The Smiley Smile Message Board

just wondering about this...

Domenic Priore states in his book 'The Story Of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece Smile' on page 94 that a finished version of 'Surf's Up' from early 1967 does exist but to this day, has not been released.  Does anyone know if this is true?  I mean, I was under the impression that only the first section was completed - which of course was used on their 'Surf's Up' album.  After all, if there is a finished version of the song from 1967 then why would they use Brian's demo recording for the middle to end section?  Surely they would've just pulled the completed track out and (if they wished) overdubbed new vocals onto that in 1971? 
Makes no sense to me. 

He claims that it exists, but from what I know, it's never turned up.

Alan Boyd noted that the tape box for "Surf's Up (Part 2)" is empty. But that doesn't mean the tape was stolen. It may have been empty back in the early '70s, when Steve Desper and Carl Wilson were piecing it together for the 1971 released version. Brian said in a 1968 interview that the song briefly broke the Beach Boys up, and Jules Siegal noted a major fight during one of the "Surf's Up" sessions. Not to get all conspirtorial, but perhaps Brian did destroy that tape.

Are you refering to the "went very badly" quote by Jules Siegel, in front of the cameras?

Yes.

Never happened, at least not in front of any cameras. This much is clear from Oppenheim's reel notes.

A session "going very badly" could just mean the performances weren't good... and that's almost certainly what he does mean. Had there been any kind of confrontation, he would have noted it - lot of difference between "going very badly" and "Mike & Brian had a set-to".

Not too sure he would have noted 'set to'. 'VERY badly' is an over the top description if you were not musically trained etc.
So would assume he was referring to the inter group relations at said incident.....don't you?

OK, let's strip it back to the basics: here is exactly what Seigel wrote...

"Earlier in the evening the film crew had covered a Beach Boys vocal session which had gone very badly".

Nothing about any fights, or even disagreements, just that a session had not gone well (and as we now know that this session was for the bvs to "Wonderful" & "Cabin Essence" (12/15/66), that isn't too surprising). Further, Oppenheim's reel notes make no reference at all to any disagreements, which would of course have been great TV and thus marked down. Moreover, I recall that someone (Cam Mott, probably) contacted Seigel and put that question to him, and that he couldn't recall any such disagreement. Finally, by the time Brian got to recording his demo, the rest of the band had gone home - so there was no-one to argue with anyway.   :deadhorse

No.
could have been, but that's putting way more between the lines than is actually in the lines.

I always took it to mean they had a fight, but that was probably me (and others) associating the cryptic lyrics and the time-frame with the roundabout rift between Brian, Mike and Van Dyke, as so often spoken of by Van Dyke and others around at that time.

Regardless, Carl Wilson, Steve Desper and Jack Rieley confirmed that they used what they had for the 1971 version. And the "SU, Pt. 2" box is now empty. So it was either stolen, was tossed or went missing in some other fashion. Maybe we'll never know, but to the original question, Domenic could not have been certain, in his book, that such a version exists.

Maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't put much faith into anything Priore says.

Domenic's idea of "information" regarding Smile recently is wrong at best and laughable at worst.

There should be a law that forbids certain people to write books.  :lol

The Dumb Angel books are well made, but I too disliked the Smile book. No objectivety at all.

Surfs Up is such a touching + beautiful song..Ive allways wondered why anybody in BB wouldn't  recognize the magic in that song...The 1st time i ever heard that song was on that TV show..I had never gotten high or drunk at the time.. I was 15 yrs old..I didnt understand what the words meant + i still was puzzled + MOVED by the song.. I knew it was something special.. Just like the 1st time i heard pet sounds..I had never felt most of the emotions in those songs..But i knew it was something different + SPECIAL....Just had to get older to understand.!!

Oppenheim's revealing explanation on what had gone very badly:

“A film crew and I went to Columbia Records’s studios with Brian and his friends, and they were doing tiny little pieces that made no sense in and of themselves…just a few notes…also the sessions didn’t make a scene that was at all interesting…I had hoped to get Brian masterminding a recording session, but instead it was terribly spread out…Brian was a little spacy, but he didn’t seem drugged.“

Domenic's idea of "information" regarding Smile recently is wrong at best and laughable at worst.

