The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: mammy blue on November 24, 2016, 06:12:11 AM



Title: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, "California Girls"
Post by: mammy blue on November 24, 2016, 06:12:11 AM
The following is just one man's opinion.

I woke up this morning thinking about why I tend to be so ambivalent about the song "California Girls".

The majestic instrumental opening is one of the great turning points of Brian's career as a writer/producer, a doorway leading to a new world.

The basic track and ethereal backing vocals are sublime from start to finish.

The problem as I boil it down is simply this: most of us know that "California Girls" was the first track Brian wrote on LSD. The lyrics, however, read like they were written on beef jerky: leering, hokey, clumsy, a bit sleazy, without trajectory and lacking in any bite, snap or wit.

The simple lyrical sentiment of the chorus is of course effective, and I know that is a big part of the charm: I am of course referring more specifically to the wordy and clunky verses.

We all know that Mike can do it. "I Get Around" is just one of many examples of Mike nailing it and getting the job done. I also know that "California Girls" is considered a classic and was a huge hit, but to me the seams are really showing. In this particular instance, I don't think that Mike's relatable lyrics are providing an effective counterpoint to Brian's majestic vision: the BB "formula" as it were. I would argue that the lyrics in this case are painfully pedestrian and jarring and they bring the song down, cheapening it and tainting it, frankly. They just don't do the music justice.

It makes me wonder whether, and this is purely supposition on my part, someone took Brian aside and told him, 'You know, that "California Girls" song was great, but maybe you should consider bringing in another lyricist again who might be more on the same page with you musically'. A little while later, enter Tony Asher.

I would certainly argue that later on with "Good Vibrations", Mike stepped up his game and proved that he could still hold his own and add a complementary and unique element to Brian's evolving music. However, by that point Brian was already well down the garden path with Van Dyke Parks.

In summary, I don't believe that "California Girls" was one of Mike's finer moments as a lyricist. If he had tackled the song differently, coming up with something that truly rose to the task, dazzling Brian and still maintaining that identifiably "Mike" quality, maybe the later decisions and conflicts regarding lyrical content might have played out a little differently...


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on November 24, 2016, 08:18:06 AM
Yep.  Musically Brian was light years past where Mike was with his sophomoric...tending toward moronic...words.  They needed to do more than just rhyme and recount high-school wants and desires.  As a lyricist Mike remains a juvenile.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on November 24, 2016, 08:23:14 AM
Agreed, Exhibit one of the Mike/Brian divide is this song! 8)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Emily on November 24, 2016, 09:06:07 AM
I agree. My thoughts don't revolve so specifically around California Girls, but I think there's a basic art v. commerce divide between Brian and Mike. I think it's evident from the way Brian talks about his experiences with music as a child and throughout his life, he's very connected to the art of it. That's the main draw for him. I think when they started out, the excitement of making a living as a musician, and of making a good living at all, enlivened the commercial aspect for him. But as he gained in material comfort, it became less of a controlling factor and he became more focused on the quality for quality's sake of his work. He wanted it to be successful, and obviously he has a lot of baggage around ideas of success, but for his music to achieve his artistic vision, which didn't coincide entirely with commercial interests, seems to have become more critical. So, he looked for lyricists that would be more likely to help deliver that.
It seems that he had an art v. commerce struggle within himself at times as well, and you can hear that in his varying comments.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A,
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 24, 2016, 10:32:08 AM
That "written on beef jerky" line may be the funniest thing I've read in years :D

For me, I don't care about lyrics. It's all about the music for me. Words to me are just placeholders, just stuff to give someone something to sing so unless they are bad enough to distract, they make little to no impact on me.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Emdeeh on November 24, 2016, 11:53:57 AM
"CA Girls" is simply a great song in my opinion. No need to have "serious" lyrics here, they're innocuous enough. It's the harmonies that sell this song.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Debbie KL on November 24, 2016, 01:06:13 PM
I agree. My thoughts don't revolve so specifically around California Girls, but I think there's a basic art v. commerce divide between Brian and Mike. I think it's evident from the way Brian talks about his experiences with music as a child and throughout his life, he's very connected to the art of it. That's the main draw for him. I think when they started out, the excitement of making a living as a musician, and of making a good living at all, enlivened the commercial aspect for him. But as he gained in material comfort, it became less of a controlling factor and he became more focused on the quality for quality's sake of his work. He wanted it to be successful, and obviously he has a lot of baggage around ideas of success, but for his music to achieve his artistic vision, which didn't coincide entirely with commercial interests, seems to have become more critical. So, he looked for lyricists that would be more likely to help deliver that.
It seems that he had an art v. commerce struggle within himself at times as well, and you can hear that in his varying comments.


Agreed, Emily.  And the very nasal lead wasn't helpful either.  I know Brian loves this song.  I love the intro, the arrangement and the chorus.  Other than that...


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lonely Summer on November 24, 2016, 01:38:16 PM
What was Mike supposed to write about? California weed? LSD? Honestly, there are some people for whom Mike can do no right.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on November 24, 2016, 02:13:05 PM
True...and now that we further understand BOTH of his ultimate his motives...gettin' lucky and gettin' rich...it all makes sense doesn't it?  But still...$50 million isn't enough for the old bald-headed gas jockey so revenge is his added and lasting motivation?  So ya.  It's plain to see why he can do NO right.

I agree with Billy.  The over-all sound sold me on the group.  Mind you it was Brian's over-all sound and the intricacies of the arrangements.  THAT's what helped me see past foolishly worded, far reaching yet cheap attempts at rhyming like "she's giving me X-sigh-Tay-shuns".

The group prevailed in spite of some of the 'twiticizims' Mike tossed onto the pile with the help of his atlas and his high-school year books.

That Brian wanted to keep pace with lyrics like those provided on Rubber Soul and by emerging forces like Bob Dylan was the ONLY way to go.  That the follically challenged one faced the great divide empty-headed is no one's fault.  It's just reality.  His.  It still is.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: kreen on November 24, 2016, 08:33:46 PM
The idea for the lyrics of California Girls is great: an ode to teenage male attraction for beautiful girls! And even the more specific concept of listing all the different States, and how it would be great if they all could be California girls, is good.

But the actual lyrics feel like a first draft, like Mike Love came up with a first set of words, and then never refined them, never improved them. There isn't a single witty image or fun, clever idea. Not a single double entendre or anything risque like "two girls for every guy" from Surf City. It's a missed opportunity; a real, professional, talented lyricist could have done so much more with the idea.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Robbie Mac on November 24, 2016, 08:39:11 PM
"CA Girls" is simply a great song in my opinion. No need to have "serious" lyrics here, they're innocuous enough. It's the harmonies that sell this song.

I am not asking for "serious", just lyrics that aren't clumsy that distract from the song.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Kid Presentable on November 25, 2016, 12:50:10 AM
Lol.  "Mike can do no right" is as far-fetched of a statement as "Brian has never made a mistake" and I feel bad for anyone who says either of those without a twinge of irony or sarcasm. 

I agree with the original poster though, although I always thought Salt Lake City was a bigger whiff by Mike.  That music was awesome and perfect and had so much potential.  I consider CG's lyrics to be mediocre but at least kind of the right idea (the "first draft" post is right on), and SLC's baffling.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A,
Post by: JK on November 25, 2016, 01:17:49 AM
For me, I don't care about lyrics. It's all about the music for me. Words to me are just placeholders, just stuff to give someone something to sing so unless they are bad enough to distract, they make little to no impact on me.

We have more in common than I thought. :=)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 25, 2016, 05:22:02 AM
I certainly believe that Mike's lyrics have kept some people from recognizing the sophistication of Brian's music. They worked well until the mid-60s, when rock lyrics began to get more sophisticated and Mike couldn't keep up. Brian was right to seek out someone else.

Mike didn't have the lyrical gifts of some of his peers. The Beatles were lucky enough to have John Lennon, who loved wordplay. A passage like, "Here I stand, head in hand, turn my face to the wall. [great image] If she's gone I can't go on, feeling two foot small..." is well beyond what Mike could manage, even at his peak with Beach Boys Today. Even Brian surpassed Mike with the lyrics to 'Til I Die. And Brian was correct to change "She goes with me to a blossom world we find," to "She goes with me to a blossom world." So much better.

Simple lyrics can be a lot of fun in a rock and roll song. People love Fun, Fun, Fun. But when Mike brags that he wrote a set of lyrics in a car in 5 minutes or whatever, I'm not really surprised.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: thorgil on November 25, 2016, 08:41:21 AM
Brian had to "dump" Mike as a lyricist because Mike refused to grow up*. And it seems he's still refusing.

* Of course I mean artistically.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Shane on November 25, 2016, 12:03:00 PM
I read a rather interesting point in a book somewhere.  The author noted the nostalga wave in America in the early to mid 1970s (ie American Graffiti, Happy Days, Endless Summer LP, etc).  But then he went onto make the point that the Beach Boys were already becoming a "nostalga" version of themselves with the Summer Days/Summer Nights album.  The group was already moving in an entirely different direction, and the "surfing" phase of their career had passed, but here they were, making songs about the beach and girls once again, retreading old ground even in 1965.  Of course that discounts the leaps and bounds of the album production-wise, but it's an interesting way of looking at how quickly things changed in the 1960s.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A,
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 25, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
For me, I don't care about lyrics. It's all about the music for me. Words to me are just placeholders, just stuff to give someone something to sing so unless they are bad enough to distract, they make little to no impact on me.

We have more in common than I thought. :=)

Great minds think alike! 8)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lonely Summer on November 26, 2016, 01:24:49 PM
I read a rather interesting point in a book somewhere.  The author noted the nostalga wave in America in the early to mid 1970s (ie American Graffiti, Happy Days, Endless Summer LP, etc).  But then he went onto make the point that the Beach Boys were already becoming a "nostalga" version of themselves with the Summer Days/Summer Nights album.  The group was already moving in an entirely different direction, and the "surfing" phase of their career had passed, but here they were, making songs about the beach and girls once again, retreading old ground even in 1965.  Of course that discounts the leaps and bounds of the album production-wise, but it's an interesting way of looking at how quickly things changed in the 1960s.
Huh? The BB's hadn't left surfing and cars and girls behind yet in 1965. If Summer Days had followed PS, yes, that would've been a step backwards.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: clack on November 26, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Shane on November 27, 2016, 12:55:37 AM
I read a rather interesting point in a book somewhere.  The author noted the nostalga wave in America in the early to mid 1970s (ie American Graffiti, Happy Days, Endless Summer LP, etc).  But then he went onto make the point that the Beach Boys were already becoming a "nostalga" version of themselves with the Summer Days/Summer Nights album.  The group was already moving in an entirely different direction, and the "surfing" phase of their career had passed, but here they were, making songs about the beach and girls once again, retreading old ground even in 1965.  Of course that discounts the leaps and bounds of the album production-wise, but it's an interesting way of looking at how quickly things changed in the 1960s.
Huh? The BB's hadn't left surfing and cars and girls behind yet in 1965. If Summer Days had followed PS, yes, that would've been a step backwards.

I'm referring to side two of Today! here.  It's definitely a step backwards after how groundbreaking that half-an-album was. 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bicyclerider on November 27, 2016, 07:27:11 AM
I read a rather interesting point in a book somewhere.  The author noted the nostalga wave in America in the early to mid 1970s (ie American Graffiti, Happy Days, Endless Summer LP, etc).  But then he went onto make the point that the Beach Boys were already becoming a "nostalga" version of themselves with the Summer Days/Summer Nights album.  The group was already moving in an entirely different direction, and the "surfing" phase of their career had passed, but here they were, making songs about the beach and girls once again, retreading old ground even in 1965.  Of course that discounts the leaps and bounds of the album production-wise, but it's an interesting way of looking at how quickly things changed in the 1960s.
Huh? The BB's hadn't left surfing and cars and girls behind yet in 1965. If Summer Days had followed PS, yes, that would've been a step backwards.

Girls were never left behind right through That's Why God Made the Radio.  Surfing and cars had been left behind - none on Today, first side or second side.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: c-man on November 27, 2016, 08:11:42 AM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years, Brian has expressed his fondness and pride for this song, not only the music, but the concept of the song itself. The only criticism I can recall him expressing for it relates to Mike's lead vocal, which he felt was a bit rushed (however, at other times, I'm pretty sure he's called it Mike's best).

