious talent. These guys had no managerial skills. Sounds more like they used the band as a pay day. They may have or may not have been good at AR or other technical aspects, but ran Brother into the ground before it could get off the ground.

thats pretty harsh. I think it's pretty unfair to blame them when Brian was becoming increasingly withdrawn and aimless and erratic. What were they supposed to do? Isnt there that anecdote about him trying desperately to plan business with him and Brian locking him out? And in any case, regardless of whether they were good at their jobs or not, they obviously cared deeply about what Brian was doing based on their interviews about SMiLE and performing Brian's offbeat skits.

I cant claim to say, obviously Im in no position to know Brian's state of mind, but I think its possible thats at least part of the reason why he must feel so badly about that era.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 18, 2015, 08:25:18 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

I don't know enough about this to opine as to what Mike said.  However, I would like to point out again that there is no contradiction between saying "Don't eff with the formula" and not wanting to be known as a surf group.  "Don't eff..." means "keep writing hits not artsy stuff" while not wanting to be marketed as a surf band means not wanting to be marketed as a surf band.  Brian (and Mike) wrote catchy songs about things other than surfing pre-Pet Sounds.  Don't eff means keep that up, don't write downer music, don't write obscure stuff no one understands, etc.  The "don't eff" comment need not refer to surf music, so appealing to anti-surf music quotes by Mike does not argue against the likelihood he made the statement.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Kurosawa on August 18, 2015, 08:47:03 PM
Changing the name of the band that deep into a career would have been a terrible mistake. Maybe not an obvious one, in say 1970, but ultimately a career killer. Please.

Yeah, because their career past Good Vibrations was sooo successful.

I doubt it would have mattered. People still think the Small Faces and Faces are the same band with a name change. Same goes for Jefferson Airplane/Starship.

After they made a 5 star or close LP in Sunflower with Brian heavily involved and the record company promoting it strongly and it flopped, there was no chance for extended success ever again, and it never happened either.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 18, 2015, 08:53:40 PM
Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

I don't know enough about this to opine as to what Mike said.  However, I would like to point out again that there is no contradiction between saying "Don't eff with the formula" and not wanting to be known as a surf group.  "Don't eff..." means "keep writing hits not artsy stuff" while not wanting to be marketed as a surf band means not wanting to be marketed as a surf band.  Brian (and Mike) wrote catchy songs about things other than surfing pre-Pet Sounds.  Don't eff means keep that up, don't write downer music, don't write obscure stuff no one understands, etc.  The "don't eff" comment need not refer to surf music, so appealing to anti-surf music quotes by Mike does not argue against the likelihood he made the statement.

EoL

I think it's clear that none of us know what was meant by "formula" except that what has been the common interpretation up until today isn't a good fit.  

Again, still to me Good Vibrations alone would argue against "formula" as meaning not artsy or hits like the past (including surf music).


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 18, 2015, 08:57:07 PM
Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Kurosawa on August 18, 2015, 09:25:21 PM
Mike is technically right-as soon as they went away from the formula, the band was no longer successful. But Brian didn't want to write that sort of stuff and was not strong enough as a leader, partially thanks to his problems, to control the band the way it needed to be controlled. What Mike or Al or any of them needed to be told during SMiLE was to either contribute or leave, or Brian should have just left himself. But Brian was too sick to finish anything, and he's had a ton of unfinished projects since then.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Ron on August 18, 2015, 10:12:40 PM
My thoughts


 - "The Beach" would have worked very well.  It wouldn't have been career suicide, because it's literally the first half of the name anyways, there wouldn't have been any confusion in the market and most people would have logically been able to follow that it was the same band as "The Beach Boys".  I think it would have worked wonderfully and would have probably given them more legitimacy.


- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

I think ultimately too time proved that Michael was plenty willing to f*** with the formula.  His two biggest lyrical achievements that the fans herald completely destroy the formula, "Good Vibrations" changed music, and "Big Sur" is amazingly outside the box. 


I've never understood the need to villify Mike.  Even Brian doesn't, Brian's critical, in a fair way, of some of Mike's faults, but he never pretends that Mike screwed everything up.  It took a lot of hard work from just about all 5 of them to screw up all the things the Beach Boys screwed up. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lonely Summer on August 18, 2015, 10:20:47 PM
I fail to see how changing the name to "The Beach" would have helped. I can see some DJ spinning some new record and saying "here's the latest by The Beach" and everyone would hear - in their head - "Boys". The Young Rascals became the Rascals; Paul Revere and the Raiders featuring Mark Lindsay became just Raiders. Did either move save the bands' career? I don't think so, although the Rascals did have "People Got to Be Free" and the Raiders had "Indian Reservation" after the name change.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Ron on August 18, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
No use arguing about it...


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 18, 2015, 10:33:10 PM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song).



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 18, 2015, 10:33:36 PM
My thoughts


 - "The Beach" would have worked very well.  It wouldn't have been career suicide, because it's literally the first half of the name anyways, there wouldn't have been any confusion in the market and most people would have logically been able to follow that it was the same band as "The Beach Boys".  I think it would have worked wonderfully and would have probably given them more legitimacy.


- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

I think ultimately too time proved that Michael was plenty willing to f*** with the formula.  His two biggest lyrical achievements that the fans herald completely destroy the formula, "Good Vibrations" changed music, and "Big Sur" is amazingly outside the box.  


I've never understood the need to villify Mike.  Even Brian doesn't...

1. The Beach: I think that three name change  alone would have been a positive.  If it had represented the collective agreement of the band to head in the direction Brian had in mind I think it would have resulted in a second wave of success for the band.  It would have meant Brian had more support, which it seems he needed, and that there was less friction and an overall healthy, creative environment.  The change alone would not have had any magical powers.

2. Don't eff: I agree.  It is one perspective and not necessarily a wrong one.  I don't think "the" formula would have continued to work, because the world/music was quickly and radically changing, but something approximating the formula would have worked.  There is always room on the charts for a catchy song.  I do disagree with the overall sentiment, I prefer a bit if adventure and creativity, but as you said, it's just one man's opinion.

3. I don't think Good Vibrations proves Mike was willing to eff with the formula.  That song has hit/money written all over it, and I think that was/is Mike's primary concern.  It may be Brian's too, but I think he cares about other things as well, and at least for a time wanted to experiment.

4. I don't know why people need to say that some need to vilify Mike, as if the problem is with the person observing him being a jackass.  I don't think anyone needs to vilify him.  He acts like a villain, people point it out.  He proves them right over and over again.  I believe even the staunchest Mike-hater wishes he would change his ways so they could embrace him.  In fact, around the time of C50 people did exactly that.  Then he went back to his old ways (and I'm not talking about blaming him for the end of C50).

Also, I don't think you can take Brian's kindness toward Mike as evidence of his thoughts toward Mike.  I believe those that know Brian best have said he generally doesn't talk badly about people.  He also handles the media far better than Mike.  I think he could hate Mike and we wouldn't know it.  Brian has hardly bad mouthed Landy or his Father, and by most accounts both men deserved it far more than Mike.  If he says very little negative about those two, what makes you think he would bad mouth Mike, who has caused less damage to Brian than either Landy or Murry?

EoL

Edit: Sorry, I became very comma happy in that post .


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 18, 2015, 11:34:35 PM
My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion.  ;D


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cool Cool Water on August 19, 2015, 01:33:18 AM
STORY:   One afternoon I observed Brian in the studio pacing around. Soon Carl, then Alan, Michael, Dennis and Bruce all showed up for session work. They talked about what songs they wanted worked on that day. But soon Brian said he wanted to have a business meeting. Everyone said, oh come on Brian, can’t we do this later?” But Brian insisten on a meeting at that time. What he said surprised me. He said, “ I want to change the name of The Beach Boys to The Beach. He went on to say how they are not “boys” anymore so why should be beach boys?  Well this went on for ten minutes or so, and then Brian wrote out a statement on a piece of paper that read, “The Beach Boys official change their name to The Beach.” Brian actually got four of the six to sign the paper. Then everyone was ready to start recording and Brian was in a good frame of mind. That evening I was cleaning up and found the slip of paper Brian had written with its signatures. I still have it. It is legally meaningless, but just a memento now. (I haven’t seen it for several years, but it’s around here somewhere). The point is that during these business meetings, many things are said, just the same as during any business meeting, and you can take anything made during a discussion, out of context, to serve your needs. – or to tell a story.
[/size]  

Amazing story, thanks! :D


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 04:09:18 AM
End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Moon Dawg on August 19, 2015, 04:17:24 AM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song).




  As a matter of fact it did - U.K. charts.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 05:00:33 AM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song)
This is all utter nonsense. In a November 14, 1964 Melody Maker interview, Mike told them that "he" (Mike) and the band wanted to look beyond surf rock, wanting to avoid living in the past, or resting on their laurels."

Brian had written his last surf song in 1964, and intended All Summer Long (July, 1964) to be the group's final statement on beach-themed music. (All Muisic) Richie Unterberger.

The purported "formula" statement is inconsistent with these earlier-in-time statements.

And I so love Do It Again, too!  (Summer of 1968!)  :love


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 19, 2015, 05:05:22 AM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song).




  As a matter of fact it did - U.K. charts.

It reached No. 20 in the U.S., the last time a Brian Wilson-penned single reached the Top 20 ... 47 years ago.


Yes, I know about "The Beach Boys Medley". ;D


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 05:17:06 AM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song).

  As a matter of fact it did - U.K. charts.
It reached No. 20 in the U.S., the last time a Brian Wilson-penned single reached the Top 20 ... 47 years ago.


Yes, I know about "The Beach Boys Medley". ;D
In certain markets it did much better, such as LA, it was #3, Boston, #6, Chicago #1, NY #8.

US Cash Box, it was #8
US Record World - #7

It is reported that Brian and Mike wrote it in 15 minutes.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Smilin Ed H on August 19, 2015, 05:35:25 AM
And it's hardly formulaic. It's a beautiful piece of nostalgia and when they tried it again (It's Okay, KTSA, for example), it sounded like another band who had the wrong idea of what the Boys were about.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 19, 2015, 06:05:20 AM
I don't think anybody has hit on anything that would fit as a explanation for "formula".  First, Good Vibrations.  Second, H & V, which Mike has praised as an example of Brian's dynamic competitiveness. Third,  Smiley Smile.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 19, 2015, 06:14:59 AM
"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

Somebody may have suggested this already but if this turns out to be the first use of the phrase, its context doesn't seem to be music "formula", it seems to be a business "formula". That would explain the trouble with trying to fit it into a music formula over the decades.

Edit: also Nolan could just be quoting Anderle's words about Mike and not quoting Anderle quoting Mike. A characterization of Mike's attitude in Anderle's words. That would explain it being words in the context of being said by Anderle that also Mike says he never said.





Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 06:21:32 AM
I don't think anybody has hit on anything that would fit as a explanation for "formula".  First, Good Vibrations.  Second, H & V, which Mike has praised as an example of Brian's dynamic competitiveness. Third,  Smiley Smile.
That convinces me more than ever that it is nonsense.

Work that evolved from the outset, from both Brian and Mike which was lyrical or ballad ( and very risky for the marketplace, including Surfer Girl, ) show a definite ramping up in sophistication and growth. They weren't going backwards.  And it could hardly be classified as "new" except with "newbies" (some charlatans) to the "sphere" who might have wanted the attribution of "influence" dropped in their laps.  

Looking at the actual or covered published work...it was always looking forward.

Lonely Sea
Ballad of ole Betsy
Warmth of the Sun
Keep an Eye on Summer
Blue Christmas
In My Room
We'll Run Away
Girls on the Beach
Your Summer Dream

Pet Sounds was not "new" music. It was the next step in the progression. It was a "perception" ( a false one, at that) and not a "reality." It was an assemblage of the parts they already created.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 07:37:48 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 07:54:52 AM
if Mike had doubts about the "new" music around the time of Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and the Smile Sessions, on things like alienating the band's fanbase and changing the sound and direction of the music, he had an ally who thought the same way and also wasn't shy about expressing it.

Murry Wilson.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 08:01:13 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
A listen to vocals on Pet Sounds Sessions tells that the band's vocals were "putting forth best effort" (as the old report cards say) so, where is the next place to look for a source?

People who work hard at a trade, such as carpenters or electricians, or are writers, or teachers, get better as they work at it.  They had about 7 years at their "trade" which is often a career sweet spot.  

But I feel that the record company took this band for granted.  But still didn't mind them as a cash cow. I don't think they (the core members) took each other for granted.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 08:05:01 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
A listen to vocals on Pet Sounds Sessions tells that the band's vocals were "putting forth best effort" (as the old report cards say) so, where is the next place to look for a source?

The consistent comments made by numerous people who were in a position to know.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 08:08:26 AM
if Mike had doubts about the "new" music around the time of Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and the Smile Sessions, on things like alienating the band's fanbase and changing the sound and direction of the music, he had an ally who thought the same way and also wasn't shy about expressing it.

Murry Wilson.
But did he? Could he? How could the vocals have been "that good" if there was a conflict?

And the Melody Maker quote is in direct conflict with these "formula" theories.

Murry? Good point. Could he have undermined the band while on tour?

And could he have been lobbying for Best of Vol 1, only eight weeks post Pet sounds release? Did Murry have that influence, holding the SOT catalog control?  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 08:10:34 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
A listen to vocals on Pet Sounds Sessions tells that the band's vocals were "putting forth best effort" (as the old report cards say) so, where is the next place to look for a source?

The consistent comments made by numerous people who were in a position to know.
Position to know? Or, position to agree on an adopted false narrative, that had taken on a life of it's own?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 08:14:25 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
A listen to vocals on Pet Sounds Sessions tells that the band's vocals were "putting forth best effort" (as the old report cards say) so, where is the next place to look for a source?

The consistent comments made by numerous people who were in a position to know.
Position to know? Or, position to agree on an adopted false narrative, that had taken on a life of it's own?

Well, those two things are not mutually exclusive. But if you have evidence that Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, Danny Hutton, Tony Asher, David Anderle, Van Dyke Parks, and Derek Taylor conspired to agree on a false narrative, I'd be curious to see it.

Besides, we know for sure that it's not an entirely false narrative since we have key members such as Jardine and Johnston outwardly talking negatively about big Brian projects such as the Breakaway single and the entire Friends album.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 08:17:08 AM
They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song)
This is all utter nonsense. In a November 14, 1964 Melody Maker interview, Mike told them that "he" (Mike) and the band wanted to look beyond surf rock, wanting to avoid living in the past, or resting on their laurels."

Brian had written his last surf song in 1964, and intended All Summer Long (July, 1964) to be the group's final statement on beach-themed music. (All Muisic) Richie Unterberger.

The purported "formula" statement is inconsistent with these earlier-in-time statements.

And I so love Do It Again, too!  (Summer of 1968!)  :love

Looking beyond surf rock simply is not mutually exclusive to not effing with the formula.  Right or wrong I believe the argument has always been that around the time of Pet Sounds and Smile Mike wanted to prioritize commercial success over art/experimentation while Brian want to experiment and take things in a new direction - and I think he wanted to take the record buying public along with him, I don't think he ever wanted to be avante guard and/or inaccessible, to the dismay of the hip/indie/Sean O'Hagan crowd.  I think Brian and Mike could have continued to be a good team, something of a balancing act.  It worked on Good Vibrations: Brian's complex, forward looking but accessible music with Mike's accessible lyrics (versus VDPs more obscure lyrics).  Perhaps there could have been a compromise, but I think Mike's talents and ability to keep up with Brian were maxed out and/or stuck in the early 60s (not that he didn't show flashes of brilliance later, but he is a lesser lyricist than Brian is a song writer).  Additionally I would think that Brian's personal problems (if you do any reading you may have heard Mike mention them once or twice) had a polarizing affect: if Brian is going this far out, then I'm going to the other extreme to balance it out.  It would be a natural  reaction, especially if Mike, and people in general, did not have an understanding of mental illness and what Brian was struggling with.

With that said, I have no idea how one can cite Good Vibrations as evidence Mike didn't have a "don't eff with the formula" outlook.  H&V is a better example, potentially, though it's a really exciting song and could easily be mistaken for a hit.  But what did Mike do, praise the song when they recorded it?  Write the lyrics?  I'm just not persuaded by a couple of exceptions to the rule of what Brian and Al and other eye witnesses have said for years.  It seems, at best, to be a case of the exception proves the rule.  At best.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on August 19, 2015, 08:18:02 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
I think it's fairly clear that Pet Sounds and SMiLE met with some initial dismay from Mike and Al at least. By the time of Smiley Smile, the overall music scene had shifted and the entire band was seemingly now on board for a more adventurous direction.

What is also clear is the "formula", whatever that is or was,  did not involve surf and car songs -- but that's a myth that I don't expect to die any time soon.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 08:21:33 AM
Murry Wilson was bad-mouthing "Good Vibrations" in late 1966 to any number of people around Brian and the band, and one of the points he tried to use to Michael Vosse when he got around to him was that the song shouldn't have been released because they'll lose the old fanbase. Also read between the lines when you read interviews and comments from Michael Vosse and David Anderle and others and try to connect the dots when they bring up the negatives surrounding the "family" within and immediately surrounding the band. They weren't talking about Dennis, probably not Carl until after Smile, we know where Marilyn stood on what she saw happening...who's left in that "family" surrounding and within the band?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 19, 2015, 08:25:29 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 08:27:25 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
I think it's fairly clear that Pet Sounds and SMiLE met with some initial dismay from Mike and Al at least. By the time of Smiley Smile, the overall music scene had shifted and the entire band was seemingly now on board for a more adventurous direction.

Except that Bruce is on record as not liking the Friends album; Al thought Brian under-produced Breakaway; he also didn't seem to care for Brian's version of Cotton Fields; Brian has noted the band's opposition to the Ol' Man River recordings; Bruce observed how an (unnamed) member of the band put down Til I Die when he heard it; also, I'm not entirely sure if the band ever commented on Mt. Vernon & Fairway. If anyone has any direct quotes, I'd be curious to see them.

Quote
What is also clear is the "formula", whatever that is or was,  did not involve surf and car songs -- but that's a myth that I don't expect to die any time soon.

Absolutely true. But I don't think when, say, Derek Taylor used the term in the 70s or when Al Jardine used the term in the 90s to explain the band's opposition to Brian's mid-60s music, they weren't saying that the formula was "surf and car songs." What is clear though is that several people are on record as suggesting that this notion of "formula" whether stated explicitly or not, was an underlying issue for certain players in the band.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 08:30:57 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

In that case, do you think that the comments for the band since, say, 2000, have generally reaffirmed these quotes?

Pet Sounds

Tony Asher: And they didn’t know I was even there. And they’d say things like, I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway. And I thought, why am I sitting here listening to that? I don’t need to.

Al: Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

Brian: Mike said, “Gee, this is too much of a departure.” And I said, but Mike I got to do it this way for just one album. He goes, “All right. One album.”

Good Vibrations

Did everybody support what you were trying to do?
BRIAN: No, not everybody. There was a lot of "oh you can't do this, that's too modern" or "that's going to be too long a record." I said no, it's not going to be too long a record, it's going to be just right.
Who resisted you? Your manager? The record company?
BRIAN: No, people in the group, but I can't tell ya who. We just had resisting ideas. They didn't quite understand what this jumping from studio to studio was all about. And they couldn't conceive of the record as I did. I saw the record as a totality piece.

Smile

Anderle: The Beach Boys as a band were in England at the time, they were having a great time there, throwing The Beatles out of the number one spot. When they got back, and Brian started playing them the music he had done for the Smile album, and they started to question Brian about the lyric content … and suddenly everything that been a year and a half, 2 years of complete positive vibes, now became very negative vibes.

Parks: The friction was so great that, as he was just achieving the apex of his creative arc, he abandoned the project, I think in the interests of…social harmony? And Smile was left unfinished, for that reason.

Anderle: [Smile] wasn’t done mainly because he had to put their voices on it – he had to get them to sing those Van Dyke Parks lyrics, and it wasn’t easy for Carl, and Mike and the boys to sing some of those – strange lyrics.

Parks: I wasn’t close enough to the other guys. I was in a position of defending my lyrics … Mike Love said to me one day: “Explain this: Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.” And it was an American Gothic trip that Brian and I were working on. I said, “I don’t know what these lyrics are all about. They’re not important. Throw them away.” And so they did.

Derek Taylor:  "A key factor in the breakdown had to be the Beach Boys themselves, whose stubbornness by this time had seemingly twisted itself into a grim determination to undermine the very foundations of this 'new music' in order to get back to the old accepted, dumb formulas."

Marilyn: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead, you do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it.” … and I don’t think ever really came back. I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

Friends

Bruce: It’s not a bunch of great songs. They’re pretty light. … No, that’s a pretty lightweight album. I mean, I love “Friends.” I love the songs “Friends.” … But the album – I’m surprised it got to 126. Maybe 1026 might be more appropriate.

Breakaway

Al: I was really disappointed and frustrated by how this one ended up. We knew we had 90% of a good record, but typical of his late 60s mentality, Brian underproduced and undersold the ending of the record.

Til I Die

Johnston remembers Brian “playing it for the band and one member of the band didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.”



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 08:34:50 AM
And it was nothing new. Listen to the Help Me Rhonda vocal session with Murry. Specifically the ending minutes when Brian switched on the portable tape recorder to record the conversation after the session. Why do you think Brian would say something like "so you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?" to his dad? It was an issue before Pet Sounds about changing the sounds and losing the fanbase.

One that is pure speculation from those same tapes, consider this: After one of Murry's rants, why would he go to Mike looking for a supportive voice? Isn't Murry captured on tape saying to Mike "you know what I'm trying to say, don't you Mike?" or words to that effect? Brian and Dennis especially were putting up resistance to Murry's "sing from the heart" and "make records like we used to" kind of ranting among Murry's other gems captured on that tape, Al was playing along since he was getting his second lead vocal ever on what was slated as the next big BB's single, Carl wasn't saying much...and Murry tries to win support from Mike that day? Coincidence or not?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 19, 2015, 08:35:52 AM
if Mike had doubts about the "new" music around the time of Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and the Smile Sessions, on things like alienating the band's fanbase and changing the sound and direction of the music, he had an ally who thought the same way and also wasn't shy about expressing it.

Murry Wilson.
But did he? Could he? How could the vocals have been "that good" if there was a conflict?

So if there was no conflict I'd love to know why 'Hang On To Your Ego' wasn't on Pet Sounds. If there was no conflict I'd love to know why Van Dyke Parks and Mike Love talk about some of the lyrics on Smile being questioned.

Brian was playing with fire on the outer fringes of what the Beach Boys could remotely get away with releasing, imo. Bruce's reaction when he heard 'Good Vibrations' for the first time (paraphrasing) "We'll either go down in flames or this will be a number 1 hit". I would hope that the second most forward thinking member of the band at the time was hesitant about the direction Brian was taking the band...especially since all of their hits, their entire reputation was based on a slew of hits about surfing, cars, and love that had nothing to do with ego death or a line in a William Wordsworth poem.

I'm really not sure about the "f*** with the formula" line - Tony Asher also apparently attests that he heard Mike saying it as well. Who really knows. But like Chocolate Shake Man said, I think given the facts we can all agree there was hesitancy, and opposition from Mike to certain things Brian was doing at the time.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 08:36:01 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

About as solid as your other pro-Mike arguments.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 08:37:28 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?
A listen to vocals on Pet Sounds Sessions tells that the band's vocals were "putting forth best effort" (as the old report cards say) so, where is the next place to look for a source?

The consistent comments made by numerous people who were in a position to know.
Position to know? Or, position to agree on an adopted false narrative, that had taken on a life of it's own?

Well, those two things are not mutually exclusive. But if you have evidence that Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, Danny Hutton, Tony Asher, David Anderle, Van Dyke Parks, and Derek Taylor conspired to agree on a false narrative, I'd be curious to see it.

Besides, we know for sure that it's not an entirely false narrative since we have key members such as Jardine and Johnston outwardly talking negatively about big Brian projects such as the Breakaway single and the entire Friends album.
OK - I'm trying to consider all the possibilities.  

In Badman's book, page 182,  (which we know is flawed) has an interesting quote...post April 28th in 1967, at Back Bay Theatre show. Boston, MA...

This was in response to the UK release of Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love.  "...Mike tells the New Musical Express: 'the record company did not even have the decency to put out one of Brian's compositions.'"

Does that sound like Mike had any problem with Brian's work? Not to me.  Bruce is also quoted..." It's really ridiculous. The record is in no way representative of things we are doing now or were even doing a year ago...I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks on the Smile LP (note, not Smiley) which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time."

Even the British press was baffled.  Capitol even financed and released a promo clip to accompany the release for the BBC. Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love.   At least two years after they were released in the US.

