1. Surfin USA
2. Lonely Sea
3. Our Car Club
4. Don't Worry Baby
5. Please Let Me Wonder
6. Wouldn't it be Nice
7. That's Not Me
8. Here today
9. Cabinessence
10. I Just wasn't Made For These Times
11. Aren't You Glad
12. Wind Chimes (ss version)
13. All I Wanna Do
14. Surf's Up
15. Big Sur
16. It's Okay
17. Roller Skating Child
18. Somewhere Near Japan
19. Isn't it Time
20. Summer's Gone

The only people more racist than right wingers are lefties who reinforce the creation of a permanent underclass through their vocal support of the oppressive welfare/warfare state (this underclass being largely people of color).
How ya like them apples?

Anyone know the outcome of this dispute?

Thanks!

These things usually take a few years to litigate.

When the US Consititution was drafted, largely by Jefferson...

Not to be pedantic, but Jefferson was off in France when the Constitution was drafted and more or less ended up disliking it.


I'm a philosophical anarchist, so I would love nothing better than the elimination of the state.  But I can't agree with the ha-ha hee-hee dismissiveness of Grillo.  And I'm sorry I missed this discussion when it was current, by the way.

By way of the grocery store example, ideally yes, I would be willing to pay the grocery store what the groceries are worth to me.  But if I steal a loaf of bread, either because I can't afford it, or I just don't really feel like paying for it, what is the grocery store's recourse in a stateless construct?  Is that simply the price of a truly free market?  Do we hire bounty hunters to track down thieves and extract the replacement cost of the bread?  In any case, it's no utopia.  Doesn't there always have to be the threat of a stick somewhere?

I admit I haven't read all the replies since my snide comments from whenever that was, so I'll address only this last post...
I seek no utopia. As long as humans remain human no one should expect anything perfect, ever. I think property rights are the basis for any kind of civilization, but I believe IP, as currently enforced is totally stupid. As usual, the whole thing comes down to this...Don't hit people and don't take their stuff. Right? Wait, I know what your saying, just give me a second.
Don't hit, don't steal...and the organization that supposedly insures this (government, or the state) gives itself permission to do those very things (and many others). It is insane. Society accepts the brute force of the vampire state because someone might steal a song idea, or print your book with their name on it, or a million other things that don't matter at all.You could substitute anything else that the government enforces instead of IP and I would have the same reaction.
    I have no way of knowing how anything might work without the leviathan state sitting in the room holding the gun, but that doesn't matter. Just as is didn't matter that no one knew who would pick the cotton after slavery. Who could have guessed there would be giant machines doing the work of hundreds of individuals in the cotton fields? And let us not forget it was the state that enforced slavery and then, when the tide turned against that idea it was the state that killed 6000,000 people to enforce "it's" new idea (civil war, folks)
    Anyway, being a musician and a writer I understand the desire to protect what you create, but I also know that nothing I've ever done is/was wholly unique. I think the fashion industry is a good example of how someone may come up with an idea for the fall season in january, but by autumn every store at the mall has similar, if not identical items for 15 bucks. Is versace going out of business because the gap ( or whoever) copies their ideas? Of course not.
    Sorry about being so catty in the past. I realize its not a very effective way to communicate ideas, especially ideas that may be new to some folks. I am, unfortunately, only human. I have heard every argument for why a government is needed and none make sense to me. Everything the state does it bars everyone else from doing.  I like universal rules, not rules that leave out the rule makers. Ip is just another symptom of the disease of statism.
   Lastly, http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130502/10513922919/over-90-most-innovative-products-past-few-decades-were-not-patented.shtmls a new article about how over 90% of the most innovative products of recent times were not patented.

I actually spoke to Leaf about his non-involvement in the Brother Years Re-issues after a BW show in '99 or 2000 and his only comment was "Ask Capitol". He ended our chat shortly thereafter...

I'm almost 100% positive it's Al doing "not for us now!"

to quote my lady friend " I guess that was nice?"
And weird, I might add.
Still, good to see all that family harmony!

