The Smiley Smile Message Board

One thing I've always wondered about is how skilled Mike is as far as writing his own music.  We know he has done a great deal of work and made many contributions as a lyricist, but I'm curious if anyone on here is familiar with his abilities from the musical/notation side. I read that he wrote all the stuff on his latest solo album by himself. Does anyone know if this is true (because there are a couple good ones in there)?

Always struck me as weird how someone deemed as downright unmusical as Mike could write something as elaborately beautiful as "Big Sur" on his very own. We know he did "Let The Wind Blow" almost on his own as well, right? IIRC someone once related the story of Mike coming up with the song/poem and Brian adding a bit of structure/melody later. Has anyone ever openly addressed Mike's writing abilities in an interview? When I had just become a fan I had read "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and so I was convinced he couldn't even play one single note on the piano, of course...

This begs the question- if he indeed writes songs, what instrument does his use to write them?  Guitar?  Piano? 

I'd imagine it is hard to write a song using a saxophone, so I'd rule that one out.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I remember hearing once that Mike wrote "Brian's Back" on the guitar? Not sure how true it is though.

Maybe he didn't use instruments, just his voice. Joe Meek (legendary British producer) wrote several hit songs and he couldn't play any instrument at all. When he learned a song to a band he just hummed it. So it is possible.

I was going to write pretty much the same comment. I don't know whether 'Telstar' was entirely done my Meek, but I can very well imaging someone hearing the basic chords of such a piece, and that classy melody all in his head. Brian didn't do everything on the piano or the bass. He solved a lyrical/musical problem in 'Melt Away' within less of a minute this way.

 Mike Love took a song about eating bananas and turned it into California Girls!
 Enough said……

Yes, I believe Mike said in an interview that he hummed the melody to Carl who then looked for the chords on the guitar (or maybe piano)

Regarding "Let the wind blow": I'd really like to know how much Mike did and how much Brian. It's a fantastic song. The words are really great and the music is fitting. But I have a concert recording where Mike introduces this song as "a prayer that Brian put music to". And somewhere else I heard that Brian changed the melody a little, wrote the chords and did the arrangement, wich to me sounds like Mike just had an idea (plus the lyrics) but not much more than that

Mike definitely plays some guitar, I think that was established here once, possibly when his oldest daughter was on.

One great song that I think he had a lot to do with the melody for is "All I Wanna Do"- whichever spelling denotes the song on Sunflower...one of Mike's finest moments, along with "All This Is That".

(In my opinion) Mike is a incredibley versitile singer.

None of the other Beach Boys would have sung those early up-tempo rock songs nearly as well as Mike; the next best choice, probably being Dennis.

Despite his talent for those type of songs, Mike's best vocals are on the more relaxed numbers like 'All I Wanna Do' 'California Saga' and 'All This is That'.

I know it was discussed (and mostly shot down) elsewhere, but I would love to have a good biography of Mike. It's easy to view someone negatively when you can't understand (or misunderstand) where they're coming from. For all of the stuff that we do know and is discussed on this board, there's a lot of stuff we don't know too.  :)

Tannerin.

I remember her telling a story on here about him playing Brian's Back for her on the guitar while he was still working on it

One of the videos on youtube--KTSA sessions?--shows Mike at an organ or piano and he clearly knows what he is hitting. I'd guess that between that and guitar, he is more than capable of realizing the basics of the songs he writes. A person doesn't need to be capable of playing music s/he writes, after all, so long as s/he is capable of getting it "written" (either literally or figuratively, meaning documented so that someone else can decipher it).

I don't see a lot of real creativity in the harmonic aspects of his music, but he obviously had a great mind for popular music--much of which at the time was (heck, often still is) three to five chords per song. I'm sure he could play those basic progressions, at least in a basic key or two. And the more complex aspects could be handled by the others who were more fluent in that language.

Cheesy title suggestion #1: "Love Story". :)

Love Makes The World Go Round

Love Will Tear Us Apart

Looking Back With Love

It's Only Love

Good stuff.  Thanks for the info, everyone.  Kind of interesting that Mike doesn't flaunt any of that, even when he's knocked by his detractors.  If you're going off what he says, you'd think he's just a lyric man.

I got VERY close to actually shooting a documentary on Mike! We got in touch with his management and, Mike and Elliot Lott liked the idea apparently, and we were supoosed to discuss things when they got back from some "Beach Boys' tour... then we never heard anything! We didn't follow up either, so it still may have been salvagable. But this was a few years ago now.

It could've been great!

I think a feature length "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times docu on Mike would be wonderful!

Any ideas on the perfect title for such a thing???

Whats Love Got To Do With It.

My Life In Music.

As far as I know, there are current members of the Beach Boys band reading and posting here. Hey, I guess that's a fair question to pass him, maybe he would even like to answer. :)  How much did he write of Let the Wind Blow, what did Brian change after his initial ideas? What instruments did he use to write the songs that only have his credit? Did he write any music for those Wilson/Love and Jardine/Love collaborations?

This was the case with Jim Morrison and The Doors. Jim couldn't play any instruments, so he would sing the melody (and words) to the band; then Ray, Robby, and John would take it from there. But the original idea, melody, and words would be Jim's....