I think the book's strengths are the telling of how the scene sort of unfolded in and around Brian, and how the music spoke to it's time and place. Domenic captures that like no one else. There are some incredible chapters in that book, especially the heartbreaking "Smiley Smile" through the early '70s chapter. And the chapter after that, about the fans speaking out. Those are amazing, and show incredible insight.

Now, since I was around and helped Domenic to edit the book, I'll chime in here and make a few comments.

[1] The book was done quickly. Domenic may have agreed to a time-table that would have worked under different circumstances, but in this case, it was pretty tight scheduling, and I don't remember him having a lot of access to research materials. Maybe he didn't ask all of the right people, but there was the inside threat that Brian's camp was hiring someone to do their OWN book on "Smile," and that Priore's unauthorized book was not what THEY wanted. In the end, no other book was forthcoming, and they relented to give Domenic a foreword by Brian.

[2] Domenic and I did some serious edits to make sure that no key tracks or band influences or major events were missing from the text. To that end, I feel like the story really encapsulates the time and place that music came out of.

[3] There were some technical errors in there that were beyond excuse. I wish we had a budget from the publishers for me to go in and fact-check each one of his claims. Alas, Domenic appointed me his editor without the publisher's consent. Not that they cared. He wasn't appointed an editor himself. But my editing amounted to us going to a garden burger restaurant on Melrose and sitting down to plow over the pages. I would have never, in a million years, thought that he would have gotten simple Billaord chart information wrong, knowing that Brad Elliott and Keith Badman's books were out there. But alas, that stuff was not TRULY fact-checked. Again, our editing process was mostly for typos, grammatical errors and making sure the story flowed correctly. But we edited for three days, and then the book went off. It was several months over deadline, as it were. But as much as I put into the edits I did on grammar and story, I really SHOULD have double-checked him on his technical information, and I regret that I didn't. I assumed, and that doesn't bode well in the world of published words.

[4] There was an attempt made by myself and Bob Hanes to catch Domenic up on all the "Smile" material and knowledge that emerged post-1995. He'd been working on a book about the Sunset Strip in the '60s from 1995 on, and was pretty unaware of the internet scholars that were emerging. I don't consider myself a scholar, in that regard. I don't document things like others do here, and I've put my foot in my mouth more times than I care to admit on message boards. But I DO print out messages that have new, key information, and I was privvy to some new tapes that had emerged since Domenic proverbially left the "Smile" scene. I did my best to enlighten Domenic, via email and phone. I was appalled at some of the things that got in there, which were things like a theory from the Smile Shoppe that he wrote in as fact, or, for example, the emergence of "The Elements" vocal demos... which may or may not have been "The Elements" exactly, but with water, air and earth themes, one can only assume that they were related to the theme of "The Elements." I never thought in a million years that he would write about that session tape as being "The Elements" piano demos. But such is life. Things like that example of "The Elements" demos... well... it was something that was added at the last minute. I should have been more clear. I don't remember exactly, but I assume that I told him over the phone, "Don't forget about 'The Elements' demos..." or I wrote something in the column of one of the printouts. We talked about it a million times, and I even played him the tape, but it was one of those things that didn't sink in, and we were out of time. It's a terrible excuse, but it's how things went down.

All in all, the book has more positives than negatives. That's just my opinion. It dares to have an opinion on the social structure of the band. Some think it's biased and unfair. I think it is a valid POV. I also think it's well-written and insightful. But I would go on record, and Domenic as my friend knows this, as saying that it needs a serious edit for factual errors. But I still stand by 95% of the book. And until someone comes up with one better, I herald him for making such an effort. Books are hard to write. I'm working on my second book now, without Domenic as a writing partner, and it's been tough to know where to start some days.

The book was a good read, despite it's errors. I really enjoyed Dumd Angel #4 as well. I often don't agree with Domenic's views on things, but at least he has an opinion on things. There are books on the BB which might get all the facts right, but are boring neveretheless. Domenic's aren't.