There is more detail on the page.  

Now, who is undermining Brian and the band? This is the handiwork of Capitol.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 08:47:36 AM
if Mike had doubts about the "new" music around the time of Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and the Smile Sessions, on things like alienating the band's fanbase and changing the sound and direction of the music, he had an ally who thought the same way and also wasn't shy about expressing it.

Murry Wilson.
But did he? Could he? How could the vocals have been "that good" if there was a conflict?

So if there was no conflict I'd love to know why 'Hang On To Your Ego' wasn't on Pet Sounds. If there was no conflict I'd love to know why Van Dyke Parks and Mike Love talk about some of the lyrics on Smile being questioned.

Brian was playing with fire on the outer fringes of what the Beach Boys could remotely get away with releasing, imo. Bruce's reaction when he heard 'Good Vibrations' for the first time (paraphrasing) "We'll either go down in flames or this will be a number 1 hit". I would hope that the second most forward thinking member of the band at the time was hesitant about the direction Brian was taking the band...especially since all of their hits, their entire reputation was based on a slew of hits about surfing, cars, and love that had nothing to do with ego death or a line in a William Wordsworth poem.

I'm really not sure about the "f*** with the formula" line - Tony Asher also apparently attests that he heard Mike saying it as well. Who really knows. But like Chocolate Shake Man said, I think given the facts we can all agree there was hesitancy, and opposition from Mike to certain things Brian was doing at the time.
Johnston was right. It was a gamble. This was 1966. No one could predict if it would fly or fall.

And Winchester Cathedral won best record nudging out GV.  A complete fluke. 1966.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 08:51:55 AM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

In that case, do you think that the comments for the band since, say, 2000, have generally reaffirmed these quotes?

Pet Sounds

Tony Asher: And they didn’t know I was even there. And they’d say things like, I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway. And I thought, why am I sitting here listening to that? I don’t need to.

Al: Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

Brian: Mike said, “Gee, this is too much of a departure.” And I said, but Mike I got to do it this way for just one album. He goes, “All right. One album.”

Good Vibrations

Did everybody support what you were trying to do?
BRIAN: No, not everybody. There was a lot of "oh you can't do this, that's too modern" or "that's going to be too long a record." I said no, it's not going to be too long a record, it's going to be just right.
Who resisted you? Your manager? The record company?
BRIAN: No, people in the group, but I can't tell ya who. We just had resisting ideas. They didn't quite understand what this jumping from studio to studio was all about. And they couldn't conceive of the record as I did. I saw the record as a totality piece.

Smile

Anderle: The Beach Boys as a band were in England at the time, they were having a great time there, throwing The Beatles out of the number one spot. When they got back, and Brian started playing them the music he had done for the Smile album, and they started to question Brian about the lyric content … and suddenly everything that been a year and a half, 2 years of complete positive vibes, now became very negative vibes.

Parks: The friction was so great that, as he was just achieving the apex of his creative arc, he abandoned the project, I think in the interests of…social harmony? And Smile was left unfinished, for that reason.

Anderle: [Smile] wasn’t done mainly because he had to put their voices on it – he had to get them to sing those Van Dyke Parks lyrics, and it wasn’t easy for Carl, and Mike and the boys to sing some of those – strange lyrics.

Parks: I wasn’t close enough to the other guys. I was in a position of defending my lyrics … Mike Love said to me one day: “Explain this: Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.” And it was an American Gothic trip that Brian and I were working on. I said, “I don’t know what these lyrics are all about. They’re not important. Throw them away.” And so they did.

Derek Taylor:  "A key factor in the breakdown had to be the Beach Boys themselves, whose stubbornness by this time had seemingly twisted itself into a grim determination to undermine the very foundations of this 'new music' in order to get back to the old accepted, dumb formulas."

Marilyn: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead, you do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it.” … and I don’t think ever really came back. I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

Friends

Bruce: It’s not a bunch of great songs. They’re pretty light. … No, that’s a pretty lightweight album. I mean, I love “Friends.” I love the songs “Friends.” … But the album – I’m surprised it got to 126. Maybe 1026 might be more appropriate.

Breakaway

Al: I was really disappointed and frustrated by how this one ended up. We knew we had 90% of a good record, but typical of his late 60s mentality, Brian underproduced and undersold the ending of the record.

Til I Die

Johnston remembers Brian “playing it for the band and one member of the band didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.”


[/quote

But I thought Andrew might have once asked Voyle Giilmore and so the discussion was over?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 08:52:47 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it. If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 08:59:05 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.

As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?

While we're at it, how many non-Brian lead vocals do we have from the Smile era? And how many songs do we have without lead vocals?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 09:03:20 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 09:07:26 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 19, 2015, 09:17:21 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 09:18:59 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?
Just bumped the quoted sections in the Smiley Likely commercial performance (or lack of ) in 1967?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 09:19:09 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.


As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?


I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 09:26:09 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.

Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.

Quote

I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.

And I'm sure that the band considered themselves to be financially dependent on Brian's music in 1966 too.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 09:27:18 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?
Just bumped the quoted sections in the Smiley Likely commercial performance (or lack of ) in 1967?

I read them and was already aware of them but I'm afraid I still don't understand the relevance. I'm just a bit dim -- can you explain it?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 09:28:28 AM
Read the Paul Williams interview(s) with David Anderle from 1967.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 09:31:08 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it. If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

So we discard all of be statements quoted by those who were there because there is no documented evidence?  Brian was the gravy train, whoo whoo...alllllllll aboard.  They had no choice.  Capital was still paying them.  What was Mike going to do, go solo?  Let's be serious...Brian was the music, they had to follow, kicking and screaming perhaps, but they had to follow.  Drop Brian and goodbye Capital and goodbye meal ticket.  Their compliance proves they were aware of reality, not that they supported Brian or the music.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 09:37:15 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.


As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?


I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.



And so we have our answer.  You must admit that at the time of Pet Sounds recording and release no Brian meant no Beach Boys which meant huge income cut for Mike.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 09:38:13 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.

Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.


No doubt they can and it's clear that there was friction at times during this period. But we can only make guesses as to their magnitude overall. Only one guy knows for sure and he's changed his story so many times you can't take anything he says about the subject as gospel.



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 09:39:36 AM


Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.

Quote

No doubt they can and it's clear that there was friction at times during this period. But we can only make guesses as to their magnitude overall. Only one guy knows for sure and he's changed his story so many times you can't take anything he says about the subject as gospel.



I disagree, I don't think Mike is the only one that knows.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 09:42:46 AM


Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.

Quote

No doubt they can and it's clear that there was friction at times during this period. But we can only make guesses as to their magnitude overall. Only one guy knows for sure and he's changed his story so many times you can't take anything he says about the subject as gospel.


I disagree, I don't think Mike is the only one that knows.

I was actually talking about Brian there.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 09:44:59 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.


As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?


I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.



And so we have our answer.  You must admit that at the time of Pet Sounds recording and release no Brian meant no Beach Boys which meant huge income cut for Mike.

They were all in it for the money.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 09:46:40 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.

Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.


No doubt they can and it's clear that there was friction at times during this period. But we can only make guesses as to their magnitude overall. Only one guy knows for sure and he's changed his story so many times you can't take anything he says about the subject as gospel.



How they affected Brian is not my point in this discussion really. There are those who have been close to Brian such as Ray Lawlor and Marilyn (who stated that the band "tore him down,") who have spoken about the band's behaviour affected Brian. What I'm more concerned about is the question of whether or not this behaviour existed at all -- and it seems to me that there's too many sources who say that it did that it's impossible to deny at this point. And the claims made by the people who were responsible for this behaviour generally tend to not match what these sources say.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 09:49:21 AM

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.


As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?


I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.



And so we have our answer.  You must admit that at the time of Pet Sounds recording and release no Brian meant no Beach Boys which meant huge income cut for Mike.

They were all in it for the money.

But on point, you agree then that there are reasons why a performer can perform material very well other than them liking and supporting the material.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 09:51:52 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?
Just bumped the quoted sections in the Smiley Likely commercial performance (or lack of ) in 1967?

I read them and was already aware of them but I'm afraid I still don't understand the relevance. I'm just a bit dim -- can you explain it?
http://youtu.be/cVltbEJBkJM
Hope this opens.

Dennis Wilson with Pete Fornatale. 1976.  It is on YouTube if it doesn't.

I doubt you're "dim."  ;)

What the non-band people have to say is of little consequence to me. They editorialize.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 19, 2015, 09:53:39 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 10:03:50 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.
First, rab - happy birthday!  ;)

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 10:03:54 AM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Quote
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.
And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?
Just bumped the quoted sections in the Smiley Likely commercial performance (or lack of ) in 1967?

I read them and was already aware of them but I'm afraid I still don't understand the relevance. I'm just a bit dim -- can you explain it?
http://youtu.be/cVltbEJBkJM
Hope this opens.

Dennis Wilson with Pete Fornatale. 1976.  It is on YouTube if it doesn't.

I doubt you're "dim."  ;)

What the non-band people have to say is of little consequence to me. They editorialize.


I am familiar with the Dennis interview as well. It's a good one.

A few things though - the band members can editorialize just as much as anybody else, no? They might have a vested interest in not speaking to the kinds of claims and statements that have been attributed to them. Even when the band does admit to opposition, they cloud it. Brian saying opposition to Good Vibrations came from "people in the group, but I can't tell ya who." Bruce noted that "one member of the band didn't understand [Til I Die] and put it down" but doesn't name who that member was. And why should they name names? I don't expect them to throw each other or themselves under the bus and I wouldn't want them to either. Nevertheless, the statements that band members have made do a nice job of reinforcing the kinds of claims made by people outside the band anyway.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Exactly EOL, even Mike's own words point to him being against BW's new direction. He wanted the formula of "relatable songs" to continue. But the one thing Mike didn't get was "relatable" music in 1962 wasn't so in 1967.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 10:10:47 AM
And that is exactly the point I tried to raise by mentioning Brian asking his dad after the "Rhonda" session and captured on tape "So you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?"

That's it. Either take it for what it is or ignore it, but it was there before Smile, GV, and Pet Sounds and Mike's quote above fell into line with the same general sentiment. What worked and what sold records was a comfortable place to be that some perhaps didn't want to leave. Murry was one of them. Who else?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 19, 2015, 10:11:16 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.
First, rab - happy birthday!  ;)

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."


Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 10:12:16 AM

But on point, you agree then that there are reasons why a performer can perform material very well other than them liking and supporting the material.

Well by doing their job and singing over and over to Brian's satisfaction is showing their support. Once the tape is rolling you put aside any issues and be a pro.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: rab2591 on August 19, 2015, 10:12:37 AM
Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

It is indeed a real quote, from Peter Carlin's 'Catch A Wave' book.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 10:14:34 AM
Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.
EOL - they were definitely connected to the LSD domain. Seriously. Mike wasn't wrong.

We've had that discussion. In the locked thread above.

No hard feelings. Just hard facts.

And, I don't appreciate being lumped into a faction. I try to look at all possible factors.  Sorry if there is a perception that we are playing a "team sport" here.  I like and support all the band members. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 10:15:29 AM
It wasn't just about the lyrics, either. The Beach Boys when they returned from a tour to hear the tracks Brian had been cutting for Pet Sounds heard backing tracks, music without lyrics. David Anderle in the '67 interviews said the same process repeated in fall 1966 when the band returned from the European tours and Brian played them the instrumental tracks he had been cutting for the next album, i.e. Smile. And Anderle compared them to a symphony in progress...so the *sound* was as much an issue as the lyrics. And the band balked at what Brian played them, worried it was too far out.

"So you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?", that is a key to the whole thing that perhaps no one wants to touch, and it was bubbling underneath the band and those around them before Pet Sounds.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 10:23:24 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.
First, rab - happy birthday!  ;)

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."


Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.
Well you can be happy Stamos is older than you!  :lol

Ever listen to brothers "carry on" and "mouth off" to each other one day, and be best buds the next? And they even forget why they argued! 

It is a "process" to get to "yes" in a closely-held / family-based business and it can be hot or cold. So, that tells me only that they are no different from the rest of us, as mere mortals.  And I take the finished product rather than the squabbling that went down in the process. And write off the naysayers.  They don't matter.  Only the band matters, and those who support them rather than tear them down, after-the-fact.



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 10:35:42 AM
But these disagreements were no small family squabble, BW slowly pulled away from group until he gave up control by the late 1960s. There was huge tension in the group even after smile was canned.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 10:41:51 AM
If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.
First, rab - happy birthday!  ;)

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."


Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.
Well you can be happy Stamos is older than you!  :lol

Ever listen to brothers "carry on" and "mouth off" to each other one day, and be best buds the next? And they even forget why they argued! 

It is a "process" to get to "yes" in a closely-held / family-based business and it can be hot or cold. So, that tells me only that they are no different from the rest of us, as mere mortals.  And I take the finished product rather than the squabbling that went down in the process. And write off the naysayers.  They don't matter.  Only the band matters, and those who support them rather than tear them down, after-the-fact.



So Mike matters because he is in the band and the band is all that matters.  But also Mike doesn't matter because he continues to tear Brian down and those who tear down the band don't matter.  FP, you are defying basic logic.

Lolz


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
But these disagreements were no small family squabble, BW slowly pulled away from group until he gave up control by the late 1960s. There was huge tension in the group even after smile was canned.
He (Brian) worked on Wild Honey, post Smiley, which the band used to enlarge the performance set lists with and was highly and well reviewed even by Christgau. Other factors play into the late 1960's.  That sale of SOT in 1969.

His band stepped in.  That's what supportive partners do. They worked on 20/20.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 11:27:31 AM

But on point, you agree then that there are reasons why a performer can perform material very well other than them liking and supporting the material.

Well by doing their job and singing over and over to Brian's satisfaction is showing their support.

Well, I suppose this comes down to a debate about what "support" is. I think one can do their job well without supporting the work itself. But, whatever, forget the word "support" -- they can do their job well on products that they repeatedly and consistently denigrated and put down. I suppose if you think that you can support a work while  simultaneously putting it down and calling it stupid, too modern, too long, lightweight, and under-produced, then I can't fault you for that. But we do have different understandings of support and my concern is not whether or not The Beach Boys supported the music in terms of the way you see them supporting it.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 19, 2015, 01:09:04 PM
Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

Please don't put words that I never said in my mouth. I've said nothing about Mike's opinions, merely that there's no proof he actually said the "formula" quote.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 19, 2015, 01:12:55 PM
End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL

You're entirely missing my point.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 01:14:06 PM
My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion.  ;D

You stated that "eff with the formula" is an opinion but not Mike's opinion.  If you meant simply to say that it is not a direct quote, then I misunderstood.  Do you agree that it was his opinion even if not his direct quote?  Or do you think it was not his opinion?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 01:20:20 PM
But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

How is it that anything can be seen completely so black and white? Nothing in as complex a story as this one is black and white like that, especially when peoples' feelings (of the principal players involved) aren't something that you can quantify in a manner of scientific accuracy, in the way that a math problem outputs to an exactly precise answer.



 
 

Pet Sounds

Tony Asher: And they didn’t know I was even there. And they’d say things like, I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway. And I thought, why am I sitting here listening to that? I don’t need to.

Al: Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

Brian: Mike said, “Gee, this is too much of a departure.” And I said, but Mike I got to do it this way for just one album. He goes, “All right. One album.”

Good Vibrations

Did everybody support what you were trying to do?
BRIAN: No, not everybody. There was a lot of "oh you can't do this, that's too modern" or "that's going to be too long a record." I said no, it's not going to be too long a record, it's going to be just right.
Who resisted you? Your manager? The record company?
BRIAN: No, people in the group, but I can't tell ya who. We just had resisting ideas. They didn't quite understand what this jumping from studio to studio was all about. And they couldn't conceive of the record as I did. I saw the record as a totality piece.

Smile

Anderle: The Beach Boys as a band were in England at the time, they were having a great time there, throwing The Beatles out of the number one spot. When they got back, and Brian started playing them the music he had done for the Smile album, and they started to question Brian about the lyric content … and suddenly everything that been a year and a half, 2 years of complete positive vibes, now became very negative vibes.

Parks: The friction was so great that, as he was just achieving the apex of his creative arc, he abandoned the project, I think in the interests of…social harmony? And Smile was left unfinished, for that reason.

Anderle: [Smile] wasn’t done mainly because he had to put their voices on it – he had to get them to sing those Van Dyke Parks lyrics, and it wasn’t easy for Carl, and Mike and the boys to sing some of those – strange lyrics.

Parks: I wasn’t close enough to the other guys. I was in a position of defending my lyrics … Mike Love said to me one day: “Explain this: Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.” And it was an American Gothic trip that Brian and I were working on. I said, “I don’t know what these lyrics are all about. They’re not important. Throw them away.” And so they did.

Derek Taylor:  "A key factor in the breakdown had to be the Beach Boys themselves, whose stubbornness by this time had seemingly twisted itself into a grim determination to undermine the very foundations of this 'new music' in order to get back to the old accepted, dumb formulas."

Marilyn: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead, you do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it.” … and I don’t think ever really came back. I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

Friends

Bruce: It’s not a bunch of great songs. They’re pretty light. … No, that’s a pretty lightweight album. I mean, I love “Friends.” I love the songs “Friends.” … But the album – I’m surprised it got to 126. Maybe 1026 might be more appropriate.

Breakaway

Al: I was really disappointed and frustrated by how this one ended up. We knew we had 90% of a good record, but typical of his late 60s mentality, Brian underproduced and undersold the ending of the record.

Til I Die

Johnston remembers Brian “playing it for the band and one member of the band didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.”



And of course, every one of these quotes is completely, 100% off-base according to Mike and Cam, right? The only possible answer is that it's a giant conspiracy involving lots of people who for no particular reason need to blame someone who doesn't deserve 0.0000001 % of an ounce of blame? Is that logical?

Of course nobody WANTS any of this stuff to be true. As Marilyn stated, she "hate[d]" to say what she said. As a fan, I don't WANT any of this stuff to be true either.

Should I just really believe, squint my eyes together really tightly, listen to "wheeeeeennnnn" for 10 hours straight to convince myself that these are all outright fabricated lies? Will that do the trick?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 01:23:45 PM
End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL

You're entirely missing my point.

In a sense it doesn't really matter.  Either you think he held the opinion but didn't make the precise quote or he neither held the opinion and did not make the precise quote.  The implications are plain in both cases.  If you are simply setting the historical record straight regarding the precise quote, (a) we are past that, the question is did he have that opinion regardless of the words he used to express it and (b) a suit at capital saying it does not preclude Mike having also said it.  I believe Mike and the suits at capital had a similar view of Brian's work, keep the cash cow coming, so it would not surprise me if more than one of them said it.  One saying it does not preclude the other having done so.  I still don't totally disagree with the sentiment, and at least see it as valid to the extent I do disagree.  There is nothing wrong with making music for money, even solely for money.  My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it. If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

If people got into refusing to sing, I could see that being considered a declaration of war of sorts, where things could get really ugly in any number of ways. Going through the motions with a negative attitude is more passive-aggressive, and could eventually enable the person to get their way if the person on the receiving end gets worn down enough (compounded by the receiving person's own unrelated issues).

Just because nobody necessarily outright refused to sing, that doesn't mean that damage was not nonetheless done.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 19, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion.  ;D

You stated that "eff with the formula" is an opinion but not Mike's opinion.  If you meant simply to say that it is not a direct quote, then I misunderstood.  Do you agree that it was his opinion even if not his direct quote?  Or do you think it was not his opinion?

"An opinion, yes. Mike's, no." Seriously, I have to spell it out for you ?  Apparently. Very well. "Dfwtf" is an opinion, but it wasn't Mike's opinion. According to Mike, who was there. Of course, that renders the claim invalid in some eyes, which was my subordinate point.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 19, 2015, 01:37:01 PM
My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 01:51:53 PM
My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?

You think most fans of BB and BW have held to the don't eff with the formula opinion?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on August 19, 2015, 02:00:07 PM
This is not a defense of Mike, or the others, nor is it meant as a slag to Brian, or the others - but:   There is always this presentation of Brian as the totally nice, sensitive, genius artist guy and basically the others were lucky and should have shut up, done their jobs and completely supported Brian no matter what.  I often feel that way too, but it's easy to feel that way in hindsight, and especially when you are only an observer and not actually in the know.  And I think the other guys probably did feel that way to some extent or more, but they also knew Brian closely and had to deal with him - good and bad (whereas most of us, or all of us, really don't know Brian and never have had to deal with him on a daily basis)
There's a quote by Brian in the Pet Sounds documentary where he relays telling Mike love, who was upset that Brian was working with Tony Asher on the album, that (paraphrasing) "It's just for this album and we'll do another album after."  Indicating that he gave Mike the impression that he would work with Mike next time out, which he did on GV, but when it came to the album proper (Smile) he was working with Parks.   So Brian maybe wasn't always so sensitive about other peoples feelings, his own, yes, but maybe not others.  No big fault there - everybody can be self absorbed at times and thoughtless about others, especially I suppose when you are "a genius creating cutting edge, masterpieces of modern pop" etc.  
Mike maybe could be a dink, but Brian also probably could be a dink too (albeit in a more passive aggressive sort of way). Throw Murry into the mix and there's another dink.  
Maybe I'm a dink for saying this though, but so be it.  :P


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on August 19, 2015, 02:12:43 PM
Whether Mike said it or not, some variation on this quote must have been made by many another music biz person at one time or another in their career -- Berry Gordy for sure.





Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 19, 2015, 02:32:51 PM
My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion.  ;D

You stated that "eff with the formula" is an opinion but not Mike's opinion.  If you meant simply to say that it is not a direct quote, then I misunderstood.  Do you agree that it was his opinion even if not his direct quote?  Or do you think it was not his opinion?

"An opinion, yes. Mike's, no." Seriously, I have to spell it out for you ?  Apparently. Very well. "Dfwtf" is an opinion, but it wasn't Mike's opinion. According to Mike, who was there. Of course, that renders the claim invalid in some eyes, which was my subordinate point.

We dare not question Mike when other eye witnesses claim he held the position.  After all, most people who find themselves on the wrong side of history freely admit they were wrong and don't try to re-write the story.  Why would Mike be any different?

Really Andrew, this entire part of the conversation is centered around multiple witnesses contradicting Mike's rather recent revisionism over his original thoughts re: Pet Sounds and Smile.  We are trying to get to the bottom of it, you take Mike's word as gospel.  Why do you pretend there is no contrary evidence and everyone who disagrees with you and he-who-has-the-most-to-lose do so simply because Mike said so?  Not very honest of you Andrew.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on August 19, 2015, 02:46:46 PM
Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

"...I'm into success." REALLY??? Embarrassing solo outings, "Every One's in LuHv With Me-oops, You", "Sumahrishi", "Pieceeze Brohthers" to name a few. Care to explain, myKe?? :p


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 03:07:47 PM
Success in Mike's mind = crass tacky sh*t for the rest of the fan base.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on August 19, 2015, 03:08:37 PM
F*cking with the formula is not always a good thing either, let's recall (note the tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: ontor pertawst on August 19, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
Good thing it was Brian Wilson and not Bela Lugosi fucking with the formula, then. Otherwise the end of SMiLE could've turned out like the end of Bride of the Monster.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FGskkmVS9wU/T-8U6mHZ03I/AAAAAAABIEQ/QK-yU0bViHI/s400/BrideOTMcolor%2B%2528108%2529.jpg)

"He tampered in God's domain."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 03:12:13 PM
Ontor! :lol


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 03:27:20 PM

There's a quote by Brian in the Pet Sounds documentary where he relays telling Mike love, who was upset that Brian was working with Tony Asher on the album, that (paraphrasing) "It's just for this album and we'll do another album after."  Indicating that he gave Mike the impression that he would work with Mike next time out, which he did on GV, but when it came to the album proper (Smile) he was working with Parks.   

I don't know why it's so far-fetched for people to think that Brian felt pressured into making that kind of concession/promise. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 19, 2015, 03:28:25 PM
My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?

You think most fans of BB and BW have held to the don't eff with the formula opinion?

I don't think it, I know it.

The fans weren't "calling" or asking Brian Wilson to change. It wasn't being reflected in record sales. It was Brian Wilson the artist/musician who was changing...or evolving. And, Brian was able to walk that line, staying one step ahead of the competition, staying one step ahead of the fans, - and he made it work. Why? Because, even though he was moving forward, he was still in touch with his fan base. His fans still, um, liked(!) his music. His music was still commercial, or, it was still commercial ENOUGH. He was still making music that his fans WANTED to hear. Fans went to Brian for "something" and he would deliver. And then that changed. Brian changed it.