There you go, thanks, hart- I've just learned not to trust my memory.  She was a cool breeze, wish she'd stuck around a little more.

As to the titles, this thread should be called "What Love Can Do".

Jim supposedly could play a bit of piano. Have you ever heard 'orange county suite'? A demo with vocals and piano recorded by Jim in Paris, and later overdubbed by the others in 97. The problem is, i've read that it's Jim playing the very simple piano, and I've read it's another fellow. But I guess it's Jim.

PS: Jim could very well never used an instrument to write the tunes for his Doors' songs.

See You In Court?

Courtney Love?

Love & Money? (he could redo 'Love And Mercy' with these lyrics, I guess).

I Was Sitting In A Crowded Courtroom Getting Dough From Brian
All The Articles In The Press They Are Only Lying'
Love And Money That's What I Need Tonight
Love And Money To Me And My Wife Tonight

well, you know the score.

If a Mike Love book or documentary would be named after a Beach Boys song, this one would be interesting:

"Love Is A Woman (And Other Shocking Confessions)"

I'd read/watch it! :-D

Doesn't "Jingle Bell Rock" sound great? Well, I saw him perform it on a youtube video recently and had a good laugh.

There's footage of Jim playing basic piano from 1968 - not concert standard, but passable.

Small aside - most of "Light My Fire" was written by Robbie.

Since The Doors have come up, I just got a CD entitled Alive She Cried and it is the best live Doors I have ever heard. Moonlight Drive is something special as Jim goes into Horse Latitudes and then back to MLD to finish. God they were good.

Robbie is listed as the sole songwriter of 'Light My Fire' on the more recent compilations.

Really. I'm surprised Ray let that slip past him.

 ;D Got a good laugh out of that.

Mike had serious lyrical ability IMO, Shame a bit of the time he wrote what he thought people wanted to hear, but when he was on form he created genius.

All I wanna Do being his golden moment I think

Which is why it was best when The Doors credited their songs to "The Doors". On "Light My Fire", Robby wrote the basic chords, melody and words. Jim added a few of his lyrics, Ray added the great organ intro, and John's drumming drives the track. So what do you do? The Doors tried the individual writing credits on The Soft Parade and all hell broke loose.

On the recent documentary Classic Albums: The Doors, John Densmore mentioned that Jim couldn't play a single chord on any instrument. Yes, it was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point was taken. AGD, I know the footage you're referring to, with Jim at the piano in that hotel room, pounding away and shouting/singing, "I'll give you my latest, philanthropic sonata." And, yeah, Dancing Bear, I like "Orange County Suite" a lot. I suppose Jim could've banged out a few chords if he had to, but I still believe he "sang" his songs to get them written, which was my original point....

I think that individual songwriting credits are tricky things with a band. I mean, it tends to be obvious who came up with the basic ideas. But if somebody thinks of a cool part, when does that stop being an arranging idea and become composition? In a way I am glad I never played in a band that had the success at which point debating those kinds of things would happen. But when there's no money at stake, nobody gives a sh*t.  ;D

I was and am still amazed how the Lennon/McCartney credit survived.

But it DIDN'T survive!

Didn't Sir Paul recently "revert" some credits to credit him as the sole composer??

And yeah, it's a tricky, awful thing and has ruined many a great band. "The Band" is my favortie example. Robbie Robertson wrote a few great songs, a few good ones, and quite a few duds, but his bandmates, played the hell, sung the hell, arranged the hell out of each and every one and elevated them to the heavens only to be (in Levon's words) "pistol whipped" out of credit and $$$$$$

As an example of how tricky it is, did Manzarek's great keyboard riff even make it into Jose Feliciano's top five version of the song?  I guess if you went into the cover versions, sometimes it would be there and sometimes it wouldn't. Do you credit Manzarek only when the organ intro is used?  And personally, I don't think drumming rises to the level of songwriting in the vast majority of cases, but that's just me. For some reason I had always thought "Light My Fire"  was just written by Krieger, didn't realize there was a story there.

But creativity is really interesting and complicated, for sure.

There's a phenomena (phenomenon?) I've personally noticed by which when you have a bunch of people in a room working on something creative, sometimes people will tend to think that ideas that happened in the room (or seemed to) while they were present came from them. It's not that they're lying, it's a legitimate mis-impression.  I think it happens when someone presents an idea and others recognize it and experience something like the "light bulb" sensation- "Oh, I get it, I see" gets mixed in with "that came from me"- especially after time has passed. 

Or, the light bulb moment can be built up and approached steadily until several people take the next logical step together. In that case it can be impossible to know where an idea came from.  And yet another thing that happens is when creative people work together for long enough their minds can get synched up and they start thinking alike in real time- "Do this"'.../"...I'm way ahead of you..."

I don't know for sure if this happens in music but I've seen it repeatedly in story sessions for films I worked on in my former career. I've had ideas I had saved for an upcoming sequence for a month, had full notes on them, pitched them in a meeting when they came up, only to  see people who were in the meeting explain later how they got the idea- and I don't think they weren't dishonest people. The credit for inconsequential work-for-hire b.s. didn't matter at all in those cases, but the phenomena interested me because I think they really believed what they were saying. I think this because I had it happen to me a couple times, too- I'd go through an earlier draft of the script and find that something I thought I came up with had been there all along. Or maybe it went out and I just brought it back in.  But there's a definite phenomena there for non-dishonest over-claiming, and I always see songwriting disputes in light of this.