These pretzels are making me thirsty!

My old lady listens to the Box more than me…

That's cos the box doesn't keep giving her a hard time.

Zing! Well Played, friend, well played.

My old lady listens to the Box more than me, and with keener ears as she isn't as 'jaded' as me, or whatever I am after having heard this stuff for 25 years or so. She's also the first person I knew who pointed out that Marylin sings on Busy Doin Nothin. But she doesn't get my Jan & Dean thing either...

I finally got some time to do a quick edit of H&V similar to the acetate version that Andy described to see how it flowed, and even though it's a rough, I really enjoyed the sequence. Thanks for describing it for us all Andy!  

Sounds Great. I love your false barnyard/barnyard. Never heard that before. Not super keen on the edit after IIGS, but overall its awesome!

The Hoskyns book is great, as is Levon's book, though I guess it is a little Heroes & Villains at points. Also, I do agree that the Band was not very good without Robertson, but Robertson wasn't even kind of good without the band, so I think It's the chemistry etc. that made the band, especially the first two albums, so insanely amazing.

Robbie comes off as a charismatic professional, tackling an intense job of musical director, guiding the band from style to style, doing a great job on a wealth of unfamiliar material, and a great set of the group's own music. If I was him, I couldn't have stood being in a band with a bunch of junkies moving from booze to coke to smack, whining about Robbie not helping them finish their songs for them, and when he did, daring to take credit for it. Manuel wasted his talent and his voice and had no sense of a work ethic, he told Greil Marcus in 1972 that he probably would never finish another song. THAT is why the group broke up, Robbie didn't want to shoulder the responsibility, and spend the rest of his life on tour. The other members of the group wanted no real involvement in the postproduction of the film, besides rerecording parts of the soundtrack. The people who actually do the nuts and bolts work, stay the course, always end up with the blame as well.

Read Levon's book and you might have a better idea of just what a lame prick robbie really was. Robbie wanted to be a movie star and live with scorsese and do blow all day. He was lucky to have those four guys playing his songs, and here's my favorite of Rick singing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDm5o3FJ2Q8! When you Awake.

wait,people still listen to the radio? for god sakes, why? Last time I checked the 'oldies station in portland plays stuff from the 80's but nothing from the fifties, and I'm pretty sure they have just one 12 track time/life cd of music from the 60's. Total crap.

I wonder what that lady had with "Little old lady...". Brian didn't write any of it...

Correct. And this interview was in August of '64, right after they recorded "Little Old Lady" in Sacramento, so Brian (or Ida) probably thought he contributed to the song in some way. In fact, there's only two songs where Brian and Jan shared a 50/50 writing credit - "Surf City" and "Gonna Hustle You." And after "Surf City" in '63, Brian was never a primary writer for Jan & Dean. His name came last on his other contributions to Jan & Dean songs, which was mainly chords and melody and harmony. But I think Brian sang background on a couple of them, didn't he?

Compositions co-written by Jan & Brian:

Surf City
She's My Summer Girl
Gonna Hustle You (Get A Chance With You)
Drag City
Surf Route 101
Dead Man's Curve
The New Girl In School
Ride the Wild Surf
Surfin' Wild
Move Out Little Mustang
Sidewalk Surfin'

So.........did Brian take too much credit for Jan & Dean songs in this '64 interview?

Nice avatar, Rocker!

Brian sings the co-lead with Jan on both Ride the wild Surf and Surf City. He and Jan sing the exact same parts. There is a session of RTWS out there that demonstrates this, and Dean always said he could hear more Brian than Jan on Surf City. I doubt he sang any backing vocals since The Matadors and, later, Sloan&Barry covered that area. Finally, the credits on J&D records are not an indication of who wrote what necessarily. The Macpharland books cover all this in exquisite detail.

Man, I love Rick, and my lady really goes for him too! Great articles (says my quick scan) that I really want to take time with. Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EZCK-QtBY

Well, this is what happens when the "newspapers" and ownership of is consolidated down to just a few controllers and private equity firms. When there is no viable competition doing real journalism, why bother?  