To the original point of this thread - if the musical tone of the song had remained in the vein of the stately introduction, I would agree that the current lyrics would not be appropriate, and something more akin to Pet Sounds or Side Two of Today! would fit better. But, the song soon progresses from that "Grand Canyon Suite"-inspired intro, to a mid-tempo "Happy Trails"-style gallop, that's been described as "coming on like gangbusters". A surefire hit pop song, if you ask me, and one best served by lyrics that connect with a wider "pop" audience. Would it be cool to write these kind of semi-misogynist lyrics today (outside of the rap/hip hop genre, where it seems this kind of lyrical approach, and worse, will always be in style)? Probably not. But this was the mid-'60s...plus, Mike wisely included a line about east coast girls being "hip".

One additional note: in 1978, the following exchange occurred between Jonathan Cott and Mick Jagger, in the former's interview of the latter, as published in Rolling Stone (the Mick/Stones song referred to here is, of course, the title song of that year's Stones album, Some Girls):

JC: Do you remember the Beach Boys' "California Girls"?
MJ: Yeah, I love that song.
JC: Well, it seems to me that instead of all the girls in your song being California girls, they've all turned into a different type of girl, and certainly from another state!
MJ: I know what you mean. I never thought of it like that. I never thought that a rock critic of your knowledge and background could ever come out with an observation like that [laughing].
JC: You mean it's pretentious?
MJ: Not at all. It's a great analogy. But like all analogies, it's false [laughing].

As if Mick wouldn't remember the timeless "California Girls", even 13 years after its chart life!

Final note: on the subject of girls in Brian's '65 songs, we have of course the follow-up to "California Girls", which is "The Little Girl I Once Knew' - the lyrics of which were apparently composed by Brian himself (and which could be considered an early contender for the project that turned into Pet Sounds.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Don Malcolm on November 27, 2016, 09:37:15 AM
Brian wanted to "dump" Mike (as a lyricist) long before CG, and he'd been working on it in various ways ever since the band hit the big time. In '65 Brian was still in nascent stages of such a separation, easing his way toward a situation where he could collaborate in a more comprehensive way with someone like Tony Asher. He pretty much had to withdraw from songwriting (late 60s) before he could shed his creative ties to Mike, and there are precious few "BW-ML" songwriting credits from 1970 on--with a goodly portion of those having stemmed from some form of coercion.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bill Ed on November 27, 2016, 10:36:48 AM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years . .

Great post! I couldn't have said it nearly as well myself.

I don't believe any misogyny is going on in the song. I recall that at some point in the '70's the lyrics suddenly offended some in the feminist movement, and political correctness has grown steadily through the years.

I think the lyrics fit the music perfectly.

And can someone explain the lyrics to You've Got to Hide Your Love Away to me? The lyrics were cited above as somehow exemplary, but they don't hang together for me.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Emily on November 27, 2016, 10:53:01 AM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years . .

I recall that at some point in the '70's the lyrics suddenly offended some in the feminist movement.

Probably at the point when women started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: the captain on November 27, 2016, 11:08:16 AM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years . .

I recall that at some point in the '70's the lyrics suddenly offended some in the feminist movement.

Probably at the point when women started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.

Well now you're just talking nonsense! Hysteria! Political correctness run amok!  ::) ;D

In all seriousness (What, that last bit wasn't serious? I think women ARE humans? Whoa!), I think "California Girls" is a good lyric from the one-dimensional perspective of an adolescent mind. One would hope its writer had a little more lyrical range than he showed there ... and I guess he did. Barely.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 27, 2016, 11:25:12 AM
Is it now just accepted by everyone that political correctness is synonymous with voices and opinions of people other than white men entering the conversation?


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bill Ed on November 27, 2016, 01:04:44 PM
My sincere apologies for interjecting politics into this thread. It bothers me when other people feel the need to make political points here, and it bothers me even more that I've committed the same transgression.

I'll just reiterate that I think California Girls is a great song and a great record. And to me, the lyrics have always been integral to the song.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: pixletwin on November 27, 2016, 02:29:39 PM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

KA-BOOOOOM!

#truthbomb  :lol


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on November 27, 2016, 02:55:11 PM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

KA-BOOOOOM!

#truthbomb  :lol

That is really besides the point. Brian also doesn't like his vocals on "Let Him Run Wild", but that doesn't mean he tries to deny having sung them or having written the song.  Standing up to his dad in order to get proper credits was not going to be something motivated by his like or dislike for a set of lyrics.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on November 27, 2016, 03:01:17 PM
And to me, the lyrics have always been integral to the song.

Let me guess.  You're at least 60+ years old?  I find the stuff that I liked which 'he' wrote [at least some] lyrics for still stand my 'test of time' from when I was 13 years of age or younger.  Otherwise?  I matured.  Brian matured.  The Beach Boys sound matured.  And the Love-meister stayed in grade 7.  Or was it  grade 6?  The music world and AUDIENCE left him and his stuck in the first half of the 60's ass  FAR behind.  It was like putting the lyrics to 'Stoked' on Beethoven's Fifth.  OK...'Tequila' then. ;)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 27, 2016, 03:51:55 PM

And can someone explain the lyrics to You've Got to Hide Your Love Away to me? The lyrics were cited above as somehow exemplary, but they don't hang together for me.

I'm going to refrain from getting into the "politically correct" discussion. As a woman, the dismissal of a push for equality as "politically correct" is a reflection of the privilege of the white male. Oops, I said something anyway. That being said, I've never really thought of California Girls as being particularly misogynistic. OK, they objectify women and generalize their attributes, but I don't find it too offensive. Just a bit immature. But I like the song.

Anyhoo.... I was the one who brought up You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I picked that song off the top of my head because it's on Rubber Soul, which came out the same year as California Girls. I could have picked Norwegian Wood, which is also lyrically clever. The "Here I stand" lyric? I just find it to be a rather artful way of conveying humiliation and despondence. A little more artful than saying "I'm sad and lonely." Is it Shakespeare? No. Is it Dylan? No. But it's pretty great for a pop song from 1965.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: pixletwin on November 27, 2016, 03:54:45 PM
I have heard that Lennon wrote "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" for the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, who was a homosexual. Homosexuality in England, at that time,  was punishable by jail and (in some cases) castration.

That should tell you something about what the song is about.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 27, 2016, 04:20:15 PM
I have heard that Lennon wrote "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" for the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, who was a homosexual. Homosexuality in England, at that time,  was punishable by jail and (in some cases) castration.

That should tell you something about what the song is about.

I've heard that too. Is there evidence of it? I have a hard time believing Lennon was that progressive (for 1965) that he could show such empathy for Brian Epstein. (And yes, I've heard that Epstein was in love with John.) But if it's true, then again, another point being way ahead of Mike Love. Being able to put yourself in someone's shoes lyrically is a skill that I'm not sure Mike had (except if that someone else is high-school-age Mike).


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: c-man on November 27, 2016, 04:36:38 PM

Anyhoo.... I was the one who brought up You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I picked that song off the top of my head because it's on Rubber Soul...

No, it's not. :) It's on Help!  :)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: c-man on November 27, 2016, 04:51:11 PM
Regarding the maturation of rock music lyrics in '65...that mostly happened in the second half of the year, after the release of "California Girls". Sure, "Ticket To Ride" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" had (just barely in the latter case) topped the charts by that point in the year, but they were exceptions. "Satisfaction" had just come out the month before, by which time "California Girls" had already been recorded. Lennon had shown keen wit with introspective songs such as "There's A Place" going all the way back to '63, and "I'm A Loser" in late '64, but those weren't single A-Sides. To their credit, Brian and Gary Usher had shown such introspection on "In My Room" in '63...and the Brian-Mike musical-lyrical team had also shown it, on "The Warmth Of The Sun", in very early '64. My point? Introspective-sounding music calls for introspective lyrics. Happy, buoyant music (like the main body of "California Girls") calls for happy, buoyant lyrics, and that's what we got.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 27, 2016, 04:59:33 PM

Anyhoo.... I was the one who brought up You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I picked that song off the top of my head because it's on Rubber Soul...

No, it's not. :) It's on Help!  :)

Oops, my mistake. I used to know all this stuff. Still 1965, though.  :)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: pixletwin on November 27, 2016, 05:01:37 PM

Anyhoo.... I was the one who brought up You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I picked that song off the top of my head because it's on Rubber Soul...

No, it's not. :) It's on Help!  :)

Oops, my mistake. I used to know all this stuff. Still 1965, though.  :)

Rubber Soul is just Help, part 2 anyways.  ;)

(or is Rubber Soul really Revolver, part 1?) :o


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Mr. Tiger on November 27, 2016, 05:24:45 PM
I'm enjoying all the give and take here. I suppose I should point out that for me personally, it's not necessarily the subject matter that is the problem, it's more the word-for-word execution in the verses that lets the song down.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on November 27, 2016, 05:38:04 PM
Since it veered off into Lennon's "You've Got To Hide...", I can say - unless someone has turned up info to suggest otherwise - that Lennon himself never revealed exactly what the subject of that song was. He described it in decent detail but never defined who it was about, not naming Brian Epstein or even one of his own affairs a la "Norwegian Wood". How it got attached to Epstein if it's traced back was through other articles which suggested it was written about Epstein, but Lennon talked more about how he was at his house writing a lot of songs, and writing introspective songs especially at that time. I think he also called it his "Fat Elvis" period.

"Ticket To Ride" is one of the most catchy, jump-out-of-the-speakers hook-filled singles the band ever released, and it sounds both poppy, innovative, and "happy" - But the lyrics are really sad, the narrator is literally crying out because his girl is going away. So that's one contradiction between a happy sounding record and an emotionally devastating lyric. But it worked. All the way to #1. Same thing with Help, another Beatles smash from this same writing period of Lennon's - Catch as hell, but on that one John admitted he was literally crying for help, it was actually his voice singing the lyrics first-person.

McCartney also said it YGTHYLA was John doing Bob Dylan, and Lennon backs that up. He deliberately sat down to write Dylan-esque songs and he succeeded. But he never tipped off who the song was about, it was left ambiguous even years later.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on November 27, 2016, 05:46:16 PM
In terms of introspective lyrics, look at how "The Lonely Sea", Wilson-Usher, sits on the band's sophomore album alongside the non-single instrumental covers and other less than introspective (or even personal) songs. It was already in the band's canon to have introspection in their lyrics, and later it must have been so powerful even then that Brian was featured singing it solo at a campfire in a beach movie. It's not like it wasn't welcome by fans to have a "downer" of a lyric.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: c-man on November 27, 2016, 07:30:47 PM
In terms of introspective lyrics, look at how "The Lonely Sea", Wilson-Usher, sits on the band's sophomore album alongside the non-single instrumental covers and other less than introspective (or even personal) songs. It was already in the band's canon to have introspection in their lyrics, and later it must have been so powerful even then that Brian was featured singing it solo at a campfire in a beach movie. It's not like it wasn't welcome by fans to have a "downer" of a lyric.

Right - what I'm getting at is, with a few exceptions (such as "Ticket To Ride"), it was pretty uncommon at that time to have "downer", introspective, or even solemn lyrics tied to a rhythm as "bouncy" as the one in "California Girls" (and "Help!" was as yet unreleased). Sure, you have romantically sad lyrics on uptempo songs such as Del Shannon's "Runaway", but the "feel" of "California Girls" is pretty damn joyous, and IMO it called for simple, sunny, "populist" lyrics. I'm not sure it would have even occurred to Brian to have any other kind of lyrics for that song, at that point in time. A few months later...sure ("Wouldn't It Be Nice", for all it's joyfulness, is still a bit melancholy in the lyrics department, but it totally works as a "happy" song). Mid-to-late 1965 was, it seems, the turning point. By then, "Help!, "Satisfaction", "Like A Rolling Stone", and even "Eve Of Destruction" were all mega-hits, and things in teenland changed quite a bit after that.  "California Girls" just barely made it under that timeline wire. :)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bill Ed on November 27, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
I have heard that Lennon wrote "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" for the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, who was a homosexual. Homosexuality in England, at that time,  was punishable by jail and (in some cases) castration.