The singular is phenomenon.

Great examples, by the way. And yes, I think it applies to music (or can, anyway).

Not sure about that.  I know he wanted his name first on a few songs he wrote entirely by himself, notably "Yesterday", which seems reasonable, but I think Yoko refused.  I think McCartney's name was removed from some stuff like "Give Peace A Chance" that he didn't touch, and replaced with Yoko's. Then I think McCartney listed them with his name first on a live album, and Yoko didn't challenge him, but the official credits still read the old way.  Somebody here will know for sure.

The whole Lennon/McCartney, McCartney/Lennon thing was nebulous from the start.  There were some early songs issued as McCartney/Lennon, then reverted later, I think.

Thanks (on both counts), Luther!

Ah, I knew there was more to it that I thought!

And I agree it was nebulous at best, but a cute idea at the time!

Now if they'd only had all song credits read "Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr" ..... we'd be living in a much different world!

The best recent example of this is the continued legal wrangling over the credit of "Whiter Shade of Pale" Matthew Fisher, the organist on the song, has pursued not only a credit, but royalties, for coming up with the distinctive riff.

Of course, the riff is adapted from Bach, and that's an entirely different level.

Well, Erik, don't trust my memory until somebody confirms or adds details.

The guy who challenged L/M on a few things was Harrison, who ("I think"- the official SJ disclaimer) publicly said in about 1988 that he had co-written "I Feel Fine" in the back of a cab, only to have McCartney disagree and say that it was John's song. I think Harrison said he was undercredited on a few others.

But then, John said he had co-written "Taxman", and George pretty clearly contributed to "Octopus' Garden".  Overall, a remarkably peaceful band when it came to credits.  John and Paul were the anti-Brian and Mike in many ways.  John apparently dismissed anything he thought was a small contribution and credited a song entirely to whoever was the primary guy. In that spirit, he said he had not contributed anything to "Penny Lane".  Paul confirmed that John had written "Strawberry Fields Forever" with no input from Paul, but disputed John on "Penny Lane" citing many lines that John had contributed.

I think they basically disagreed on two songs- "In My Life" and "Eleanor Rigby", and I think they were probably either honest disagreements or a product of the fact that John was gone before Paul had access to his comments and it could be sorted out.

claymcc, what confuses me is that the Frankie Lymon/Morris Levy suit was thrown out in the early nineties (presumably at a pretty high level) under a ruling that "long neglected rights cannot be enforced".   I thought for sure that this would end all disputes from the fifties and sixties, but then came Brian vs. Mike, Axton/"Joy To The World", Johnson vs. Berry, and as you mention, "Whiter Shade", which I think the guy won on- is that right?  So it seems to me that "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" needs a new trial.  They should sue the carcass of ol' Morris Levy one more time.

Well put Surfer Joe and Claymcc

What I'm really wondering is why the estate of Robert Johnson hasn't sured each and every blue artist since!!!!!

The Ventures' cover of "Light My Fire" is a note-for-note instrumental rendition, including organ (played by a session musician, possibly David Gates or Leon Russell since John Durill didn't become their first full-fledged keyboardist until several months later).

I wonder if Queen were that way, too. I know that they gave the primary songwriter creative control on his own tunes, but I find it hard to believe that four such musically powerful voices weren't contributing to one another's music more often than the credits show. Of course, being such strong voices, maybe each of them really took control of his own songs and kept the others from getting two cents in...

Erik, I think Robert Johnson's authorship of the songs he recorded is an open question in many cases.  With a lot of blues stuff you just go back to the earliest known recorded version of the song, or printed reference to it, or whatever.  1936 is usually far enough back to take the cake, but who knows where the song was before that?  I think I've seen "Dust My Broom" credited to Elmore James, even though Johnson's version is twenty years older than the James version I have, and I think the Rolling Stones' "Love In Vain" was just listed as a traditional arranged by them at some stage, not sure, and "Crossroads" by Clapton may have been credited as traditional as well.

It all cycles back to the compelling question of when songwriting occurs, vs. arranging or improvising.  Listen to Santana's version of "She's Not There": if someone in the band had brought the song in as an original, written by him, and it consisted of what the Zombies did, and then somebody else contributed that great opening lick that sets the tone in the Santana version, I think that guy would certainly rate a credit.  But since it was a cover, he doesn't. There must be a zillion examples like that.  Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help From My Friends" uses a musically different chorus, on which the whole song is rebuilt, but no one will ever be credited for that or receive specific royalties because the song was already registered. 

I agree, and I've discovered that many early songs exist in a wide variety of forms: i.e. Many songs with the same chords and melody, but with very different lyrics on a simmilar theme. I think that many of them date back to being work field songs, later interpreted and performed by solo singers.