Kinda like how, when you have a monopoly on violence (the government), there is no need to provide any anything ever.

that's just a silly way of singing, those people after stepping out of the recording booth didn't say, "that was some sick gnar, brah".

also, "HEY BEACH BOYS FANS LISTEN TO THIS SONG I FOUND IT'S CALLED ALLEY OOP", I take it you've never listened to Beach Boys Party?

no. It's all covers. I would compare it to Beatles For Sale - an attempt to cash in for the holiday market. But at least half the songs on BFS were written by them.

A major difference is that BB Party is actually good.

As always, great. You really bring depth to the sound.
 It's great imagining Carl sitting in the dark and singing to the echo chamber and you. Must've been crazy a surround sound!
anyway, thanks for everything.

I totally agree about the New Deal, as well as all government programs, and you did make your point succinctly. I have just heard many people say(in fact I think it was even taught in my government indoctrination camp, I mean school)  that the war ended the depression, so I was only trying to clarify the point that that is not true.
Who knows what amazing things were never created due to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It is the unseen and unknowable costs that hurt the most.

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people.

That's not quite what I mean, nor what anybody means when they commonly use the term "personal."

Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence.

Again, that's a false premise - you're talking about specific governments and specific contexts. Furthermore, another false premise, I am not advocating for the state because I am an anarchist in the traditional Bakunin/Rudolf Rocker sense. Fundamentally, I don't believe that the state has the right to exist as an authoritative body within a power structure. So ultimately I advocate for whatever will ultimately allow a society of autonomous individuals to flourish, and whatever course it takes is up to those individuals.

When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect.

Well, here, I entirely agree with you.

I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else).

Well, first of all, I don't accept you throwing in "or their property" for several reasons. Remember that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintanence of force over the population. Furthermore "property" is just too vague a term because it can mean either personal property or productive property and the wealthy elite thrive on us not recognizing that distinction. So to merely say "property" is to really open a can of worms that would really need to be addressed if we were to talk about the material reality of people's lives.

Again, as I said above, I don't support a "State's right" to use force against a person. I simply defend the existence of the state over structures where the public has less say and is more easily rendered subservient and I also would call for a more flexiable and historically accurate definition of "government."

It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so.

Maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that a society which is autonomous wouldn't be making decisions like that. I don't accept the tyranny of the majority argument - it entirely eliminates the very real existence of compromise. If you are with a group of eight friends and everyone but you wants to go to the same restaurant and you want to go to another but you decide to go with them anyway, you certainly wouldn't argue that they were using force. In a decent and civilized society, I would imagine that there would be a common principle of compromise and they would be organized as voluntary anyway so even if one would feel consistently excluded, they would not necessary have to participate.

I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas,

No, that's completely false.

whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals.

But individuals can do far more than simply "trade." In fact, systems of "trade" are largely imposed so those matters are, I think, secondary.