That should tell you something about what the song is about.

I've heard that too. Is there evidence of it? I have a hard time believing Lennon was that progressive (for 1965) that he could show such empathy for Brian Epstein. (And yes, I've heard that Epstein was in love with John.) But if it's true, then again, another point being way ahead of Mike Love. Being able to put yourself in someone's shoes lyrically is a skill that I'm not sure Mike had (except if that someone else is high-school-age Mike).

I'd hold off on awarding John Lennon another point. The following is highly distasteful, but . . .

http://rec.music.rock-pop-r-b.1960s.narkive.com/exqCpegc/john-lennon-mocked-gays-and-jews


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: JK on November 28, 2016, 02:52:31 AM
I'd hold off on awarding John Lennon another point. The following is highly distasteful, but . . .

http://rec.music.rock-pop-r-b.1960s.narkive.com/exqCpegc/john-lennon-mocked-gays-and-jews

As you say, highly distasteful, largely thanks to the aptly named Trollberg...


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: clack on November 28, 2016, 05:29:14 AM
Granted, the sentiment behind them hasn't aged well, but they were, at the time, great pop lyrics, part of Mike's brilliant run 64-65 of Fun, Fun, Fun, I Get Around, and When I Grow Up. All with lyrics that were catchy, specifically detailed, memorable, original, and immediately graspable. (Contrast the more generic lyrics of Wendy, for instance.)

In addition, the lyrics did their part in accomplishing the tricky transition that The Beach Boys were undergoing at the time : expanding their subject matter from surfing and cars to the more universal ones of sex, romance, and hanging out with your buddies.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 28, 2016, 08:12:02 AM
I don't think it's any secret that Lennon wins no points for tolerance. He was misogynistic to the point where he abused his first wife, for example. I'm not trying to award him sainthood. I simply pointed to him as a comparatively sophisticated writer of lyrics.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Mr. Tiger on November 28, 2016, 08:13:19 AM
I don't think anyone's saying there should be introspective lyrics tied to "California Girls". The theme could have been the same, but far better refined and polished. There's no spark, no wit, nothing clever, just a leering slobbering kind of "Well, look at that chick over there, now let's look at this chick over here," approach that doesn't live up to the musical side of the equation. Maybe after a couple of drafts and some honing, Mike's concept might have worked, but it sounds tossed off when at the same time the musical backdrop is nothing but...


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on November 28, 2016, 08:22:45 AM
Lennon's personal flaws and foibles and quirks (and misdeeds) have been out there for decades, some of them self-admitted, so it's a case of evaluating his art as a songwriter rather than trying to paint everything with a brush and palette consisting of all his personal negatives. To do that isn't an honest evaluation of anyone's art, if it were applied universally no one would be listening to Phil Spector in 2016 and beyond, and Michael Jackson's music and talent would take a back seat to his personal issues. Maybe in some cases it's more justified, but it's a pretty fine line and not always a fair one if discussing and enjoying someone's art is the focus.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on November 28, 2016, 08:32:14 AM
I'd say in terms of the Beach Boys and Brian's music going beyond the surf-cars-girls subject matter, my example of "Lonely Sea" is only one of the examples where the introspective and personal themes were co-existing with the more obvious surf-cars-girls themes. Look at the earliest work Brian did with Gary Usher. There were songs like "In My Room" and others that were coexisting with and coming from the same working partnership as 409, Shut Down, etc. Brian and Usher seemed to be tapping into this introspection and personal lyric concept from their first collaboration on Lonely Sea, and it sat right in place with the other themes that Capitol was using to market the band. Fans were buying all of it, and there are film clips of them exploring all these "heavier" themes alongside them wearing chinos and beach garb doing the surfers' stomp or whatever foot-shuffling dance that was.


One point I'll always come back to is that Brian worked with collaborators based on where he was going with his music and what he wanted to say. It didn't begin with him not using Mike for lyrics on Pet Sounds...it went back to Usher and Roger Christian. When Brian wanted lyrics to express specific feelings or themes, he worked with lyricists who could deliver an informed perspective.

To make the way Brian chose lyricists into a Mike-centric type of issue ignores the history of how Brian wrote songs for the band back to the early days. If he was looking for a certain perspective and outlook to write lyrics, he'd use that person. Again, the examples being most obviously Usher and Christian...then later Asher, Parks, and whoever else moving forward other than Mike. It isn't a mystery, secret, or a "diss" against Mike - It's the way Brian wrote and worked with collaborators.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Jay on November 28, 2016, 10:22:33 AM

Anyhoo.... I was the one who brought up You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. I picked that song off the top of my head because it's on Rubber Soul...

No, it's not. :) It's on Help!  :)

Oops, my mistake. I used to know all this stuff. Still 1965, though.  :)

Rubber Soul is just Help, part 2 anyways.  ;)

(or is Rubber Soul really Revolver, part 1?) :o
I've actually always considered Rubber Soul and Revolver as a "part 1 and part 2" pairing. Actually, I sometimes think of Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as a trilogy.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Michael Edward Osbourne on November 28, 2016, 12:51:25 PM
I personally like the unsophisticated lyrics to California Girls. Instrumentally sophisticated pop music with simple lyrics, and that's the charm of many songs, not just by the Beach Boys. I wouldn't want the song any other way. A+


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: urbanite on November 28, 2016, 01:05:26 PM
I totally disagree with the premise of this thread.  Mike Love really nailed it when he wrote the words to this song, it was a masterpiece, a guy thinking about all the beautiful women out there in the world.  What guy hasn't thought about that.  The organ in the background gives the song an amusement park type of feel that works with all the other incredible aspects of the song.   I'm sure BW had his reason to expand his horizons and work with VDP, but this song was not the reason to give Mike the heave ho.  Did it have anything to do with Mike was on the road and not around?  


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: pixletwin on November 28, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
I totally disagree with the premise of this thread.  Mike Love really nailed it when he wrote the words to this song, it was a masterpiece, a guy thinking about all the beautiful women out there in the world.  What guy hasn't thought about that.  The organ in the background gives the song an amusement park type of feel that works with all the other incredible aspects of the song.   I'm sure BW had his reason to expand his horizons and work with VDP, but this song was not the reason to give Mike the heave ho.  Did it have anything to do with Mike was on the road and not around?  

I agree. There is a time and a place for BS rock n roll intellectualism. California Girls isn't the right time or place.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: MikestheGreatest!! on November 28, 2016, 05:31:19 PM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years . .

I recall that at some point in the '70's the lyrics suddenly offended some in the feminist movement.

Probably at the point when women started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.

Probably at the point when some women in the feminist movement started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.  Though funnily enough, I have never personally met a woman who considered herself a consumer good ever, at least not to my knowledge.  That would be a rather odd woman, would it not, one who considered herself a consumer good, though maybe a prostitute might?


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2016, 06:40:38 PM
Exhibit A for the defense: Brian didn't seem to mind having himself officially credited as the lyricist of 'California Girls' for 30 years.

Great point - in many interviews over the years . .

I recall that at some point in the '70's the lyrics suddenly offended some in the feminist movement.

Probably at the point when women started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.

Probably at the point when some women in the feminist movement started recognizing that they are humans, not consumer goods.  Though funnily enough, I have never personally met a woman who considered herself a consumer good ever, at least not to my knowledge.  That would be a rather odd woman, would it not, one who considered herself a consumer good, though maybe a prostitute might?
Not really. It was (and still is, but less so) a pervasive idea that women are a commodity, prostitution being the most blunt expression of that, but traditional marriage, the beauty industry, songs like California Girls, Girls on the Beach and Two Girls for Every Boy, "trophy wives"... these are expressions as well. It's an idea absorbed by both women and men. I'm sure you've met women who think of themselves that way, though they haven't connected the dots.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on November 28, 2016, 07:59:10 PM
The instrumental music is an immaculate 'LSD-trip' personified into music. The lyrics are quite pedestrian, but only because they so heavily contrast the instrumental. That's just my two-cents.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: JK on November 29, 2016, 03:39:15 AM
Mike Garneau and urbanite (and maybe others) nail it.

A magnificent, joyous song.

Anyway, what's ever been wrong with lyrics by young men about liking girls? ;D


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 08:02:34 AM
Considering that Brian's original lyric was "I dig the girls" it sounds to me that Mike nailed exactly what Brian wanted. Brian has said so himself and counts it among his favorites. I guess Brian's opinion means nothing?

Really, if you're crapping all over a classic like "California Girls", not only one of the Beach Boys's greatest songs but one of the best pop songs ever written by anyone ever...chances are, you're a fan of the wrong band. 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: the captain on November 29, 2016, 08:07:39 AM
Or maybe that you're capable of considering diverse or conflicting ideas, leading to simultaneous enjoyment and criticism.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Jukka on November 29, 2016, 11:22:21 AM
Dylan and Lennon ruined rock lyrics. I'll take 60's Mike over them any day.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Jay on November 29, 2016, 11:32:12 AM
That just might be the most stupid thing I've ever seen somebody post on any message board. Ever.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: pixletwin on November 29, 2016, 11:51:10 AM
That just might be the most stupid thing I've ever seen somebody post on any message board. Ever.

Its just their opinion.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: the captain on November 29, 2016, 11:56:07 AM
There's a good argument to be made for it if what you want from RnR is simple, teenage emotion and more raw energy. You could argue it's a sentiment in line with any number of back-to-basics movements.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bill Ed on November 29, 2016, 01:01:33 PM
Dylan and Lennon ruined rock lyrics. I'll take 60's Mike over them any day.

So will I:

You used to ride on a chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal?



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 01:22:26 PM
Or maybe that you're capable of considering diverse or conflicting ideas, leading to simultaneous enjoyment and criticism.

Oh, they've been considered. It's like saying "That's Alright, Mama" would've been a better song if the lyrics were written by William S. Burroughs.

Or Bugs Bunny cartoons would be funnier if that damn rabbit wasn't such a wisecracker.

Or Star Trek would've resonated with people more if it had been set in a bus depot.

Sure, you can have that opinion, but it sounds to me like Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, the classic Warner Brothers cartoons and Star Trek are maybe not for you.




Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: the captain on November 29, 2016, 01:28:15 PM
I didn't really take a side. Just was ok with people who did.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on November 29, 2016, 01:34:46 PM
I think people would be more forgiving of Mike's less stellar lyrics (certainly not all of them are poor) if he were less cocky about proclaiming himself to be The Surf Word Man who is the McCartney to Brian's Lennon. I think Brian Wilson himself can be a perfectly rad lyricist too when he wants to (and that some of his own lyrics aren't too great), but Brian never gives off a "my sh*t don't stink" type of attitude that Mike does.  I get and empathize that Mike is damaged goods from the crediting snafu, but that doesn't give him an endless license to act in the way that he does.

I'm sure Mike's overly-pushy nature was part of why he was dumped. Not just that Brian wanted to stretch his wings. A combination of factors. Brian should have had zero "obligation" to stick with Mike, but Mike guilt-tripped Brian so friggin' hard, which I'm glad Brian called Mike out on in his autobiography.

That said, I love California Girls, and it's in my top 5 (maybe even top 2, now that I think about it) BB songs ever. It perfectly, and oddly seamlessly blends the earlier lightweight ideas (Mike) with progressive acid-drenched sounds that Brian was cooking up. It's a product of its time, but in a way it's the ultimate BB song, being that it blends two eras simultaneously to great effect. It's just remarkably joyous to my ears... but yeah, Mike's lyrics are basically an afterthought. They are just there, and they are functional. It's more about the song's vibe and less about the words themselves. Mike does deliver a great vocal performance.

It's possible that my emotional attachment to the group is allowing me to look past some of CG's lyrics (which might otherwise make me roll my eyes, if say I was a newcomer to the band and then heard the song). But regardless of why, I don't have any real issues with the song's lyrics. But I *totally* understand how Brian was ready for a change after this song. It's perfectly understandable that discerning music fans/friends at the time (even if they might be considered snobs to some) had legit issues with the less mature lyrics that - while they could work in certain instances - would prove to be a major factor in underselling the band's talents.  I don't personally think it's snobby to dislike CG's lyrics. I can understand that POV completely.

