The sort of thing that keeps Brian and the Beach Boys near the center of popular culture. How is that bad?

Not only a line under, but a line through. Forget it Jake, it's Smileytown.

You would think folks would appreciate a forum where you could chat and exchange info about some interest you all share. But acting under some perverse impulse, there are always some more interested in stirring up trouble and creating drama.

I don't understand it. Who wouldn't want a relaxed, genial atmosphere? Why would anyone prefer a tense, unpleasant series of exchanges while pursuing fun in your spare time?

But there it is.

I've moderated a few boards myself in the past, and am thus reluctant to criticize any mod, unless said mod is acting in bad faith.

That is not the case here. Any mistakes made -- if indeed any were made at all -- were made in good faith, and not through malice or the gratuitous exercise of power. Can we not therefore walk away from the Bad Place that this thread has become, shaking our heads ruefully as we do so?

Billy drew a line. That line is a good line. Let it abide.

Bad form to flounce off with a melodramatic announcement and a settling of scores. Have a little dignity.

If one no longer wishes to read or post on a particular board for whatever reason, that's fine. Just cease posting, without making a big deal out of it. Maybe someone will notice your absence, maybe not.

The vile minions await the instructions of the Dark Lord.

Why are we talking about PMs ?

This is a Beach Boys discussion board. Mike Love is of central importance to the Beach Boys story. Therefore, Mike Love must be discussed on this board. But he can't be, because any mention of his name brings out the trolls, those who add nothing to the discussion but the same repetitive, unreasoned, crude expressions of dislike. Therefore, at its core, smiley smile becomes dysfunctional. It sputters, stalls, spins out of control.

Don't like Mike's actions, lyrics, stage deportment, singing, interview answers, etc? Fine. In many cases, I would agree with you. But these expressions of disapproval should advance the conversation, should be pertinent to the conversation, or failing that, should at least be amusing.

Is there really no fix for this problem, other than to ignore it, which -- correct me if I'm wrong, please -- is what the mods are proposing?

A relatively unexplored Beach Boy era is Mike's assumption of creative control post-Kokomo. I am however reluctant in opening a thread on the topic -- a thread that will be necessarily critical of the direction Mike took the band -- but as the board now stands, a substantive discussion on the subject would be quickly derailed by trolling.

Mike Love is central to the Beach Boys story, but on this board such a central topic cannot be discussed in a rational manner. That's a problem.

I have no objection to criticism of Mike, or any other of the Beach Boys. What is dispiriting is the repetitious and banal nature of some of the anti-Mike posts. Basically saying, "Mike is a d*ck" over and over, thread after thread, off-topic or not.

Here's a thought : why don't the Mike haters put whatever variant of "I hate Mike" they want in their sigs. That way, assuming they have anything on-topic to say in a particular thread, they can say their piece and still get in their anti-Mike knocks in the fine print.

The anti-Mike obsession is tedious enough, but when this obsessive dislike is expressed without cleverness, without variation, without humor -- it becomes unbearable.

In fact, the Beach Boys were more successful in the US post-surf/car than they were as a surf act.


Chart placement for surf songs :

Surfin' #75
Surfin' Safari #14
Surfin' USA #3
Surfer Girl #7

Car songs :

Shutdown #23
Little Deuce Coupe #15

Transitional car/romance/life style songs (1964):

Fun Fun Fun #5
I Get Around #1
Don't Worry Baby #24

Non-surf/car (1963-66):

Be True to Your School #6
In My Room #23
When I Grow Up #9
Dance Dance Dance #8
Do You Wanna Dance #12
Help Me Rhonda #1
California Girls #3
The Little Girl I Once Knew #20
Barbara Ann #2
Caroline No #32
Sloop John B #3
Wouldn't It Be Nice #8
God Only Knows #39
Good Vibrations #1

Did sterling work with Jan and Dean, the Turtles, the Mamas and the Papas, and the Grassroots, among others, before having an even greater breakdown than Brian. Didn't he become catatonic?