His fans didn't want "Heroes And Villains" and  Smiley Smile. They didn't want Friends. Or Sunflower. Or The Beach Boys Love You. And on and on. Fans of The Beach Boys wanted them for something specific - the formula - and once Brian changed the formula, he lost them. And he never got them back.

Check out the best-selling Beach Boys' singles in the 1970's. "Rock And Roll Music", "Come Go With Me", "The Beach Boys Medley". Throw in "Almost Summer". Move into the 80's and you have "Getcha Back" and "Kokomo". Not to get into semantics with "Kokomo" but it's formula. Beach Boys' fans know what they want from The Beach Boys. Endless Summer's success wasn't just a product of nostalgia. It's an album of Beach Boys' songs that fans WANT to play on their record players!

Why didn't Brian Wilson succeed commercially as a solo artist? That would take about 38 pages on this board, but maybe it's simply because Brian Wilson ain't The Beach Boys. And that's what fans wanted from Brian. And, when I say fans, I'm not talking about the 5-10% of Beach Boys' fans who still buy his records and frequent his concerts. I'm talking about the other 90% of The Beach Boys' fans. The ones who are longing for fun, summer love, and good vibrations. Fans "use" artists. They want certain "things" from their bands. Fans of The Beach Boys - again those other 90%, not the people on this board - want the formula.

Brian Wilson can't buy a hit. He can't even get his singles to chart. His albums come, stay for a week or two or three, and leave. And, then in 2012, The Beach Boys release an album and it goes to No. 3. Again, another 38 pages would be necessary to explain why. But I think it's more than a coincidence that Brian Wilson, the solo artist, struggles, and, as soon as it's Brian Wilson AND The Beach Boys, the album goes to No. 3. I think it was because the fans wanted and EXPECTED - the formula. The fans almost got it. Almost.

I'm not one of those 90% of Beach Boys' fans who want the formula, fans who won't settle for anything else, fans who aren't even open for anything else. I'm in the other 5-10%. But I think I can at least understand them, the 90%. And, for me anyway, it explains a lot of the commercial successes and failures of Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 03:32:59 PM
My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?

You think most fans of BB and BW have held to the don't eff with the formula opinion?

I don't think it, I know it.

The fans weren't "calling" or asking Brian Wilson to change. It wasn't being reflected in record sales. It was Brian Wilson the artist/musician who was changing...or evolving. And, Brian was able to walk that line, staying one step ahead of the competition, staying one step ahead of the fans, - and he made it work. Why? Because, even though he was moving forward, he was still in touch with his fan base. His fans still, um, liked(!) his music. His music was still commercial, or, it was still commercial ENOUGH. He was still making music that his fans WANTED to hear. Fans went to Brian for "something" and he would deliver. And then that changed. Brian changed it.

His fans didn't want "Heroes And Villains" and  Smiley Smile. They didn't want Friends. Or Sunflower. Or The Beach Boys Love You. And on and on. Fans of The Beach Boys wanted them for something specific - the formula - and once Brian changed the formula, he lost them. And he never got them back.

Check out the best-selling Beach Boys' singles in the 1970's. "Rock And Roll Music", "Come Go With Me", "The Beach Boys Medley". Throw in "Almost Summer". Move into the 80's and you have "Getcha Back" and "Kokomo". Not to get into semantics with "Kokomo" but it's formula. Beach Boys' know what they want from The Beach Boys. Endless Summer success was not just a product of nostalgia. It's Beach Boys' songs that fans want to play on their record players!

Why didn't Brian Wilson succeed commercially as a solo artist? That would take about 38 pages on this board, but maybe it's simply because Brian Wilson ain't The Beach Boys. And that's what fans wanted from Brian. And, when I say fans, I'm not talking about the 5-10% of Beach Boys' fans who still buy his records and frequent his concerts. I'm talking about the other 90% of The Beach Boys' fans. The ones who are longing for fun, summer love, and good vibrations. Fans "use" artists. They want certain "things" from their bands. Fans of The Beach Boys - again those other 90%, not the people on this board - want the formula.

Brian Wilson can't buy a hit. He can't even get his singles to chart. His albums come, stay for a week or two or three, and leave. And, then in 2012, The Beach Boys release an album and it goes to No. 3. Again, another 38 pages would be necessary to explain why. But I think it's more than a coincidence that Brian Wilson, the solo artist, struggles, and, as soon as it's Brian Wilson AND The Beach Boys, the album goes to No. 3. I think it was because the fans wanted and EXPECTED - the formula. The fans almost got it. Almost.

I'm not one of those 90% of Beach Boys' fans who want the formula, fans who won't settle for anything else, fans who aren't even open for anything else. I'm in the other 5-10%. But I think I can at least understand them, the 90%. And, for me anyway, it explains a lot of the commercial successes and failures of Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys.

There's more to a music career than just monetary success and sales. As Brian seems to be most proud of the Gershwin album (which was not a giant hot seller), it shows that while the man still absolutely values and wants success, he also (especially with hinsight) can realize that projects that aren't huge hits still have significant artistic and personal value to him, not to mention the fans who love such work.  Otherwise he'd say that "Concert" was his fave BB album instead of "Friends" or "Love You". Granted his choice changes in interviews, but the slower-selling albums don't have the cooties to Brian by virtue of chart performance.

Yes, he aimed high with Gershwin - they got some fancy well-known guy to master the album, hoping to get it awards - but ultimately, I don't think that project was approached with the mindset of "THIS MUST BE A HIT"/ "WHERE'S THE HOOK?". Sometimes the man wants to make art, and have the hit potential be secondary, and he deserves and deserved support without pushback when that desire came to him. Both then and now.

I think that even if Brian had been given unconditional support from Mike and more from the Boys back in '66/'67, if they all banded together and helped him finish SMiLE (even if it took helping Brian out with the physical cutting/splicing of mountains of tapes if need be)... if the album had not sold well, but the band still believed in Brian and didn't show pushback/resistance, that Brian ON HIS OWN, SOLE VOLITION might well have tried to go back to a more commercial type sound soon after. Hell, there's a glimpse of that with Breakaway. But he should have gotten more support - he needed to get that music out of him, and to not experience being worn down by those around him...and while it's fair to empathize with why his mates (especially Mike) were scared and didn't "get" it... hard as I'm sure it was to deal with Brian at the time, an artist of Brian's caliber still deserved better. Not just by Capitol, but by his mates (Mike most of all). PERIOD.  

That said, Brian's music is typically furthered significantly in terms of quality when all the Boys are involved.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: ontor pertawst on August 19, 2015, 03:40:56 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.
Ontor - did you read my post where Capitol released Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love, from 1965, in the UK in 1967? Complete with a promo video!

And with commentary from 2 band members who were unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact?

Does that not shock you? Or would you just rather ignore objective facts and keep up the insults? I happen to dislike people being falsely accused.

There is plenty to debunk this "formula" nonsense.  SJS doesn't deserve abuse anymore than any other poster.  Singling out people undermines cred. Jmho.

And if he us supporting a formula the trail leads to Capitol.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 04:17:36 PM
Don't f*** with the formula of defending Mike Love to the death. Such a touchy group of people around "the lounge singer"


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
Don't f*** with the formula of defending Mike Love to the death. Such a touchy group of people around "the lounge singer"
Smile Brian - I provided plenty of evidence to debunk this nonsense.

Clearly you may not be receptive to that evidence.



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Debbie KL on August 19, 2015, 04:34:24 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 04:43:38 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 04:51:12 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the internal bandmate pushback took hold more than ever before.  It's unfortunate, and it should not be qualified as not being unfortunate. What's done is done, and nobody needs to be a "bad guy", but let's not say it isn't a bummer that Brian's mates, spearheaded by Mike, weren't more open-minded.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Debbie KL on August 19, 2015, 04:55:14 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord. 

I think my comment was pretty clear that the old stuff was beautiful too.  And of course, such songs as "In My Room" were introspective.  I'm talking about the old image that was incredibly uncool in the late 60's/early 70's.  There was at least as much pressure to be "groovy" then as it is to be "hip" now.  Brian got that.  I'm not even certain what you're arguing with, since it seems to be what I already said.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 05:14:43 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

Instead of posters being likewise shocked and perhaps being more open minded, and tolerant, it is more of the same.  ;)

Discussion of he-said, she-said, during the course of recording, seems a little voyeuristic, and shows no respect for that "what happens in Vegas" that we all want, in terms of privacy.  Can't the band 's business remain businesslike? I don't care what was said; I care what was accomplished.



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 05:31:11 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord. 

I think my comment was pretty clear that the old stuff was beautiful too.  And of course, such songs as "In My Room" were introspective.  I'm talking about the old image that was incredibly uncool in the late 60's/early 70's.  There was at least as much pressure to be "groovy" then as it is to be "hip" now.  Brian got that.  I'm not even certain what you're arguing with, since it seems to be what I already said.
Debbie - the "uncool" window was shortened, in a way with "Do It Again" and people found it not just nostalgic but a sort of comfort zone. It was OK to think about the beach, and fun, while war-weary from Vietnam.  Everything didn't have to be serious and an exercise in intellectualism.

The GOK comment wasn't that clear to me. My bad if I misunderstood. It was on Side B, (what was the record company thinking?) and it didn't follow the single release pattern of a "new" song with an older one on side B.

We used GOK for the " mother-son" at my son's wedding.  I guess that's the "long run."  ;)



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 05:40:15 PM
This is not a defense of Mike, or the others, nor is it meant as a slag to Brian, or the others - but:   There is always this presentation of Brian as the totally nice, sensitive, genius artist guy and basically the others were lucky and should have shut up, done their jobs and completely supported Brian no matter what.

No, they shouldn't have "shut up" and "supported Brian no matter what." However, I don't see why Brian needed to opposed quite so consistently. Again, to go over some of the historical record, some of which is noted in quotations which I have given, we have the music of Pet Sounds being characterized as "stupid songs"; we have people in the group not supporting Good Vibrations, calling it "too modern," and "too long."

This is followed up by Smile, for which the band "started to question Brian about the lyric content." There doesn't seem to be much opposition during the Wild Honey era, except this is the period in which the band opposed Brian's working with Redwood; then we know at least one Beach Boy who had a problem with the Friends album; this was soon followed by the debacle over Ol' Man River, where, according to Peter Carlin, the band grew aggravated over Brian's experimentations and apparently called an end to the sessions with Brian concluding that "Mike was really cocky about that one,"; after that we have the Breakaway single, which Al is on record as finding disappointing and frustrating because of it being "underproduced" by Brian. This criticism was not just limited to Cotton Fields though, as Al noted that Brian under-producing songs was "typical of his late 60s mentality." Perhaps this explains Al's critique of Brian's production of Cotton Fields as "stilted and stiff."

As far as I can tell, there isn't much criticism of Brian's Sunflower work, but Bruce notes that one member of the band outwardly put down Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, Til I Die. After that, we have reports that the band rejected Brian's Mount Vernon and Fairway. Not sure if there are any quotes on record about anyone's personal feelings about it. Then when Brian makes his comeback in the mid-70s, Dennis criticizes his first work, 15 Big Ones, noting "People have waited all this time, anticipating a new Beach Boys album, and I hated to give them this. It was a great mistake to put Brian in full control. He was always the absolute producer, but little did he know that in his absence, people grew up, people became as sensitive as the next guy. Why do I relinquish my rights as an artist? The whole process was a little bruising."

In the ensuing years since, we have both Mike and Bruce publicly criticizing Brian's first solo album, Carl ending the mid-90s sessions, and Mike insinuating that Summer's Gone makes him want to kill himself.

Added to this are the very good points that guitarfool makes about Brian being harassed by his father about the direction his music was taking even before Pet Sounds and then after it too.

Now there's a lot of talk about how the internal friction is normal in bands but I'd be curious if you could find many examples out there where the creative leader of a band received this much consistent opposition (let alone  opposition to music as good as Help Me Rhonda, Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, Smile, Friends, and Til I Die) and the band was all the better for it. This is not to say that everything Brian did was pure gold. I mean I certainly can't fault Dennis for not liking 15 Big Ones and yes, Brian's songs were less commercial from Pet Sounds forward (in the immediate sense). But it seems as if almost everything Brian did from 1966 forward was opposed, disliked, or put down by someone in the band and before that he had to face criticism from his father. And this is only rendered more frustrating when taking into account that the music he was making was better than just about any other music from the same period.

Quote
There's a quote by Brian in the Pet Sounds documentary where he relays telling Mike love, who was upset that Brian was working with Tony Asher on the album, that (paraphrasing) "It's just for this album and we'll do another album after."  Indicating that he gave Mike the impression that he would work with Mike next time out, which he did on GV, but when it came to the album proper (Smile) he was working with Parks.   So Brian maybe wasn't always so sensitive about other peoples feelings, his own, yes, but maybe not others.  No big fault there - everybody can be self absorbed at times and thoughtless about others, especially I suppose when you are "a genius creating cutting edge, masterpieces of modern pop" etc.  

There's a quote from Brian from the A&E Biography where he makes a deal with Mike about how Pet Sounds is the only album he's going to make that's like that. He doesn't say anything about how the deal was that he does this one with an outside artist and the next one he'd do with Mike. Maybe he says something different in the Pet Sounds bio though. I could watch it again but a quote would be very time-saving!  :)

Nevertheless, what a strange deal to make.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 05:40:15 PM
Congrats guys on totally missing the point of what SJS was making.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
That he can barely contain his bile of hating Brian Wilson. ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 19, 2015, 05:46:37 PM
I thought that was apparently my job?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 05:53:54 PM
Ontor - did you read my post where Capitol released Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love, from 1965, in the UK in 1967? Complete with a promo video!

And with commentary from 2 band members who were unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact?

Maybe Mike was unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact, but that's not the issue he raises in the quotation you gave. That was Bruce's issue, yes, and I don't think anyone would be surprised at that since it is a pretty uncontroversial belief that Bruce was a huge fan of Pet Sounds. Mike's problem, though, in that quotation, is that Capitol has put out a single on which neither side contains a Brian Wilson composition.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 19, 2015, 06:03:07 PM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 06:04:15 PM
Ontor - did you read my post where Capitol released Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love, from 1965, in the UK in 1967? Complete with a promo video!

And with commentary from 2 band members who were unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact?

Maybe Mike was unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact, but that's not the issue he raises in the quotation you gave. That was Bruce's issue, yes, and I don't think anyone would be surprised at that since it is a pretty uncontroversial belief that Bruce was a huge fan of Pet Sounds. Mike's problem, though, in that quotation, is that Capitol has put out a single on which neither side contains a Brian Wilson composition.
So...doesn't that support the proposition that Mike did indeed support Brian? And confronted the record company for this old release? Or, at least questioned authority? (I didn't quote everything.)

And that he wasn't undermining him?

People are always looking for a scapegoat.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 19, 2015, 06:09:13 PM
Ontor - did you read my post where Capitol released Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love, from 1965, in the UK in 1967? Complete with a promo video!

And with commentary from 2 band members who were unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact?

Maybe Mike was unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact, but that's not the issue he raises in the quotation you gave. That was Bruce's issue, yes, and I don't think anyone would be surprised at that since it is a pretty uncontroversial belief that Bruce was a huge fan of Pet Sounds. Mike's problem, though, in that quotation, is that Capitol has put out a single on which neither side contains a Brian Wilson composition.
So...doesn't that support the proposition that Mike did indeed support Brian? And confronted the record company for this old release? Or, at least questioned authority? (I didn't quote everything.)

And that he wasn't undermining him?

People are always looking for a scapegoat.

I'm sure Mike supported Brian many times. I never suggested that Mike never supported Brian nor did I say that he was "undermining him." However, none of this opposes the fact that Brian received internal opposition for just about all the music he made from Pet Sounds on, and, for Mike, much of it was on the basis of the music not being formulaic enough. He has said as much himself. This isn't "looking for a scapegoat" it's looking directly at the exact things that the people involved have undeniably said.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on August 19, 2015, 06:41:35 PM
COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: gfac22 on August 19, 2015, 06:52:31 PM
Thank you, Mr. Desper, I believe that should effectively end this thread.  Well said.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on August 19, 2015, 07:19:56 PM
@Chocolate Shake Man: I haven't got the exact quote, hence the paraphrasing, but it is in the doc I got with the Pet Sounds album release of, what, the early 2000's? (somewhere in there) And I don't say it is a "deal" made, but the way Brian states it, it sounds like such.  But then Brian says a lot of things and....yeah, we all know about that, so I don't know, not defending or detracting from anyone, just trying to see the humanity in each person, not just Brian. 
To paraphrase Neil Young: "Even Mike Love has got soul"   >:D   ;)
Personally, I don't really understand how anyone could have heard GV and not been like - "Woah, dude, we have to put that sh*t out now!!!"  Seriously, who could hear that and not think, "Awesome!"  It's got hit written all over it, I think, bit then hindsight is everything as they say.  All I know is that from the first time I ever heard that song, when I was very little, it struck me as absolutely fucking amazing! (pardon my French).
I actually am sort of one of those who think the other guys should have taken a moment and realized what they were dealing with and fully supported it no matter how "weird" it might have seemed.  But then that isn't taking into account how (maybe) difficult Brian might have been for them to relate to, and the "mental health" issues/drugs - I have my own thoughts/feelings about all that, but I wasn't there, and cannot really comment on what that was truly like, and how valid it actually was as a.....:thing" at the time.....
In my mind, when confronted with such invention as Pet Sounds, GV, Smile, Surf's Up et al - eff the formula and full steam ahead!  That was what the Sixties was all about, wasn't it?   Were the band not of their time?  Brian was, seemingly anyway, and potentially a bit or more ahead of it.  It's sad because they had the clout to push it, maybe a bit rough, but they had the clout to do it anyway.   IMO they fugged up in not doing so - because that is what the Muse demanded.  The muse got tempered at it's flowering point - that sucks.  It just does.   Good things have come since, and it all washes out in the end, but still - it sucks.  Period.   


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 07:22:29 PM
Thank you Desper!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Gerry on August 19, 2015, 07:40:21 PM
That's Mr. Despar to you bub.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 19, 2015, 07:45:12 PM
Sorry! :lol


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 19, 2015, 07:54:49 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 08:40:54 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

Does being a realist include hawking Budweiser beer in the early 80's?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 19, 2015, 08:53:37 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

Does being a realist include hawking Budweiser beer in the early 80's?

present day 2015 - Mike now has a new endorsement deal hawking wine.

(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1503927_806352869443556_6681776537004405063_n.jpg?oh=5643b7bd7547a826a0be72daf06f9a44&oe=56825B72)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 09:12:28 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

Does being a realist include hawking Budweiser beer in the early 80's?

present day 2015 - Mike now has a new endorsement deal hawking wine.

(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1503927_806352869443556_6681776537004405063_n.jpg?oh=5643b7bd7547a826a0be72daf06f9a44&oe=56825B72)


Sing along: "I wish they all could be California Chards..."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on August 19, 2015, 09:14:08 PM
If there was a formula for continued success, Mike had no clue. Brian did have a clue : that is, to continue to develop his music, to build upon previous achievements and not settle for replicating them.

But such internal development was not enough in the 60's. The Beatles had a formula : their music developed both internally, building on their previous records, and externally, by a continuous, intense engagement with the wider culture, musical and otherwise. Brian tried, with Van Dyke Parks and the others in his circle 66-67. But he wasn't up to it, probably relating to his psychological issues. ( The Beatles too weren't up to the job, long term, as individuals post-breakup).

So if Mike didn't say don't f**k with the formula, he probably thought or said something similar in the mid-60's. Then realized he was wrong in the late 60's, then thought he had discovered the real formula in the mid-70's, then again in the late 80's, only to realize each time he was wrong, but always chasing after that elusive formula, the formula to making a hit record. Is being Wile E. Coyote really so terrible?



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Pretty Funky on August 19, 2015, 09:20:35 PM
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1503927_806352869443556_6681776537004405063_n.jpg?oh=5643b7bd7547a826a0be72daf06f9a44&oe=56825B72)


"Don't f**k with the Feta!"


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 09:24:01 PM
If there was a formula for continued success, Mike had no clue. Brian did have a clue : that is, to continue to develop his music, to build upon previous achievements and not settle for replicating them.

But such internal development was not enough in the 60's. The Beatles had a formula : their music developed both internally, building on their previous records, and externally, by a continuous, intense engagement with the wider culture, musical and otherwise. Brian tried, with Van Dyke Parks and the others in his circle 66-67. But he wasn't up to it, probably relating to his psychological issues. ( The Beatles too weren't up to the job, long term, as individuals post-breakup).

So if Mike didn't say don't f**k with the formula, he probably thought or said something similar in the mid-60's. Then realized he was wrong in the late 60's, then thought he had discovered the real formula in the mid-70's, then again in the late 80's, only to realize each time he was wrong, but always chasing after that elusive formula, the formula to making a hit record. Is being Wile E. Coyote really so terrible?

The Beatles up to 1968 made it a specific point to not do what they had already done, especially in the sense of recording their music and creating the sounds on their records. It's why the albums from their first up to MMT each have a different sound and texture from the previous one. They did not want to repeat themselves sonically when they started recording a new project, this was a conscious and deliberate decision that paid huge dividends to the legacy of their music. Other 60's era bands did the same thing...they're the bands that people remember most fondly and whose records still sell.

At some point Wile E. Coyote must have gotten sick of feeling the pain as that Acme brand anvil fell on top of him. If he didn't then he was either a masochist, was insane (since repeating the same formula after it failed and expecting a different result is pretty close to that definition), or didn't mind having his audiences laugh at how continually inept he and his plans to outwit the Road Runner really were. Combination of the three, I'd say, regarding Mr. Coyote. I wouldn't want to be compared to him.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 19, 2015, 09:25:30 PM
Uncork The Love


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 19, 2015, 10:10:42 PM
Uncork The Love

 :lol :lol :lol


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 05:42:31 AM
Ontor - did you read my post where Capitol released Then I Kissed Her/Mountain of Love, from 1965, in the UK in 1967? Complete with a promo video!

And with commentary from 2 band members who were unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact?

Maybe Mike was unhappy that pre-Pet Sounds material was being released two years after the fact, but that's not the issue he raises in the quotation you gave. That was Bruce's issue, yes, and I don't think anyone would be surprised at that since it is a pretty uncontroversial belief that Bruce was a huge fan of Pet Sounds. Mike's problem, though, in that quotation, is that Capitol has put out a single on which neither side contains a Brian Wilson composition.
Here is the section from page 182, Badman..." Friday (April) 28, 1967... Back Bay Theatre, Boston, MA. 'Then I Kissed Her/
Mountain of Love' single released in the UK.  To coincide with the group's UK tour and appearance at Sunday 7th's NME Poll Winners Concert.  Capitol/EMI rush-release this combination of tracks dating back to 1965. It will peak in the UK singles chart at number 4.

The release greatly angers Brian and the other Beach Boys and puts a serious dent in their position as 'world's number one group'.  Brian says that the A-side "should be an interesting study in contrasts" between The Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  Mike tells New Musical Express: "The record company did not even have the decency to put out one of Brian's compositions.  The reason for the hold-up with a new single has simply been what we wanted to give our public the best, and the best isn't ready yet." Bruce tells the same paper's reporter Keith Altham: "It's really ridiculous.  The record is in no way representative of the things we are doing now, or were doing even a year ago.  This is not the music that won us the NME award as the World's Top Vocal Group.  I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the Smile LP which would blow your mind.  All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time."

The British press are baffled too and slam the group for issuing a two-year-old track as the follow up to the groundbreaking 'Good Vibrations'. New Music Express:" This is a complete puzzlement...Well, if Mr. Wilson can't get the new single ready, and they've got to release an old one, why 'this' one which reverts the group to a sound ages old.  Why not something from Pet Sounds? Oh, well, it will succeed, of course, because they have such power.  But their version of this old Crystals number is so well known, it's a bore!"

A Capitol-financed promotional clip to accompany 'Then I Kissed Her' featuring a montage of Beach Boys-related clips, is sent to the BBC for screening on the British TV show, 'Top of the Pops'. Screenings take place on the TOTP's broadcast on Thursday, May 18th (between 7:30 and 8:00 pm) and again during the Best of '67 Port One show transmitted on Christmas Day (between 2:05 and 2:58 pm)."

What actual control of releases did the band have? Did Capitol falsely represent an image that shows them "regressing" as between 1965 and 1967? They got slammed in the British press, for a release over which they had no control.

Where was this wonderful management? Brother was founded in 1966. And "it was motivated in no small part by the negative reaction of Capitol Records to some of Brian's ideas for Smile." (wiki)

This is a whole year out. They already had released Heroes in the summer of 1966. Why in May of 1967 is this going on?