Take Salt Lake City and Wendy for example - those are probably some of the lamest Mike lyrics on top of more progressive backing tracks, and IMO those actually drag those songs down. Like a lot.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 01:49:13 PM
I didn't really take a side. Just was ok with people who did.

I didn't mean you specifically.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
I think people would be more forgiving of Mike's less stellar lyrics (certainly not all of them are poor) if he were less cocky about proclaiming himself to be The Surf Word Man who is the McCartney to Brian's Lennon. I think Brian Wilson himself can be a perfectly rad lyricist too when he wants to (and that some of his own lyrics aren't too great), but Brian never gives off a "my sh*t don't stink" type of attitude that Mike does.  I get and empathize that he's damaged goods from the crediting snafu, but that doesn't give him an endless license to act in the way that he does.

I'm sure Mike's overly-pushy nature was part of why he was dumped. Brian should have had zero "obligation" to stick with Mike, but Mike guilt-tripped Brian so friggin' hard, which I'm glad Brian called Mike out on in his autobiography.

That said, I love California Girls, and it's in my top 5 (maybe even top 2, now that I think about it) BB songs ever. It perfectly, and oddly seamlessly blends the earlier lightweight ideas (Mike) with progressive acid-drenched sounds that Brian was cooking up. It's a product of its time, but in a way it's the ultimate BB song, being that it blends two eras simultaneously to great effect. It's just remarkably joyous to my ears... but yeah, Mike's lyrics are basically an afterthought. They are just there, and they are functional. It's more about the song's vibe and less about the words themselves. Mike does deliver a great vocal performance.

It's possible that my emotional attachment to the group is allowing me to look past some of CG's lyrics (which might otherwise make me roll my eyes, if say I was a newcomer to the band and then heard the song). But regardless of why, I don't have any real issues with the song's lyrics. But I *totally* understand how Brian was ready for a change after this song. It's perfectly understandable that discerning music fans/friends at the time (even if they were snobs) had legit issues with the less mature lyrics that - while they could work in certain instances - would prove to be a major factor in underselling the band's talents.

Take Salt Lake City and Wendy for example - those are probably some of the lamest Mike lyrics on top of more progressive backing tracks, and IMO those actually drag those songs down. Like a lot.

This is a very reasoned response to this thread, but man, "Wendy" was my go-to song when my first girlfriend cheated on me. It didn't matter that her name wasn't Wendy (that would've been creepy) but those lyrics hit the spot. What a perfect marriage of music and words IMO.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on November 29, 2016, 01:56:52 PM
I think people would be more forgiving of Mike's less stellar lyrics (certainly not all of them are poor) if he were less cocky about proclaiming himself to be The Surf Word Man who is the McCartney to Brian's Lennon. I think Brian Wilson himself can be a perfectly rad lyricist too when he wants to (and that some of his own lyrics aren't too great), but Brian never gives off a "my sh*t don't stink" type of attitude that Mike does.  I get and empathize that he's damaged goods from the crediting snafu, but that doesn't give him an endless license to act in the way that he does.

I'm sure Mike's overly-pushy nature was part of why he was dumped. Brian should have had zero "obligation" to stick with Mike, but Mike guilt-tripped Brian so friggin' hard, which I'm glad Brian called Mike out on in his autobiography.

That said, I love California Girls, and it's in my top 5 (maybe even top 2, now that I think about it) BB songs ever. It perfectly, and oddly seamlessly blends the earlier lightweight ideas (Mike) with progressive acid-drenched sounds that Brian was cooking up. It's a product of its time, but in a way it's the ultimate BB song, being that it blends two eras simultaneously to great effect. It's just remarkably joyous to my ears... but yeah, Mike's lyrics are basically an afterthought. They are just there, and they are functional. It's more about the song's vibe and less about the words themselves. Mike does deliver a great vocal performance.

It's possible that my emotional attachment to the group is allowing me to look past some of CG's lyrics (which might otherwise make me roll my eyes, if say I was a newcomer to the band and then heard the song). But regardless of why, I don't have any real issues with the song's lyrics. But I *totally* understand how Brian was ready for a change after this song. It's perfectly understandable that discerning music fans/friends at the time (even if they were snobs) had legit issues with the less mature lyrics that - while they could work in certain instances - would prove to be a major factor in underselling the band's talents.

Take Salt Lake City and Wendy for example - those are probably some of the lamest Mike lyrics on top of more progressive backing tracks, and IMO those actually drag those songs down. Like a lot.

This is a very reasoned response to this thread, but man, "Wendy" was my go-to song when my first girlfriend cheated on me. It didn't matter that her name wasn't Wendy (that would've been creepy) but those lyrics hit the spot. What a perfect marriage of music and words IMO.

The Wendy lyrics that bug me are early in the song "I didn't know a guy could cry /till you made it with another guy"...

Call me crazy, I think it's way goofy to do "guy" / "cry" / "guy" in two lines like that. It would be like if the song had a line like "I feel dim when you're with him /the future looks awful dim". It feels super awkward and rough-drafty, not entirely unlike the idea of rhyming two words with each other. Just my opinion. The other lyrics in the song are pretty ok.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on November 29, 2016, 02:06:06 PM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on November 29, 2016, 02:09:45 PM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.

Yep. That's the change I would have made too :) I wonder if that was Mike being a tough guy and not wanting to admit to himself (as "I" would have done) as capable of crying, instead making it about a different "guy" character who cries.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 02:20:38 PM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.

Yep. That's the change I would have made too :) I wonder if that was Mike being a tough guy and not wanting to admit to himself (as "I" would have done) as capable of crying, instead making it about a different "guy" character who cries.

I think it's reflecting the times. Certainly when I was growing up a guy was NEVER supposed to cry. It was a sign of weakness. Even if you got punched in the gut, you sucked it up and held back the tears lest anyone think you were a wuss. We live I'm a different world now obviously (well, most of us do anyway). "I never thought that I could cry" is fine but it doesn't quite have the same false bravado.

I've always loved how the organ is so loud and piercing that it distorts. It actually conveys the pain of lost love very effectively.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Kid Presentable on November 29, 2016, 02:26:48 PM
I said earlier that SLC was a bigger whiff by Mike, glad someone agrees.  

The teasing out of totally reasonable opinions on all sides has been interesting in this thread.

It is weird to me, the notion that Brian "dumped" Mike.  In that he had already worked with other lyricists for years prior to 1966, and would continue using Mike's lyrics all the time, for what, the next 20 years?  Including Good Vibrations, right in the middle of the Pet Sounds sessions.  


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on November 29, 2016, 02:49:17 PM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.

Yep. That's the change I would have made too :) I wonder if that was Mike being a tough guy and not wanting to admit to himself (as "I" would have done) as capable of crying, instead making it about a different "guy" character who cries.

I think it's reflecting the times. Certainly when I was growing up a guy was NEVER supposed to cry. It was a sign of weakness. Even if you got punched in the gut, you sucked it up and held back the tears lest anyone think you were a wuss. We live I'm a different world now obviously (well, most of us do anyway). "I never thought that I could cry" is fine but it doesn't quite have the same false bravado.

I've always loved how the organ is so loud and piercing that it distorts. It actually conveys the pain of lost love very effectively.

Yet Brian talked about personally ("I") wanting to cry on a lyric just one year later, so there ya go; the bravo/bravado-less difference between Mike's lyrics and Brian's (via Asher) in a nutshell. Mike made a trade-off of having the lyric be far more clunky to avoid the shame of letting himself seem vulnerable in the song. 

Too bad there's not a Wendy lyric about coughing that could tie in to the cough later in the song ("I never thought a guy could cough / in '95 I"ll be Baywatchin' with the Hoff")


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Bill Ed on November 29, 2016, 04:15:14 PM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.

Yep. That's the change I would have made too :) I wonder if that was Mike being a tough guy and not wanting to admit to himself (as "I" would have done) as capable of crying, instead making it about a different "guy" character who cries.

I think it's reflecting the times. Certainly when I was growing up a guy was NEVER supposed to cry. It was a sign of weakness. Even if you got punched in the gut, you sucked it up and held back the tears lest anyone think you were a wuss. We live I'm a different world now obviously (well, most of us do anyway). "I never thought that I could cry" is fine but it doesn't quite have the same false bravado.

I've always loved how the organ is so loud and piercing that it distorts. It actually conveys the pain of lost love very effectively.

Yet Brian talked about personally ("I") wanting to cry on a lyric just one year later, so there ya go; the bravo/bravado-less difference between Mike's lyrics and Brian's (via Asher) in a nutshell. Mike made a trade-off of having the lyric be far more clunky to avoid the shame of letting himself seem vulnerable in the song. 

Too bad there's not a Wendy lyric about coughing that could tie in to the cough later in the song ("I never thought a guy could cough / in '95 I"ll be Baywatchin' with the Hoff")

It's " . . break my heart I want to go and cry . ." I think the word "want" is used advisedly. I remember a video in which Brian tells Carnie not to cry on television.

The singer in Wendy is actually moved to tears.

I love the lyrics to both songs and don't give a thought to who wrote them.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on November 29, 2016, 05:52:25 PM
Ultimately I think California Girls is a brilliant record, a standout both for Brian as producer/writer and standing among the best of the 60's rock in general. The lyrics are terrific, I think. I'll give a 5-minute mini review/analysis short of a dissertation.

I'm a music guy first and foremost. If the sound and the groove doesn't click with me, I move on. The words of a song to me are icing on the cake. If the cake is stale and lopsided, it could have the most beautiful icing and decorations and I wouldn't care. Likewise, the cake itself has to be great no matter how good the decorations are. I like many, many records based solely on the music and groove, I couldn't recite the lyrics if I had to in some cases but I know the music on that record inside and out.

Having said that, the lyrics on California Girls are terrific - They tell a story with a full narrative, a beginning and end, a case made and a point stated. The narrator states his case and each couplet leading to the payoff line in the chorus/hook lists his reasons and logic. It's a celebration of the girls from his home state, without taking shots at any other region...in fact, he celebrates the girls of each region in a positive way before coming back to the hook: But the California Girls are still the best in the world. Does he say why they are the best, is it beauty or demeanor or any number of factors? No - and the intelligence of that is he knows yet lets the people listening fill in the reasons why. Yet at the end of the song, the listeners have heard a strong case made and no one was knocked down or insulted in doing so. Rather, it's a celebratory narrative, it's a happy narrative.

Some of the individual lines flow perfectly with the phrasing and delivery generated by the rhythm of the melody. Lines like "I've been all around this great big world, and I've seen all kinds of girls...", the rhythm of that rolls off the tongue and sits perfectly with the notes and groove. That is top-notch songwriting and delivery.

Onto the music.

This is Brian's early attempt at doing what he would crystallize with Good Vibrations, a "pocket symphony" on a 3 minute 45rpm record. The intro is an overture, a clarion call to the listener - A symphonic technique dating back several hundred years and brought into popular music with Louis Armstrong defining swing on his overture from "West End Blues". It's a musical slam-dunk of a statement that is majestic enough to grab your attention, yet until the last ritardando before the organ groove, it has little or nothing musically on paper to do with the material soon to follow. Yet, it gives a hint at what is to come. Teases of some musical themes, hints of some swirling melodic material to follow, a brief curtain being pulled back moment where the anticipation builds. In truth, the intro/overture nearly threatens to outshine the body of the song itself, but it somehow does not. It sets up an infectious shuffle pattern played by the organ.

And that shuffle...Did Brian on California Girls reinvent the shuffle and all that was possible in that oft-used rhythm pattern? Brian isn't doing blues, he's not doing R&B...yet the characteristic rhythm of those genres is front and center. It's not a slow-blues shuffle, it's not a fast shuffle.

It sits right in between, tempo-wise. It's...dare I say..."laid back". It's a California shuffle. Not a trace of anything from the blues. Not a jazz swing or jump R&B. It feels and sounds like you're in California on the beach. Laid back. This overall feel in the music is perhaps more true to the environment which created it than the examples all kinds of rock critics and historians use, that SoCal country rock, singer songwriter feel in the post-acid early 70's that was all over pop culture. Brian's laid back, steady rolling rhythm feels like California. He played a medium/slow, non-blues shuffle and wore the fact that there are no elements of blues on his sleeve. He created an aura, brought home by the hook in the lyrics repeating "California". Genius.