I disagree with the assumption that Carl could ever have been the musical/creative savior of the band. Have you listened to his post-Holland songs? Bland, if sometimes tuneful, MOR stuff.

Carl would not have saved the band's rep, unless you think that Bread or Firefall are highly regarded groups.

Aesthetic judgment is neither completely objective nor completely subjective.

I mean, the Beach Boys were objectively better than the garage band I had when I was 13. The Beach Boys were objectively better than the Sunrays, or Ronny and the Daytonas, or the Ripchords. The Beatles were objectively better than the Swinging Bluejeans or Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas. It's not all subjective.

But neither is it all objective. What's the best lp of 1966 : Pet Sounds? Revolver? Blonde on Blonde? There is no objective answer to that, but can't we say that, objectively, Pet Sounds was at least a good album?

NPP is obviously more of a problematic case than is Pet Sounds.

Side A : Across the Universe
Side B : This Whole World

[L.A. (Light Album)]

An example of the road not taken. This piece sounds almost like Another Green World-era Brian Eno.

How different would their legacy be if the band reconstituted itself as mid-seventies avant garde art rockers? The potential was there.

Eh. You know, I'm sure we all wanted a more artsy, yet still commercially for the guys in the latter part of the '70s. But really, super artsy late '70s Beach Boys? That gives me thoughts of Yes or Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Stuff like that. Fact is, punk kinda reset the whole deal in the mid '70s. Yet once again The Beach Boys really didn't have anywhere to fit in. They definitely wouldn't fit in with the avant garde. They definitely weren't punk despite a bit of influence on acts like The Ramones (where's kookoo adams when you need him?) and even the more polished new wave type of material of Elvis Costello was pretty far away from them.

I really suppose the only scene and sound The Beach Boys truly coulda maybe fit in was the California soft-rock scene with Fleetwood Mac and those types. A lighter Fleetwood. Mature, a bit nostalgic but not necessarily backwards looking. And basically I think that's kinda what L.A. (Light Album) is and I think it succeeds. And I think if that is what The Beach Boys followed up Holland with things might've been a bit different. But we've been over that many times on this board.

Not Emerson Lake and Palmer, but Bowie's Berlin trilogy. Mount Vernon is not miles away from 'Low'.

Of course this was never a realistic option -- the pressures from the audience, the record company, and his band mates wouldn't have allowed this new direction. But Brian did show an affinity for these experimental synth pieces and song fragments. It would have been interesting to hear how he might have developed this style.

An example of the road not taken. This piece sounds almost like Another Green World-era Brian Eno.

How different would their legacy be if the band reconstituted itself as mid-seventies avant garde art rockers? The potential was there.

Tax avoiding multi-billionaires cost the UK and the US trillions every year and yet all certain people (idiots) can get worked up about is poor foreign people desperately trying to start a new life: more often than not, escaping countries due to violent wars that we f--king started. 'Immigrants' contribute far, far, far more to the UK/US economy in taxes than they claim in benefits - this is fact. People's prejudice against these people is just racism, pure and simple, however they might otherwise try to dress it up...

Ah, smiley smile.net! Come for the music discussion, stay for the ill-informed political diatribes!

I marvel at the logic of the "gut reaction crowd" here.  Someone puts together a little satire illustrating a problem the US is facing, and all they can come up with is "That guy's fat!"  That's all you got out of that?

You can't even sneeze without offending someone these days!  Lighten up!  

You'd think that if anyone should be unruffled by the sight of a fat guy singing, it would be a Beach Boys fan. Ok, Meatloaf fan first, then Beach Boys.

every fucking thread

So, I guess the answer to the question "are Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks currently estranged?" is Mike Love sucks?

Maybe instead of "42", as Douglas Adams has it, that's the smileysmile version of "what is the ultimate answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything?"