Yeah, true. Some of Johnson's songs were based on other blues songs.

edit

Who'd have guessed that?  :o

Just watched this clip mentioned for the 'what were they thinking' thread. Is the sound you hear Mike toying with the guitar the last 10 seconds or so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIgyeJQ6peA&feature=related

Mike on Fender bass! :police:

Mike Love is very talented playing musical instruments, considerng that he plays the theramin (or "woo woo machine" as he calls it on the fall '66 live "Good Vibrations") which is one of the world's most DIFFICULT instruments to play,  since there are no keys (as on a piano or organ) or frets (as on a guitar) to mark the notes. What Mike Love played on late '60s/early live live performances & TV show takes of "Good Vibrations" is NOT a theramin but a RIBBON CONTROLLER connected to an early synthesizer, which is also very difficult to play because, like a thereamin, there are no markings for pitch/notes.

The difference between a theramin and a ribbon controller is that on a theramin you don't actually touch the instrument, it picks up an electromagnetic field from the human body! A ribbon controller requires that you either touch it with a finger or a metal probe. However, the SOUND produced by either a theremin or ribbon controller is essentially the same.

Because the sound of a theramin is a simple sine wave, you can actually use one of several different technologies to build a theramin. Actually I built SEVERAL different theramins when I was in high school in the '70s. There used to be a company called Southwest Technical Products in Arizona or someplace that sold theramin kits in the '70s that were transistorized and had triangular antennas. I also built a theramin according to a plan from a Radio Shack book called "Electronic Music Projects" that made sounds come out of an FM radio that was placed nearby, but not touching the theramin. I also built a "light theramin" that used a solar cell, and you changed the pitch by waving your hands over the solar cell and changing the amount of light reflected on it!

Getting back to Mike Love, saxophone is not exactly an easy instrument to play either, because you not only have to finger the keys but you also have to have good breath control when you play it. Mark Lindsay (of Paul Revere & The Raiders) first took up the saxophone because he lost the tip of a finger in an accident so he couldn't play the guitar (Mark does a solo saxophone instrumental "Melody For An Unknown Girl" on the Raiders' "Midnight Ride" album). I love Mike Love's saxophone on "Long Tall Texan" (actually one of the first Beach Boys songs I ever heard since it was on "Best Of The Beach Boys, Vol. 2").

The ribbon controller Mike used did have markings. There was a keyboard drawn onto it so he knew where the notes were.

And the sax at the end of Long Tall Texan is very comical.

More complete answer for Erik H:  Paul did try to get permission to bill "Yesterday" as his alone, and then with his name before John's, which Yoko vetoed, as she had the right to do.  Apparently anything published under the Maclen Music moniker was to be credited just so.  Paul whined about this a little bit at the time, saw no one cared, and shut up.  On the Please Please Me UK LP, Paul is listed first, John piped up when he saw it and from then on it was always L/McC.  Or to use John's term, he "baggsy-ed" the first position.  Paul talks about this in the Barry Miles book.

Matthew Fisher lost his copyright claim to Whiter Shade of Pale; the basic tune (adapted from Bach's Sleepers Wake cantata) was by Gary Brooker, Fisher's organ part was deemed an arrangement touch.   Fisher did get co-writing credit for, and sang on, other tracks like In Held Twas In I and some songs on A Salty Dog.

Now here's a silly one, which I think is still true even now: Paul Simon resented Art Garfunkel singing "Brodge Over Troubled Water" because HE thought OTHER people would think Garfunkel wrote it - never mind what the album credit said, and what every musician knew.  Jeez, dude!  Who cares what OTHER people think if you're the one getting the fuckin check?? Just cash it and buy yourself an extra beer as consolation.

Procul Harum's Matthew Fisher did not lose his copyright claim. The claim (putting his name on the song) had been granted earlier, at question was whether he would receive royalties for the song. This summer, the House of Lords voted to give them to him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Whiter_Shade_Of_Pale

Flag on the play - Mike has never, ever played a theremin. In fact, a theremin has never been used on a BB record. What was used on "IJWMFTT", "GV" & "WH" was a tannerin, a much simpler piece of kit to play than a theremin (I've tried the latter - it's a complete bitch).... and Mike didn't play that either.

As an aside, Mike's ribbon controller was custom-built by Robert Moog.  ;D

Thanks for the update.  Saw the prior story on the decision denying the royalties but I guess the House of Lords, sitting as a court of appeals, reversed that.  Interesting.

mike also rewrote the lyrics to good vibrations which I prefer his (Mike Love) lyrics I remember reading he wrote them as they were driving to the recording studio and his cool head warm heart song is just plain awesomeness ;D

Andrew G. Doe:

>>Flag on the play - Mike has never, ever played a theremin. In fact, a theremin has never been used on a BB record. What was used on "IJWMFTT", "GV" & "WH" was a tannerin, a much simpler piece of kit to play than a theremin (I've tried the latter - it's a complete bitch).... and Mike didn't play that either. As an aside, Mike's ribbon controller was custom-built by Robert Moog.

Very interesting! The reason I said the BB used a "theremin" is that is the instrument that's always been mentioned in BB books over the years, I have never heard of a "tannerin" until you mentioned it just now. Brian even appeared in the "Theremin" documentary film made in the '90s.