Okay, One last try...
Words have meanings. I have tried to define the words I am using. If you do not think people can have justly aquired property then yes, you are naive in the extreme. Do you also believe people do not own their actions and the effects of their actions? If so I feel it is pointless to continue as your definition of freedom is what is best for most, when that is patently false. Mob rule, I'm sorry, socialism (the forced transfer of wealth) has failed catastrophically everytime it has been tried because it is based on non-reality. Humans desire things. There is an unlimited number of desires and only a finite number of things. So people work and trade to acquire that which they desire. They enter into voluntary relationships with each other for the betterment of both parties. If I want your watermelon (which you have twenty of) and you want my frisbee, then it is mutually beneficial for us to trade. This is the free market. If you have fifty plastic pigs and you want my frisbee but I do not want your pigs, do you feel you have the right to my frisbee anyway?
The state has destroyed almost every vestige of the free market (humans acting voluntarily to serve their own rational best interest) by imposing and inserting itself between individuals. Freedom isn't "everyone has the same stuff", but everyone has the same rules applied to them, from the  street-sweeper to governor, protecting them from, as well as barring them from coercion and violence. Leftist Anarchism they way you define it is simply impossible. Things must be created. Some people are better at using resources than others. Those people will gain advantages and items because they earned it, and just because you (or someone else) is not as good at using your resources doesn't mean you get to have the other guy's stuff. I think of anarcho-socialists as people who forever want mommy to give them the things they want, especially if mommy didn't do that in real life. (not meant as a personal attack, just my metaphor)
   If you really do not believe in property rights you should feel free to send me your computer and, if you have one, your car. Or I can just swing by and pick them up. If you won't do that then you are defending your right to property. It appears to me you do not understand economics (12 years of government education will do that to a guy) but you have internalized the socialist indoctrination of the state to the point where you hold two opposing views; (1) People should do as they see fit so long as none are harmed, and (2) I deserve as much as the next guy. Please understand that violence, in the guise of the state or whatever authority comes to bear in your socialist world, is always unjust, even if everybody says otherwise. Peace does not include the forced transfer of wealth.

Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate. Sure, shipping five million guys over seas will get rid of the unemployment problem, but it was not until after wwII when the military spending (and government in general) was slashed that folks started seeing new jobs and opportunities arise. I just don't want people thinking that war is good for an economy, even though it seems to be the only part of the economy still functioning in the US.

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people. Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence. When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect. I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else). It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so. I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas, whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals. As long as you advocate for violence I will take it personally.

Forgive me if I disengage from this topic.

Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force.

I suppose your first mistake is referring to Obama is my "dear leader" - he is neither that in practice, nor in spirit and I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama, which is why in my very first post in this thread I state my opposition to Obamacare. Perhaps you should actually engage with the points I raise rather than respond to the fiction you've created.

Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

Are you familiar with The Gettysburg Address? Furthermore, government as I've defined it has existed in history.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win

Any economic system including capitalism could in theory operate by "voluntary human interaction" - it's hardly an accomplishment to use that to bolster the argument in favour of capitalism.

 

but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality),

Not just the 20th century. Capitalism was ushered into existence with necessary extreme violence and coercion.

you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths,

No, this has nothing to do with the state in which you were born. Life as you know it and your place in it is always dependent on and determined by the society in which you exist no matter where you are born.

you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me?

No, I think it's hypocritical to suggest that once your social position has by and large been created for you by the public that you want to not do the same for someone else.

Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?

I'm not entitled to any "part" of you - nor am I expected to believe the things that are fundamentally not part of you are.

The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this.

In fact, the state essentially granted rights to the corporations that in many respects put corporations outside of the reaches of state control at the beginning of the 20th century. Corporations in the United States, from the position of the law, have been by and large outside of the hands of state for quite a long time now.

Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?

Well, if you are suggesting that the state is the most powerful entity in the state-corporation-population triumverate, then, no, I don't understand that.
  

 I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian.

 

I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else.

So in that sense you oppose capitalism since it functions with an inherent power structure and means to profit off the labour of others.

Glad to hear you did not participate in the Election process, because if you did, then yes, Obama IS your dear leader. Maybe not the one you voted for, but the system you defend and participate in gave him to you. Like I always say, if you vote you can't complain!
Please, tell me about my social position.
You are not really saying that I owe "the public" something simply for being alive?  I know for a fact I owe you nothing. Perhaps there are people who have helped me, and being a good person I do my best to recompense them any way I can. But I don't use force, nor do I advocate force, which most people in society seem to love.
  The Gettysburg Address? That was a short speech given by a man who was directly responsible for the deaths of over six hundred thousand people , many of them non-combatants. Hopefully that is not your ideal.
   The only entity that has the supposed "right" to use force IS THE STATE. Without the state and people's belief in it's legitimacy, corporations would not be protected by the guns of the state. Naturally they feed off each other. However, the state can exist without corporations, but corporations would not continue to exist as they do because they would not be protected by law (legitimate force).
   Of course I oppose capitalism, if we use your definition. I fully support markets however, and the peaceful and voluntary trade between individuals. And sorry, I really don't owe you any of my money, though I don't mind spending some time in discussion, freely and voluntarily.