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 06:00:19 AM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

Does being a realist include hawking Budweiser beer in the early 80's?
I don't really care. It was 1980. They have been sponsored by many companies over the years. It is a business too.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 06:31:33 AM
This is a whole year out. They already had released Heroes in the summer of 1966. Why in May of 1967 is this going on?



No, they had not. Heroes had yet to be released by May 1967. As they say in your article, I'm not sure it was even finished yet.

Then I Kissed Her was not a good choice by Capitol but perhaps not as bizarre when you consider that Pet Sounds and Summer Days entered the UK charts at roughly the exact same time and were both mega hits - I think they were in the Top 5 at the same time. From the position of a British consumer, Then I Kissed Her would have been a selection off of one of the two most recently charted albums.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 06:37:50 AM
"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 06:55:26 AM
This is a whole year out. They already had released Heroes in the summer of 1966. Why in May of 1967 is this going on?



No, they had not. Heroes had yet to be released by May 1967. As they say in your article, I'm not sure it was even finished yet.

The song was not a good choice by Capitol but perhaps not as bizarre when you consider that Pet Sounds and Summer Days entered the UK charts at roughly the exact same time and were both mega hits - I think they were in the Top 5 at the same time. From the position of a British consumer, Then I Kissed Her would have been a selection off of one of the two most recently charted albums.
My bad, July, 1967. Heroes - Single with "You're Welcome" on side B.  Smiley came out on September 18, 1967. Smiley was recorded between February 17, 1966 ( prior to July, 1966 - Brother incorporation) and July 14, 1967. Something must have been ready in April of 1967.  The press complained that it "wasn't even from Pet Sounds."  (With under-reported sales numbers.)

Someone was asleep at the switch. Or they didn't know what they were doing. Or, "Brother" incorporation, offended them, releasing this single, just for profit, and ignoring the artistic growth spurt they were in.

It isn't my article but part of the "diary" for that day, in Badman.  Not the point.  

There is a duty for management to "put the best foot forward" and "advance the interests" of the band, that should include that which best represents what is "timely," and to shield the band from exactly was "reasonably foreseeable," in terms of the catastrophic reaction by the press. In the music industry "time is of the essence." Time drives the train.

They (Capitol) might have been blocked legally, from releasing something that would have adversely affected their interests, which it absolutely did.

They (Capitol) were already "milking the oldies cash cow." It was a form of sabotage, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 07:04:08 AM
"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.
David sounds as though he was "hiding behind Brian." (Maybe doing what "David wanted.") (I'm skeptical of "managers" who often have their own career agenda and use a business to advance their own personal interests.)

In working for Brother, inc., he had a duty to work for "all the band" members. And he should have been able to get all the interests of all the members on the table. This is a small corporate board of members/directors.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on August 20, 2015, 07:11:13 AM
Uncork The Love

 :lol :lol :lol :lol  Oh no!! Could this be a working title for another myKe luHv solo attempt?  ::) ::)
 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 07:14:21 AM
My bad, July, 1967. Heroes - Single with "You're Welcome" on side B.  Smiley came out on September 18, 1967. Smiley was recorded between February 17, 1966 ( prior to July, 1966 - Brother incorporation) and July 14, 1967. Something must have been ready in April of 1967.  

No, nothing was ready that Brian wanted to come out. Remember that they had not been recording Smiley since February 1966. Brian had been working on Smile since August 1966 and by April 1967 was only a few weeks away from officially shelving the project entirely to start over again with Smiley. So nothing from Smiley had been recorded yet, and if Capitol put something out from the Smile sessions (which they probably wouldn't have been able to) against Brian's wishes, this would have been a far greater crime, at least for Brian, then it was to put out Then I Kissed Her. And nowhere in these quotations do Mike or Bruce suggest that Capitol should have done such a thing either.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 07:27:37 AM
My bad, July, 1967. Heroes - Single with "You're Welcome" on side B.  Smiley came out on September 18, 1967. Smiley was recorded between February 17, 1966 ( prior to July, 1966 - Brother incorporation) and July 14, 1967. Something must have been ready in April of 1967.  

No, nothing was ready that Brian wanted to come out. Remember that they had not been recording Smiley since February 1966. Brian had been working on Smile since August 1966 and by April 1967 was only a few weeks away from officially shelving the project entirely to start over again with Smiley. So nothing from Smiley had been recorded yet, and if Capitol put something out from the Smile sessions (which they probably wouldn't have been able to) against Brian's wishes, this would have been a far greater crime, at least for Brian, then it was to put out Then I Kissed Her. And nowhere in these quotations do Mike or Bruce suggest that Capitol should have done such a thing either.
The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965. Then I Kissed Her ( Spector/Greenwich/Barry) and Mountain of Love (Dorman)(Party - November, 1965) had no Brian authorship. Was it for authorship royalties?

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 07:48:11 AM

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

Quote
It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4. From a position of a record company executive, what do you think they could have put out from Pet Sounds that would have been as commercially successful that hadn't already been released?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 08:07:15 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 08:09:59 AM

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

Quote
It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.
You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  :lol


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 08:18:45 AM

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

Quote
It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.
You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  :lol

They may have been table scraps but the song did reach #4, which would be the highest charting Beach Boys single in the UK until Do It Again, the following year and the boys had not been opposed to issuing cover songs as singles before (Do You Wanna Dance, Barbara Ann, Sloop John B). They did have an in-house composer, but they also had, in the same person, an in-house producer who could transform other people's work into great Beach Boys songs.

I added a sentence to the post that you quote from but I'll make the point here again. By April 1967, Capitol had issued Sloop John B., Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, and Let's Go Away for Awhile on singles in the UK. Caroline No could have been released but perhaps only as a Brian Wilson single rather than a Beach Boys single, defeating the purpose of trying to capitalize on the success of Good Vibrations. So with all those Pet Sounds songs out the window, what do you think a Capitol executive would think was a song to issue off of Pet Sounds that would be more commercially viable than Then I Kissed Her?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 08:25:10 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 08:25:32 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.
What are you looking for, a pat on the back? Most of us respond if we have something to add. For me, there is just too much animosity discussing issues that are 40+ years old that mean absolutely nothing in 2015. My blood pressure is high enough without coming in here arguing (not discussing) issues that mean absolutely nothing. This stuff is fun to talk about if folks would be civil with each other, but that rarely happens here anymore.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 08:35:33 AM

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

Quote
It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.
You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  :lol

They may have been table scraps but the song did reach #4, which would be the highest charting Beach Boys single in the UK until Do It Again, the following year and the boys had not been opposed to issuing cover songs as singles before (Do You Wanna Dance, Barbara Ann, Sloop John B). They did have an in-house composer, but they also had, in the same person, an in-house producer who could transform other people's work into great Beach Boys songs.

I added a sentence to the post that you quote from but I'll make the point here again. By April 1967, Capitol had issued Sloop John B., Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, and Let's Go Away for Awhile on singles in the UK. Caroline No could have been released but perhaps only as a Brian Wilson single rather than a Beach Boys single, defeating the purpose of trying to capitalize on the success of Good Vibrations. So with all those Pet Sounds songs out the window, what do you think a Capitol executive would think was a song to issue off of Pet Sounds that would be more commercially viable than Then I Kissed Her?
There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Robbie Mac on August 20, 2015, 08:44:32 AM
COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 



Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.


This is why I'm talking about the perspective of the Capitol executive not the band. While I like every song that you name from Pet Sounds more than Then I Kissed Her, I'm not surprised that some executive thought Then I Kissed Her would sell more copies. I'm not sure I see any of those songs reaching #4 the way that  TIKH did.

As far as Capitol releasing a "BB group version" of Caroline No, I'm unaware that such a thing existed. Would you be able to point me in that direction?

And again, while Caroline, No came out in advance of Pet Sounds in the States, it was never issued as a single in England.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 08:50:27 AM
COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 



Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.
Me too, but having 6 visionaries in the band, they'd be in each others way. Everyone in a band has their own roll to play to make it successful.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Autotune on August 20, 2015, 08:51:04 AM
Gaines used to post here until some nerd fanboy chased him away by pointing inaccurate minutiae. It'd be great if he showed up again.

  It wasn't me, but Gaines got a lot of stuff wrong that was easily verified.

He hadn't answered a question yet and the guy jumped all over him.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 08:54:36 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy. Give me a break. Count the number of subsequent unrelated posts they've made in this thread, while sidestepping my direct query.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 08:59:06 AM
There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.


This is why I'm talking about the perspective of the Capitol executive not the band. While I like every song that you name from Pet Sounds more than Then I Kissed Her, I'm not surprised that some executive thought Then I Kissed Her would sell more copies. I'm not sure I see any of those songs reaching #4 the way that  TIKH did.

As far as Capitol releasing a "BB group version" of Caroline No, I'm unaware that such a thing existed. Would you be able to point me in that direction?

And again, while Caroline, No came out in advance of Pet Sounds in the States, it was never issued as a single in England.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that a BB single of Caroline, No exists. The issue was the choice of songs for the apparent special pressing.

Often credit goes, as well it should, for the songs that have become hits in the UK, and not in the US. It is a different and perhaps more reflective listenership. That is a compliment.

And, I'm not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, but from the responses of the band to perhaps "assemble" what happened, and look at their actions to assess whether it was "retaliatory and punitive."

But, because it appears first, they were apparently not consulted, second, the choices were offensive to them, (given the Pet Sounds masterpiece out there to add choices,) and third, the dynamic of the new Brother incorporation.

***
From the Rusten/Stebbins book, p. 90..."another negative issue popped up when the group arrived in Europe to find that EMI had released the 1965 track, "Then I Kissed Her" as a single without their approval. The song sounded horribly dated in the wake of Pet Sounds and much celebrated "Good Vibrations." One reviewer commented, "To release "Then I Kissed Her" as a 'new' single is to go backwards and can do the Beach Boys' nothing but harm."

So, it does appear that this release was done without their knowledge/consent or approval. 



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 09:01:57 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 09:05:21 AM
COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd


Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.
Me too, but having 6 visionaries in the band, they'd be in each others way. Everyone in a band has their own roll to play to make it successful.
Put me on that list of six. No man (woman) is an island.  :thewilsons


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 09:09:35 AM
Is Tom Nolan still alive?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 09:12:44 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Autotune on August 20, 2015, 09:19:33 AM
1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.

4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 09:37:22 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

And it doesn't really matter, since that was his sentiment which he has communicated in so many words anyway.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

No, it's not a sin. Disagreements in and of themselves are not "sinful".


3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.


Well, would you say there is a line to be drawn somewhere? Not you nor I were there, but I would hope you wouldn't say it's inconceivable that the un-diplomatic vocabulary and guilt tripping might have gone too far. It might have. Or are you saying there's no possible way that a situation like that could have crossed the line in any way, shape or form?



4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

Fair enough, but we are lucky as hell that the arrangement was made in the first place.


5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.

When we are talking about music either made, or not made, by the best band in the world, it's a big deal (probably too big) to some of us nerds here.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 09:41:45 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.

Maybe their relationship is as you say, but that doesn't mean that a hypothetical past interview or two or three in the sincere, sensitive manner in which I mentioned earlier wouldn't help his reputation, and that above all is the point I'm trying to make, and which people (who want to defend Mike) don't seem to want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, and cannot even dignify with a response. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 20, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 



Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.
Me too...

Me three!

It's a large portion of the Beach Boys' fans who weren't visionaries, or to be more specific, they STOPPED sharing Brian's and the group's musical visions. Or vice versa, depending on your perspective...


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 20, 2015, 09:44:42 AM
"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.
David sounds as though he was "hiding behind Brian." (Maybe doing what "David wanted.") (I'm skeptical of "managers" who often have their own career agenda and use a business to advance their own personal interests.)

In working for Brother, inc., he had a duty to work for "all the band" members. And he should have been able to get all the interests of all the members on the table. This is a small corporate board of members/directors.


To me it's clear this discussion and the quote is about creative direction, not business.  What business direction was Brian wanting to go down that Mike wanted to go another way?  Other than Brian's ideas of starting Brother and potentially signing other artists - if Mike was ever opposed to that he apparently has never mentioned it in the almost fifty years since and it has never come up in any of the books or interviews or research on their history.  It's creative direction that there was a disagreement about, and that's what's referenced in the Anderle account.  "Bring Mike a bag of money" - the other Beach Boys joked about Mike's motivations, he didn't want to rock the boat.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 09:50:10 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.
I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 09:55:33 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 20, 2015, 09:56:35 AM
1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.

4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.

I agree with all of the above except . . . 5.  Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 10:02:04 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.
Again, how do we know if hasn't apologized, in our way or in his own way? Hell, he could have apologized years ago for the outburst, but not for the reasoning. He may still feel he was right in how he felt, but not how showed or expressed it. Get my drift? Kind of hard to put into words.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 10:08:05 AM
1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.

4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.

I agree with all of the above except . . . 5.  Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!
Who? If they never argued, I want whatever they were drinking. The main point is, whether they argued or not, ultimately, back then, if Brian wanted things a certain way, it got done. He was the boss. I assume that most times he got his way, and once in awhile he would back down and listen to the rest of the band. Have second thoughts about things.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 10:12:50 AM
SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run... ::)  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  
What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.
CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.


No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.
Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.
That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.
Again, how do we know if hasn't apologized, in our way or in his own way? Hell, he could have apologized years ago for the outburst, but not for the reasoning. He may still feel he was right in how he felt, but not how showed or expressed it. Get my drift? Kind of hard to put into words.


Very true. He could have apologized in his own way, privately. But again, that has basically nothing to do with my point of the fact that the court of public opinion could have been won over a bit more if there was some sentiment expressed in public. No he doesn't have to do that, he doesn't have to do anything whatsoever. But that doesn't negate what I'm getting at, nor does it answer the mysterious question about why some posters are so afraid to touch this inconvenient truth.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 10:23:09 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 10:33:58 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 10:40:45 AM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that a BB single of Caroline, No exists. The issue was the choice of songs for the apparent special pressing.

Often credit goes, as well it should, for the songs that have become hits in the UK, and not in the US. It is a different and perhaps more reflective listenership. That is a compliment.

And, I'm not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, but from the responses of the band to perhaps "assemble" what happened, and look at their actions to assess whether it was "retaliatory and punitive."

But, because it appears first, they were apparently not consulted, second, the choices were offensive to them, (given the Pet Sounds masterpiece out there to add choices,) and third, the dynamic of the new Brother incorporation.

***
From the Rusten/Stebbins book, p. 90..."another negative issue popped up when the group arrived in Europe to find that EMI had released the 1965 track, "Then I Kissed Her" as a single without their approval. The song sounded horribly dated in the wake of Pet Sounds and much celebrated "Good Vibrations." One reviewer commented, "To release "Then I Kissed Her" as a 'new' single is to go backwards and can do the Beach Boys' nothing but harm."

So, it does appear that this release was done without their knowledge/consent or approval. 



I thought the quotes that you've given already effectively illustrated that the band hadn't been consulted about the release.

Yes, the British listeners were a bit more sophisticated when it came to the band's more mature work but this did not necessarily mean that they would have put a song like Here Today higher than #4 on the charts. Let's face it, in a logical world, Darlin' would have been a #1 single in every country but it didn't crack the top 10 in either the US or England (to be fair, it almost did in England).

And while you say that you are not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, it has been you who has accused them of chicanery and also of punishing the band, so you have devoted some space to discussing what you believe their intentions may have been. And it's that that I have been, in part, responding to. So when I say that I am looking at this from their perspective, I'm doing so based on the comments that you have provided. And, again, I suggest that there were reasons other than punishment that they released Then I Kissed Her - namely they had to pick something to fill a void and, perhaps to them, TIKH was what they considered to be the most commercial viable option.

And of course, if I were The Beach Boys I wouldn't have been happy with the choice either. But let's be sure that not even Mike Love and Bruce Johnston in these quotes suggest that there was a better option beyond a Brian Wilson composition. Johnston notes that, "The record is in no way representative of the things we are doing now, or were doing even a year ago." In other words, it seemed to be the case that Johnston was miffed that TIKH did not represent Beach Boys April 67 (and it sure didn't) but the problem is that nothing did. "A year ago" from Bruce's perspective was Pet Sounds -- so even a song from that would not be properly representative in the way that Johnston would have liked it. So, for Bruce, I'm not sure if any choice would have suited him. And let's face it, Good Vibrations was an advance over anything The Beach Boys had done at that point so I don't think anything could have been chosen that didn't seem like a step backwards.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 10:43:38 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 10:52:29 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

Absolutely. And I'll at least give Al some credit (quite a bit of credit, at least) for essentially saying as much in so many words regarding Dennis being an underrated talent who didn't always get his due.

That's an example of mature, reflective talk that I'm sure did not hurt Al's reputation one bit. I'm sure it was healing to some people at the very least (even with Dennis gone and not around to hear those words), and the court of public opinion has a way of helping people like Al out in the longrun for saying that kind of stuff, and quite the opposite effect for people who refuse to say anything of the sort.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 10:59:39 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 11:03:45 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?


Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 11:08:05 AM
We take what Brian's friends say as gospel. These guys were outsiders. Didn't possibly know all of the dynamics at play within the group. Misread what was going down in the interactions between band members. Remember, these guys were family first and there is a dynamic at play here, between cousins and siblings that is unique and that doesn't always come through in all friendships. For me, just the fact that the Beach Boys have existed for well over 50 years tells me that this family dynamic is still at play to this day and has survived through all the dysfunction that has occurred in that time frame.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Add to that the rejection of Mount Vernon & Fairway and Brian's contributions to the 95 reunion album. And while it's not a Beach Boys album you also have Mike and Bruce publicly criticizing BW '88.

And these are just the examples that we know about. I'd say that Brian faced opposition on almost the majority of the music he was making from 1966 onward.

Again, I ask the question: please find me another group who were very successful after members of the band criticized this much of the music (of the calibre of Pet Sounds, Smile, Friends, Breakaway, Til I Die) of its creative leader.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 11:11:38 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?


Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?
I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature. ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 11:12:02 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Add to that the rejection of Mount Vernon & Fairway and Brian's contributions to the 95 reunion album. And while it's not a Beach Boys album you also have Mike and Bruce publicly criticizing BW '88.

And these are just the examples that we know about. I'd say that Brian faced opposition on almost the majority of the music he was making from 1966 onward.

Again, I ask the question: please find me another group who were very successful after members of the band criticized this much of the music (of the calibre of Pet Sounds, Smile, Friends, Breakaway, Til I Die) of its creative leader.

Not only that, but with a creative leader who is known for being more sensitive than most to criticism.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 11:13:24 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?


Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?
I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature. ;)

That's why we have comments from his family like "Wilson based negativity", right? Because nobody on Team Love has an iota of worry about public opinion?  I beg to differ.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 11:14:11 AM

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?
Yeah I doubt it 'cos
(a) they'd just find some other beef to rag on Mike for.
(b) To apologize would only be seen as a sign of admission in the eyes of those who have made up their mind about Mike anyway.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 11:23:52 AM
Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?


Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?
I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature. ;)

That's why we have comments from his family like "Wilson based negativity", right? Because nobody on Team Love has an iota of worry about public opinion?  I beg to differ.
Here we go, a circle jerk. See, this never ends. I think I've had my say on this subject. I believe what I believe and the same goes for you. You haven't convinced me, nor I you. All we can do at this point is "differ". And really, it doesn't matter. So, I'll make one last plea to Mike: To end this thing, please, god-damn it, publicly apologize to Brian for all the things you said and did 40 years ago, and please, do it today. Scott, John, whoever is reading this board today, please see to it that Mike hears my plea. Thank you!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 11:25:55 AM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that a BB single of Caroline, No exists. The issue was the choice of songs for the apparent special pressing.

Often credit goes, as well it should, for the songs that have become hits in the UK, and not in the US. It is a different and perhaps more reflective listenership. That is a compliment.

And, I'm not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, but from the responses of the band to perhaps "assemble" what happened, and look at their actions to assess whether it was "retaliatory and punitive."

But, because it appears first, they were apparently not consulted, second, the choices were offensive to them, (given the Pet Sounds masterpiece out there to add choices,) and third, the dynamic of the new Brother incorporation.

***
From the Rusten/Stebbins book, p. 90..."another negative issue popped up when the group arrived in Europe to find that EMI had released the 1965 track, "Then I Kissed Her" as a single without their approval. The song sounded horribly dated in the wake of Pet Sounds and much celebrated "Good Vibrations." One reviewer commented, "To release "Then I Kissed Her" as a 'new' single is to go backwards and can do the Beach Boys' nothing but harm."

So, it does appear that this release was done without their knowledge/consent or approval. 
I thought the quotes that you've given already effectively illustrated that the band hadn't been consulted about the release.

Yes, the British listeners were a bit more sophisticated when it came to the band's more mature work but this did not necessarily mean that they would have put a song like Here Today higher than #4 on the charts. Let's face it, in a logical world, Darlin' would have been a #1 single in every country but it didn't crack the top 10 in either the US or England (to be fair, it almost did in England).

And while you say that you are not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, it has been you who has accused them of chicanery and also of punishing the band, so you have devoted some space to discussing what you believe their intentions may have been. And it's that that I have been, in part, responding to. So when I say that I am looking at this from their perspective, I'm doing so based on the comments that you have provided. And, again, I suggest that there were reasons other than punishment that they released Then I Kissed Her - namely they had to pick something to fill a void and, perhaps to them, TIKH was what they considered to be the most commercial viable option.

And of course, if I were The Beach Boys I wouldn't have been happy with the choice either. But let's be sure that not even Mike Love and Bruce Johnston in these quotes suggest that there was a better option beyond a Brian Wilson composition. Johnston notes that, "The record is in no way representative of the things we are doing now, or were doing even a year ago." In other words, it seemed to be the case that Johnston was miffed that TIKH did not represent Beach Boys April 67 (and it sure didn't) but the problem is that nothing did. "A year ago" from Bruce's perspective was Pet Sounds -- so even a song from that would not be properly representative in the way that Johnston would have liked it. So, for Bruce, I'm not sure if any choice would have suited him. And let's face it, Good Vibrations was an advance over anything The Beach Boys had done at that point so I don't think anything could have been chosen that didn't seem like a step backwards.
When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.

Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 11:36:58 AM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones


Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording. Also, look at the songwriting credits for Friends. It's one of the most collaborative albums the band ever made. If Bruce didn't like it, his criticisms were not solely directed at Brian.
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 12:02:25 PM
When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.


Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  

You don't get any disagreement from me that Capitol treated their clients poorly during this time. I do find the claims about them punishing the band by releasing a song that would go to #4 in the charts to be somewhat unconvincing. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic in the thread, but as I've said, I'm dim.  :)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 12:18:59 PM
When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.


Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  

You don't get any disagreement from me that Capitol treated their clients poorly during this time. I do find the claims about them punishing the band by releasing a song that would go to #4 in the charts to be somewhat unconvincing. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic in the thread, but as I've said, I'm dim.  :)

Dim? - not a chance! No flies on you! If they are, they're paying rent!  :lol

From all outward appearances, and the direct quotes from the band, the split from Capitol had everything to do with creative control and rejection of their (Brian's material.) And it isn't as simple as it looks, since Murry had apparent control of the Sea of Tunes catalog. (We know how that went.)

Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation. They no longer control Brian (and the other members) but without confidence in Brian, they would have not made that decision to split.  From these events, it's my impression that it was Capitol who undermined Brian.  It would have been the "path of least resistance" to stay in the fold. They must have had faith in themselves and each other to make a go of it with Brother. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 12:22:58 PM
Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Quote
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Quote
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Quote
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Quote
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Quote
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Quote
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Quote
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

Quote
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

Quote
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 12:25:26 PM

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?
Yeah I doubt it 'cos
(a) they'd just find some other beef to rag on Mike for.
(b) To apologize would only be seen as a sign of admission in the eyes of those who have made up their mind about Mike anyway.

That is a fear that, while I could understand you (or Mike) thinking that, IMO is totally off base. When has a celebrity talking from their heart and sincerely expressing regret for inadvertently hurting others ever resulted in a worsened reputation? Public opinion does not work like that. It's an irrational fear. People generally like to forgive and like to feel that others take responsibility for their actions.

Do you think Brian talking about being regretful for being a bad parent, or Al talking about underappreciating Denny did anything *negative* to those guys' reputations? Seriously. Don't you think those were healing, "big person", reputation-improving things to say?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 12:34:35 PM
Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Quote
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Quote
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Quote
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Quote
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Quote
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Quote
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Quote
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

Quote
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

Quote
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

I can only imagine if Til I Die had not been released due to Brian feeling crushed about the resistance. If it had become another WIBNTLA, a stunning track too good to be unreleased, yet unreleased nonetheless. That almost happened.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 12:34:51 PM
Dim? - not a chance!

Well, if there's anything you've said that I seriously disagree with, it's this!  ;D

Quote
Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation.  