Here's a tannerin web site:

http://www.tompolk.com/Tannerin/Tannerin.html

As far as I can tell, "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd." by The Monkees is the first rock album to use Moog synthesizer, released in the fall of 1967 (nearly two years before The Beatles got a Moog). Micky Dolenz bought the the third Moog ever built! Micky plays the Moog on "Daily Nightly", although he mostly just does sound effects. Paul Beaver (Moog musician & sales rep) played the Moog on "Star Collector" and his playing is more melodic (actually the first Moog solo on the song almost sounds like ragtime!). So the Beach Boys probably got their first Moog AFTER The Monkees.

In the mid-'70s I built a ribbon controller synthesizer called the Gnome from a kit made by a company called PAIA. It was played using a metal probe. But it was quirky and had linearity problems so I couldn't play actual music on it (no "keyboard" style markings), but it made great sound effects (which I used in a videotape we made at my high school). I would have preferred to have a keyboard synthesizer at that time but eveb PAIA's kits for those were expensive at the time. The Gnome was cheap enough ($50 in 1976 money) that I was able to get my dad to buy it for me for Christmas!

PAIA still exists but keyboards got too expensive so now they just make MIDI modules, fuzzboxes, preamps, etc. And they make REAL theremin kits if you want one! Their web site: http://www.paia.com

A few years ago a movie theater here in Indianapolis ran a double feature of the "Theremin" and "Moog" documentary films. They set up a real theremin in the lobby for customers to play! I was able to play the same riff repeatedly on the theremin but I couldn't play the riff from "Good Vibrations". In the the "Theremin" film a guy actually plays Mancini's "Moon River" on the theremin!

For more about electronic musical instruments, read the great book "Vintage Synthesizers" (edited by Mark Vail). It not only covers synthesizers but also theremins and '60s combo organs, like the Farfisa organ played by Bruce on the fall '66 live "Good Vibrations" (I have one!).

I think what Mike was playing was different than what Micky and Paul Beaver played. Mike's instrument (seen in the Ed Sullivan show performance of GV) is played like a tannerin (with Mike using his finger) whereas Micky had the actual Moog synthesizer (sen in the video for "Daily Nightly"). Mike and the BB were using the ribbon controller in the fall of '66 on the road when they started performing GV live.  Micky, I think didn't get his until summer of '67 - he saw a demo of the Moog when he and Peter were at the Monterey Pop Festival in June '67.

"I dedicate this song to all the girls....even you Micheal".  ;D

Bruce probably only played a Farfisa organ in concert from '66 to '67. By '68 or '69 Bruce was playing a Hammond B-3.

Van Dyke Parks played a Moog synthesizer in TV commercials (one of which you can hear on a Warner Brother various artists album). Also the Modern Folk Quartet (featuring Chip Douglas and Henry Diltz) had a single out using a Moog that possibly pre-dated the Monkees' "Pisces" LP.

And Chip produced Headquarters and Pisces and Henry was their photographer. Lots of connections there, that;s for sure. Maybe the MFQ track was what  convinced Chip to allow Micky to use the Moog on a track.

Paul Beaver from Beaver & Krause is the guy who introduced the Moog to Mickey.

Yes, I knew that. But what I'm saying is that if the Moog was previously on Chip's band's track, then he(Chip) was probably gung ho when Micky suggested adding a Moog to the aforementioned Monkees tracks.

As to Mike's musical ablities. He wrote alot of his solo stuff just making up tunes and singing them into a tape recorder. He does play some guitar and can hammer out chords on a keyboard (asseen on the Our Team video).

What's the "Our Team" video?

is it this (minus the audio)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6YSihrVvK4

Where and when was that particular video recorded? M.I.U. sessions?

Yes, it is about a half hour thing about the making of the album.  I believe it was made for TV but never actually aired.

And it contains a few minutes (especially on the "Mike Come Back To L.A." montage) of the most fascinating Brian Wilson footage - ever.

Please feel free to elaborate, SJS. :)

Well, there's a lot of footage of Brian, Mike, and Al in the studio, recording and actually writing some of the MIU songs. And, some of the stuff is interesting. You see Mike without a hat, Al producing, Beach Boys' wives and kids in the background, and, in my opinion, a very lucid Brian.

So, they have this segment of Brian producing the song "Mike Come Back To L.A.", which eventually became "Some Of Your Love" from KTSA. Anyway, it's about a 5-6 minute take of Brian dishing out vocal parts to a number of people; it shows them singing harmony into microphones, Brian's very into it, everybody's having a good time, and the song's starting to gain momentum.

Then, all of a sudden, they intersperse this footage of Brian at the piano, and he's playing the heck out of the piano, directing Mike (and Al?), he's laughing hysterically, vamping with Mike, rocking back and forth, and, just for a minute, you can see the power that the man once had in the studio. It's right there. It's powerful stuff.

I often wonder if that was the real Brian shining through, or if he was stoned. Would've Mike tolerated that at MIU? I guess he would've...But, it's a side of Brian rarely seen, rarely seen by us anyway. I'm the least "technical" guy on this board, but, if I knew how, I'd track it down (on YouTube maybe) and link it/post it. Maybe somebody else has it....