The seeds of Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, as well as later elements from Smile, are in this production and songwriting. Period. From his Spector-ism of shifting chords and keys in the hook, under the melody as he heard on Be My Baby, to the drop-outs, dramatic pauses, and solo organ break before the climax, it's all here in nascent form, while still being masterfully done.

And that climax - Just when you think you know what you'll be hearing, ol' Brian twists the ending chord progression by tweaking *one chord* to make it different. The 1967 Hawaii/Wally Heider outtro/tag is even more emotional and surprising, but the 1965 original still packs that radio-ready punch as it fades out with that new chord showing up to keep the water boiling until the DJ talks up the next spin.

A brilliant record.

And I always come back to this realization, like a bucket of ice water being thrown in your face on a cold January morning as you're walking out the front door:

The man who created the music, texture, harmony, and groove of this majestic recording was in his early 20's and only had one functioning ear to hear the results.

Natural-born talent beyond compare.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A,
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 29, 2016, 06:08:34 PM
Brilliantly stated!


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: clack on November 29, 2016, 07:51:20 PM
The lyrics of California Girls are an inventive variation on Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen. It's a travel guide song, like Dancin' in the Streets, or indeed Surfin' USA. Songs that use a single focal point (dancing, surfing, or appreciating attractive girls) as a hook to give the listener a quick spin through various locations.

Some of Mike's best lyrics were Berry-inspired (Fun Fun Fun, I Get Around).


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: GhostyTMRS on November 29, 2016, 08:33:16 PM
GF nails it.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on November 29, 2016, 10:12:23 PM
Fantastic post, guitarfool! This is  >> Some of the individual lines flow perfectly with the phrasing and delivery generated by the rhythm of the melody. Lines like "I've been all around this great big world, and I've seen all kinds of girls...", the rhythm of that rolls off the tongue and sits perfectly with the notes and groove. That is top-notch songwriting and delivery. <<  especially true. The words matter to me only from that p.o.v.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on November 30, 2016, 05:44:21 AM
I'm siding with Guitarfool on this one. 

Honestly, of all things to pick on Mike Love for, California Girls?  I think Mike has made a lot of positive contributions.  And I think there's a lot that you can poke at Mike about (particularly post Endless Summer).  But, really, California Girls? 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: thorgil on November 30, 2016, 05:52:27 AM
Up to GuitarFool's great latest post, I was really angry at this thread. I mean, how can you take a pure expression of joy like California Girls, and demean it in that way with politics, both in the smaller Beach Boys context (Brian vs Mike, yet again, and I have been guilty of contributing to that, albeit with a very small post) and in the bigger context ("political correctness", about which the only thing I have gathered is that there are several distinct sets of rules, extremely strict for poor Mike in 1965, so-so for other pop lyricists, extremely lenient for hip-hoppers in 2016, etc.).
Then came GF's post, and stars re-aligned, a spark of hope lit up in the darkness, and the iron grip of Chaos did not seem the only force in the Universe.
Thanks Craig! :bw


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Rick5150 on November 30, 2016, 06:33:49 AM
The early BB's songs are very well remembered because they created a feeling that resonated with folks when people needed to feel good. When I listen to the early Beach Boys, I hear catchy tunes that bring me to a place where daydreams are made. I don't have a hot rod, and I have never surfed, but I want to, even if only for the duration of the song. I did not dissect the lyrics until I was much older - I just enjoyed them for the way they flowed with the feel of the songs.

The California Girls intro is majestic, then it fades slightly before the cowboy bass line and the carnival organ create a new sound where Mike lyrics helped created the California Dream. All of the early stuff did. "What makes the girls there so special? I want to go there...." I wanted to go - not for the girls, but for the experience of being where the Beach Boys wrote about and seeing what the big deal was. There was no internet, so you formed your opinion by what you heard on the radio and on television. Of course, when I finally got to visit Hawthorne, the graffiti and free clinics kind of put the kibosh on my vision of what the Beach Boys sang about, but things change.
 
Brian chooses writers/co-writers that help him paint a picture so he can communicate with us.  Mike did that exceptionally well for many hits. Brian Wilson and his various writers/co-writers somehow get into my head. It feels like the songs are about my personal experiences and I know exactly what they are singing about. No other musician has done that.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: B.E. on November 30, 2016, 07:21:34 AM
Great post, GF! I really enjoyed it. The only thing we differ on is the interpretation of the lyrics.

The narrator states his case and each couplet leading to the payoff line in the chorus/hook lists his reasons and logic. It's a celebration of the girls from his home state, without taking shots at any other region...in fact, he celebrates the girls of each region in a positive way before coming back to the hook: But the California Girls are still the best in the world. Does he say why they are the best, is it beauty or demeanor or any number of factors? No - and the intelligence of that is he knows yet lets the people listening fill in the reasons why. Yet at the end of the song, the listeners have heard a strong case made and no one was knocked down or insulted in doing so. Rather, it's a celebratory narrative, it's a happy narrative.

Simply put, I believe the song is a celebration of American girls. He does (gently) slight foreigners (they aren't as cute). To me, he's including them all (eastern, southern, northern, mid-western, western, and Hawaiian girls) in the California dream. He wishes they could all come back with him to California and, collectively, be California girls. Then he sings about having been all around the world, but that he can't wait to get back to the states. That's just my interpretation. A literal one, no doubt. My motivation for posting this was to discuss the terrific lyrics of this song! Like you and Billy and many others here, lyrics are more-or-less secondary to me. It takes quite a bit for the lyrics of a song to distract me from the music. California Girls, Wendy, and other songs mentioned in this thread seem perfectly fine (if not terrific) to me.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: B.E. on November 30, 2016, 10:12:11 AM
Funny, but I never realized how bad the Wendy lyrics were until you just pointed it out. "I never thought a guy could cry 'til you made it with another guy." Hmm. Even "I never thought I could cry 'til you made it with another guy" would have been better.

Yep. That's the change I would have made too :) I wonder if that was Mike being a tough guy and not wanting to admit to himself (as "I" would have done) as capable of crying, instead making it about a different "guy" character who cries.

I think it's reflecting the times. Certainly when I was growing up a guy was NEVER supposed to cry. It was a sign of weakness. Even if you got punched in the gut, you sucked it up and held back the tears lest anyone think you were a wuss. We live I'm a different world now obviously (well, most of us do anyway). "I never thought that I could cry" is fine but it doesn't quite have the same false bravado.

I've always loved how the organ is so loud and piercing that it distorts. It actually conveys the pain of lost love very effectively.

Yet Brian talked about personally ("I") wanting to cry on a lyric just one year later, so there ya go; the bravo/bravado-less difference between Mike's lyrics and Brian's (via Asher) in a nutshell. Mike made a trade-off of having the lyric be far more clunky to avoid the shame of letting himself seem vulnerable in the song.  

Too bad there's not a Wendy lyric about coughing that could tie in to the cough later in the song ("I never thought a guy could cough / in '95 I"ll be Baywatchin' with the Hoff")

It's " . . break my heart I want to go and cry . ." I think the word "want" is used advisedly. I remember a video in which Brian tells Carnie not to cry on television.

The singer in Wendy is actually moved to tears.

I love the lyrics to both songs and don't give a thought to who wrote them.

Great point Bill Ed! and to GhostyTMRS's point, it reflects the world they grew up in. CenturyDeprived, you made a fine point about the guy/cry/guy rhyme. And it's perfectly legitimate if that distracts you from enjoying the song completely. For me, as the lyrics are of secondary importance, it doesn't bother me. Furthermore, I tend to give lyricists of popular music great leeway because the 'art' form is limiting. There's only so many ways to say what you want to say and have it rhyme or flow naturally, especially if you are more interested in direct lyrics (think Plastic Ono Band Lennon as opposed to psychedelic Lennon). To that end, I think you're making a mistake of dismissing Mike's (false) bravado lyrics in relation to Brian's (Asher's) bravado-less lyrics. They each have merit, is what I'm trying to say.

Now that you inspired me to look more closely at Wendy, I actually appreciate it more. I always just assumed that Mike was talking about himself when he said "I never thought a guy could cry", and he is, but to GhostyTMRS's point, again, he tells you more about himself than if he had just said "I" from the start. The way the song begins (and is mostly sung) in group harmony, it denies the listener the ability to assign the narration to a particular voice. So it begs the questions, "whose girl was Wendy?" Then Mike sings (alone) "I never thought a guy could cry, 'til you made it with another guy", then later he sings, "I can't picture you with him, his future looks awful dim". Have you considered, at this point, he could be a hurt, frustrated friend commenting on the situation? There's at least that ambiguity. Then, with his final line he admits, "The farthest thing from my mind, was the day I'd wake up to find". Now, definitively, we find Wendy left him (Mike) and the group immediately sings "My Wendy left me alone" which, to me, underscores that the entire song (Mike's lines and the group lines) was indeed written from his perspective.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on November 30, 2016, 10:42:32 AM
Accidental post


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: joshferrell on November 30, 2016, 01:22:30 PM
Accidental post
This is the best, most amazing post, I have seen on here in a long while...


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on December 01, 2016, 06:08:47 AM
Sorry G.F.  I disagree.  While the lyrics tell a story...it's a way too simplistic story told from the point of view of someone in grade 8 or 9...MAX.  I doubt that very many women find it to be "all that".  It's like the 'Dick and Jane/See Spot run' story being set to Beethoven's 5th...after drinking a 5th.  The original premise is valid.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 06:33:12 AM
Sorry G.F.  I disagree.  While the lyrics tell a story...it's a way too simplistic story told from the point of view of someone in grade 8 or 9...MAX.  I doubt that very many women find it to be "all that".  It's like the 'Dick and Jane/See Spot run' story being set to Beethoven's 5th...after drinking a 5th.  The original premise is valid.

No worries, for me I was hooked by the sound of that intro, the infectious groove, and the music itself that they could have sung the phone book as lyrics and I would have listened! But the lyrics set out to make a point, and they do - For what they are, they went into making a good record. It also goes back to the mid-60's, the whole music scene and the way rock was going beyond where it had been in a variety of ways. If a band like The BB's were trying to go beyond where they had been, then the lyrics of this kind would not have fit on later efforts, and fortunately they didn't try throughout '66. Yet you had records like "Hanky Panky" still hitting the charts, a great record no doubt, but it isn't anywhere near high lyric art. It's just a catchy record with a great sound and groove. Same with other favorites of mine like "Liar Liar" by the Castaways, the lyrics I couldn't even recite beyond the hook, but man I freakin' love the sound of that record. I could care less what he's singing about, lol. But if the lyrics happen to be a decent job of telling a story, that's more icing on the cake.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on December 01, 2016, 06:44:37 AM
I doubt many here think that the record sucks.  The original concept put forward was that the lyrics weren't nearly as advanced as the music was and is.  Brian was reaching for heights which Love failed and would continue to fail to acknowledge with his high-school word play.  It was like a full orchestra providing a musical backdrop for a one trick pony.

These days a ton of people complain that all the Top 30 songs deal with, primarily, are the concepts of love and relationships...with a tinge of 'attitude'.  Same old/same OLD.  That was Mike...and his subject matter.  Still is.  Even if he did it 'well'...his limitations were front and centre.  Brian's limitations were... ... ...Mike... ... ...and health.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 06:59:51 AM
I can't help but think of "Hello Goodbye" at this point. First, I love that record because it sounds amazing, it's catchy, and I could listen to Ringo's drumming on that song all day. But - The lyrics are a nursery rhyme. Nothing there of substance at all, just rhyming couplets that lead to the payoff which is actually the melody working over the chords and groove.

But...consider this single was dropped by the one band who was the face of the literate rock movement, the band who had a few months prior dropped what many called **the** literary rock album of that time Sgt Pepper...and here they were putting out Hello Goodbye which has the most simple lyrics, yet it became a smash hit the same year as Pepper, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, etc.

And on the Capitol flip side was I Am The Walrus, which was Lennon's literary Lewis Carroll fantasy sugar-cube lyrics on full display sung through a distorted preamp so Lennon could sound as if he were singing from the moon. Such was the time when all of this would coexist. "You say yes, I say no, you say stop, I say go"...."Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye, Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, boy, you've been a naughty girl you let your knickers down" available on 45rpm at Woolworth's music dept for 79 cents.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on December 01, 2016, 07:45:06 AM
I can't help but think of "Hello Goodbye" at this point. First, I love that record because it sounds amazing, it's catchy, and I could listen to Ringo's drumming on that song all day. But - The lyrics are a nursery rhyme. Nothing there of substance at all, just rhyming couplets that lead to the payoff which is actually the melody working over the chords and groove.