I don't discount it as a possibility but again, if they were punishing The Beach Boys, why release a single that was more than likely going to do quite well in the charts? The fact that it wasn't a Brian composition shouldn't have been a huge issue - the band themselves had been happy to issue Sloop John B. the year before and Do You Wanna Dance the year before that. And the album Brian was in the midst of shelving had two covers recorded during the session (You are My Sunshine and I Wanna Be Around - actually three if you count Old Master Painter). I think if Capitol really wanted the band to combust they would have released nothing at all and let the band continue to flounder, having only released one song (albeit an amazing super mega-hit song) in a whole year, with no new product in sight. The fact that they released anything was a sign that they wanted to keep the name out there while there was no new music. That they chose Then I Kissed Her demonstrated just how seriously square the music "business" was at the time (and yet knowledgeable enough to know it would be a hit), but not necessarily that they were purposefully malicious.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Debbie KL on August 20, 2015, 01:01:04 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

So, I just finished my writing deadline and saw this from last evening - then read the entire remaining thread (at least at the time I started writing this).  I'll reply even though you said later, that Brian's friends are outsiders and don't know the family dynamic.  Obviously, not being a Wilson/Love, I'm clear I've never had that experience.  Then again, you might want to consider that Brian might be more willing to express his frustrations about his family/business to friends, so it adds another perspective - not the full picture, just another perspective.

I'm just speaking from my own observations 1969 to about 1982.  I could be totally wrong, but here goes.  I saw Brian go into creative mode when moved by something.  It could be joyous to nostalgic to sad, or just someone else's great song.  Beyond that creative mode is the completion mode of any project, and what I think needed to be maintained for Brian to want to complete something was a sense of joy and freedom (along with that vision Steve Desper talked about).  I think Brian's fan base responded to that powerful sense of self Brian had at those times.  If you walked into a room with Brian at the piano then, you could "feel the power."  I know that sounds weird, but it's true.  

Frankly, I saw that becoming a bigger and bigger struggle over those years.  At first there was still joy and fun and when he was at the piano, the man was in command wherever he was.  That Brian was mixed with a man I'd have to describe as brokenhearted.  Obviously, there were a lot of reasons for that and I certainly don't know them all, nor would I share them if I did without his permission.  Was he ground down by the responsibilities of producing hit after hit?  Who wouldn't be?  Did his family comprehend that at all, and if they did, know what to do about it?  Did they have a clue how to relieve that kind of pressure?  They'd have to answer that.  Was there any safe place to go where he didn't feel that pressure?

I do draw the parallels between the Beatles and the Beach Boys at that time.  The Beatles relieved the pressure by blowing apart and getting individual forms of expression.  Brian's band was also family, so that probably didn't feel like an option for him.  I have to wonder why everyone else in the band seemed to be allowed to have their solo records and projects with other artists at that time, aside from Brian.  This isn't a swipe at them, but that is a curiosity to me.  It seems to be the natural evolution of a band in most cases.  There's a good chance Brian felt his only option was to implode.

I would add to that, I never got a sense that he hated or resented his family, but he did seem to have a horrible distaste for the ugliness that takes place in making his art into a business.  He worked hard to maintain a "separate" (to use his term) place for himself and certain people around him.   I think he needed that.  The more distasteful things got for him, the bigger that "separate" place had to be.  Managing that "land of innocence" he needed to create that musical love he wants to share with his audience (that he often speaks about) while dealing with the realities of an ugly business was bound to get all out of whack for him, particularly considering the acknowledged illness.

Those are my thoughts about what happened to Brian and fans in the simplest terms I can use.  The pressure he experienced - and a world  and individual fans changing at warp speed - didn't allow for the joy/sense of freedom to be maintained long enough for Brian to complete a project/his vision (described by Mr. Desper).  They may or may not be valid, but you asked.  Finally, nobody maintains that level of fandom throughout there lives.  There is an ebb and flow and this is a completely different world today.

I think it's hard to imagine the magnitude of what Brian, and his family were dealing with then. Frankly, nobody "got it" about what Brian needed including me.  With that in mind, it's a natural, organic process to have to re-create oneself several times during a lifetime, and when that person is an artist, it's massive and if they're a celebrity, it's public.  So hopefully everyone understands this isn't about blame.  It's about accepting what happened and getting some joy out of the artistic "resurrection story" that is Brian Wilson today.  It's a mighty powerful thing.  No wonder we all nit-pick the details to death...it helps avoid being overwhelmed.


 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on August 20, 2015, 01:42:11 PM
Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones


Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

COMMENT and Correction:

'Till I Die -- The original lyrics were never released. Brian re-wrote the lyrics in the last few weeks of production. Michael, reeling from Brian's insistence that the original lyric, which everyone had known for months, be changed, ereased (by me) and then re-sung by Brian caused some concern by Mike that the new words needed polishing, but Brian held his ground. (More on this song will appear in part two of Recording The Beach Boys)
   ~swd


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 01:42:48 PM
Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

So, I just finished my writing deadline and saw this from last evening - then read the entire remaining thread (at least at the time I started writing this).  I'll reply even though you said later, that Brian's friends are outsiders and don't know the family dynamic.  Obviously, not being a Wilson/Love, I'm clear I've never had that experience.  Then again, you might want to consider that Brian might be more willing to express his frustrations about his family/business to friends, so it adds another perspective - not the full picture, just another perspective.

I'm just speaking from my own observations 1969 to about 1982.  I could be totally wrong, but here goes.  I saw Brian go into creative mode when moved by something.  It could be joyous to nostalgic to sad, or just someone else's great song.  Beyond that creative mode is the completion mode of any project, and what I think needed to be maintained for Brian to want to complete something was a sense of joy and freedom (along with that vision Steve Desper talked about).  I think Brian's fan base responded to that powerful sense of self Brian had at those times.  If you walked into a room with Brian at the piano then, you could "feel the power."  I know that sounds weird, but it's true.  

Frankly, I saw that becoming a bigger and bigger struggle over those years.  At first there was still joy and fun and when he was at the piano, the man was in command wherever he was.  That Brian was mixed with a man I'd have to describe as brokenhearted.  Obviously, there were a lot of reasons for that and I certainly don't know them all, nor would I share them if I did without his permission.  Was he ground down by the responsibilities of producing hit after hit?  Who wouldn't be?  Did his family comprehend that at all, and if they did, know what to do about it?  Did they have a clue how to relieve that kind of pressure?  They'd have to answer that.  Was there any safe place to go where he didn't feel that pressure?

I do draw the parallels between the Beatles and the Beach Boys at that time.  The Beatles relieved the pressure by blowing apart and getting individual forms of expression.  Brian's band was also family, so that probably didn't feel like an option for him.  I have to wonder why everyone else in the band seemed to be allowed to have their solo records and projects with other artists at that time, aside from Brian.  This isn't a swipe at them, but that is a curiosity to me.  It seems to be the natural evolution of a band in most cases.  There's a good chance Brian felt his only option was to implode.

I would add to that, I never got a sense that he hated or resented his family, but he did seem to have a horrible distaste for the ugliness that takes place in making his art into a business.  He worked hard to maintain a "separate" (to use his term) place for himself and certain people around him.   I think he needed that.  The more distasteful things got for him, the bigger that "separate" place had to be.  Managing that "land of innocence" he needed to create that musical love he wants to share with his audience (that he often speaks about) while dealing with the realities of an ugly business was bound to get all out of whack for him, particularly considering the acknowledged illness.

Those are my thoughts about what happened to Brian and fans in the simplest terms I can use.  The pressure he experienced - and a world  and individual fans changing at warp speed - didn't allow for the joy/sense of freedom to be maintained long enough for Brian to complete a project/his vision (described by Mr. Desper).  They may or may not be valid, but you asked.  Finally, nobody maintains that level of fandom throughout there lives.  There is an ebb and flow and this is a completely different world today.

I think it's hard to imagine the magnitude of what Brian, and his family were dealing with then. Frankly, nobody "got it" about what Brian needed including me.  With that in mind, it's a natural, organic process to have to re-create oneself several times during a lifetime, and when that person is an artist, it's massive and if they're a celebrity, it's public.  So hopefully everyone understands this isn't about blame.  It's about accepting what happened and getting some joy out of the artistic "resurrection story" that is Brian Wilson today.  It's a mighty powerful thing.  No wonder we all nit-pick the details to death...it helps avoid being overwhelmed.


 
Debbie, thank you for your well thought out answer. What you say makes a lot of sense and brings some perspective into what Brian was dealing with, especially music vs the music business. Your last paragraph says it all about how we should look at the history of Brian and of the Beach Boys.

As for outsiders comment. All I can say is that my intent was to show that family bonds are different than how we make friends. Not saying whether it is better or not, but just different. Family treat each other differently than they treat friends. When associates or friends of Brian talk of Brian's relationship with his family & band mates, I am not always sure that they fully understand the relationship the guys had with each other. It wasn't meant as a knock, just something else to think about when trying to understand all that's been written.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 20, 2015, 02:06:32 PM
Dim? - not a chance!
Well, if there's anything you've said that I seriously disagree with, it's this!  ;D

Quote
Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation.  
I don't discount it as a possibility but again, if they were punishing The Beach Boys, why release a single that was more than likely going to do quite well in the charts? The fact that it wasn't a Brian composition shouldn't have been a huge issue - the band themselves had been happy to issue Sloop John B. the year before and Do You Wanna Dance the year before that. And the album Brian was in the midst of shelving had two covers recorded during the session (You are My Sunshine and I Wanna Be Around - actually three if you count Old Master Painter). I think if Capitol really wanted the band to combust they would have released nothing at all and let the band continue to flounder, having only released one song (albeit an amazing super mega-hit song) in a whole year, with no new product in sight. The fact that they released anything was a sign that they wanted to keep the name out there while there was no new music. That they chose Then I Kissed Her demonstrated just how seriously square the music "business" was at the time (and yet knowledgeable enough to know it would be a hit), but not necessarily that they were purposefully malicious.
OK! Here is the vocab word. Just one.  It was all "temporally" related.

There was an element of surprise. It creates the inference that in the past history dealing with Capitol, that they had never pulled that kind of a stunt. They had a history of business dealings over between six and seven years.  They may have had some procedures in place to submit for approval to the band, which recordings would be released and when.

They could not have been happy with the Brother incorporation.  It may have given them motivation to retaliate.  JMHO  ;)

Strange things happen...

Gaumont palace interview

http://youtu.be/uehyh57k2_E

http://youtu.be/so7lsV6i4V4

About 17 minutes.  Enough English to understand the gist.  Carl talks about how the band changed, and not accepted by the record company, particularlizing Capitol.

"They portrayed a completely different impression..surf group rah rah hot rods...and we weren't that at all." Carl

"The record company didn't want to let the public know that we had changed...wanted to keep that quiet." Mike

From their own mouths...hope the youtubes open!  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 03:22:54 PM
Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Quote
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Quote
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Quote
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Quote
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Quote
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Quote
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Quote
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

Quote
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

Quote
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

I'm sorry but no history is being revised here. The band built a studio in Brian's home in an attempt to keep him recording. Members have been quoted as saying they would drop whatever they were working on in an instant if Brian wanted to try something. Breakaway was chosen as the last single for their Capitol contract, they thought Brian had written a hit which would boost their chances in getting a new deal so they must have thought highly of it. Didn't Stephen Desper say eariler in this thread that Brian and Mike had a very good working relationship during his time with the band? None of this sounds like a band that was constantly putting down Brian's new music. Was there any second guessing? Undoubtably, they had gone from being the biggest band in America to not being able to buy a hit. Was Brian the only member having his songs put under the microscope or were they critical of each others contributions too?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 03:25:08 PM

COMMENT and Correction:

'Till I Die -- The original lyrics were never released. Brian re-wrote the lyrics in the last few weeks of production. Michael, reeling from Brian's insistence that the original lyric, which everyone had known for months, be changed, ereased (by me) and then re-sung by Brian caused some concern by Mike that the new words needed polishing, but Brian held his ground. (More on this song will appear in part two of Recording The Beach Boys)
   ~swd

Cool, another myth busted.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on August 20, 2015, 04:41:10 PM
I'm sorry but no history is being revised here.

You radically distorted the events regarding Til I Die. You stated the the conflict was that Mike found some lyrics bleak, wanted them changed, but Brian held his ground when what actually happened, according to Bruce, was that Brian was so crushed by a member putting down a song that wasn't liked that he shelved it for several months. That's a complete distortion.

Quote
Didn't Stephen Desper say eariler in this thread that Brian and Mike had a very good working relationship during his time with the band? None of this sounds like a band that was constantly putting down Brian's new music.

You're right. That sentence doesn't sound like the band constantly putting down Brian's new music. What does sound like the band constantly putting down his music are the quotations from the band members putting down Brian's music or quotations from people who were there reporting how the music was being put down that add up to a historical record of consistent opposition. That being said, I don't believe that you have engaged honestly in this discussion nor do I see any evidence that you are prepared to do so. Therefore I am opting out of it with you.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 04:50:06 PM
Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 04:54:23 PM


You radically distorted the events regarding Til I Die. You stated the the conflict was that Mike found some lyrics bleak, wanted them changed, but Brian held his ground when what actually happened, according to Bruce, was that Brian was so crushed by a member putting down a song that wasn't liked that he shelved it for several months. That's a complete distortion.


Neither of those statements contradicts the other.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: drbeachboy on August 20, 2015, 05:00:19 PM
Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
Don't get snippy. I really don't care what they did after their time with Brian. What were they doing up to the point where they became friends or associates of Brian? We already know that most were unsuccessful working for Brian and the Beach Boys.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 05:56:15 PM
I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 06:07:01 PM
Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
Don't get snippy. I really don't care what they did after their time with Brian. What were they doing up to the point where they became friends or associates of Brian? We already know that most were unsuccessful working for Brian and the Beach Boys.

Michael Vosse's history is laid out in the Fusion article, he was working in television production and writing music articles that were picked up by Teen Set among others, and David Anderle was working as a manager and in A&R for artists like Danny Hutton and Bob Dylan among others before they became associated with Brian Wilson. The success of the groundwork they laid with Brother Records in actually getting things happening and bringing in key people to make it a reality is shown into the present day through BRI still being the main corporate body behind the Beach Boys. It all began with Brian bringing in David, Michael, and others into the band's universe to help set up a new idea for a venture called Brother.

It's funny too to think how many times the Beatles' similar venture that followed after Brother, Apple Corps, has been described as a failure as well, yet Apple still exists as one of the most profitable music-related corporations in existence. The first years were rough, sure, but look at where Apple Corps is as it exists today. Like Brother, it started as an idea to start a company to give the band freedom to branch out into producing other artists and media, and developed as most successful businesses do into something beyond what was imagined in the first years of planning and executing.

Hardly a failure on either front if both Brother and Apple are still in existence and dealing with millions in revenue. Something was done right in those first stages, otherwise they wouldn't exist.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 06:11:50 PM
"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.
David sounds as though he was "hiding behind Brian." (Maybe doing what "David wanted.") (I'm skeptical of "managers" who often have their own career agenda and use a business to advance their own personal interests.)

In working for Brother, inc., he had a duty to work for "all the band" members. And he should have been able to get all the interests of all the members on the table. This is a small corporate board of members/directors.


To me it's clear this discussion and the quote is about creative direction, not business.  What business direction was Brian wanting to go down that Mike wanted to go another way?  Other than Brian's ideas of starting Brother and potentially signing other artists - if Mike was ever opposed to that he apparently has never mentioned it in the almost fifty years since and it has never come up in any of the books or interviews or research on their history.  It's creative direction that there was a disagreement about, and that's what's referenced in the Anderle account.  "Bring Mike a bag of money" - the other Beach Boys joked about Mike's motivations, he didn't want to rock the boat.  

I don't know Lou, David wasn't their Producer or even A&R guy, as Nolan said, he was "Director" of Brother Records.  What Anderle was doing for all of the Boys was business and he and Mike were working together on Brother Record business.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 06:23:00 PM
I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 06:28:15 PM
I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 06:42:33 PM
I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?

Well, it certainly wouldn't be for having a lot of love and doing my job to the best of my ability while or in spite of offering a very few constructive suggestions or having a few questions or qualms  or embarrassments.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on August 20, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
[size=10
11pt]
COMMENT:
Yea, I have a question.  What's your point?  There are far more significant people you could list in Brian's spear of influence. All these people will have heard from Brian and Michael in the course of things, griping, complaining, wondering, planning, daydreaming, and in Brian's case, playing head games with people. Any statements made at any of these chance or appointed meetings could be taken out of context and blown into something different.  Of course they all discussed many aspects of their lives and careers openly -- being family in a home setting -- so ?  It's not a reality TV show. It's not documented.  Every individual takes something different away from what they experienced. I think you have to step back and look at the forest, not the trees. I witnessed a lot of times these guys were together, both in the studio and on the road. I have lots of little snips of statements rattling around in my memories, but each one is not a pivot point in Beach Boy history. Outside influences enter in as well. Market trends, group evolvement, growing families, business pressures, etc. Overall, look at the overall. Look at the overall result.  [/size]  ~swd 



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 08:06:24 PM
Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
[size=10
11pt]
COMMENT:
Yea, I have a question.  What's your point?  There are far more significant people you could list in Brian's spear of influence. All these people will have heard from Brian and Michael in the course of things, griping, complaining, wondering, planning, daydreaming, and in Brian's case, playing head games with people. Any statements made at any of these chance or appointed meetings could be taken out of context and blown into something different.  Of course they all discussed many aspects of their lives and careers openly -- being family in a home setting -- so ?  It's not a reality TV show. It's not documented.  Every individual takes something different away from what they experienced. I think you have to step back and look at the forest, not the trees. I witnessed a lot of times these guys were together, both in the studio and on the road. I have lots of little snips of statements rattling around in my memories, but each one is not a pivot point in Beach Boy history. Outside influences enter in as well. Market trends, group evolvement, growing families, business pressures, etc. Overall, look at the overall. Look at the overall result.  [/size]  ~swd 



I always do, I look at all that has been said and written and listen with open ears. I also know that some things happened and some things did not. If this is specifically the time period from 1966 to 1967 when David Anderle and Michael Vosse were perhaps as close in business and personally to Brian Wilson as anyone, who saw and heard the day-to-day events firsthand, I'll listen to what they have said about it.

For all of the messing with facts and parsing of words and defending the indefensible by suggesting ridiculous ways things *could* have been misquoted or misunderstood instead of taking what was said for what was actually said...and everything of the sort that has gone on in the BB's fan community for the past 2-3 years or so, it's hard to find people who have spoken honestly and upfront and matter-of-factly without trying to push an agenda or "set the record straight", and two of those men whose words I trust are Anderle and Vosse. They were asked questions, they gave straight answers. I respect that. No bull.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why i should not do exactly that. Unless we should believe the slander and bile that was offered in the name of setting the record straight or winning a legal case or something. I don't think the names I mentioned above would qualify as parasites and plagarizers, does anyone else agree?

That's my two cents. I can sometimes be pretty accurate with my info as well.

What's my point? Hmmm. What is Cam Mott's point in arguing this stuff and dodging simple questions up and down this discussion? I'm at fault for asking that, though. Oops.  :)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 08:30:51 PM
I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

I think he wanted to be fair and he witnessed stuff and wanted to describe and interpret it to the best of his knowledge and experience or inexperience with the band.  I don't think there is a problem with what he says, I think it might be with how it has been taken sometimes.  For instance if he reports they said "we can't sing this", it seems to be assumed they meant we won't sing this when they probably meant it is so complex and experimental we're not capable of singing it. On the other hand, they tried to sing it either way, often for many takes.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 08:37:09 PM
What is Cam Mott's point in arguing this stuff and dodging simple questions up and down this discussion? I'm at fault for asking that, though. Oops.  :)

What did I dodge, I'll try to undodge it?

I have to ask, what is your point in making it so personal so often?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 20, 2015, 08:37:47 PM
I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?

Well, it certainly wouldn't be for having a lot of love and doing my job to the best of my ability while or in spite of offering a very few constructive suggestions or having a few questions or qualms  or embarrassments.

Ok, that's what you think *wouldn't* constitute it. My question is in your eyes, what *would*?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 08:39:01 PM
I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

I think he wanted to be fair and he witnessed stuff and wanted to describe and interpret it to the best of his knowledge and experience or inexperience with the band.  I don't think there is a problem with what he says, I think it might be with how it has been taken sometimes.  For instance if he reports they said "we can't sing this", it seems to be assumed they meant we won't sing this when they probably meant it is so complex and experimental we're not capable of singing it. On the other hand, they tried to sing it either way, often for many takes.

What about the multiple times across a three-part interview where he mentioned "resistance" from the band to what Brian was doing in the studio, the mentions of Brian being worn down and frustrated by the continuous resistance from the band members, and other similar statements? It either happened or it didn't. Anderle was specific, so the question is do you think he was accurate in reporting what he saw? Should we post quotes or should someone post the entire article so we can all read it exactly and not have it parsed?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on August 20, 2015, 08:39:31 PM
I remember reading that article when it was brand spankin' new.  It was in Crawdaddy magazine I think.  That's probably mentioned earlier in the thread...which I haven't read because ...well you know why...These threads never seem to end well.

Anderle was honest and forthrite and accurate.  It was a real eye-opener.  And a real disappointment.  One I've had a HELL of a time getting over even after all of these years...and decades.

Wasn't the article also reprinted in someting called Outlaw Blues?  [or some similarly named book?]

Stephen Desper mentions it in another thread.  Brians take on maturing and moving forward musically versus Mike's outlook.  Says it all.  Have to agree with Brian on that one.  [like my agreeing means dick-all]


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 08:46:28 PM
I remember reading that article when it was brand spankin' new.  It was in Crawdaddy magazine I think.  That's probably mentioned earlier in the thread...which I haven't read because ...well you know why...These threads never seem to end well.

Anderle was honest and forthrite and accurate.  It was a real eye-opener.  And a real disappointment.  One I've had a HELL of a time getting over even after all of these years...and decades.

Wasn't the article also reprinted in someting called Outlaw Blues?  [or some similarly named book?]

Stephen Desper mentions it in another thread.  Brians take on maturing and moving forward musically versus Mike's outlook.  Says it all.  Have to agree with Brian on that one.  [like my agreeing means dick-all]

It was reprinted along with other Paul Williams writings in a book after the first 3 parts were in the magazine, yes. It's all there.

And my point is, bottom line, if there are those who doubt that the resistance Anderle saw from the band toward Brian and the effect it had on Brian and on the project in general actually happened, is anyone willing to step up and say outright that David Anderle got it wrong? Anyone?

I say again and agree to the post above - David Anderle was honest, and forthright, and in my opinion accurate in what he said. That is refreshing to read actual full-blown honesty coming from a genuinely good man like David Anderle especially in the year 2015. I wish there were more like him, and more interviews along the lines of the Paul Williams series from 67-68.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lonely Summer on August 20, 2015, 08:50:13 PM
It still puzzles me that Capitol didn't want Pet Sounds, yet Capitol/EMI seem to have fully supported Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc. We never hear stories of the execs at EMI telling George Martin "don't f--- with the formula!"


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 09:03:07 PM
I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

I think he wanted to be fair and he witnessed stuff and wanted to describe and interpret it to the best of his knowledge and experience or inexperience with the band.  I don't think there is a problem with what he says, I think it might be with how it has been taken sometimes.  For instance if he reports they said "we can't sing this", it seems to be assumed they meant we won't sing this when they probably meant it is so complex and experimental we're not capable of singing it. On the other hand, they tried to sing it either way, often for many takes.

What about the multiple times across a three-part interview where he mentioned "resistance" from the band to what Brian was doing in the studio, the mentions of Brian being worn down and frustrated by the continuous resistance from the band members, and other similar statements? It either happened or it didn't. Anderle was specific, so the question is do you think he was accurate in reporting what he saw? Should we post quotes or should someone post the entire article so we can all read it exactly and not have it parsed?

There was the "resistance" of Anderle and Parks.

There was the "resistance" of the Beach Boys in the studio where Brian told them what he wanted and they tried for "endless takes" before Brian would junk it. And the specific example of "resistance" where Brian wanted the lead of H&V but he had sort of promised it to Mike and Mike sang it beautifully for almost a week before Brian took the lead anyway.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 09:07:52 PM
I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

I think he wanted to be fair and he witnessed stuff and wanted to describe and interpret it to the best of his knowledge and experience or inexperience with the band.  I don't think there is a problem with what he says, I think it might be with how it has been taken sometimes.  For instance if he reports they said "we can't sing this", it seems to be assumed they meant we won't sing this when they probably meant it is so complex and experimental we're not capable of singing it. On the other hand, they tried to sing it either way, often for many takes.