Stoned, Sober, Elated, Depressed.. these are all the real Brian, and the real every one of us.

And, uh, yes, if anyone has this please post it up on youtube?

The "Our Team" documentary was made, I believe, for ABC-TV in 1978, and indeed never aired. It was, however, played at, I believe, a Stomp convention in '79. It does circulate.

That sounds like something I would totally love to see!

To my ears there's a bit of that "real Brian" in the best moments of the actual M.I.U. Album, like some of his sweet vocal performances. The way you describe the footage from that particular M.I.U. session immediately brought to my mind the story of Brian allegedly being at the top of his game at the initial sessions of what would later become the Light Album. Too bad it obviously didn't last very long.

MIU is ok. In an universe where Adult/Child is considered a gem, well, MIU is at least a very good album.  :)

The reason the Beach Boys meant so much to so many people is the positivity. And that was (Mike Love). Brian was meloncholy. (Mike) was mr positive thinker.

...................................... :angry   ;D

   




                                                                              W     T      F   ???????????????????????? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

It's definitely true. Stop a random person on the street and say "The Beach Boys". You won't hear anything about Pet Sounds. You'll get people singing the sunny songs. The only exception : Charles Manson singing "In My Room" to Geraldo Rivera on a televised interview (which is on YouTube).

Charlie singing In My Room? I will have to watch that!

Do my killing, and my f***ing
Lie awake and snort

Do my panting and my moaning
Laugh at Terry Melcher

He only sings a little bit, but his voice is great. Manson is a good song writer and a charismatic performer on many levels. I think he sung it in the context of a conversation about his generation. He seems forever doomed to explain that he wasn't a kid in the 60s as is often misunderstood due to the propaganda. Charlie's version of Cease To Exist is much better than Dennis and the Beach Boys'. Much darker, more grooving.

I have heard Manson's album. It is kind of a very dark Bob Dylan I think. I thought it was pretty good.

He has tons of recordings beyond that album. Some is meh, some is very high quality in a freak folk sense.

There's one of his prison recordings ... this one song that he made when they let him have a guitar and tape recorder ... I forget the name of it but it was about fire ... on the track he built up this incredible intensity with his playing and voice that would leave you speechless ... the wildest thing i've ever heard, probably.

oooh i found it on youtube, "i'm on fire", let's give it a listen ay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQR7NN-TT_Q

This is interesting. Reminds me more of Tom Waits.

I wonder what the reaction would be if he sang at Woodstock (supposing the Sharon Tate murders never happened)

Honestly, probably something of significant religious impact. Manson was a very charismatic guy and he had studied religion and mysticism while in prison extensively. Through his own efforts and his interest in Scientology he seems to have freed himself of all his hang ups and become a fairly influential self-actualized man. Despite being physically unimpressive (barely over 5ft tall as I recall, scrawny, and with a mischievous, boyish face behind his hair and beard) he had a magnetic personality. He could walk the walk and talk the talk. I don't think he's all bad vibes either. Manson is the type who, had he not been raised in a prison, had he not got into the drug world, had he kept himself aloof from the rejects of the 60s alternative youth culture, could've been a big player in our world. Clearly a very intelligent man with a deep grasp on himself and others. Wasted talent, though, I say. Clearly that's the case. Some would say that the world could not handle Manson, hence his imprisonment. I say Manson made some bad moves and caused his own downfall. Now he's just a shell of a great man, ruined by his own actions and influence. However the media image of him as fearsome psychopath is all kinds of wrong. The man to talk to is probably as neighborly and loving as anyone else, perhaps more. He's like a little runt the world picked on and prodded for years. Incidentally, much is made of Manson's hypnotic gaze but really, he was nothing compared to someone like Rasputin who, as is clear by ever photograph of him, had truly intense eyes, which were gray I believe. Manson just knew how to morph his expressions like Gurdjieff - nothing special really. I reckon I could take on Manson anyday.

One of these days he will break out of prison and become the leader of the United Nations. Somehow, everyone will be convinced that he is really a great man. He will cause everyone to get a mark on there hand or forehead. No one will be able to buy or sell with out the mark. The mark is a number. It is the number of a man. Let he who has wisdom calculate the number which adds to 666.

heh, funny you should mention that because i think it was either Sandra Good or Lynette Fromme who said that Manson should actually be such a leader

BIG TIME disagreement with Nobody on Manson's psychopathy.   I've heard his recordings and yes there is some talent there, other professionals were impressed too.   Though he seems to have been too scattershot to knuckle down and do a professional performance.  But once a psychopath, always a psychopath.  The new literature posits that it is a truly organic disorder - in layman's terms, their brains are literally wired differently, their amygdalas (the emotional center of the brain) do not function as normal people's brains do.  It begins to show in childhood, it has been diagnosed in children as young as 5.  A bad upbringing may make it worse, but does not cause it.  They completely lack any empathy for any living thing, and certainly no humans, who they regard as prey to be conquered, or worse.  Yes they are extremely charismatic and are extremely talented at "reading" their audience and telling them what they want to hear - or what the psycho wants them to believe.  Not all are violent (see Bernie Madoff), but they are all highly manipulative (see: Ted Bundy, who was so self-aggrandizing he thought he could lie his way out of the gas chamber up to the very end). And see: Eric Harris of Columbine fame.  There is no cure; therapy makes it worse (they learn that lingo and use it to get what they want). Though as they age, the need to constantly victimize may decrease somewhat, maybe out of fatigue more than anything else.