But...consider this single was dropped by the one band who was the face of the literate rock movement, the band who had a few months prior dropped what many called **the** literary rock album of that time Sgt Pepper...and here they were putting out Hello Goodbye which has the most simple lyrics, yet it became a smash hit the same year as Pepper, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, etc.

And on the Capitol flip side was I Am The Walrus, which was Lennon's literary Lewis Carroll fantasy sugar-cube lyrics on full display sung through a distorted preamp so Lennon could sound as if he were singing from the moon. Such was the time when all of this would coexist. "You say yes, I say no, you say stop, I say go"...."Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye, Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, boy, you've been a naughty girl you let your knickers down" available on 45rpm at Woolworth's music dept for 79 cents.

Sometimes in rock / pop, simple works.  Paul McCartney is one of the finest examples.  Many of his lyrics are simple, and at times repetitive, but the songs are fantastic. 

California Girls is one of many 1960s examples of where Mike's phrasing and lyrics worked perfectly with Brian Wilson's arrangements.  I get that many don't think too highly of Mike Love as a person, but let's give credit where credit is due.  Brian does.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on December 01, 2016, 07:47:08 AM
But...Paul then didn't continuously come up with different ways to keep on keepin' on with a never ending Hello Goodbye motif.  For him...Go Go Go meant move on.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
But...Paul then didn't continuously come up with different ways to keep on keepin' on with a never ending Hello Goodbye motif.  For him...Go Go Go meant move on.

I agree. My Hello Goodbye/I Am The Walrus example was to show how so many facets of songwriting and theme could and did coexist, but there has to be that diversity or else it becomes almost a parody. Which, dare I say, too many of Mike's songwriting and lyric efforts in the four decades after the 60's would become. The concept of the endless summer could be a curio but not something to keep beating into the ground, and it sure as hell didn't work with synths and drum machines replacing a roomful of musicians packed into Western 3 or Gold Star.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on December 01, 2016, 08:03:48 AM
But...Paul then didn't continuously come up with different ways to keep on keepin' on with a never ending Hello Goodbye motif.  For him...Go Go Go meant move on.

This is true, but you have to admit, in the 60s, it worked. 

Like I said, there's a lot of post Endless Summer stuff from Mike that you can throw stones at. 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 01, 2016, 08:06:26 AM

The concept of the endless summer could be a curio but not something to keep beating into the ground, and it sure as hell didn't work with synths and drum machines replacing a roomful of musicians packed into Western 3 or Gold Star.
Mike's problems with trying to recreate the never could be recreated mastery of California Girls in a nutshell. The vibe of the 1960s and youthful joy of the BBs were came together with BW's growing mastery in one song.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 08:15:18 AM
It really does become a parody to try chasing the past, it can feel like a guy in his mid-40's going back to his old high school carrying a football and telling the kids "I was the quarterback for the Cougars when we won the state title...", and the kids could care less.

Case in point, this was a Mike Love/Adrian Baker release from '83, "Let's Party", the flip side to Jingle Bell Rock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHkmuU-MsM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHkmuU-MsM)

Never mind the sound of this production, but one of the first lyrics has the line "It's time to party now and have some fun, put down your school books, your work away, we'll have a party if you wanna play...". At some point you do have to move on, and having a guy in his 40's saying put down your school books and party becomes pure parody. It just doesn't work unless it is done up as high camp or satire, and I don't get any of that vibe from these songs because Mike kept cranking them out with similar themes.

In 1983, did someone seriously think a record like this would go anywhere?


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 01, 2016, 09:33:32 AM
Agreed, those songs reek of a older man out of ideas trying to recreate the success of youth without the inspiration.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amy B. on December 01, 2016, 10:54:52 AM
I can't help but think of "Hello Goodbye" at this point. First, I love that record because it sounds amazing, it's catchy, and I could listen to Ringo's drumming on that song all day. But - The lyrics are a nursery rhyme. Nothing there of substance at all, just rhyming couplets that lead to the payoff which is actually the melody working over the chords and groove.

But...consider this single was dropped by the one band who was the face of the literate rock movement, the band who had a few months prior dropped what many called **the** literary rock album of that time Sgt Pepper...and here they were putting out Hello Goodbye which has the most simple lyrics, yet it became a smash hit the same year as Pepper, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, etc.

And on the Capitol flip side was I Am The Walrus, which was Lennon's literary Lewis Carroll fantasy sugar-cube lyrics on full display sung through a distorted preamp so Lennon could sound as if he were singing from the moon. Such was the time when all of this would coexist. "You say yes, I say no, you say stop, I say go"...."Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye, Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, boy, you've been a naughty girl you let your knickers down" available on 45rpm at Woolworth's music dept for 79 cents.

Hello Goodbye is kind of inane when you take it at its surface. However, I feel like it could be interpreted as a metaphor for hope and youth, and in the 60s, that meant a lot. (I wasn't there, but...) I could see a teenager agreeing with the "You say stop and I say go, go, go..." in regards to their parents or the older generation in general. That's how I interpreted the song, even if McCartney didn't intend it that way. So in that sense, it seemed more sophisticated than "Well East Coast girls are hip, I really dig the styles they wear..." And I have no problem with the California Girls lyrics. It's just , as you say, that it was clear that this was as far as Mike Love could go in terms of sophistication.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on December 01, 2016, 10:57:36 AM
Never mind the sound of this production, but one of the first lyrics has the line "It's time to party now and have some fun, put down your school books, your work away, we'll have a party if you wanna play...". At some point you do have to move on, and having a guy in his 40's saying put down your school books and party becomes pure parody.

This is a small fragment of your argument and my instinct is to agree but at the same time I also think about how a song like Rock Around the Clock was one of the most significant rock and roll teen anthems and it was written by a 28 year old. Similarly Chuck Berry is writing a song like School Day at the age of 30. I recognize, of course, that there is a difference between someone in their 40s and someone who is 28-30. However, is there a credible cut off? Or is the idea that while it worked for Bill Haley and Chuck Berry in the 50s, it wouldn't have worked for them to be writing about the same themes 20 years later?


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on December 01, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
I can't help but think of "Hello Goodbye" at this point. First, I love that record because it sounds amazing, it's catchy, and I could listen to Ringo's drumming on that song all day. But - The lyrics are a nursery rhyme. Nothing there of substance at all, just rhyming couplets that lead to the payoff which is actually the melody working over the chords and groove.

But...consider this single was dropped by the one band who was the face of the literate rock movement, the band who had a few months prior dropped what many called **the** literary rock album of that time Sgt Pepper...and here they were putting out Hello Goodbye which has the most simple lyrics, yet it became a smash hit the same year as Pepper, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, etc.

And on the Capitol flip side was I Am The Walrus, which was Lennon's literary Lewis Carroll fantasy sugar-cube lyrics on full display sung through a distorted preamp so Lennon could sound as if he were singing from the moon. Such was the time when all of this would coexist. "You say yes, I say no, you say stop, I say go"...."Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye, Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, boy, you've been a naughty girl you let your knickers down" available on 45rpm at Woolworth's music dept for 79 cents.

Hello Goodbye is kind of inane when you take it at its surface. However, I feel like it could be interpreted as a metaphor for hope and youth, and in the 60s, that meant a lot. (I wasn't there, but...) I could see a teenager agreeing with the "You say stop and I say go, go, go..." in regards to their parents or the older generation in general. That's how I interpreted the song, even if McCartney didn't intend it that way. So in that sense, it seemed more sophisticated than "Well East Coast girls are hip, I really dig the styles they wear..." And I have no problem with the California Girls lyrics. It's just , as you say, that it was clear that this was as far as Mike Love could go in terms of sophistication.

That's how I take the song too, Amy. It was kind of an encapsulation of the exuberance and hopefulness of the youth in 1967.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on December 01, 2016, 11:03:41 AM
It really does become a parody to try chasing the past, it can feel like a guy in his mid-40's going back to his old high school carrying a football and telling the kids "I was the quarterback for the Cougars when we won the state title...", and the kids could care less.
 

Mike basically became Al "4 touchdowns in 1 game" Bundy.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Kid Presentable on December 01, 2016, 11:07:56 AM
Yeah I thought about that too, why does Mike catch a ton of heat while Chuck Berry doesn't?  My next thought was that if Mike just reliably played an instrument of some sort throughout his career, he would have gotten much more of a free pass. 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on December 01, 2016, 11:10:38 AM
Yeah I thought about that too, why does Mike catch a ton of heat while Chuck Berry doesn't?  My next thought was that if Mike just reliably played an instrument of some sort throughout his career, he would have gotten much more of a free pass. 

There's a lot of things that Mike gets heat for that other artists get a free pass on. 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 11:14:13 AM
It really does become a parody to try chasing the past, it can feel like a guy in his mid-40's going back to his old high school carrying a football and telling the kids "I was the quarterback for the Cougars when we won the state title...", and the kids could care less.
 

Mike basically became Al "4 touchdowns in 1 game" Bundy.

That is exactly what and who I had in mind - "Ladies and gentlemen, Red Grange is in the stands..."  :)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on December 01, 2016, 11:28:20 AM
It really does become a parody to try chasing the past, it can feel like a guy in his mid-40's going back to his old high school carrying a football and telling the kids "I was the quarterback for the Cougars when we won the state title...", and the kids could care less.
 

Mike basically became Al "4 touchdowns in 1 game" Bundy.

That is exactly what and who I had in mind - "Ladies and gentlemen, Red Grange is in the stands..."  :)

Mike Bundy expressing his thoughts on sad songs, like Summer's Gone...

(http://i68.tinypic.com/nboh2f.jpg)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on December 01, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
The difference with Chuck Berry and Bill Haley? Bill Haley was playing western swing, his style fell ass-backwards into becoming what was then a nascent genre called rock and roll. Chuck Berry was playing jump blues mixed with R&B mixed with T-Bone Walker's guitar style, and his style also fell ass-backwards into what became rock and roll.

Name one original Chuck Berry song written after 1970 of any consequence, or one that he got requests to play at his live show. Bill Haley simply exiled himself and disappeared from public view more or less until his death. Who is giving them a pass and where even is a pass required to be given? Both Chuck and Haley were integral to developing and popularizing rock and roll in the 50's, the bulk of what they did contribute after the 50's were a series of rock revivals and nostalgia trips via live shows, and in Chuck's case "My Ding A Ling" became his fluke "comeback" hit. And that record...I'll hold off on commenting.

There is a stark difference between the guys who were older than their audiences founding and developing rock and roll, and a guy in his 40's with the legacy of the Beach Boys under his belt putting out a single in 1983 telling kids to put down their school books and party.

The issue might be a case of, again, who actually thought this would fly in 1983? It's just basic recognition of what was different in 1983 versus 1954 or 1964.

And Mike into the 90's was still writing more or less the same kind of lyrics with his Adrian Baker collabs and other projects. It could have been a retro/camp kind of thing or even a more earnest attempt if it weren't for the attempts to make the productions sound modern to sell in that time period. It just didn't work, yet Mike kept trying the "let's party after school", "let's party on the beach", "let's cruise again like we did last summer" kind of themes in the lyrics as if a new take on that was going to be on par with that original era or even accepted. It's something that is a valid question, what audience in the 80's and 90's was he trying to reach with the "let's party" and "cruisin'" songs he kept writing? Then after Kokomo became a hit, the focus also shifted to tropical island paradises along with dropping the school books and trying to duplicate that success, again to no avail.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Jarhead ghost on December 01, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
Yeah I thought about that too, why does Mike catch a ton of heat while Chuck Berry doesn't? 
Mike never peed on anybody


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Rick5150 on December 02, 2016, 04:16:04 AM
Yeah I thought about that too, why does Mike catch a ton of heat while Chuck Berry doesn't? 
Mike never peed on anybody

That we know of... ;D He offered to suck Lorrie Morgan's toes to relax her, which was the creepiest thing I ever read. I am sure he has pissed on a few people. He certainly pissed OFF a lot of people.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on December 02, 2016, 05:10:42 AM
Yeah I thought about that too, why does Mike catch a ton of heat while Chuck Berry doesn't? 
Mike never peed on anybody

That we know of... ;D He offered to suck Lorrie Morgan's toes to relax her, which was the creepiest thing I ever read. I am sure he has pissed on a few people. He certainly pissed OFF a lot of people.