Would you characterize the above as a vocal session that "went very badly?"  Uninteresting, spacey, disjointed, yeah - but not very badly.  Makes me think SOMETHING else happened.  Not a fight necessarily, but maybe the band members couldn't sing what Brian wanted to sing, and questioned what the hell are we singing here, and Brian gave up in frustration.  I just don't get a very badly from Oppenheim's explanation.

So it's better to spread falsehoods as long as they're interesting?

You sound like Jimmy Falwell, dude.

Spreading flasehoods. There are some errors in there, and some of his opinions are blatant and biased. But that's publishing for you. Some might find the actions of the parties involved with Brian through the years to be less egregious than Domenic does, but he's added up the story as best as he knows how. So, agree or disagree, but don't act like some cardinal sin was committed.

Thanks, dogear, for the compliments on Dumb Angel 4. I don't hear much in the way of feedback from Beach Boys fans, which probably means they didn't buy it. Hehehehe.

Hey, I'm sure Domenic's a nice guy and all that, but we're also entitled to our opinions. Just because his are in a book doesn't make them any more valid. I apologise for hurting anyone's feelings.

I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, and they are valid. I just throught the "speading falsehoods" things was a bit of a stretch. There's handful of unfortunate factual errors in the book, but I think John was referring to Domenic's strong opinions about the roles of those involved with Brian's music as being falsely misleading. I was only pointing out that those were his opinions... his op-ed assesment of how the Beach Boys saga has taken place.

Point taken, and understood.

Perhaps a second version of this book can fix the errors. I do think there is potential for a good Smile tome, not unlike LLVS but in its own league. A proper book about the whole Smile scene is a great idea, but we're not there yet. One day, hopefully...

I would add that one has to really do as much original research as possible. A Beach Boy book is no different from any other history book-you can't trust secondary sources.  Using Keith Badman's book as a reliable source for dates and venues, etc-is not original research.  In fact that book contains hundreds of demonstratable errors.  Doesn't make it a bad book (I find it very entertaining) but it isn't a source for exact dates or all shows, etc

Well, I only know from cross-referencing the 1964-65 sessionography that Brad Elliott did for Dumb Angel 4 versus Keith Badman's book for those years... well, there's a lot of overlap, but there's also thing each missed, and there are things that just aren't correct.

Again, I'd like to go back and re-edit Dom's "Smile" book, as well as Dumb Angel 4. The latter is completely unrealistic, as it probably already reached its peak audience. And I doubt we'll get to re-edit Dom's book anytime soon, nor would I have the time to do the kind of edit you'd see as being jutice, Ian. By that I mean going back and re-finding all of the original research myself. I just don't see the funds for that level of research ever being there, with a deadline. If it was a pleasure endeavor, with no deadline, I'm sure it could be done. But again, there are so many other projects that I personally want to do.

But I agree with you about the virtues of original research. I'm trying to do it with the L.A. art gallery scene on La Cienega in the '60s, and I can't believe how many variant opinions there are that pose as fact. Every book on Ed Ruscha has a slightly different tale to tell, and different facts. It's a difficult task, but we do our best to seperate the wheat from the chaff...

That makes complete sense, and especially because most of "Wonderful" and "Cabinessence" were finished and the finishing touches could've easily been nothing much...and thus not very impressive. Can we agree on a date where Mike and Van Dyke had the bust up on "Cabinessence"?

By the way- I liked Dom's book on Smile as well-but I happen to like every book that I can find on the BBs (even Wouldn't It Be Nice).  I loved Dumb Angel 4 as well.  Dom is a fun writer

He's gonna save the world through pop culture. I admire his devotion to the '60s. He's really steeped in it.