Now having said all that, nobody is right in surmising that, had Manson not gone the violent route, he could well have become a famous artist or guru-type, and maybe turned out quite wealthy and influential for a time, until his destructive urges finally came out some other way.   See Dave Cullen's book on Columbine for a good summary of the most recent research, with sources.

We discussed this on another thread, I  think the one about Dennis's lost daughter. 

Could you post a link to that? Would be interesting to hear it

You may disagree but I think you have Manson's wrong. Maybe. Ted Bundy? You think Manson is in the same category as him? Hardly. Manson is a puppy compared to Bundy. Manson may have not killed a single person in his life. Maybe one or two in a stick up sort of drug deal gone wrong type of situation where it's practically a survival necessity. And cut some dude's ear off. Who hasn't?! But Bundy? Nah, Manson would even condemn him. That guy went round kidnapping and killing women. Manson attracted women by empowering them over the males around them. He gave them the power that had been taken away from them. Manson is of the opinion that Bugliosi made up tons of the Helter Skelter details to sell the case to the public and make a case out of Manson where there wasn't much of one. Manson's version of the story and the one which seems closest to reality is not that he wanted to start some race war, all that stuff, but that in an act of revenge wanted to send a message to Hollywood, Terry Melcher, etc., and did it through his drugged out kid followers. Tex Watson had only just come down from an incredibly damaging trip on belladonna before they set out the first night. Their minds weren't there - not because they were psychopaths necessarily but because they had been taking so many drugs and living apart from the world that their whole view of life was skewed - not to mention by Manson's admittedly extremist philosophy.

Obviously I'm not excusing any of them or Manson from those murders - they did it, Manson arranged it and played a small hand - but I don't think of Manson as a serial killer like Bundy or any of those people. Manson's psychopathic tendencies are probably more a result of two main things than some elusive brain abnormality : 1) upbringing in prison, knowing the world 'out there' and his world 'in here', observing how that whole thing works, a view from the inside which no doubt changes one's perception on our societies and how people are existing 2) his intelligence and his interest in religion, mysticism, psychology, hypnotism, etc., which he studied in prison before getting out in 1967 and was therefore well-studied and perhaps well-trained in many schools of self-development which are incredibly potent (this explains Manson's unhinged behavior that makes him seem like a live wire compared to others). These two influences have made Manson who he was and probably still is as an old man. When he got out, what was he? Just a bum with a guitar, really. Infiltrated the hippy scene but didn't seem to enjoy it that much. If he did he wouldn't have moved out into the desert and lived as a recluse with his select few close disciples and the other hanger ons that came and went at that time. What did he do with them? Did drugs with them, preached his wild philosophy to them, helped them understand themselves a bit. What did he do there, at the ranch? By all accounts Manson lived fairly simply. I heard he fixed cars for the ranch owner, or fixed up stolen cars that were brought in. Seems like a good handy-man.

In short, I really do think that the popular image of Manson is a media creation and fairly far from the truth. No doubt that Manson is a wild guy but that's due to prison and his personal interests coupled with a sharp uncultured intelligence and charisma. He was the perfect prey for media shock stories and still is. Many an old woman is glued to her television right now cursing Manson while watching some show about him. Fed by the television. All of Manson's zany and wild comments to reporters throughout the years are him playing the media even more. He knows he's doomed so he might as well play with us, reveal our hypocrisies. He gives the media some great quotes to edit and show out of context to make him look villainous. Truth is probably that Manson is a quiet chap who lives in prison and gets along with most everybody there. That reveals who he is more than the obviously inflated story the media has given us, don't you think? If he really were a psychopath then it would shine in the life he's led in prison since the events. But it hasn't. Not much has happened to him in prison. He had his guitar taken away and has been bitching about that for years - understandably, too. Not much else seems to have gone down. He plays softball in the yard. WATCH OUT, THE PSYCHOPATH IS UP TO BAT.

I believe that the media creation of Manson is of a man who had crazy ideas about Beatles tunes, killed a pregnant woman with assistance of a bunch of drug addled maniacs, and had a bit of a mad haircut. None of which sounds particularly smart, or evident of an 'intelligence'. Care to explain where this deviates from what he is actually like?

mike love was the 60s s michael jackson with his chicken freaky dance

Actually, Right Rev. nobody, you put the rabbit in the hat when you said:

"Obviously I'm not excusing any of them or Manson from those murders - they did it, Manson arranged it and played a small hand"

Precisely my point. Manson was so dismissive of his "family" that he made them do the deeds for him, so he wouldn't get his hands dirty, that's how much control he had.  As in: Look what I can do!!  And we are to believe Manson has been wrongfully characterized over the  years based on what he himself tells us?   You really think he's going to give a straight answer to anything ever?  Not in this life.  Dude, read the post again: this is how these guys operate.   And I'm not being pejorative.  These guys are really good at what they do.   It's how they get their jollies.  They can be very persuasive, especially with good-hearted people who have no reason to know who they're dealing with.  That's why some - like Madoff or that rapist molester guy Phil Garrido - get away with it for so many years.  (And n.b.: some commit no violent acts at all; they're not all serial killers - though Bundy was).