That was the one part of Mike's book where I would imagine the editor or collaborator would approach his and say, "Um...Mr. Love....are you sure you want this printed?" 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 02, 2016, 09:04:44 AM
Jesus Mike.... ;D


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on December 02, 2016, 09:28:04 AM
Yawnsville story for sure.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: JK on December 02, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
Yawnsville story for sure.

(http://jackcavanaugh.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83555153869e20120a55c162e970c-pi)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on December 02, 2016, 10:53:56 AM
Yawnsville story for sure.

(http://jackcavanaugh.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83555153869e20120a55c162e970c-pi)
Thanks for illustration.  :) I stand by it: that Lorrie Morgan story is boring.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: orange22 on December 10, 2016, 11:09:19 AM
This is kind of a weird thread. In some ways it feels like tearing down Mike for being who he is. Don't get me wrong, I wish that the Beach Boys would have had lyrics that are more artistic, introspective, personal, and what have you, 50 years on. But how much blame can be put on Mike specifically?

There was some discussion particularly about California Girls. And I think c-man really hit one aspect on the head, in terms of the lyrics fitting the feel of the song. I don't know the writing situation, but assume that the first time Mike would have heard the song is with the completed backing track, as the song was referred to as "I'm a Power Mower and You're the Lawn" (paraphrased) during the recording sessions. GhostyTMRS says that Brian originally had a lyric of "I dig the girls" for the track, which if true is really key. Brian is multi-faceted, as we all are. Part of him is a jock, a guy's guy so to speak. I can easily see him loving the idea (though not necessarily the execution, as I'll touch on below) of the lyrics. This is particularly true in light of some other discussion in the thread, on the idea of the juxtaposition of high and low art, i.e. an immaculate backing track paired with juvenile/sexist tinged lyrics. Juxtaposition, playing opposites off each other, is a huge part of art, and I'm sure this wasn't lost on Brian, whether with intent or just based on instinct.

So picture yourself as Mike, sitting down with Brian. He has a song he's really excited to play; he puts the acetate on the turntable and out comes this beautiful baroque introduction, which transitions into an incredible, bouncy, upbeat track. What happens now? Is the melody already written? Are they coming up with it right then? The reason I ask is because I think the melody plays a part in the basis of the lyrics. This relates to another point discussed in the thread, which is that the subject matter of the song itself is not a problem, but rather the specific lyrics used. They are pretty clunky when you really look at them (but then again, how many lyrics aren't when you look at them in isolation?). Mr. Tiger, you described this idea well, and with some humor:

I don't think anyone's saying there should be introspective lyrics tied to "California Girls". The theme could have been the same, but far better refined and polished. There's no spark, no wit, nothing clever, just a leering slobbering kind of "Well, look at that chick over there, now let's look at this chick over here," approach that doesn't live up to the musical side of the equation. Maybe after a couple of drafts and some honing, Mike's concept might have worked, but it sounds tossed off when at the same time the musical backdrop is nothing but...

There is at least some truth in this for me, on the surface level. The vocabulary used is juvenile ("hip", "dig"). There isn't a poetic flow. The lyrics are utilitarian: they're simple, easy to remember, and get the point across. That is their strength AND their weakness. It's why millions of people love the song, and why a small subset of those millions take some level of umbrage with it (me included I guess I could say, based on the evidence). Why couldn't the song have had more mature lyrics AND been a hit as well, as compared elsewhere in the thread to the (incredible) Beatles track "Help!"?

I think part of the answer goes back to what I mentioned above in terms of the relationship between the melody and the lyrics. The melody of "California Girls" influences the lyrics in its bouncy feel and the way it scans. The feel of the melody builds on the jovial nature of the backing track- it jumps all over the place (it barely ever repeats a note 2 times in a row, particularly in the 1st verse), and has a lot of syncopation (i.e. singing notes on the rhythms between beats, rather than on beats), which gives it that happy feel. The other notable aspect is the way the lyric scans, basically meaning its rhythm and the way it flows. The rhythm is a bit unique since it has somewhat of a staccato feel (i.e. the notes are short, and thus the words don't flow together, like there's a slight choppiness: "Well East...coast...girls..."). This staccato feel of the melody, in combination with it having a swing/triplet rhythm, gives it a jazzy tinge. Musically this rhythm feels great...

...but (and now I'm finally getting to why I questioned how the melody was created), the rhythm of the melody guides, but also limits, what the lyrics are capable of. Going back to the comparison to "Help!", think about the lyrics and the rhythm/flow of the melody in that song. They're rapid-fire, Lennon is spitting them out. He's chaotic and he needs to get this off his chest. The rhythm of the melody allows the lyric to do this with its machine-gun pace. Now think about the notes of the melody. They're at the opposite end of the spectrum from "California Girls"; aside from the intro/tag, which jumps around a bit, the rest of the song features very little melodic movement. The 1st verse has a whopping 10 syllables all on the same pitch: "When I was young-er so much young-er than". It's almost more of a rap than a melody in this way. As with "California Girls", the melodic rhythm of "Help!" not only guides the lyrics, but outright influences them. The rhythm of "Help!" is written in phrases, and means that the lyrics necessarily must form more complete thoughts.

When we compare the rhythm of "Help!"'s melody to that of  "California Girls", we can see that the slower, choppy rhythm of "CG" means that the lyrics can't use the more stream-of-consciousness type of approach used in "H". The lyrics necessarily have to be more simplified in order to mesh with the melody. So again, who wrote the melody? If Brian did, or they worked on it together, then Mike wouldn't have been in control of this important aspect of the melodic/lyrical connection. And if Mike did write the melody, then he was still bound to the already completed backing track in all of its buoyant glory. And in this case he would have been writing a melody to someone else's chords and feel, which is a different mental process than writing a melody to your own track.

So yeah, I do wish that Brian had worked with people other than Mike on more of his songs. I wish that he had been able to produce music on his own terms throughout his whole life. But given how things were, I think Mike may have been viewed overly harshly at times in this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add, I only wrote the above after reading the first 3 pages of the thread. Meaning that I did not read your analysis, guitarfool, of "California Girls" at the top of page 4, and the miniature reappraisal of the song that followed. Which is a bit serendipitous, as you touch on some of the exact things that I did, and probably a little more coherently. Great post.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on December 10, 2016, 10:16:27 PM
Edited to add, I only wrote the above after reading the first 3 pages of the thread. Meaning that I did not read your analysis, guitarfool, of "California Girls" at the top of page 4, and the miniature reappraisal of the song that followed. Which is a bit serendipitous, as you touch on some of the exact things that I did, and probably a little more coherently. Great post.
Tbh, I didn't like Beatles tangent that went for a bit in this thread. We cannot expect from Mike to write lyrics like John. 2 completely different personalities.
& no worries  :) , you added to guitarfool's point & it was coherent alright. As music girl, I especially enjoyed reading the analysis of melody as related to the lyrics & do they fit rhythmically. & the rhetorical questions was good idea. Thanks for sharing. :bw


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on April 14, 2017, 10:02:33 AM
Ultimately I think California Girls is a brilliant record, a standout both for Brian as producer/writer and standing among the best of the 60's rock in general. The lyrics are terrific, I think. I'll give a 5-minute mini review/analysis short of a dissertation.

I'm a music guy first and foremost. If the sound and the groove doesn't click with me, I move on. The words of a song to me are icing on the cake. If the cake is stale and lopsided, it could have the most beautiful icing and decorations and I wouldn't care. Likewise, the cake itself has to be great no matter how good the decorations are. I like many, many records based solely on the music and groove, I couldn't recite the lyrics if I had to in some cases but I know the music on that record inside and out.

Having said that, the lyrics on California Girls are terrific - They tell a story with a full narrative, a beginning and end, a case made and a point stated. The narrator states his case and each couplet leading to the payoff line in the chorus/hook lists his reasons and logic. It's a celebration of the girls from his home state, without taking shots at any other region...in fact, he celebrates the girls of each region in a positive way before coming back to the hook: But the California Girls are still the best in the world. Does he say why they are the best, is it beauty or demeanor or any number of factors? No - and the intelligence of that is he knows yet lets the people listening fill in the reasons why. Yet at the end of the song, the listeners have heard a strong case made and no one was knocked down or insulted in doing so. Rather, it's a celebratory narrative, it's a happy narrative.

Some of the individual lines flow perfectly with the phrasing and delivery generated by the rhythm of the melody. Lines like "I've been all around this great big world, and I've seen all kinds of girls...", the rhythm of that rolls off the tongue and sits perfectly with the notes and groove. That is top-notch songwriting and delivery.

Onto the music.

This is Brian's early attempt at doing what he would crystallize with Good Vibrations, a "pocket symphony" on a 3 minute 45rpm record. The intro is an overture, a clarion call to the listener - A symphonic technique dating back several hundred years and brought into popular music with Louis Armstrong defining swing on his overture from "West End Blues". It's a musical slam-dunk of a statement that is majestic enough to grab your attention, yet until the last ritardando before the organ groove, it has little or nothing musically on paper to do with the material soon to follow. Yet, it gives a hint at what is to come. Teases of some musical themes, hints of some swirling melodic material to follow, a brief curtain being pulled back moment where the anticipation builds. In truth, the intro/overture nearly threatens to outshine the body of the song itself, but it somehow does not. It sets up an infectious shuffle pattern played by the organ.

And that shuffle...Did Brian on California Girls reinvent the shuffle and all that was possible in that oft-used rhythm pattern? Brian isn't doing blues, he's not doing R&B...yet the characteristic rhythm of those genres is front and center. It's not a slow-blues shuffle, it's not a fast shuffle.

It sits right in between, tempo-wise. It's...dare I say..."laid back". It's a California shuffle. Not a trace of anything from the blues. Not a jazz swing or jump R&B. It feels and sounds like you're in California on the beach. Laid back. This overall feel in the music is perhaps more true to the environment which created it than the examples all kinds of rock critics and historians use, that SoCal country rock, singer songwriter feel in the post-acid early 70's that was all over pop culture. Brian's laid back, steady rolling rhythm feels like California. He played a medium/slow, non-blues shuffle and wore the fact that there are no elements of blues on his sleeve. He created an aura, brought home by the hook in the lyrics repeating "California". Genius.

The seeds of Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, as well as later elements from Smile, are in this production and songwriting. Period. From his Spector-ism of shifting chords and keys in the hook, under the melody as he heard on Be My Baby, to the drop-outs, dramatic pauses, and solo organ break before the climax, it's all here in nascent form, while still being masterfully done.

And that climax - Just when you think you know what you'll be hearing, ol' Brian twists the ending chord progression by tweaking *one chord* to make it different. The 1967 Hawaii/Wally Heider outtro/tag is even more emotional and surprising, but the 1965 original still packs that radio-ready punch as it fades out with that new chord showing up to keep the water boiling until the DJ talks up the next spin.

A brilliant record.

And I always come back to this realization, like a bucket of ice water being thrown in your face on a cold January morning as you're walking out the front door:

The man who created the music, texture, harmony, and groove of this majestic recording was in his early 20's and only had one functioning ear to hear the results.

Natural-born talent beyond compare.



Hey Cincinnati Kid, if you're going to copy, quote and repost my posts directly like the ones above and use them to start discussions and make points on other forums , how about crediting and citing  them properly and not the way you did this one? "Someone" did not post that "elsewhere", I posted it here. Simple as that.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Lee Marshall on April 14, 2017, 04:14:18 PM
The bottom line?  Brian and Mike were speaking to two different 'audiences'.  [Paul and John didn't...as Beatles]  Brian was looking for a more sophisticated ... or at least more mature ... target.  Mike was stuck at a grade 11 high school assembly.  The times when they were actually in sync...?  After 1965?  Not all that often.  Brian saw a real future ahead of him and he kept on movin'.  Mike saw the past and just sat down.