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Perhaps we should rate our opinions on a certainty percentage scale. As in, "Terry Melcher's production on SIP gave the record a flat, plasticky sound (71%)", or "Carl was disengaged in the making of SIP (64%)".

Could the Beach Boys, as they were constituted in 1992, have produced a good album under any conditions? Is Mike to blame for thinking they could? What would have been the ideal alternative to SIP?

I'm of the opinion that, yes, a good album could have been produced. They could've gone along with Mike's idea and filled in the gaps. Brian hadn't released a solo album in four years and had enough songs stockpiled. Maybe he could've provided three or four of them to The Beach Boys:

01  Mike & Terry - Island Fever
02  Mike & Terry - Still Surfin'
03  Mike & Terry - Strange Things Happen
04  Mike & Terry - Lahaina Aloha
05  Mike & Terry - Summer In Paradise

06  Brian - The Spirit Of Rock And Roll
07  Brian - Don't Let Her Know She's An Angel
08  Brian - Rainbow Eyes

09  Oldie - Hot Fun In The Summertime
10  Oldie - Under The Boardwalk

11  Carl - ?
12  Al - Don't Fight The Sea
13  Bruce - Slow Summer Dancin' (One Summer Night)

Pick any three Brian songs, they're better than the songs you're eliminating (Summer Of Love, Remember Walking In The Sand, and Surfin'). I don't mind keeping "Forever"; I think it's a good cover, Carl sings his heart out, and Stamos was very popular at that time. Anybody for the Spanish version of "Kokomo"? Anyway, just the additions, and more importantly the subtractions, make it a stronger album, even respectable.

But the premise of the question is " as they were constituted in 1992" -- that is, with Brian not involved. (Do we know the full story behind why he wasn't? Too soon after Landy?) If they had waited a year, yes this new and improved SIP might have been possible.

But really, does your revised track listing constitute a "good" album? I'd rank it on the same level as BB'85 -- not good, exactly, but a step up from KTSA-like mediocrity. B minus, maybe? C plus?

My conclusion is that the 1992 version of the band needed outside help in order to produce a good album, a hit album. Don Was producing? Song doctors? Aerosmith wasn't above bringing in songwriting pros to help out Steven Tyler and Joe Perry in the 90's.
 
I blame Mike only for trying to do what could not be done.

Could the Beach Boys, as they were constituted in 1992, have produced a good album under any conditions? Is Mike to blame for thinking they could? What would have been the ideal alternative to SIP?

In hindsight, they should have waited for Brian, but at the time they had no way of knowing when, if ever, he'd be ready to rejoin the band.

And as far as "they could have said 'no'. Mike was only a few years removed from Kokomo, the biggest hit they would have. Does anyone honestly think Mike would have stepped aside if Carl presented something he wrote? Mike, back then especially, was all about the hits and to him, hits for the BB were all about the Kokmo formula. If Carl was writing, he may have felt whatever he was working on 1.) might not get a fair hearing from the de facto leader at the time 2.) might not have been a good fit to the style that Mike and Terry  Melcher were developing. Even the cover songs they did on SIP are Kokomo-ish.

No reason for Mike having to step aside. Mike and Terry wrote only half an album. It seems unlikely that Mike would have rejected a song from Carl in favor of a cover of 'Walking in the Sand' (which is not at all a Kokomo-like song, btw). And are you saying that Mike was completely in charge, with Carl having no say whatsoever? Mike could veto a Carl song? I find that to be implausible.

I mostly agree with the Sheriff, but what he maybe misses is that there is something comic about misplaced confidence. There is an impression of Mike rubbing his hands together and saying,  "Don't worry boys, I've got this covered" -- and then falling on his ass.

That said, it is the confident people -- as Brian currently is and was at points in the past -- who accomplish things.  And SOL was awful, granted, but the rest of the Love/Melcher songs were perfectly fine complementary numbers. They would have filled out quite nicely a Beach Boys lp comprised mainly of the best of Brian's Sweet Insanity-era songs.