What about the multiple times across a three-part interview where he mentioned "resistance" from the band to what Brian was doing in the studio, the mentions of Brian being worn down and frustrated by the continuous resistance from the band members, and other similar statements? It either happened or it didn't. Anderle was specific, so the question is do you think he was accurate in reporting what he saw? Should we post quotes or should someone post the entire article so we can all read it exactly and not have it parsed?

There was the "resistance" of Anderle and Parks.

There was the "resistance" of the Beach Boys in the studio where Brian told them what he wanted and they tried for "endless takes" before Brian would junk it. And the specific example of "resistance" where Brian wanted the lead of H&V but he had sort of promised it to Mike and Mike sang it beautifully for almost a week before Brian took the lead anyway.

That's cherrypicking, Cam. You know that. You know the interview as well as I do.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 20, 2015, 09:19:59 PM
David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."


That's direct, cut-through-the-bullshit honesty in my opinion. And that's just one excerpt out of thousands of words in the interviews.

Will anyone step up and dispute or disprove David Anderle's description of events as he saw them unfold?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 20, 2015, 09:29:14 PM

That's cherrypicking, Cam. You know that. You know the interview as well as I do.

Those are the examples of "resistance".


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 11:05:25 PM
David Anderle was one of Brian's 'guys', just like VDP was. Any of his comments has the potential to be skewered towards favouring Brian. Compare his thoughts to the hours and hours we have of the guys trying all the complex vocal arrangements Brian thrown at them.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 20, 2015, 11:30:39 PM
David Anderle was one of Brian's 'guys', just like VDP was. Any of his comments has the potential to be skewered towards favouring Brian. Compare his thoughts to the hours and hours we have of the guys trying all the complex vocal arrangements Brian thrown at them.

Serious questions:

1.  Why didn't you equally question Mike's own words as quoted by others?  Isn't be one of his own guys and aren't his words therefore suspect?
2. Given his words are suspect by your own definition, whose words are you taking in place David, Brian, Al, VDP, Marilyn, and a host of others?
3.  What do hours and hours of vocal sessions prove?  It was the gravy train.  I work my ass off in sales/customer service for a huge corporation.  I think huge corporations are ruining the world.  I do it with a smile and to the best of my ability each day.  Are you saying this proves I'm supportive of my company and what they do and stand for?  It means I need the money, nothing more.  The vocal sessions prove he wanted money, nothing more.  There may have been more, but the vocal sessions are useless in supporting your point.
4.  Given how gracious Brian has been toward Murry and Landy and what we know they did to him, we know that publicly Brian way undersells how badly people have treated him.  Given what he has said about Mike, do you think what he feels about Mike and his support are better or worse than what he has said publicly?  Given that you have no rational way to avoid acknowledging it is far worse, why do you choose to believe Mike over Brian, especially given a host of other witnesses who agree with what Brian has said?

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mike's Beard on August 20, 2015, 11:57:20 PM
1- Mike's views on Smile has been set in stone for so long now I have little reason to believe that he is lying. We know he had a problem with some of the lyrics, we know it got heated. Has he ever denied otherwise?
2- Al is just parroting what Mike has openly said. VDP still has a bug in his butt about this whole thing all these years later and he is now implying in his tweets that Brian is the one who was most at fault. Marilyn was the guy's wife, she's going to be far more exposed to Brian's point of view than Mike's.
3- Talk about 'dammed if you do, dammed if you dont'. It's proof that Mike and the rest did just about  everything Brian asked, sometimes to mere fragments of backing tracks, after coming off the back of an album that underperformed somewhat, to an untested lyrical genre, by a guy who seemed to have Brian's ear far more then the actual band did - somewhere along the line they must have performed a leap of faith.
4- Brian is the master of passive agressiveness. All he has to say is "Mike didn't like it" and his fanboys do the rest.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Mendota Heights on August 21, 2015, 01:54:28 AM
(http://s4.postimg.org/irs2cbma5/Untitled.png)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Smilin Ed H on August 21, 2015, 02:40:28 AM
Can't we get Daro to chip in? Last time he was here, VDP was endorsing his views.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on August 21, 2015, 04:25:07 AM
(http://s4.postimg.org/irs2cbma5/Untitled.png)

A five wooter if I ever saw one. :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: gfac22 on August 21, 2015, 05:02:01 AM
(http://s4.postimg.org/irs2cbma5/Untitled.png)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xCkhE5RHy8A/U9LJeb1qnAI/AAAAAAAAUqk/Tp0zuNQoTik/s1600/well,+there+it+is.+the+stupidest+F'cking+thing+I'll+read+all+day.jpg)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 21, 2015, 09:21:19 AM

That's cherrypicking, Cam. You know that. You know the interview as well as I do.

Those are the examples of "resistance".

So was this:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."


That's direct, cut-through-the-bullshit honesty in my opinion. And that's just one excerpt out of thousands of words in the interviews.

Will anyone step up and dispute or disprove David Anderle's description of events as he saw them unfold?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 21, 2015, 10:27:21 AM

That's cherrypicking, Cam. You know that. You know the interview as well as I do.

Those are the examples of "resistance".

So was this:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."


That's direct, cut-through-the-bullshit honesty in my opinion. And that's just one excerpt out of thousands of words in the interviews.

Will anyone step up and dispute or disprove David Anderle's description of events as he saw them unfold?

Forgot this: "DAVID: Uh, no, there's no, you couldn't really say a, ringleader. I think probably the most antagonistic situation was between Brian and Mike Love, although it is not an antagonistic kind of .... They're very close, there's a great deal of love between all the fellas. I don't think any of the other boys, except perhaps for Carl, is anywhere near where Brian is musically, although Dennis showed some great moments, he was doing some of his own things and they were beautiful .... "


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 21, 2015, 10:30:51 AM
Also:

"DAVID: Right. What had happened was, Brian had gone in and had done a fantastic amount of recording while the guys were in Europe, and then there was a separation of time, and then it got to be, well, as soon as they get back we'll finish. And they got back. And they had their normal rest time. And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys. We were around for the first time; the Beach Boys came back from England and here was this bunch of people, who all of a sudden were saying a lot of things — Michael Vossi, and myself, and Paul Robbins somewhat, Van Dyke, very strongly, Jules, a lot of people they hadn't seen before — and that must have been very scary for them, 'cause here was a whole bunch of people who were doing heavy things for their career, their future. And here's Brian, with entirely new sounds. I think had they relaxed into Smile, Smile would have happened. 'Cause you've got to remember, to this day Smile is still an album of tracks that are filed away somewhere, not many vocals down, but there's still a whole album — there's enough there for three albums of incredible tracks."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 21, 2015, 10:45:02 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.







Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 21, 2015, 12:16:30 PM
I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?

Well, it certainly wouldn't be for having a lot of love and doing my job to the best of my ability while or in spite of offering a very few constructive suggestions or having a few questions or qualms  or embarrassments.

Ok, that's what you think *wouldn't* constitute it. My question is in your eyes, what *would*?

Cam - any response to this question?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 21, 2015, 03:51:55 PM
Also:

"DAVID: Right. What had happened was, Brian had gone in and had done a fantastic amount of recording while the guys were in Europe, and then there was a separation of time, and then it got to be, well, as soon as they get back we'll finish. And they got back. And they had their normal rest time. And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys. We were around for the first time; the Beach Boys came back from England and here was this bunch of people, who all of a sudden were saying a lot of things — Michael Vossi, and myself, and Paul Robbins somewhat, Van Dyke, very strongly, Jules, a lot of people they hadn't seen before — and that must have been very scary for them, 'cause here was a whole bunch of people who were doing heavy things for their career, their future. And here's Brian, with entirely new sounds. I think had they relaxed into Smile, Smile would have happened. 'Cause you've got to remember, to this day Smile is still an album of tracks that are filed away somewhere, not many vocals down, but there's still a whole album — there's enough there for three albums of incredible tracks."

The Boys were "resisting" YAMS?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lonely Summer on August 22, 2015, 06:05:52 PM
The Boys resisted SMiLE, and pressured Brian to do something more commercial, something formula....so they did Smiley Smile. Yep, that's commercial, that's formula.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 24, 2015, 08:30:44 AM
Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on August 24, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 24, 2015, 09:52:11 AM
Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 24, 2015, 09:53:37 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   ;D

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 09:55:48 AM
The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 24, 2015, 10:06:24 AM
The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

This is all true, and Mike and Brian were ultimately in a business together .  However, while they may have been equals on paper (I have no idea the legal arrangement then or now), they certainly weren't equals in their respective roles, Brian's abilities far exceeded the others.  The songs were Brian's vision, he was by far the most competent, and at some point you have to follow or throw in your chips.  The Beach Boys without Brian Wilson is not the Beach Boys, especially in the early years - without which here would be no later years, there would be no coattails to ride.  As much as I like and value the other guys contributions (specifically Carl and Mike's voices), either of them could have been more easily exchanged for another person than Brian.  From a strictly business standpoint, the Brian-less BB have always been far less valuable.  Even the resurgence rides the wave of a Brian's creations.

I fully understand the other guys, including Mike, questioning Brian, especially since it was probably not just be musical direction but the odd behavior and drugs, I just don't think hey handled it well.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 10:06:52 AM
The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and respond to the question, and not simply pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know answers to my questions posed to you as well.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 10:08:31 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   ;D

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 24, 2015, 10:18:30 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   ;D

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  ;)

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 24, 2015, 10:18:47 AM
Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 10:19:32 AM
The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?

Do they have a right to ask? Do they have a "vested interest" in the response?  If they do, they have a right to ask and be given an answer.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 24, 2015, 10:21:45 AM
Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.

No. As I literally just said "I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis".


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 10:23:26 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   ;D

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  ;)

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL
Mike talks less about whatever problems there were than the posters on this board.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 24, 2015, 10:29:50 AM
Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   ;)

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  ;)


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   ;D

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  ;)

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL
Mike talks less about whatever problems there were than the posters on this board.

Publicly.  But he also knows he has staunch defenders who will relentlessly defend him wihtout ever confessing to his faults (they say he reads this board), so he's got a lot of help, lessening the amount he needs to talk about it.  And...if he goes on as much as he does *publicly* you can bet he does a lot more privately.  So chances are he thinks and talks about it far more than we do.

Regardless, nice dodge, AGAIN. :)

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 24, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
EoL is referring to stuff like this 2014 interview where Mike says Brian has "handlers"

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20140408/ENTERTAINMENT/304089898


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 10:32:52 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?



I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified BY YOU as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying".

Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist.

Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?  I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists between family members or between bandmates, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.


And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?



This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on at the time, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case...

But the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.  Don't you realize that any lambasting is due to a failure to recognize that?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 24, 2015, 10:35:52 AM
Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.

No. As I literally just said "I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis".


How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:


David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 10:54:36 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?


This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties! 

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives. 

But, I tend to put a lot of faith for accuracy and veracity in the YouTube interview between Dennis and Pete Fornatale, as the real deal as Dennis discusses whatever was going on with his brother, whom he dearly loved, and "substances."

And I don't want to hear from a manager. I don't care what they have to say.  I want to hear from Dennis' mouth.  He is family.   The link is somewhere in this thread, I think.  Or easy to find. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 11:09:03 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?



This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)


I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.




Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  


The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 11:26:53 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965. 

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 11:43:56 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  ;)

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.  You feel like you are "on trial". I'm sure Van and Brian felt nothing of the sort in 1966, right?

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 24, 2015, 11:54:21 AM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  ;)

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.
This is about a "formula" and it's spun into " bullying" and C50.  People aren't looking at the huge burden that the industry put on guys that were still kids.  Ducking? Never.  Select group of people? Whomever do you mean?

And I linked videos. That isn't enough?  Ever consider Capitol as a bully? Keeping them in striped shirts?  (Even if they were cute! )  :lol   I wonder who wanted that?  ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 12:03:09 PM

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  ;)
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  ;)

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.
This is about a "formula" and it's spun into " bullying" and C50.  People aren't looking at the huge burden that the industry put on guys that were still kids.  Ducking? Never.  Select group of people? Whomever do you mean?

And I linked videos. That isn't enough?  Ever consider Capitol as a bully? Keeping them in striped shirts?  (Even if they were cute! )  :lol   I wonder who wanted that?  ;)

Yes, I do consider Capitol's actions as bullying from a corporate standpoint to a fragile and sensitive individual. I never stated otherwise.

Again, I do not blame EVERYTHING on Mike as you would like to believe balanced people such as myself do. I absolutely don't. Do you think that's what I truly think? I'm absolutely willing to concede there were all sorts of factors at play. None of those factors have anything to do with the fact that Brian, as a fragile and sensitive individual, may have been on the receiving end of behaviors by the Lovester that went too far into *possibly* emotionally bullying territory, where the bullied person is worn down by a person who perhaps didn't know that their repeated harsh, sarcastic tone was cutting deeply.

Why do you find it necessary to keep bringing up all sorts of other, outside factors? I know they are factors, nobody is disputing them.  They are unrelated to my point. Yes, the factors all conspired to bring about Brian's breakdown, but that doesn't mean we should try to minimize bandmate bullying when it may have in fact occurred.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Ang Jones on August 24, 2015, 12:03:40 PM
Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 24, 2015, 12:08:10 PM
Rule #1: Never admit Mike Love has done anything wrong.  At all.  Ever.
Rule #2: Please refer to rule #1.

The rules are obvious, only their origin is in question:

1. Spiritual: Mystical connection between the most ardent fans of Mike Love (maybe a Gaya or Maharishi type thing, I'm not sure, this is not my area of expertise.
2. Naturalist: Bio-chemical explanation for the connection (Dawkins and Dennet would likely approve of this one)
3. Sociological: Like attracts like.  Those who can't admit wrong attract others of the same ilk.  Mike being of this sort was bound to have such followers.
4. Philosophical: The neo-platonic idealist believes that we are aware not of reality as it is in itself, but of our ideas about reality.  Some have gone as far as to suggest that we can affect reality with our minds.  Maybe some believe if they ignore it long enough or say it enough times it will become true?
5. Charasmatic: like the neo-platonist but throw in religion.  You can "name it and claim it".  If you believe it you can make it be so.
6. Conspiracy: I'm not a conspiracy theorist in most cases but like Moulder would say, the truth is out there!

:o

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 24, 2015, 12:12:52 PM
Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?

Here's a question: do you think this same microscopic contingent of people would still be saying such if Mike himself made a concession and stated in a heartfelt, sincere interview that he may have inadvertently crossed a line with a very sensitive person, that he regrets that, and that nobody guilted him into saying such heartfelt words? Would those people be saying "Mike should never have said that! He was lying! He never went too far! He should have been able to talk to Brian in any manner that he deemed fit at the time!"  

One thing's for sure: if this hypothetical scenario is posed to that microscopic contingent, if that contingent is asked what they would do/say under these circumstances, they will duck and avoid answering that hypothetical at all costs.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 24, 2015, 04:38:23 PM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:


David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."

Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”


Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”. 
 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 05:26:38 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 05:29:45 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 05:34:44 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL
What makes sense to me, and my analysis of what I've read is not subject to anyone's  approval.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Ang Jones on August 25, 2015, 05:35:40 AM
Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?

Here's a question: do you think this same microscopic contingent of people would still be saying such if Mike himself made a concession and stated in a heartfelt, sincere interview that he may have inadvertently crossed a line with a very sensitive person, that he regrets that, and that nobody guilted him into saying such heartfelt words? Would those people be saying "Mike should never have said that! He was lying! He never went too far! He should have been able to talk to Brian in any manner that he deemed fit at the time!"  

One thing's for sure: if this hypothetical scenario is posed to that microscopic contingent, if that contingent is asked what they would do/say under these circumstances, they will duck and avoid answering that hypothetical at all costs.

No arguments from me. The greatest single reason for Mike's unpopularity IMO is not just what he did but his subsequent refusal to own to it and his continued 'Brian did drugs' comments.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 05:42:08 AM
Also, why is everyone pretending that using "the voice as an instrument" is some radical thing, even in the 60s?  The voice *is* and always has been an instrument and the Beach Boys, as much as anyone, had been using their voices as "instruments" for years by this point.  This sounds to me not quite like a false distinction, but like all these years after the fact more is being made of it than is warranted.  And hey, if you can dismiss Anderles "resistance" I can dismiss Vosse's distinction.  My opinion, make of it what you will.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 05:43:44 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL
What makes sense to me, and my analysis of what I've read is not subject to anyone's  approval.

Well I suspected that's all it was.  You should have said "it seems to me closer to the truth", given that's what you meant and you provided zero evidence to support the conclusion.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 05:45:15 AM
Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?

Here's a question: do you think this same microscopic contingent of people would still be saying such if Mike himself made a concession and stated in a heartfelt, sincere interview that he may have inadvertently crossed a line with a very sensitive person, that he regrets that, and that nobody guilted him into saying such heartfelt words? Would those people be saying "Mike should never have said that! He was lying! He never went too far! He should have been able to talk to Brian in any manner that he deemed fit at the time!"  

One thing's for sure: if this hypothetical scenario is posed to that microscopic contingent, if that contingent is asked what they would do/say under these circumstances, they will duck and avoid answering that hypothetical at all costs.

No arguments from me. The greatest single reason for Mike's unpopularity IMO is not just what he did but his subsequent refusal to own to it and his continued 'Brian did drugs' comments.
Not necessarily.  When new managers come into an organization, they tend to "survey the scene" and "go after" the brightest or "savvy-est" person, so as not to be challenged in management.  It happens in business and schools, as well.  It is a vehicle to manage opposition, and wrest control from various "power players" in a group.  Make "that one" the "scapegoat."

Probably.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 05:54:53 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL
What makes sense to me, and my analysis of what I've read is not subject to anyone's  approval.
Well I suspected that's all it was.  You should have said "it seems to me closer to the truth", given that's what you meant and you provided zero evidence to support the conclusion.
EoL
Well, I've provided YouTube and other documentary evidence from that era.  The record company's refusal to promote the "actual grown-up Beach Boys." Dennis' nterview, with Fornatale, the Paris 1970 interview with four of them in agreement about the record company refusing to accept the music and the image promotion failure in Europe where they had done extraordinary well during the Vietnam War.  I've provided quotes from Brian himself, Mike and Bruce.  So you don't believe Brian? OK.

This is while I was in college and grad school, and seeing them evolve from the striped shirts to doing the college and university circuit.    

You may not agree.  We can disagree without being disagreeable.  



Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 06:14:14 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL
What makes sense to me, and my analysis of what I've read is not subject to anyone's  approval.
Well I suspected that's all it was.  You should have said "it seems to me closer to the truth", given that's what you meant and you provided zero evidence to support the conclusion.
EoL
Well, I've provided YouTube and other documentary evidence from that era.  The record company's refusal to promote the "actual grown-up Beach Boys." Dennis' nterview, with Fornatale, the Paris 1970 interview with four of them in agreement about the record company refusing to accept the music and the image promotion failure in Europe where they had done extraordinary well during the Vietnam War.  I've provided quotes from Brian himself, Mike and Bruce.  So you don't believe Brian? OK.

This is while I was in college and grad school, and seeing them evolve from the striped shirts to doing the college and university circuit.    

You may not agree.  We can disagree without being disagreeable.  



The problem is you're arguing from the fact that Capitol did not support Brian to the conclusion that Mike Love did support Brian.  That is a non sequitur.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 06:18:08 AM
That Mike wanted grown-up music does not prove that he wanted Pet Sounds and Smile. It's another non sequitur. That Mike did his job by recording and re-recording vocals it does not follow that he supported Pet Sounds and Smile. Yet another non sequitur. So aside from three non-Sequitur arguments I don't really see any evidence you have provided. I do however see a lot of evidence you have ignored.

EoL


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 25, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
It seems to me that around the time of the Smile Sessions and C50 that Mike's story began to change in regards to cost Sounds and Smile.  At the very least it seems to me he was silent for many many years.  I am wondering if anyone has insight as to why?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 06:37:34 AM
How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:

David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams: "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Anderle explains this here I think:

“And then he brought them into the studio, and they were hearing things they never heard before. Not only were they hearing things they'd never heard from Brian, but also you've got to remember that none of this Beatles stuff was happening then. There was no way to relate to what Brian was putting down. That's when he started meeting resistance from the Beach Boys. "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part." In one specific song Brian wanted to sing the lead, but it was almost promised to Mike. And Mike couldn't cut it the way Brian wanted it to be cut, although Mike was cutting it beautifully. But it still wasn't right, and Brian wanted to do it ... they went through an incredible amount of time, almost a whole week of wasted studio time, before Brian finally did it. Brian didn't know how to deal with the boys.”

And here:

“Well, the first thing Brian will come up with is a concept, an album concept; generally he wants to do a thing. I say "a thing" because it's, you don't really know what it is, he throws out a whole bunch of words at you, one-liners, and words and half-phrases, and you really don't know what he's talking about at all. All you know is to go along with it. The Beach Boys could walk into a session and not have the slightest idea what they're recording that night. He tells them what to record, and they do it. They don't know what it means, generally, and that was always a problem, too. We're gonna do a piece of this, and a piece of that, a fragment, and they would do it, as instruments.”

I would say that’s why the Boys had these questions and concerns "Brian, what are you ... what is this? What are you doing? This is not within our framework, you're going too far now, Brian, this is too experimental. I can't sing this part.”

Somehow Anderle’s statement about “big fight thing” has to be harmonized with his other statement about “not antagonistic”. A non-antagonistic big fight thing somehow. On the other hand we know regardless of whatever “resistance” amounted to “He tells them what to record, and they do it” was done.

Vosse said:

“So all of these tracks had been done at Western and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then. First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them as instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other ... Then
he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out the voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody
else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing. And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.  Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material. They were worried about how they'd do it in person. Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up ... and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea. Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent. A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love. And a lot of people would go off into comers together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing ... There was a lot of that.”

Vosse describes confusion, not “resistance”, from giving the Boys just a bit at a time and tension and resentment over the music’s complexity and arguments between Brian and Mike. Vosse also says Brian and Mike disagreed and then agreed. Again still singing good and doing it take after take after take. Vosse elaborates on Anderle adding Brian tells the Boys their singing is “fine”.  
Vosse's characterization of "confusion" (reasonable under the circumstances) is far less "dramatic" than, Anderle's of  "resistance" to this concept of a voice used as an instrument, as opposed to straight vocals.  It seems closer to the truth.

And their "realities" were different.  Brian was looking at studio product and the band were likely looking at "how do we (5 guys) translate" what is going to be recorded and submitted to the record company and then, "take this out on the road" and get it arranged so it would be manageable on the road.  

For what reason does it seem closer to the truth, other than the fact that you say so?  I must have missed your reason.

EoL
What makes sense to me, and my analysis of what I've read is not subject to anyone's  approval.
Well I suspected that's all it was.  You should have said "it seems to me closer to the truth", given that's what you meant and you provided zero evidence to support the conclusion.
EoL
Well, I've provided YouTube and other documentary evidence from that era.  The record company's refusal to promote the "actual grown-up Beach Boys." Dennis' nterview, with Fornatale, the Paris 1970 interview with four of them in agreement about the record company refusing to accept the music and the image promotion failure in Europe where they had done extraordinary well during the Vietnam War.  I've provided quotes from Brian himself, Mike and Bruce.  So you don't believe Brian? OK.

This is while I was in college and grad school, and seeing them evolve from the striped shirts to doing the college and university circuit.    

You may not agree.  We can disagree without being disagreeable.  



The problem is you're arguing from the fact that Capitol did not support Brian to the conclusion that Mike Love did support Brian.  That is a non sequitur.

EoL
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own. 

Not the collective group. 

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 07:01:09 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own. 

Not the collective group. 

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 07:15:55 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own.  

Not the collective group.  

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul. It is why I give such importance to Dennis' interview with Fornatale, and those quotes from Brian, Mike and Bruce, and the Gaumont Palace interview.  That direct band-member perspective is the direct evidence of the members' perch and the negative impact from the record company.   It is not different from Archie Bunker telling Edith to "stifle" herself.  They kept the band down.  It couldn't have been any one individual. 

Not someone who came in, and "cleaned house."  Or tried to minimize any member's contributions.  That happens in any business organization.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 07:19:46 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own. 

Not the collective group. 

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 07:26:17 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own. 

Not the collective group. 

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 07:37:00 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own. 

Not the collective group. 

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.

Where does that hypothetical come into play on what we're discussing? Suppose Brian had broken off from the band and had gone solo as was being hinted at as early as fall 1966, suppose Carl had his C.O. status rejected and had been drafted into the military or sent to prison instead of remaining with the band in 1967-68 when that was an ongoing issue putting the whole band's future in a state of limbo, suppose the band had in fact broken up as Brian said they almost did at times in 1967 and concerning issues like Surf's Up, what would any of them have done? What does that have to do with your questioning what David Anderle did or didn't do as a manager?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 08:06:09 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own.  