>Mike)}]    :old    Brian>... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...> :hat


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: rab2591 on April 14, 2017, 05:02:39 PM
Ultimately I think California Girls is a brilliant record, a standout both for Brian as producer/writer and standing among the best of the 60's rock in general. The lyrics are terrific, I think. I'll give a 5-minute mini review/analysis short of a dissertation.

I'm a music guy first and foremost. If the sound and the groove doesn't click with me, I move on. The words of a song to me are icing on the cake. If the cake is stale and lopsided, it could have the most beautiful icing and decorations and I wouldn't care. Likewise, the cake itself has to be great no matter how good the decorations are. I like many, many records based solely on the music and groove, I couldn't recite the lyrics if I had to in some cases but I know the music on that record inside and out.

Having said that, the lyrics on California Girls are terrific - They tell a story with a full narrative, a beginning and end, a case made and a point stated. The narrator states his case and each couplet leading to the payoff line in the chorus/hook lists his reasons and logic. It's a celebration of the girls from his home state, without taking shots at any other region...in fact, he celebrates the girls of each region in a positive way before coming back to the hook: But the California Girls are still the best in the world. Does he say why they are the best, is it beauty or demeanor or any number of factors? No - and the intelligence of that is he knows yet lets the people listening fill in the reasons why. Yet at the end of the song, the listeners have heard a strong case made and no one was knocked down or insulted in doing so. Rather, it's a celebratory narrative, it's a happy narrative.

Some of the individual lines flow perfectly with the phrasing and delivery generated by the rhythm of the melody. Lines like "I've been all around this great big world, and I've seen all kinds of girls...", the rhythm of that rolls off the tongue and sits perfectly with the notes and groove. That is top-notch songwriting and delivery.

Onto the music.

This is Brian's early attempt at doing what he would crystallize with Good Vibrations, a "pocket symphony" on a 3 minute 45rpm record. The intro is an overture, a clarion call to the listener - A symphonic technique dating back several hundred years and brought into popular music with Louis Armstrong defining swing on his overture from "West End Blues". It's a musical slam-dunk of a statement that is majestic enough to grab your attention, yet until the last ritardando before the organ groove, it has little or nothing musically on paper to do with the material soon to follow. Yet, it gives a hint at what is to come. Teases of some musical themes, hints of some swirling melodic material to follow, a brief curtain being pulled back moment where the anticipation builds. In truth, the intro/overture nearly threatens to outshine the body of the song itself, but it somehow does not. It sets up an infectious shuffle pattern played by the organ.

And that shuffle...Did Brian on California Girls reinvent the shuffle and all that was possible in that oft-used rhythm pattern? Brian isn't doing blues, he's not doing R&B...yet the characteristic rhythm of those genres is front and center. It's not a slow-blues shuffle, it's not a fast shuffle.

It sits right in between, tempo-wise. It's...dare I say..."laid back". It's a California shuffle. Not a trace of anything from the blues. Not a jazz swing or jump R&B. It feels and sounds like you're in California on the beach. Laid back. This overall feel in the music is perhaps more true to the environment which created it than the examples all kinds of rock critics and historians use, that SoCal country rock, singer songwriter feel in the post-acid early 70's that was all over pop culture. Brian's laid back, steady rolling rhythm feels like California. He played a medium/slow, non-blues shuffle and wore the fact that there are no elements of blues on his sleeve. He created an aura, brought home by the hook in the lyrics repeating "California". Genius.

The seeds of Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, as well as later elements from Smile, are in this production and songwriting. Period. From his Spector-ism of shifting chords and keys in the hook, under the melody as he heard on Be My Baby, to the drop-outs, dramatic pauses, and solo organ break before the climax, it's all here in nascent form, while still being masterfully done.

And that climax - Just when you think you know what you'll be hearing, ol' Brian twists the ending chord progression by tweaking *one chord* to make it different. The 1967 Hawaii/Wally Heider outtro/tag is even more emotional and surprising, but the 1965 original still packs that radio-ready punch as it fades out with that new chord showing up to keep the water boiling until the DJ talks up the next spin.

A brilliant record.

And I always come back to this realization, like a bucket of ice water being thrown in your face on a cold January morning as you're walking out the front door:

The man who created the music, texture, harmony, and groove of this majestic recording was in his early 20's and only had one functioning ear to hear the results.

Natural-born talent beyond compare.



Hey Cincinnati Kid, if you're going to copy, quote and repost my posts directly like the ones above and use them to start discussions and make points on other forums , how about crediting and citing  them properly and not the way you did this one? "Someone" did not post that "elsewhere", I posted it here. Simple as that.

I'm not aiming this at Cincinnati Kid, but I do love that I've seen so many ridiculous PS forum advertisements here from the same people over and over again, yet your post can't even be cited properly on that board. Perhaps because Cinc Kid knew some of the cesspool clientele there would berate him for quoting "Guitarfool2002".


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on April 14, 2017, 08:11:14 PM


"...cesspool clientele". Classic, Rab!!  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amalgamate on April 15, 2017, 09:20:44 PM
I'm glad this got bumped so I could post in it. I have confused feelings about the lyrics to California Girls. I can say with certainty the first verse is much better than the second verse. But even then, I can't say that it's great.

Well, East Coast girls are hip - I really dig those styles they wear
and the Southern girls with the way they talk - they knock me out when I'm down there
The Midwest farmer's daughter really makes you feel alright
And the Northern girls with they way they kiss - they keep their boyfriends warm at night

The basic concept here is solid enough: let's cover a stereotype of an American region. The (North) East Coast is full of sophisticated, style-conscious people; Southerners have cute accents. But then Northerners (New Englanders? The Minnesota/Wisconsin region?) ... live in a cold place? And are therefore good at kissing to keep that cold away? Eh. Not as easily accessible as the prior two stereotypes. Then the Midwest is full of polite people. But "really makes you feel alright" is such a boring way to express that. The "really" is a lyrical filler that doesn't really express anything but uses up two syllables. Syllables are precious in a song - because you get so few of them and they're tied to a pre-existing melody and stress pattern, you must be very economical and conscious in order to craft a good lyric and express something compellingly. Words like "just" and "really" and "even" are crutches. Combined with a bland statement like "feel alright," the entire phrase feels like filler.

I love the contrast of the chorus with the first verse. Mike's just done telling us that American girls are all great (with one notable region missing) and then says to forget all that, because they all should be California girls! Love the juxtaposition of it. And it really reinforces that there must be something special about California girls, because it's not like he's saying "East Coast girls are snobs; Southern girls have stupid accents; Midwesterners are doormats; Northerners freeze to death" - he's saying they're even better than these great girls he's discussed. There's something very dreamy about the way "I wish they all could be California girls" is repeated over those chord changes. It really heightens the fantasy aspect of it. But the second verse... ech.

The West Coast has the sunshine and the girls all get so tan
I dig a French bikini on Hawaiian Island dolls by a palm tree in the sand
I been all around this great big world and I seen all kind of girls
Yeah, but I couldn't wait to get back in the states - back to the cutest girls in the world

First of all, "the West Coast has the sunshine"? I promise you, the East Coast is not just New York and New England. The Southern states are well known for their favorable climes. And uh, how about Florida? Did you forget about Miami? Even more sunshine than California  8) But let's forgive that for a moment. I feel like this is what people refer to when they talk about this song seeming sleazy. It sounds like Mike's just sort of ogling girls in bikinis from a distance while they're tanning on the beach. And there's nothing wrong with being attracted to women, but the way it's written just sounds so leery.

This isn't Mike's worst effort nor his best effort. I mean, you have stuff like "if you say you watched the movie, you're a couple of liars/and remember, only you can prevent forest fires" from "Drive-In" that's honestly cringeworthy. And then there's stuff like "Fun Fun Fun" which, while not Shakespeare by any means, is actually fun. "California Girls" is alright, I'd say. It's only the second verse that makes me wrinkle my nose a bit when I listen to it, but you've got those lovely background vocals to focus on anyway. The music is definitely more advanced than prior Brian efforts, but which are the really "advanced" parts? There's the opening portion, which is wordless, and the chorus, which is well served by only a single lyric. The single lyric is iconic ("I wish they all could be California girls" is a famous line) and also allows you to focus on all the lovely harmonies going on. Brian would reuse this technique of a single lyric repeated over different, counterpointing melodies later on ("God only knows what I'd be without you," "I wanna go home/hoist up the John B sail", "Have you seen the grand Coulee working on the railroad?") to great effect, so no points docked there. The verses aren't too crazy, and accordingly enough the lyrics aren't too crazy either. There are likely better example lyrics for the case of "Brian dumped Mike" - by the way, a proposition I'm not sure I agree with. But then again, I'm a baby fan, so who knows?


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Rick5150 on April 16, 2017, 04:48:29 AM
That seemed tongue-in-cheek, but if it is not, I think you are reading way  too much into it.

California Girls did not cover every region, just like the Beach Boys missed some surfing spots in Surfin' USA. You cannot possibly fit everything in one song. California Girls is a song is about the guys appreciating different aspects of women from around the United States. Sure, Florida has sunshine, but so does most of the rest of the world. In fact, if you want to get nitpicky, they covered the entire globe with that "all around this great big world" line, so Florida can be represented there. :)

I am not trying to be condescending, so please do not read it that way. I am not sure if you were around for drive-ins but in the even that you were not (or for anyone else who was not) the "remember only you can prevent forest fires" line is from a PSA that we would see all the time at the drive ins.

(http://www.ricktheriault.net/random_images/forest_fires.jpg)

As it follows the line "if you say you watched the movie, you're a couple of liars", I think the insinuation is that you were doing something WAY more fun than watching the movie. Back then the parents cared enough to ask what the movie was about and if you could not tell them anything about the movie, they may assume that you did not use the car to go to the drive-in, and you would not get to borrow the car again. Kids would borrow their parents cars and use them as free motel rooms, go to the drive-in and make out. I think that "remember only you can prevent forest fires" is a smart-ass way to "prove" you were at the drive-in since that PSA was at all the drive-ins - so it was a "can't miss" response to your parents question. It is part of Mike's swaggery, smart-Alec delivery that he had in the early songs.

I agree it is a lame line as it does not date well, but it does make sense. The Beach Boys often had lyrics that I did not understand. Right from the very start (I do not know surfing terms) in Surfin' when Mike sings, my surfin' knots are rising" I had no idea what he was talking about. There was no internet back then. Now there is so much information out there, I know what Huarache sandals and Lake Pipes are. LOL.



Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Amalgamate on April 16, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
@Rick5150 No worries! I was being tongue-in-cheek with the Florida thing; we all know California is famous for sun and beaches and all that stuff. Just had to put in a token protest from the sunshine state ;)

As for the "forest fire" line, I didn't realize it was actually played at drive-ins. That does makes the line a little less random. Nevertheless, I still dislike it because it's supposed to be funny but doesn't really come across as amusing to me. I suppose it's not the worst, but it's still my to-go example of a bad Mike lyric.


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: Sound of Free on April 17, 2017, 09:01:10 AM
If we're looking for Mike's single worst lyric ever, it's "Christmas comes this time each year." He so easily could have written something like "How I love this time of year" to fit that template.

The California girls lyrics are hardly profound, but to me they work for the vibe of the song, and hey, ONE of the boys was still a teenager at the time.  :)

The worst thing about the California Girls lyrics is that they eventually spawned this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4a_eswyvk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4a_eswyvk)


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: KDS on April 17, 2017, 11:29:33 AM
I've been a Mike defender to the point that I've been called a Kokomoist before. 

But, are we really citing California Girls as the number one example of why Brian was right to stop writing songs with Mike Love? 


Title: Re: Why Brian Dumped Mike: Exhibit A, \
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on April 17, 2017, 05:11:05 PM
I'm not aiming this at Cincinnati Kid, but I do love that I've seen so many ridiculous PS forum advertisements here from the same people over and over again, yet your post can't even be cited properly on that board. Perhaps because Cinc Kid knew some of the cesspool clientele there would berate him for quoting "Guitarfool2002".
One thing to say "I remember some poster saying, and I paraphrase..." & the other to copy & paste the exact wording & deliberately not mention the poster's name. What you reasoned might be it or he didn't want to show that guitarfool2002 actually said sth. positive about Mike. Pathetic.