Glad you liked Dumb Angel 4... thanks for saying so. I still feel like it wasn't design-oriented enough to really appeal to artists and designers... and conversely, it wasn't Beach Boys-oriented enough to really appeal to Beach Boys fans. It was stuck somewhere in the middle, where the artists were just kind of scratching their heads at the collector mentality of the articles, and some of the sloppy layouts. And the Beach Boys fans never seem to like surf instrumental material, for the most part. I probably went too far with all the celestial suns and Mondrian graphic design stuff, but hey, the All Summer Long album thrilled me to death and I tried to deconstruct it's time and place. I consider DAG #4, on a whole, to be a failure, because I'm a perfectionsit and wanted it to be so much better. But maybe its appeal was limited to begin with, and I just didn't know it going in.

Since my hobby is Beach Boys research- I liked Brad Elliot's article (I believe it was the last thing he wrote before he did his disappearing act) a lot. It has some errors (but that isn't a criticism-one builds on writers of the past.  For example he listed the BBs as playing Texas concerts in mid-June 1964-it turned out that they were in May...but I wouldn't have even thought to look for them without that article).  I also loved all the pictures..and the reprint of the LA Magazine article-which proved that Brian played the 65 Bowl show (not just the rehearsal as Keith Badman stated). I thought the magazine had a great design-loved all the posters, ads, etc. I wish you'd make another-I'd write something for it!

Eh. I'm not sure who Jerry Fallwell is, but "spreading falsehoods" wasn't supposed to be a super-serious comment. I could've said "spouting crap". But my point still stands. I'd rather have correct info than "eight parts that aren't Brian on Pet Sounds", stuff that obvious sets the whole book at an untrustworthy angle for me.

Sorry I hurt your field, mister.

I wish you'd make another-I'd write something for it!

I'd like to also, but the bar was set a tad too high with the colour pages, and I'm afraid that the business was run so terribly that we broke even, even though we sold beyond what we needed to, in order to get in the black. Besides not having the exact right team to make it fly, long-term... we really did party away the ability to make another issue.

Was anybody else here on the Pet Sounds mailing list in the 90s?

Dom was on there, and treated a lot of people very rudely, mainly for harboring opinions that conflicted with his, or for not happening to have as much information as he did.

I considered myself a fan of his before that, but less so now.  Plus, his claims got ever more outrageous.

I was on the Pet Sounds mailing list. And I remember Dom's rants all too well. I suppose I held the same sentiment about him before I met him, and maybe he's toned it down some in recent years, maybe my skin has gotten thicker, or maybe email and message boards are just more of a cold interface for conversation... some people come off like lambs and others like lions.

It's a matter of record that, for close on 20 years, Dom & I didn't get on in the biggest way and never passed up the chance to take a pop at each other. Last summer I met him at Susan's CT BB bash (and again a few weeks later at the UK Stomp Convention), and we got on famously: apologies were exchanged, ruffled feathers smoothed and a good time was generally had by both. He's a nice guy, and I recommend unreservedly his Sunset Strip book. I know full well that I can come across as condescending and arrogant at times and as Brian says, what can seem amusing when tapped out this end can emerge as less than charming. In person, I'm a nice guy, no, honestly...

This seems to boil down to an irresolvable debate over whether it was "Cassius Love vs Sonny Wilson" (if I got that right) or was "Our Favorite Recording Sessions".  Both are meant to represent recording sessions that went very badly.

I never thought of them like that. Very cool.

I got along with Domenic too, he even said I wrote some interesting things about Mike, and the Flame etc. Some of the stuff he prints or says is a little extreme, but I got to admit when he is good (like the piece he wrote for Denny Remembered) he is very good. 

Maybe it's getting late in the day but the original query's been lost along the way, and I'm interested enough to know whether there's a definitive answer!

As a reminder... and edited reminder, that is...

No, I think he meant that it's better to have a point of view.

Sorry to take things off-track, Wee Helper. I think I was trying to give some insight into the publishing process of Domenic's book. To answer the question again...

No, as far as I know, no full version of "Surf's Up" exists, as it would have been mixed in 1967.

I wouldn't doubt that there was/is a "finished" version of Surf's Up from 1966, or at least some sort of rough cut or comp, but I also wouldn't doubt that there wasn't/isn't.