[save]

Okay...
The government IS violence, period. The only way the government functions is using coercion (force, threats of force, etc.) to take individuals wealth (property, money).

Well, let's look at this realistically. The government can function non-coercively. So, for example, if we define government as being specifically organized by the public and fully controlled by the public (and this is a reasonable definition and is how democracy should function) then you eliminate coercion. However, if are we going to be honest in our use of the term coercion then we must acknowledge that it is impossible in a capitalist society to attain property and money without coercion. If there is anything that fosters violence and use of force, and reinforces a power dynamic, it is a capitalist economy.

The government creates nothing at all, other than debt for the unborn.

Again, though, in reality, if the government in the United States got more involved in health care they would significantly reduce the debt for the unborn.

The US health care industry exists as it is Because of government interference, not despite it.

That's completely false. I mean, honestly, you're living in a dream world. I repeat, unlike other industrialized countries, the United States government is strictly prohibited from interfering in the affairs of drug companies and therefore have had no control over the amount of waste that the public, by and large, pays for. If the government could interfere, they could significantly reduce health care costs.

Forcing me (or anyone) to help support it is absurd at best.

Well, you're not being forced, for one. And second, you're a hypocrite. The public has essentially been supporting you all your life - essentially created life as you know it - and for you to have the arrogance to now turn your back and say that you don't have to "help support" anyone else is a textbook definition of hypocrisy and also just smugly self-serving.

Freedom = the rights of the individual to self-ownership, the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others, the sanctity of justly acquired private property, and voluntary exchange, voluntary association and voluntary contracts. When used by people like me...

Exactly. You simply re-define freedom in order to justify being a corporate apologist. Your definition means just about nothing to anyone who has struggled for real freedom throughout history and to be honest it is a disgrace when you consider what people who have had genuine struggles, participated in them to the full (which meant that they didn't have time to complain about it on the internet) have actually gone through and have actually accomplished.

All corporations.

No, not all corporations. This is not the 1600s.

So undermine the corporation taking away the power that the state gives to it.

The state doesn't give it power. Let's suppose you are correct for a moment that the state creates corporations. So what? It doesn't follow that just because you create something that you empower its ongoing existence. If I died tomorrow, my child would continue to grow without me. What's more, this is just a historical falsity. We've seen what happens in periods of American history where the government interferes less in the corporate world - typically corporate power grows, and public power diminishes. This is just a historical truism and what's more this is true of the present if you compare nation by nation - where the state is less intrusive, the corporate world ends up being more powerful and, most certainly, ends up bolstering the power structure that divides the ownership class from the labor class.

Stop pretending that government is the savior (in the twentieth century alone governments are responsible for the deaths of over half a billion people. This is called democide.) Why defend this institution that has been tried for, oh, what, 10,000 years? It is failed. Voluntary interactions are 100% of the time preferable. Stop defending the use of violence against me and everyone else.

Of course, governments have the capacity to do really bad things. That's a trivial observation. One can easily say that they have the capacity to do excellent things, like, for example, save
 millions of lives every year, which they do. Like, revive dead rivers. Like, end widespread illiteracy. Like create a middle class. The government, of course, is not "the savior" - the public are the ones who can have the actual control and they should use it, which is why they should pressure the government to do these good things and to not do these really bad things, and we know this is perfectly within our capabilities.

Ouch. Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force. Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win , but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality), you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths, you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me? Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?
   The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this. I understand that states no longer create corporations as they did during the age of discovery. Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?
  
  I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian. I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else. I certainly don't pretend that a politician who never met me and would never know a single thing about me somehow represents me because some schmo in the suburbs voted for him.  Most people try to think of reasons that they or their favorite group should not be included in this principle. I consider it universal.