Boy that Mike sure plays a mean mini-Moog, don't he?

I find it kind of funny that somehow a thread about Mike's musical abilities has evolved into Charlie Manson talk. Is Mike's music that bad?

Yes, Mike sucks as a musician/songwriter and that's a fact. He has no idea how to be original. At best, his music is imitative, competently performed bland pop. His playing itself is unremarkable, if he even tries. DO NOT LISTEN TO MIKE'S MUSIC IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. Life is too short and there is better music out there.

 :o

Like with The Beatles Manson is gonna be that really annoying thing hovering over there legacy.

Especially now the Manson myth is growing with every passing year.

I think Mike had some real talent in the 60"s+then let..$$$$$$$..get in the way...He may have been right about the power of the oldies..BUT..The way they mixed in new music in 70"s was the way to go..Since then Mike allways gets his way..Lost interest in him after that on a personal level..

Seems like the differentiation between Mike the person and Mike the songwriter have become blurred in this thread...

To sum up my feelings, I think Mike was a great collaborator for Brian in the 60s and was obviously an important part of the band`s success. Not at the same level as Brian of course, but from Surfin` onwards he proved adept at writing lyrics which perfectly fitted with Brian`s music and certainly helped it to be commercially successful. Then, as the band`s music changed, he proved that he could write about other themes; not just with Brian, but also with Bruce, Dennis, Al, Carl and solo.

I think that throughout the band`s history though, some of the group`s biggest successes have also proved to be negative influences. The message that must have kept coming back to Mike was that the public were only interested in the hits and fun in the sun songs. Do It Again was an early signal of that and it was confirmed with Endless Summer and Spirit of America. It`s certainly not surprising that Mike would try to pen several retreads after this, especially as a few of them proved successful (more successful than anything else the band released as singles). It`s unfortunate though because hearing 40 year-olds (or older) trying to pretend that they are still 20 is never pleasant.

When Mike has written about other themes he has proved that he still has ability as shown on his unreleased First Love and Unleash the Love albums and on some of the Celebration songs. But again the fact that these projects haven`t been successful (and that several Beach Boys albums like Sunflower and Love You weren`t successful either) is another indication that people just want the hits. Mike is not alone in discovering that obviously as when Al started touring he initially intended to play several rarities before discovering that the demand wasn`t there. Even Brian has been forced into playing greatest hits sets and it`s a shame that the wants of the general public and the wants of the hardcore fans are so far apart and have been for several decades.

Excellent post. You summed it up very well. The only thing that I take some exception to is that I don't think the 40-year olds (or older) were "trying to pretend that they are still 20..."

I don't think playing the early "surf & turf" songs as middle-aged men implies that they were/are pretending to be THAT age or even younger than they actually are. I see it as giving the people what they want, much like Paul McCartney does when performing "I Saw Her Standing There", or Ray Davies singing "You Really Got Me", or even Lou Reed reprising "Walk On The Wild Side". They aren't pretending, they're entertaining.

Sorry, I should have clarified that what I really meant there was that when Mike was songwriting he started to do that on songs like Some of Your Love, Summer of Love and dozens of others sadly.

you rock, man :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh :ahh

Ever seen Lou live? He doesn't tend to over-extend himself on the oldies especially. Maybe Berlin tour aside (from what I've seen), he doesn't even put in enough energy to consider it half-assing those songs. When I saw him here, he probably sang about nine words to Perfect Day. Not even key words.

"... day ... sangria ... such a ... home ... SHUTTHEFUCKUP ... it's ..."

Never saw him in person, but, of course, have seen him on TV. Also, Lou Reed Live/Rock & Roll Animal are two of my favorite Lou albums.

I know what you're talking about regarding Lou "over-extending himself". But he's so up-and-down. He'll completely disappoint  with a performance of "Perfect Day" - hitting NO notes. Then, he'll tear into "Sweet Jane" and win you right back!

Those mid-70s albums were a wholly different thing, though. That was a character made for the stage introducing a lot of people to music many of them had never heard. Since he became a legend, he seems more determined to bury the legendary stuff, or rather force the newer material, in his live shows. I don't blame him, I'm just saying that is my impression. He's the same in interviews. I've read ridiculous things. Interviewer asks him about "Sweet Jane." "I don't know. Next question."

It's interesting that you would mention Lou's interviews, because I agree with you, he's a lot the same way in them as his songs. Sometimes he will tell stories that will blow me away, very profound. Then, sometimes, he'll completely obliterate another question with bullmerda, and I'm wondering, is this some kind of image he's trying to establish or manipulate? Very frustrating at times....

Clearly an image, yes.

Manson and pedophilia FTW !!!

I think it's better to get back "on topic".



Nobody, I don't know what you meant to say or achieve with this reply, but it would be appreciated if you think before you actually post a remark like this. It's not beneficial to the topic at all.