As per Siegel, he did not remember witnessing any dust up between Brian and the Boys at anytime, he also did not remember having much contact with the Boys but a little more contact with Brian's two brothers. I don't think Jules was present during the recording/filming of the Boys that night [or any time] but was only present for the Brian-only recording of Surf's Up at the studio and then at Brian's home. To me, interpreting Jule's meaning of "gone badly" as anything beyond Oppenheim's complaint of what went badly is a stretch.

I would agree, and I'd add that it's a stretch to make any specific interpretation of the phrase "went badly" without a lot more reliable supporting information.  To rule anything in or out based on 'went badly" is absurd. 

Maybe the session itself went just fine, but the film crew picked up an annoying buzz on the audio, rendering it all unusable. Maybe Al sprouted a mutant second head, which hissed, rotated, and spewed demon curses throughout the session, creating a distraction. Maybe that's what "went badly" meant. Who claims to know?

I also think it's a stretch to assume that a film crew would have been pleased to catch negative stuff and embarrass the band on 1966 television, unless it was the future crew of Inside Edition or something.  It wasn't what they came for- they were making a documentary on the changing music scene, so who knows?

Good point, but then I would have expected to see in the reel notes something to indicate that "this is not to be used", or "argument - NG".

The Inside Pop crew did film and publicize conflict as part of the Pop scene...

Siegel points out things going very badly between he and Brian via Vosse, Brian and VDP, Brian and a movie, Brian and his father, Brian and his brothers, and Brian and Mike, but he doesn't say things went very badly between anybody and anybody in regards to the documentary filming. On the "going very badly" evidence scale I'd have to put inter-group conflict way down at the nonexistent bottom and Oppenheim's concern for audience interest way up at the corroborative top.

Conflict between the youth of the day versus the parental figures....

Why would the Cabinessence's lyrics incident be heavily recorded for history (quotes and all) and this even uglier scene be surrounded by mistery and obscureness? It doesn't make sense. Mike didn't have many fans between Brian's new circle of friends and they were certainly taking notes whenever he screwed up.

Are you sure Alan said that about Surf's Up (Part 2)? I know he posted here awhile back that there were several empty Smile era tape boxes but I don't remember him saying that specifically about Surf's Up (Part 2). I thought the current thinking was that the 1/67 Surf's Up session didn't take place or was for something other than Surf's Up?

What's funny is that when I first read the quote about the session 'going very badly' I assumed that it meant vocally-it wasn't untill someone mentioned on the smile shop board about that being an argument did I even think that's what it meant.
I guess what I don't like about Domenic's book is that he tries too hard to chalk up SMiLE's non-release to Mike Love, which everybody seems to do, but to write half a book about it is a little extreme. I don't care for Mike Love, but I wouldn't solely put the blame on him.  However, that reminds me of a smile part in the Siegel story: Brian 'accused Mike Love of making too much money'. Not that we'll ever know, but do you think that Brian actually said that, or do you think that Jules just happened to get that sort of a vibe from Brian? The problem is all of these little passages here and there in the story that maybe forty years ago meant something different, but given the history of the band, may mean something totally different now.
I'm not making sense. :o

Are you sure Alan said that about Surf's Up (Part 2)? I know he posted here awhile back that there were several empty Smile era tape boxes but I don't remember him saying that specifically about Surf's Up (Part 2). I thought the current thinking was that the 1/67 Surf's Up session didn't take place or was for something other than Surf's Up?

I'm not sure what the current thinking is.

As for whether my assertion was correct or not, I would hope it would be taken as a message board post and nothing more. I was simply going by memory. Nothing thus far has gone on to contradict my statement, though it's possible someone will step up and say I was wrong. I just remember Alan telling me about a "Surf's Up" tape box that was empty. For some reason, I thought he said it was a tape box from the 1/67 session, and even repeated on a message board. But I could be wrong. Last week, I posted about a Fall 1961 Pendletones concert poster that was seen in a book which I didn't remember where. It started a great little conversation, but because I wasn't writing for a publication, rather a message board, someone corrected me that the poster was not for a "Pendletones" show, but for the Pendletons. It wasn't for a Fall '61 show, but a summer '61 show... and the group in mention were a real-deal folk vocal trio who even have a MySpace site.