Not the collective group.  

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.
Where does that hypothetical come into play on what we're discussing? Suppose Brian had broken off from the band and had gone solo as was being hinted at as early as fall 1966, suppose Carl had his C.O. status rejected and had been drafted into the military or sent to prison instead of remaining with the band in 1967-68 when that was an ongoing issue putting the whole band's future in a state of limbo, suppose the band had in fact broken up as Brian said they almost did at times in 1967 and concerning issues like Surf's Up, what would any of them have done? What does that have to do with your questioning what David Anderle did or didn't do as a manager?
The "formula thing."  In the Badman and Rusten - Stebbins books, generally the same April, 28th, 1967 (I don't have the book available right now.) time lag up to the December, 1970 Gaumont Palace videos show that it is a "continuing offense" with the record company.  It is now edging to a full 4 years of "false representation" of the band.  

The earlier quotes from Brian, Mike, and Bruce kept falling on deaf ears.  For four years.  While they are being interviewed, they almost appear depressed and beaten by the record company, while describing the diverse venues and audiences they are playing for.  ( Gaumont Palace) So, my inference is that the "formula" was imposed from the "top down" rather concocted from the "inside" of the band member sphere.  It was a type of corporate repression.

Mike, with that long beard did not resemble any striped-shirt "formula," (still being pushed in Europe) nor did the rest of them with those pork chop sideburns.  They were deep into consciousness raising and the socio-political scene with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. And Carl's battle over his conscientious objector status.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 08:29:02 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own.  

Not the collective group.  

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.
Where does that hypothetical come into play on what we're discussing? Suppose Brian had broken off from the band and had gone solo as was being hinted at as early as fall 1966, suppose Carl had his C.O. status rejected and had been drafted into the military or sent to prison instead of remaining with the band in 1967-68 when that was an ongoing issue putting the whole band's future in a state of limbo, suppose the band had in fact broken up as Brian said they almost did at times in 1967 and concerning issues like Surf's Up, what would any of them have done? What does that have to do with your questioning what David Anderle did or didn't do as a manager?
The "formula thing."  In the Badman and Rusten - Stebbins books, generally the same April, 28th, 1967 (I don't have the book available right now.) time lag up to the December, 1970 Gaumont Palace videos show that it is a "continuing offense" with the record company.  It is now edging to a full 4 years of "false representation" of the band.  

The earlier quotes from Brian, Mike, and Bruce kept falling on deaf ears.  For four years.  While they are being interviewed, they almost appear depressed and beaten by the record company, while describing the diverse venues and audiences they are playing for.  ( Gaumont Palace) So, my inference is that the "formula" was imposed from the "top down" rather concocted from the "inside" of the band member sphere.  It was a type of corporate repression.

Mike, with that long beard did not resemble any striped-shirt "formula," (still being pushed in Europe) nor did the rest of them with those pork chop sideburns.  They were deep into consciousness raising and the socio-political scene with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. And Carl's battle over his conscientious objector status.

And how is or was David Anderle responsible for that? He was the one who fired the first shot at Capitol in order to set up the band's own corporate structure to operate more independently especially related to their own projects and working with outside artists at the band's discretion. And through those efforts launched under the management of Anderle, the Beach Boys indeed got their own corporate structure and had their own label set up under the "Brother" name and label. Nick Grillo took over after Anderle. If anything Anderle got the band their own label and setup as of 1967, at a time when this was unheard of for pop musicians in their 20's to seek and win that much control in a corporate sense from a label.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own.  

Not the collective group.  

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.
Where does that hypothetical come into play on what we're discussing? Suppose Brian had broken off from the band and had gone solo as was being hinted at as early as fall 1966, suppose Carl had his C.O. status rejected and had been drafted into the military or sent to prison instead of remaining with the band in 1967-68 when that was an ongoing issue putting the whole band's future in a state of limbo, suppose the band had in fact broken up as Brian said they almost did at times in 1967 and concerning issues like Surf's Up, what would any of them have done? What does that have to do with your questioning what David Anderle did or didn't do as a manager?
The "formula thing."  In the Badman and Rusten - Stebbins books, generally the same April, 28th, 1967 (I don't have the book available right now.) time lag up to the December, 1970 Gaumont Palace videos show that it is a "continuing offense" with the record company.  It is now edging to a full 4 years of "false representation" of the band.  

The earlier quotes from Brian, Mike, and Bruce kept falling on deaf ears.  For four years.  While they are being interviewed, they almost appear depressed and beaten by the record company, while describing the diverse venues and audiences they are playing for.  ( Gaumont Palace) So, my inference is that the "formula" was imposed from the "top down" rather concocted from the "inside" of the band member sphere.  It was a type of corporate repression.

Mike, with that long beard did not resemble any striped-shirt "formula," (still being pushed in Europe) nor did the rest of them with those pork chop sideburns.  They were deep into consciousness raising and the socio-political scene with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. And Carl's battle over his conscientious objector status.

And how is or was David Anderle responsible for that? He was the one who fired the first shot at Capitol in order to set up the band's own corporate structure to operate more independently especially related to their own projects and working with outside artists at the band's discretion. And through those efforts launched under the management of Anderle, the Beach Boys indeed got their own corporate structure and had their own label set up under the "Brother" name and label. Nick Grillo took over after Anderle. If anything Anderle got the band their own label and setup as of 1967, at a time when this was unheard of for pop musicians in their 20's to seek and win that much control in a corporate sense from a label.
GF - I never blamed Anderle. Anderle was talking about "resistance" and Vosse talked about "confusion" and ultimate acceptance and hard work on the vocals.  I found Vosse's take on the situation, more reasonable and credible, given the "totality of the circumstances."

If the band is upset about the public perception of TIKH being released as a single, in Europe, post Pet Sounds, why, if possible couldn't Anderle have stopped that release in favor of something that actually "represented them" at that time? 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 11:57:26 AM
Nay, nay. Anderle was an "industry guy" - not an artist. (Even if he was a painter later in his life.)  So is it plausible that he didn't want to alienate a record company and take the chance of being "black-balled" in the clique of managers?  Whose interests was he advancing? Ultimately? His own.  

Not the collective group.  

Does that mean he wasn't a great guy? Of course not. But his position of manager within a class of people as industry managers  suggests "influence outside of the band."

I don't think is plausible or logical to make such suggestions considering David, acting as manager along with Nick Grillo working the books and Abe Sommers on the legal front had just successfully been fighting and eventually had won an uphill battle by successfully taking Capitol to task and exposing a practice that I had already explained earlier in this thread. They were David taking on and slaying Goliath in the guise of Capitol who had been ripping off the band through the "breakage clause" loophole that allowed them to take money from artists like the Beach Boys. The team Anderle assembled demanded an audit, found the discrepancies, had the ammunition to use, and filed the lawsuit which went public. That's how initially the band won a 6-figure settlement against Capitol and how Brother Records got set up officially...as part of the settlement.

Then later a similar case from those audits of the books found that Capitol had failed to pay producer royalties or "points" owed to Brian for his work on the BB's records, so that lawsuit also went through the system and scored upwards of a million in back payments owed to Brian for the work he never got paid for doing.

If anything, David Anderle was the one taking on the record company, exposing a nefarious practice they had been engaging in for years and skimming money from their artists, and taking money from Capitol to give to the rightful recipients like the Beach Boys and Brian.

I doubt the scenario as you described would have held true at that time in and around 1967 considering what actually happened.
GF - I absolutely did not ignore Anderle's whistleblower role. And think that is an important part of history.

The area is of concern is the difference between the band core (who have lived and died as Beach Boys) and an industry person who will "move on" once the "job" is done.  Or who might have divided interests, working for, Elektra, West Coast Talent, MGM Verve, A&M records, his own Willow Productions.  He was not a "one trick pony."

The Beach Boys, were in it for the long haul.

But I don't understand why you would say he didn't want to alienate the record company and risk getting blackballed after he had done (successfully for the band's interests) exactly what you suggested he wouldn't or didn't do, and in a public way that got picked up and reported widely in the press.
Say, The Beach Boys disbanded as did The Beatles?  Anderle would still move on inside the industry.  His skill set was different from theirs'.
Where does that hypothetical come into play on what we're discussing? Suppose Brian had broken off from the band and had gone solo as was being hinted at as early as fall 1966, suppose Carl had his C.O. status rejected and had been drafted into the military or sent to prison instead of remaining with the band in 1967-68 when that was an ongoing issue putting the whole band's future in a state of limbo, suppose the band had in fact broken up as Brian said they almost did at times in 1967 and concerning issues like Surf's Up, what would any of them have done? What does that have to do with your questioning what David Anderle did or didn't do as a manager?
The "formula thing."  In the Badman and Rusten - Stebbins books, generally the same April, 28th, 1967 (I don't have the book available right now.) time lag up to the December, 1970 Gaumont Palace videos show that it is a "continuing offense" with the record company.  It is now edging to a full 4 years of "false representation" of the band.  

The earlier quotes from Brian, Mike, and Bruce kept falling on deaf ears.  For four years.  While they are being interviewed, they almost appear depressed and beaten by the record company, while describing the diverse venues and audiences they are playing for.  ( Gaumont Palace) So, my inference is that the "formula" was imposed from the "top down" rather concocted from the "inside" of the band member sphere.  It was a type of corporate repression.

Mike, with that long beard did not resemble any striped-shirt "formula," (still being pushed in Europe) nor did the rest of them with those pork chop sideburns.  They were deep into consciousness raising and the socio-political scene with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. And Carl's battle over his conscientious objector status.

And how is or was David Anderle responsible for that? He was the one who fired the first shot at Capitol in order to set up the band's own corporate structure to operate more independently especially related to their own projects and working with outside artists at the band's discretion. And through those efforts launched under the management of Anderle, the Beach Boys indeed got their own corporate structure and had their own label set up under the "Brother" name and label. Nick Grillo took over after Anderle. If anything Anderle got the band their own label and setup as of 1967, at a time when this was unheard of for pop musicians in their 20's to seek and win that much control in a corporate sense from a label.
GF - I never blamed Anderle. Anderle was talking about "resistance" and Vosse talked about "confusion" and ultimate acceptance and hard work on the vocals.  I found Vosse's take on the situation, more reasonable and credible, given the "totality of the circumstances."

If the band is upset about the public perception of TIKH being released as a single, in Europe, post Pet Sounds, why, if possible couldn't Anderle have stopped that release in favor of something that actually "represented them" at that time?  

I don't know where this is going, but was it even possible for Anderle or anyone to stop EMI from issuing a single like this as a stop-gap release outside the US? The Beatles - also on EMI through the UK subsidiary Parlophone - had what I'd argue was even more clout as an artist than the Beach Boys and they couldn't stop Capitol from not only remixing their music but also re-sequencing their album releases, and spinning off singles from those albums which had nothing to do with the band's wishes or intent. Some think it was ended finally with both Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields and ultimately Sgt Pepper, both of which lined up with the band's wishes and matched the UK releases. However, even Magical Mystery Tour was turned from the EP length soundtrack the band released in the UK into a collection of the band's singles on "side B" when Capitol got hold of it for US release. The practice of remixing and re-sequencing going back to at least 1964 was really upsetting to the band, and led to probably the most obvious public protest of Capitol doing this stuff with the music in the form of the "Butcher Cover" which was promptly pulled and pasted over and replaced with a less controversial shot for US release.

So The Beatles couldn't change it even though they had both more clout to change it and more of a prolonged protest against Capitol doing these things once the music got outside the band's home country. That was under the EMI umbrella, just like Capitol was with the Beach Boys in the US versus the releases in some other countries and continents. It's a confusing mess to sort out. Then factor in Capitol even earlier in the 60's when the artist who basically opened Capitol in the 1950's and put his name on their first recording from "The Tower", Frank Sinatra, left Capitol to start his own Reprise. Capitol still had ownership of the music Sinatra had done for Capitol, and started putting out repackages and re-releases of his 50's stuff just as Frank was putting out his new music on his own new Reprise label. So you had a record bin with "new" Sinatra albums from both Capitol and Reprise at certain times in the 60's, even before "Then I Kissed Her" on EMI in Europe was an issue.

So how much of an issue was this, really? It was done perhaps against the band's wishes, but it would seem they were in good company since Capitol and other branches of EMI had done similar reissues and repackages against the artist's wishes if not in direct competition with the artist's current product with the Beatles and Sinatra. If the Beatles and Sinatra couldn't stop it to their satisfaction (at least in the Beatles' case), why are there suggestions that David Anderle is the one to blame for not stopping it for the Beach boys? Again, I'm not understanding where this is going.

Another point or two worth considering:

In September 1967 with Anderle out of the picture, the band operating as Brother Records with their own label to boot put out their second 45rpm single release, credited to Brian And Mike, "Gettin Hungry" b/w "Devoted To You". So the band, as a group decision and specifically released under the banner "produced by The Beach Boys", releases a single from the then-new Beach Boys album Smiley Smile, backs it up with an album cut pulled from the then-two-year-old "Party!" release, and puts it out not as The Beach Boys but as "Brian & Mike"? How-what-why-WTF...etc.? If EMI pulling Then I Kissed Her from a 1965 album and making it a single in Europe, Africa, and Asia (several countries where it went top-10) was such a negative thing to the band or against them, why did the band then do the same thing by pulling and re-labeling an old album cut, and done under even more confusing circumstances as the credit on the single didn;t match the credit on the album, all decided and done when they were calling the shots as Brother on the Brother label?

In 1974, Capitol put out Endless Summer and couldn't even be bothered to find a master of "Help Me Rhonda" for the single/radio mix everyone knew and which the band had been playing live for years, but instead substituted "Help Me Ronda", the more bland album version instead. The band and their managers at that time had some say in what got released, I'd think - Why wasn't there more of a fight then to get the correct Rhonda mix on the release? Or simply a demand that if Capitol couldn't locate the 45rpm mix masters, to either find them or replace the track entirely with something they actually did have a master available for to press? Again, Capitol went with an inferior "Ronda", does anyone blame one of the Love brothers managing the band at that time or anyone else for not demanding the right mixes be used and approved? or did they approve it anyway...whatever the case.

It's baffling to me why David Anderle is the one getting called out for a non-US EMI single release that ultimately meant little or nothing, was barely an issue in the US, and which ended up going top-ten and even top-5 in at least half of the regions that did see the release in 1967. I guess I'm just not getting it.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: filledeplage on August 25, 2015, 12:30:27 PM
GF - I'm not calling Anderle out. I'm examining the inconsistencies in the remarks.  Anderle says "resistant" and Vosse says "confusion." One image ( the real image) in the States is "progressive" and in the UK is "regressive." The U.S. Press is full of coverage of Carl the Draft Dodger, which means he is in war protest mode.  And Capitol releases stuff, not penned by Brian (to his and their public chagrin) to the UK that is irrelevant, in terms of time, on every level.

The Brian, Mike and Bruce quotes in April of 1967 indicate puzzlement with releasing TIKH, alongside a UK tour post Pet Sounds. The sales are of no consequence to me.  The imaging is striped shirts that were already gone, in fact but being played up and being criticized in the UK press as passé.  I have an earlier post in this thread, with those UK quotes from a music reviewer.  And the interview four years post from Gaumont Palace is filled with frustration and almost contempt, by Mike, Carl, Dennis and Al, in 1970, for being stereotyped as beach, surf, and cars music, after they grew demonstrably after those phases, earlier in time.

There are contradictions and inconsistencies, all over the place. And they made public statements consistent with that window of time. Records that they didn't want out there, with better quality material available, in their view.  That is where I'm going.  It appears that they don't have artistic control of what is going on, in terms of records being released, and imaging that is being projected overseas.

And, I have somewhere, the single Gettin' Hungry that you mention.  It was a weird release.  And, there was some talk of a solo Brian career for a very short time.  A lot of groups had the band leader's break off from their bands.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on August 25, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.  THAT was strange to me...as was the previously released 'Caroline No' by some guy named Brian Wilson.  [Both songs were on Beach Boys albums obviously although maybe 'Caroline No' beat the release of Pet Sounds by a few days/weeks.  Smiley Smile was out before the other single in question was issued]

The Boys had their own record company moving to try and get things organized as Capitol figured they were 'history' and just tossed everything at the wall to see if anything would  stick.  Everybody LOST.  Anderle wasn't there to set things up and then leave.  He was going to run Brother Records.  And run properly it could have provided him with all he needed for the rest of his professional life.  Of course THAT would have been the best case scenario.  Anderle's 'take' on things was as accurate as it gets.  Until he and Brian had their 'falling out'  NOBODY was more 'inside' than David Anderle.  What a catastrophe!!!  What a shame.  What a waste.  What a PISSER!!!!!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 25, 2015, 02:26:31 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.  THAT was strange to me...as was the previously released 'Caroline No' by some guy named Brian Wilson.  [Both songs were on Beach Boys albums obviously although maybe 'Caroline No' beat the release of Pet Sounds by a few days/weeks.  Smiley Smile was out before the other single in question was issued]

The Boys had their own record company moving to try and get things organized as Capitol figured they were 'history' and just tossed everything at the wall to see if anything would  stick.  Everybody LOST.  Anderle wasn't there to set things up and then leave.  He was going to run Brother Records.  And run properly it could have provided him with all he needed for the rest of his professional life.  Of course THAT would have been the best case scenario.  Anderle's 'take' on things was as accurate as it gets.  Until he and Brian had their 'falling out'  NOBODY was more 'inside' than David Anderle.  What a catastrophe!!!  What a shame.  What a waste.  What a PISSER!!!!!

The true answer to why Gettin' Hungry was released as "Brian and Mike" must be out there somewhere. I think it seems like a statement was trying to be made just as much as the Caroline No single was trying to make a statement.

Are Brian and Mike the only people who would know? I'm guessing that's the case. Maybe Mike would let someone know if he was asked. I doubt Brian would address it, but maybe he would. I wonder if any fanboy/girl has ever asked him over 48 years.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 25, 2015, 02:49:08 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.  THAT was strange to me...as was the previously released 'Caroline No' by some guy named Brian Wilson.  [Both songs were on Beach Boys albums obviously although maybe 'Caroline No' beat the release of Pet Sounds by a few days/weeks.  Smiley Smile was out before the other single in question was issued]

The Boys had their own record company moving to try and get things organized as Capitol figured they were 'history' and just tossed everything at the wall to see if anything would  stick.  Everybody LOST.  Anderle wasn't there to set things up and then leave.  He was going to run Brother Records.  And run properly it could have provided him with all he needed for the rest of his professional life.  Of course THAT would have been the best case scenario.  Anderle's 'take' on things was as accurate as it gets.  Until he and Brian had their 'falling out'  NOBODY was more 'inside' than David Anderle.  What a catastrophe!!!  What a shame.  What a waste.  What a PISSER!!!!!

The true answer to why Gettin' Hungry was released as "Brian and Mike" must be out there somewhere. I think it seems like a statement was trying to be made just as much as the Caroline No single was trying to make a statement.

Are Brian and Mike the only people who would know? I'm guessing that's the case. Maybe Mike would let someone know if he was asked. I doubt Brian would address it, but maybe he would. I wonder if any fanboy/girl has ever asked him over 48 years.

There is a PS era Brian interview out there where Brian explains it as something like it was a plan to put out an occasional BBs' single with individual Boys names on it. Apparently the plan only got as far as C,N and GH.

Edit: Well, I haven't found that one but I found another explanation for C,N:

“Actually it’s an album track that we thought was good enough for a single. We’re releasing it under my name because there’ll be another
Beach Boys single out soon”, Brian explained as he and Tracy Thomas drove in his “daffodil” Jaguar from a recording session."   NME 3/11/66


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 25, 2015, 03:21:30 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.  THAT was strange to me...as was the previously released 'Caroline No' by some guy named Brian Wilson.  [Both songs were on Beach Boys albums obviously although maybe 'Caroline No' beat the release of Pet Sounds by a few days/weeks.  Smiley Smile was out before the other single in question was issued]

The Boys had their own record company moving to try and get things organized as Capitol figured they were 'history' and just tossed everything at the wall to see if anything would  stick.  Everybody LOST.  Anderle wasn't there to set things up and then leave.  He was going to run Brother Records.  And run properly it could have provided him with all he needed for the rest of his professional life.  Of course THAT would have been the best case scenario.  Anderle's 'take' on things was as accurate as it gets.  Until he and Brian had their 'falling out'  NOBODY was more 'inside' than David Anderle.  What a catastrophe!!!  What a shame.  What a waste.  What a PISSER!!!!!

The true answer to why Gettin' Hungry was released as "Brian and Mike" must be out there somewhere. I think it seems like a statement was trying to be made just as much as the Caroline No single was trying to make a statement.

Are Brian and Mike the only people who would know? I'm guessing that's the case. Maybe Mike would let someone know if he was asked. I doubt Brian would address it, but maybe he would. I wonder if any fanboy/girl has ever asked him over 48 years.

There is a PS era Brian interview out there where Brian explains it as something like it was a plan to put out an occasional BBs' single with individual Boys names on it. Apparently the plan only got as far as C,N and GH.

Edit: Well, I haven't found that one but I found another explanation for C,N:

“Actually it’s an album track that we thought was good enough for a single. We’re releasing it under my name because there’ll be another
Beach Boys single out soon”, Brian explained as he and Tracy Thomas drove in his “daffodil” Jaguar from a recording session."   NME 3/11/66

That's basically a complete non-reason, and I don't really buy it. Here's the thing... if Brian was "testing the waters" so to speak, would he have wanted to make that a publicly known thing? And deal with potentially awkward followup questions about the motives? I'd guess no, so whatever the true reason(s) for it, I don't think Brian or the band would have let become fully public.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 25, 2015, 03:38:16 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.

Nope. Brother 1002.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Cam Mott on August 25, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
That's basically a complete non-reason, and I don't really buy it. Here's the thing... if Brian was "testing the waters" so to speak, would he have wanted to make that a publicly known thing? And deal with potentially awkward followup questions about the motives? I'd guess no, so whatever the true reason(s) for it, I don't think Brian or the band would have let become fully public.

OK.

(crickets)

(tumbleweed)

Did you realize that C,N was released on March 7 and SJB on March 21?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on August 25, 2015, 06:33:09 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.

Nope. Brother 1002.

Still came out on the old yellow/orange Capitol 'swirl' in Canada Andrew.  Likely on behalf of Brother...but except for the fine print...it was hard to tell the difference.  Sunflower was the first lp I saw that wasn't on a Capitol, black with the multi coloured rim, album label too.  Smiley, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20 all had the Capitol 'look'.  Live in London too.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 25, 2015, 06:49:36 PM
That's basically a complete non-reason, and I don't really buy it. Here's the thing... if Brian was "testing the waters" so to speak, would he have wanted to make that a publicly known thing? And deal with potentially awkward followup questions about the motives? I'd guess no, so whatever the true reason(s) for it, I don't think Brian or the band would have let become fully public.

OK.

(crickets)

(tumbleweed)

Did you realize that C,N was released on March 7 and SJB on March 21?

Fair enough. But it's also worth noting that Brian is the only vocal band member on his first solo outing, which of course makes sense for that to be the case. I doubt it happened solely just for the hell of it.  Because if by some fluke it had done some major chart action, that could have caused a chain reaction of all sorts of things that could've happened as a result.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on August 25, 2015, 08:12:01 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.

Nope. Brother 1002.

Still came out on the old yellow/orange Capitol 'swirl' in Canada Andrew.  Likely on behalf of Brother...but except for the fine print...it was hard to tell the difference.  Sunflower was the first lp I saw that wasn't on a Capitol, black with the multi coloured rim, album label too.  Smiley, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20 all had the Capitol 'look'.  Live in London too.

(http://www.beachboys45.nl/pic/Canada%20regular/03.%20Capitol/1967-69/1002_A%20%20Gettin'%20Hungry%20%28BW%20&%20ML%29%20%20XX.jpg)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 27, 2015, 12:46:17 PM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.

Nope. Brother 1002

Still came out on the old yellow/orange Capitol 'swirl' in Canada Andrew. 

Not relevant, as Canada isn't the canonical discography, any more than the UK is. In the US it was on the Brother label.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: terrei on June 12, 2017, 09:46:42 AM
From Mike's book:

Quote
By the time Leaf's book was published, Anderle told Leaf that my quote “was taken slightly out of context.” It was still used.

When and where did Anderle say this exactly? And what was his full explanation?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on June 12, 2017, 10:09:32 AM
But then again, Mike claim Anderle stole the BBs catalog for A&M Records. ::)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 12, 2017, 11:10:32 AM
From Mike's book:

Quote
By the time Leaf's book was published, Anderle told Leaf that my quote “was taken slightly out of context.” It was still used.