My point is... I don't mind being wrong, if it spurs conversation that we learn something new. There are pieces of research that I don't need to go to my notes for, because I know them and their references for fact. But in the case of the "Surf's Up" empty tape box, I'm going from memory. If anyone knows differently, please chime in. That's how I remember it being told to me.

I guess what I don't like about Domenic's book is that he tries too hard to chalk up SMiLE's non-release to Mike Love, which everybody seems to do, but to write half a book about it is a little extreme. I don't care for Mike Love, but I wouldn't solely put the blame on him.

I have to say, I don't think that's what Domenic said in his book. When he and I talk about why it didn't come out, Domenic always tells me that he thinks it had more to do with the Brother Records/Capitol Records lawsuit, and then the release of Sgt. Pepper that killed Brian's force behind the album. If anything, I think Domenic feels that Mike squashed a lot of the positivity surrounding those sessions through the years, and helped create a negative mantra from the Beach Boys corporation about Smile. I pressed him hard on it one time and he said that he felt Mike and the other Beach Boys questioning VDP about his lyrics might have made Brian question them too, and may have led to him cancelling the album, but that it shouldn't all be put on Mike's shoulders.

Van Dyke, however, remembers it as being almost solely the fault of Mike Love, and claims he bowed out from working with Brian because he sensed such an overwhelming negativity from Mike and the others (not Dennis).

Brian,

Bite your tongue, my friend . . . There is nothing remotely "collector mentality" about my Jan Berry article in DAG #4 . . . (and by the way, you still gotta return my Audition Record of POP SYMPHONY and the other materials I sent for that issue).  Mine is one of the few pieces in DAG #4 that's based on hard-core documentation and interviews . . . nothing like the strictly "opinion" approach. And what did I hear all the while? . . . "Beach Boys dorks are not our audience or market . . . we're all about the Bohemiam surf aeshthetic . . . Shag is what it's all about" . . . Ha!

And yeah, we all know your type setter f*ked it up, introducing minor errors and whatnot (to my piece for sure) . . . plus the larger dust-ups with Harvey Kubernik and Mark London  . . . (at least as explained to me).

It's too bad, really . . . The magazine sold 5,000 copies . . . and in a perfect world, we should all be digging DAG #5 right now. I signed on for that ambitious vision . . . but it didn't happen.

M.

Okay, well, looks like a bitter derailing of this thread further, but I suppose I asked for it.

Bite your tongue, my friend . . . There is nothing remotely "collector mentality" about my Jan Berry article in DAG #4 . . . (and by the way, you still gotta return my Audition Record of POP SYMPHONY and the other materials I sent for that issue).  Mine is one of the few pieces in DAG #4 that's based on hard-core documentation and interviews . . . nothing like the strictly "opinion" approach.

Fine, Mark. It's all good, pal.

And what did I hear all the while? . . . "Beach Boys dorks are not our audience or market . . . we're all about the Bohemiam surf aeshthetic . . . Shag is what it's all about" . . . Ha!

Uh, I don't remember saying it was all about Shag, ever. He has one little article in there, and no artwork. As far as the "Beach Boys dorks" thing... not sure what you are trying to do here. Dom and I both admit to being Beach Boys dorks or hardcore fans ourselves, and yet hoped to transcend that world, and not just put out another ESQ. That magazine already has its audience.

And yeah, we all know your type setter f*ked it up, introducing minor errors and whatnot (to my piece for sure) . . . plus the larger dust-ups with Harvey Kubernik and Mark London  . . . (at least as explained to me).