When and where did Anderle say this exactly? And what was his full explanation?

Did Mike ever claim that this wasn't at least insinuated (by him, to Brian) to a point?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: cube_monkey on June 12, 2017, 11:30:49 AM
From another perspective.  I was the dumb public at the time and  in my early teens.  My friends big brother had the 2fer set Pet Sounds/Carl and the Passions.  Being clueless,  We put on the Carl and the Passions record and we didn't know who "these people" were. :)  Then once we got it,  we thought they changed the name of the band to Carl and the Passions. :)     We wore out the record
listening to it so much. :)   




Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: terrei on June 12, 2017, 11:38:19 AM
The quote was allegedly printed for the first time in the 1971 Nolan article. In the context it was invoked, Anderle seemed to have been talking about the business formula, not the music formula, although there was a mention that the other Beach Boys were "freaked out" by Brian's new music. In the other Anderle statements from 1968, there is no ambiguity on the subject. "Don't f*** with the formula" = "let's go back to boy-girl surf songs".

So why did Anderle say that the quote was taken out of context? In his belief, what was the "formula" that was being "f***ed with"?

(Almost all of the quotations in Mike's book were public statements. I don't know if "taken slightly out of context" was printed anywhere, but I assume it can be found in Leaf's book. How else would Mike know what Anderle said to Leaf?)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 12, 2017, 12:09:48 PM

 In the other Anderle statements from 1968, there is no ambiguity on the subject. "Don't f*** with the formula" = "let's go back to boy-girl surf songs".
 

At minimum, I don't know how there can be *any* doubt that it was absolutely Mike's desire for the formula to be that Mike should be the primary person writing songs with Brian. At the very, very least, the formula for Mike must be that Mike has regular songwriting input. He can want that all he wants, he just has to own it. Mike's even trying to insinuate that Pet Sounds needed more Mike writing input. Even now with 50 year hindsight, he says this stuff; it sounds like a caricature of Mike, a joke that some troll would make up, but it's actually legit.

Does anyone think Mike wasn't guilt tripping his cousin into trying to make sure that BW/ML collabs would happen? To this day, Mike keeps harping about broken promises to get to write with Brian in the manner that Mike chooses; and he keeps bringing up the "winning formula" of Brian and Mike being the "ideal".

Based on so, so many interviews and actions of Mike, how is a stretch for anyone to think that Mike was then and is now a guy who wants that above formula to not be f*cked with?

I just don't see how it's even a question of that being his desire. Whether we define the formula as boy/girl songs, surf/car songs, or Brian/Mike songs, no matter how one spins it, those all in some way are formulas that Mike has always desired not be changed. He has every right to want that, but he is absurd to imply that such a quote is some sort of absurd stretch of the imagination seeing as he is so absolutely, unquestionably hung up on the Brian/Mike songwriting partnership formula.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: terrei on June 12, 2017, 12:37:23 PM
I don't see anything stated by Anderle on that point. From the book Words and Music of Brian Wilson (2017) (the only other source I can find for the quote being "taken out of context"):

Quote
“Don't f*** with the formula,” a quote frequently attributed to Mike Love was a reminder that Brian should not forget what brought success, fame, and riches to the band: namely, a winning formula that encompassed themes of fun, sun, surf, cars.  Anderle believes this quote has been taken out of context, as Mike was focused on the bottom line and less concerned with the “artistic” side of the business equation.

So by "bottom line", "don't f*** with the formula" = "don't leave me out of royalties for this album"? Is that really what Anderle meant? Would like a direct quote to be 100% sure. From the Nolan article:

Quote
Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula."

I'm still not sure how this is "out of context".


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: thorgil on June 14, 2017, 04:35:59 AM
It's such a pity that Mike didn't ask for Al Jardiine's collaboration on this formula thing.
The result would have been that the infamous "Don't .... with the formula" would have been replaced by a much gentler (and cleaner, of course) "Don't go near the formula".
So, Brian would not have been shocked, and on the contrary would have felt more than justified in staying the heck away from the formula (if you take my meaning).
So, maybe history as we know it would have changed for the better.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: terrei on June 15, 2017, 04:58:49 AM
I've tried looking for a contemporary quote - from anybody - saying something along the lines of "Mike was jealous of Brian's collaborators." No dice. Makes one wonder!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on June 15, 2017, 06:01:13 AM
I don't think people realized how deranged Mike was about that yet...


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: HeyJude on June 15, 2017, 08:29:11 AM
I've tried looking for a contemporary quote - from anybody - saying something along the lines of "Mike was jealous of Brian's collaborators." No dice. Makes one wonder!

Well, it might be less "jealous" and more "intensely annoyed to the point of possible seething anger", but Mike has gone on record as not liking the 2012 setup of Brian collaborating mostly with Joe Thomas, and we have comments from him relatively contemporary to that (2012/2013). In fact it has been mostly if not exclusively Mike that has raised this as an issue.

Also, I think trying to look for *contemporary* comments (where the comments would have to be more like "Mike *is* presently jealous of Brian's *current* collaborator") isn't the best way to determine how Mike felt and ultimately feels. During any given album/project/era, the participants are less likely to air grievances. It's years and decades later that the pent-up frustration and annoyance and scorn comes out. To that end, this exchange during Mike's epic 1992 Goldmine interview is quite interesting:

Q: Were you disappointed when Brian would collaborate with other lyricists like Van Dyke Parks, Tony Asher and Roger Christian?

A: I was not happy about it but in the case of Roger Christian I wasn't as into the terminology of cars as he was. I wrote "I Get Around," which is, I guess, a cruising song, but it's more generic. It's not "competition clutch with four on the floor." I wasn't into hot rods to the extent that Roger Christian was so he provided some lyrical content to support Brian's musical abilities, so that was good. But when I did come up with a hook or some lyrics it's funny 'cause it was almost like it was not recognized. It was definitely not legally recognized.

Q: How about the case of Tony Asher writing Pet Sounds?

A: Now, that was a different story. When it got to that period of Brian's life that's when he started doing a lot of drugs. We were touring a lot and we'd come back in and do an album like Pet Sounds, for instance, and some of the words were so totally offensive to me that I wouldn't even sing 'em because I though it was too nauseating.



I'm well aware that Mike was extra full of piss and vinegar in this 1992 interview; super fired up and angry as he geared up for the songwriting lawsuit. But still, it's telling that the first words out of his mouth when asked about Brian's outside collaborators were "I was not happy about it." Yes, he goes on to offer explanations for some of his concerns, or some level of understanding of why other lyricists were needed. But underlying it all is that it seems on a fundamental level that he was "not happy about" Brian working with other lyricists.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on June 15, 2017, 09:23:30 AM
I seem to recall 'Gettin' Hungry' being a Capitol label Brian Wilson/Mike Love release rather than a Beach Boys release.

Nope. Brother 1002.

It was definitely released via Capitol [the orange/yellow swirl label] in Canada.  Meanwhile not fucking with the formula put jerk dinosaur vendors outta business back in the day.  Jerk chicken took over.  Jerks who suggest that fucking with the formula is a bad idea usually end up stuck in yesterdays quagmire for ever...and a day...until they die from being encased in old mould.  [and hats].

[again mould is spelled mould in the English language.  what language do you speak?]  Mold?  My ass!!!

--------------------------------------

Oh and scrolling up...I see this whole Capitol/Brother question has been resolved as G.F. posted the PROOF that I was 100% right... [as I usually am about that 'love' guy as well.] ...and that Andrew was wrong.  [as he is generally...regarding that so-called 'love' guy.  ;)]  That's probably entirely unfair of me as Andrew can't respond but heh!!!  It's not often one can top Mr. Doe on details...although as far as that other guy is concerned...it's a cakewalk.  [and has been for at least the 14 years we've interacted.]  The careholder of the formula is more than welcome, as always, to go f*** himself... ... ...thrice.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on June 15, 2017, 09:30:12 AM
Jude, I am going to start calling Mike "old salty".... :hat


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 15, 2017, 02:17:10 PM
I've tried looking for a contemporary quote - from anybody - saying something along the lines of "Mike was jealous of Brian's collaborators." No dice. Makes one wonder!

Well, it might be less "jealous" and more "intensely annoyed to the point of possible seething anger", but Mike has gone on record as not liking the 2012 setup of Brian collaborating mostly with Joe Thomas, and we have comments from him relatively contemporary to that (2012/2013). In fact it has been mostly if not exclusively Mike that has raised this as an issue.

Also, I think trying to look for *contemporary* comments (where the comments would have to be more like "Mike *is* presently jealous of Brian's *current* collaborator") isn't the best way to determine how Mike felt and ultimately feels. During any given album/project/era, the participants are less likely to air grievances. It's years and decades later that the pent-up frustration and annoyance and scorn comes out. To that end, this exchange during Mike's epic 1992 Goldmine interview is quite interesting:

Q: Were you disappointed when Brian would collaborate with other lyricists like Van Dyke Parks, Tony Asher and Roger Christian?

A: I was not happy about it but in the case of Roger Christian I wasn't as into the terminology of cars as he was. I wrote "I Get Around," which is, I guess, a cruising song, but it's more generic. It's not "competition clutch with four on the floor." I wasn't into hot rods to the extent that Roger Christian was so he provided some lyrical content to support Brian's musical abilities, so that was good. But when I did come up with a hook or some lyrics it's funny 'cause it was almost like it was not recognized. It was definitely not legally recognized.

Q: How about the case of Tony Asher writing Pet Sounds?

A: Now, that was a different story. When it got to that period of Brian's life that's when he started doing a lot of drugs. We were touring a lot and we'd come back in and do an album like Pet Sounds, for instance, and some of the words were so totally offensive to me that I wouldn't even sing 'em because I though it was too nauseating.



I'm well aware that Mike was extra full of piss and vinegar in this 1992 interview; super fired up and angry as he geared up for the songwriting lawsuit. But still, it's telling that the first words out of his mouth when asked about Brian's outside collaborators were "I was not happy about it." Yes, he goes on to offer explanations for some of his concerns, or some level of understanding of why other lyricists were needed. But underlying it all is that it seems on a fundamental level that he was "not happy about" Brian working with other lyricists.

My takeaway from this interview (again, with the awareness that it was during an intensely bad time in their relationship) is that Mike sort of "granted a pass" to Brian for Mike conceding it was acceptable to Mike for Brian to work with Roger Christian, simply because this one lyrical topic was something that Mike admittedly wasn't really capable of (writing about specific mechanical car lingo).  Real nice of him to actually say that Brian was, you know, actually justified to write with whoever the hell Brian wanted to write with.

To me as an outsider, it seems like Brian working with other people must have been something that Brian may have felt he had to "justify" to Mike, or else there'd be some real judgmental passive-aggressive stuff coming from Mike. I can only imagine how draining it must be to have to feel as though your bandmate is - at their whim - just deciding that it's ok in this one instance, but no ok in this other instance, for you to collaborate with other people.

F*ck. That. Sh*t.

It's a classic case of creative differences, but further compounded by jealousy; beyond the instance of giving Brian a "pass" to write with Roger about car lingo, Mike doesn't seem to want to concede that other lyricists might have been a better fit than himself for Brian for any other portion in their catalog. Even for the universally-lauded Pet Sounds, he currently talks about missed opportunities to shoehorn in his lyrical input.

I tell you what... we are VERY lucky that Mike doesn't have the legal right to pull a "Let it Be...Naked" type of deal, because if left up to his own devices, one might think Mike would take the Pet Sounds original backing tracks, and sing some new Mike lyrics to "improve" upon the original Asher lyrics, and try to get this released. If he didn't have a blockade of resistance, I would not doubt this could actually cross his mind.

All due respect to Mike's lyrical talents, for which he has indeed written some fine lyrics over the years. No doubt about it. I'll criticize the hell out of his behavior and how I think that impacted Brian and the band, but I will never try to take away praise for him where it's properly due.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on June 15, 2017, 06:28:01 PM
One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on June 15, 2017, 08:12:12 PM

Talk about hitting the nail on the proverbial head, GF just did. +10


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Kid Presentable on June 15, 2017, 11:55:18 PM
One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.

As I look at it, a lot of this conflict is less about Mike "wanting to be the leader" and more about Brian absolutely not wanting to be the leader of "Beach Boys Proper" as years went on.  In that sense, if you were Mike, how would you behave?  You would probably think that you were a very good choice to fill whatever vacuum that Brian started leaving as the 60s went on.  (which is obviously very arguable)

Also, I always viewed "the formula" as being less about specific notions like writing surf/girl hits, and more as an abstract concept of how Mike viewed their band "organically" and how they always went about their business throughout the early and mid-60s. 

I wish they would have just given Brian the space to be a solo artist in the late 60s while throwing the BBs some songs for their albums each year, and let Mike and whoever horse around with the name and a touring band in the same manner that he does nowadays.  Then again I also wish they would have spun off a part-time power trio called Wilson. 


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: terrei on June 16, 2017, 08:59:29 AM
Thanks for those quotes, HeyJude. Better than what I was looking for.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: GhostyTMRS on June 16, 2017, 05:56:37 PM
One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.

As I look at it, a lot of this conflict is less about Mike "wanting to be the leader" and more about Brian absolutely not wanting to be the leader of "Beach Boys Proper" as years went on.  In that sense, if you were Mike, how would you behave?  You would probably think that you were a very good choice to fill whatever vacuum that Brian started leaving as the 60s went on.  (which is obviously very arguable)

Also, I always viewed "the formula" as being less about specific notions like writing surf/girl hits, and more as an abstract concept of how Mike viewed their band "organically" and how they always went about their business throughout the early and mid-60s. 

I wish they would have just given Brian the space to be a solo artist in the late 60s while throwing the BBs some songs for their albums each year, and let Mike and whoever horse around with the name and a touring band in the same manner that he does nowadays.  Then again I also wish they would have spun off a part-time power trio called Wilson. 

I agree with some of this. I DO think Mike viewed himself (and probably still does) as something like the co-captain of The Beach Boys along with Brian: a kind of rock and roll George and Ira Gershwin. Obviously Brian did not see it that way...and I have to wonder if Brian felt too intimidated to just come right out and say that to Mike. I don't mean intimidated just by Mike but by the rest of his family, the band, etc. (you've got that whole Love family vs Wilson family competitiveness going on in the background. It would have made family gatherings unbearably awkward that's for sure).
I think some pretense was kept up that Mike was Brian's main collaborator when that was clearly no longer the case, possibly as a way to placate Mike and/or placate the family. In a way, that continued into the 70's by which time Brian and Mike were almost like entirely different people and could never recapture what they had in the early 60's. When they tried to duplicate past victories, it never came close. Pleasant but never the same. 

And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.
 
   


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on June 16, 2017, 07:07:09 PM
What hurt Brian was the fact that he was and is very non-confrontational. An admirable trait (and one that I myself share) but that can cause issues big time (again, I can personally relate). If Brian had stood up to Mike (and Landy, for that matter) things would have been very different.

Quote
And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.

Me too, and eventually Al would've likely joined up.  To this day, I don't know WHY the band stayed together for so many years when they really should've split, yet split in 2012 when they really should have stayed together. Go fig.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on June 17, 2017, 06:05:22 AM
What hurt Brian was the fact that he was and is very non-confrontational. An admirable trait (and one that I myself share) but that can cause issues big time (again, I can personally relate). If Brian had stood up to Mike (and Landy, for that matter) things would have been very different.

Quote
And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.

Me too, and eventually Al would've likely joined up.  To this day, I don't know WHY the band stayed together for so many years when they really should've split, yet split in 2012 when they really should have stayed together. Go fig.

So Billy...go pee up a tree. ;) :lol :p
YA!!!  The Wilsons would have made for a terrific triumvirate...if they hadn't had that issues issue.
Some of the 'group' were more loyal that a certain [unnamed] cousin has really ever been...well...at least for the past 50 years.  And in splitting up the band in 2012...wasn't THAT the ultimate in terms of fucking with the formula?  Dumb f*cker!!!


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on June 17, 2017, 09:26:19 AM
One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.

As I look at it, a lot of this conflict is less about Mike "wanting to be the leader" and more about Brian absolutely not wanting to be the leader of "Beach Boys Proper" as years went on.  In that sense, if you were Mike, how would you behave?  You would probably think that you were a very good choice to fill whatever vacuum that Brian started leaving as the 60s went on.  (which is obviously very arguable)

Also, I always viewed "the formula" as being less about specific notions like writing surf/girl hits, and more as an abstract concept of how Mike viewed their band "organically" and how they always went about their business throughout the early and mid-60s. 

I wish they would have just given Brian the space to be a solo artist in the late 60s while throwing the BBs some songs for their albums each year, and let Mike and whoever horse around with the name and a touring band in the same manner that he does nowadays.  Then again I also wish they would have spun off a part-time power trio called Wilson. 

I agree with some of this. I DO think Mike viewed himself (and probably still does) as something like the co-captain of The Beach Boys along with Brian: a kind of rock and roll George and Ira Gershwin. Obviously Brian did not see it that way...and I have to wonder if Brian felt too intimidated to just come right out and say that to Mike. I don't mean intimidated just by Mike but by the rest of his family, the band, etc. (you've got that whole Love family vs Wilson family competitiveness going on in the background. It would have made family gatherings unbearably awkward that's for sure).
I think some pretense was kept up that Mike was Brian's main collaborator when that was clearly no longer the case, possibly as a way to placate Mike and/or placate the family. In a way, that continued into the 70's by which time Brian and Mike were almost like entirely different people and could never recapture what they had in the early 60's. When they tried to duplicate past victories, it never came close. Pleasant but never the same. 

And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.
 
   

Oh I think that combination of ego and wanting to be seen as or considered the leader has played a role in the history of the band and Mike for a very long time. Look at the press releases, official bios, etc even to this day. There is always some reference to Mike being the "captain" of the ship, steering it through rough waters, all of that hyperbole. And in modern times, the telling of the story usually reverts to some reference of the Wilson brothers and the drugs, suggesting Mike's steady hand as skipper of the ship helped guide them through the rough seas. And look at the 70's period, Grillo gets axed as manager, Reiley takes over, Reiley puts Mike more into the back shadows of the band musically and live, then boom - he's gone and Mike's brothers get management roles. And even that eventually went to hell. It's been, what, close to 35-40 years and the Love brothers are still estranged.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on June 17, 2017, 09:30:30 AM
Mike and his brothers running things was more like shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.... ;)


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on June 17, 2017, 09:40:09 AM
It's kind of funny to trace at least two watershed moments in the band's history in terms of something that happened out of the blue as a fluke or just one of those winning lottery ticket scenarios where a "comeback" happened, followed by Mike's desire to repeat it, followed by the ship hitting an iceberg. Endless Summer, Kokomo are the two most obvious I'd say. This is just my opinion of course, but both were taken as a mandate or considered the "formula" for sales spikes and popular success after a drought, and what followed in both cases pretty much almost sunk the band. Or in some ways the attempted follow ups did scupper what was built up in terms of public image. The captain of the ship, indeed. Move those deck chairs.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: SMiLE Brian on June 17, 2017, 09:57:10 AM
What is the formula anyway, BW's inspired songs from the 1960s have nothing in common with the Kokomo era stuff anyway. The Love Titanic was quite the disaster in 1992.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: The Lovester on June 17, 2017, 10:19:20 AM
It's kind of funny to trace at least two watershed moments in the band's history in terms of something that happened out of the blue as a fluke or just one of those winning lottery ticket scenarios where a "comeback" happened, followed by Mike's desire to repeat it, followed by the ship hitting an iceberg. Endless Summer, Kokomo are the two most obvious I'd say. This is just my opinion of course, but both were taken as a mandate or considered the "formula" for sales spikes and popular success after a drought, and what followed in both cases pretty much almost sunk the band. Or in some ways the attempted follow ups did scupper what was built up in terms of public image. The captain of the ship, indeed. Move those deck chairs.
What did Mike do after Endless Summer to try to recreate the success? I don't think the "ship hitting an iceberg" after the comp. came out had anything to do with Mike.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on June 17, 2017, 10:25:24 AM
The very notion of a "formula" is the exact opposite of the way the true classics of popular music and legendary creations like Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Ziggy Stardust, Dark Side Of The Moon, etc were envisioned and created. If such a thing as a "formula" were codified and followed, we would not be celebrating the landmark anniversaries of those albums as we are in 2017.

Going against the formula, if one was defined, was what led to those albums and others like it which are in the upper echelon of music as art. And that extends from not only the music, but also the technology, the visuals, the presentation overall, etc.

Following the formula as a guiding principle is what leads to misguided attempts to repeat previous success by thinking elements which went into those successes were more responsible than what really was.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Bill30022 on June 17, 2017, 09:48:29 PM
One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.

As I look at it, a lot of this conflict is less about Mike "wanting to be the leader" and more about Brian absolutely not wanting to be the leader of "Beach Boys Proper" as years went on.  In that sense, if you were Mike, how would you behave?  You would probably think that you were a very good choice to fill whatever vacuum that Brian started leaving as the 60s went on.  (which is obviously very arguable)

Also, I always viewed "the formula" as being less about specific notions like writing surf/girl hits, and more as an abstract concept of how Mike viewed their band "organically" and how they always went about their business throughout the early and mid-60s. 

I wish they would have just given Brian the space to be a solo artist in the late 60s while throwing the BBs some songs for their albums each year, and let Mike and whoever horse around with the name and a touring band in the same manner that he does nowadays.  Then again I also wish they would have spun off a part-time power trio called Wilson. 

I agree with some of this. I DO think Mike viewed himself (and probably still does) as something like the co-captain of The Beach Boys along with Brian: a kind of rock and roll George and Ira Gershwin. Obviously Brian did not see it that way...and I have to wonder if Brian felt too intimidated to just come right out and say that to Mike. I don't mean intimidated just by Mike but by the rest of his family, the band, etc. (you've got that whole Love family vs Wilson family competitiveness going on in the background. It would have made family gatherings unbearably awkward that's for sure).
I think some pretense was kept up that Mike was Brian's main collaborator when that was clearly no longer the case, possibly as a way to placate Mike and/or placate the family. In a way, that continued into the 70's by which time Brian and Mike were almost like entirely different people and could never recapture what they had in the early 60's. When they tried to duplicate past victories, it never came close. Pleasant but never the same. 

And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.

Actually, I think that from Brian's withdrawal until around 1976 Carl was acknowledged as the leader of the  Beach Boys.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on June 18, 2017, 06:06:09 AM
True.  He was.  And even after that Carl led the entire ensemble through their paces on stage.  W/O Carl they would collectively trip, stumble, bumble and fall.  That love guy is no more a BAND leader than a faulty metronome.   W/O Scott the current rendition would be sunk.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: guitarfool2002 on June 18, 2017, 10:01:17 AM
It feels like elements of the same power play mentality that has been in place since Reiley's firing are still playing out and have in some ways hampered the band as a result. I think there is no doubt Carl was the leader in terms of the actual music up to where he could no longer do it, specifically the live band, after Brian stepped back. But that was only one element of the business especially when there were two Love brothers in positions of management in the 70's making decisions and the third brother trying to project himself as leader on the inner workings as much as the "frontman" on stage.

Up to the present day bios and press releases and all of that jazz, it still can read like Mike has been the skipper or captain of the band and the live shows for 50+ years, and the question is what about Carl, the musician who actually did lead the live band for most of that time until he could no longer do it?


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: Lee Marshall on June 18, 2017, 10:57:42 AM
And...ON STAGE...Mike still doesn't lead the band'.  He's just a talking head...who sings through his blinkin' nose.


Title: Re: Don't F**k With the Formula
Post by: clack on June 19, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
The very notion of a "formula" is the exact opposite of the way the true classics of popular music and legendary creations like Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Ziggy Stardust, Dark Side Of The Moon, etc were envisioned and created. If such a thing as a "formula" were codified and followed, we would not be celebrating the landmark anniversaries of those albums as we are in 2017.

Going against the formula, if one was defined, was what led to those albums and others like it which are in the upper echelon of music as art. And that extends from not only the music, but also the technology, the visuals, the presentation overall, etc.

Following the formula as a guiding principle is what leads to misguided attempts to repeat previous success by thinking elements which went into those successes were more responsible than what really was.
The formula, prior to 1965, was that the lyrics would be from the point of view of a teenager. That formula began to change with the Stones, Dylan, the Byrds, 'Rubber Soul', etc.

'Pet Sounds' was written from the perspective of someone Brian's age, early 20s, with the concerns of a young man, and not those of someone in high school. The music industry was discovering that if the songwriters wrote from their own perspective, adopting the voice of someone their own age, that teenagers would still buy the record, and that now college-age people would as well. Thus, the rise of the lp.