Who is the "we all" here, Mark? Who knows that our typesetter messed up? And "introducing" would be going a bit far. She reverted back to an older version of the article YOU submitted to us, thus eliminating a few minor changes you had hoped for. Dom and I both felt like crap about that, and yet, you went on to make an effort to blackmail us, just as you did Dean Torrence with his "Popsicle" reissue interview. It's all laughable to me, as you trounce in here on your high-horse, coming out of nowhere, claiming you are going to show how Jan Berry's legacy is the equivalent of Mozart. We gave you a chance to do something cool, and you've had this attitude since the start, Mark.

It's too bad, really . . . The magazine sold 5,000 copies . . . and in a perfect world, we should all be digging DAG #5 right now. I signed on for that ambitious vision . . . but it didn't happen.

What did you sign on for? You wrote an article. You got it published with all manner of unseen images, in full-colour. It's a lot of space. Who else has published one of your pieces with that much ink? And one that has been seen by that many eyes? Please. Besides that, you got free promotion for your project on our site and blog. Let me know when you make the investment to publish something yourself. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy "Pop Surf Culture."

Well, we just put up some money for our album . . . and it aint easy, that's for sure (even with help).

What I wanted with DAG was an on-going series . . . like the Psychedelic issue originally planned for #5 . . . in which we were planning that I would write about "Carnival of Sound." But we don't always get what we want. It was a business thing for Brian (as publisher)  . . . and for me it was just a very cool way to promote my studies.

With Dean and "Popsicle" . . . he made some egregious misrepresentations about Jan. I didn't blackmail him, I just pointed out how Jan's career documentation significantly contradicted Dean's account.

I realize now what Brian was saying about the "failure" of #4 . . . constructive self-criticism . . . But I think overall it was outstanding. And I really liked the design, too.  I'm obsessive over my own stuff, so naturally was dissatisfied with small problems in my article.

M.

This is the last I'll say on the matter, so as not to derail this thread any further than I already have...

I myself have, at times, been arrogant, immature and reactionary, so I'm not going to act holier than thou. I'll only say that I felt it was right for me to be self-critical, as we all sit here criticizing Brian Wilson day-in, day-out. I'm proud of DAG #4, even if I hoped it would be better. But the very day it came out, Domenic and I were offered a book deal with Santa Monica Press, to do "Pop Surf Culture." There is no way we would turn that up, just to publish more of your Jan & Dean articles. That's nothing against you, Mark. It's just the way things went. I'd like to think that was an indication that SOMETHING with DAG #4 went right. I think when "Pop Surf Culture" hits shelves next month, everyone is going to be stoked.

No, I wouldn't expect you to keep it up just for Jan & Dean . . . You had an elaborate plan for #5 . . . only part of which would have included J&D . . . the "Carnival of Sound" and "Save For A Rainy Day" stuff.

DAG was cool extra publicity for my stuff . . . as I pursue my own publishing ventures.

Now that the album will be released this month . . . I'll be moving on to the next step in the process . . . which is an in-depth Sessionography for J&D.

M.

As somebody who's interested in all the surf culture stuff, and its music and its graphic art (I'm a cartoonist and graphic artist myself), I'll look forward to all of these projects. Bring 'em on!

I guess the Beach Boys are a sensitive and personal subject to people, because it seems that anyone who writes about them goes right up on the cross, to some extent.  David Leaf, Domenic, AGD- before the Internet gave me access to so many other fans, I would never have dreamed that anyone was anything but grateful to those guys.  But whatever you say or do with this band, somewhere, somehow, it's going to step on somebody's crank.

That's what she said.

Now that the album will be released this month . . . I'll be moving on to the next step in the process . . . which is an in-depth Sessionography for J&D.

To say that I look forward to this would be a gross understatement.

For the record, Mark, I have no qualms whatsoever about you disagreeing with me, or even with you being critical of my work or setting the record straight, as you see it. I'd only ask that the private business stuff be kept off this board. It doesn't help anything, and especially naming names of people we fought with... it's just uncalled for. Everyone knows that businesses have squabbles and people mess up. I suppose I'm not immune to the facts coming out. But in this instance, I'm pretty sure no one asked for those facts, and maybe three people total were interested in "what went wrong" with Dumb Angel #4.

All right, who let that guy back in here?


 :lol