1022

Another vote from me.  Somebody's got over 300 votes (The McHungry), but that one looks like any other McDonald's product.  And what is up with all the burgers that have 0 votes?  Like, don't these people have one friend or family member that would vote for their burgers?

Voter number 25 here.  Man, that sucker looks good.

my producer buddy and one or two others thinks strings in the outro - could there be a bit of plucking..?

There are a few pizzicato/plucked notes before the melody comes in, but I'm hearing bowed/sustained notes on the melody.

That's what I'm hearing, too.

Getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie. 

Right.  And Mike said that that is one of the worst inaccuracies of the movie.

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

I am not convinced, despite what Mike said in interviews, that he has not seen the movie.  If he has not seen the movie, he should not be commenting on the movie.

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

No, it doesn't sound like lying to me.  It sounds like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars by saying that what is depicted in the film, that is, Gloria and Melinda getting the ball rolling to get the family to take action, is the worst inaccuracy of the film.  Mike wasn't asked about the court case, he was asked about the movie.  What is shown in the movie is accurate, and Mike says that it is not. 

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

And now we know that our fellow board mate, Ray Lawlor is helping Brian with the upcoming book.

Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

I'm not Cam, obviously, but here is the quote from a summer of '72 Melody Maker article by Richard Williams entitled, "SMiLE...It's Carl and the Passions":

    You thought “Surf’s Up” was a nice surprise, maybe?  Well listen, kids: If you can steer clear of the grim reaper ‘til next Fall, “Smile” is coming your way.
 
     And, yes, it’s the real “Smile” – the original tapes, made in 1967 by Brian Wilson and never released because . . .  well, I guess you know the story about the “Fire” track, and how it caused a rash of conflagrations within the immediate vicinity of the studio.

     But didn’t we all think Brian had destroyed those tapes?  Sure we did.  He said so, didn’t he?  A million times.

     He must have been putting us on, though.  All the tapes have now been found, pieced together, new vocals overdubbed where necessary, and the whole album will be out [unreadable…I’m guessing ‘before’] long.

     The complete list of tracks is: “The Child Is Father To The Man”, “Surf’s Up”, “Sunshine”, “The Old Master Painter”, “Barnyard”, “Cabin-essence” (incorporating “Iron Horse”), “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow”, “I Love To Say Dada” (incorporating “Cool Cool Water”), and the different original versions of “Vege-tables”, “Wind Chimes”, and “Wonderful”.  Most of them seem to come under the overall sub-title of “Heroes and Villains”.

     Carl Wilson tells a story about the day he was working on the tape of “Master Painter”.  “Somebody put the tape out with the garbage, by mistake.  It got shredded, into a thousand pieces.  I had to go out, find it, and put it back together again.  It’s okay now, but we’ve made safety copies of everything, just in case.  Those old things were done on four-track tape, and they’re very fragile.”

     Carl is making his revelations by candlelight in a conference room at London’s Royal Garden Hotel.

We now know, of course, that no new vocals were overdubbed in '72, and that the only work done was to listen, catalog, and make safety copies.

Very nice!  Thank you!

I wish that the Boys had put out a time-buying album in the wake of Pet Sounds, in the way Party!! bought Brian some time before Pet Sounds was completed. I agree with the idea that Smiley is Smile even though it's miles from Smile. Another back to basics album, with Mike's lyrical input, even, that took minimal time to string together but spent plenty of weeks on the charts, could have bought Brian a whole extra several months to bring Smile to fully realised maturation. That might even have eased the band's feeling that Brian was getting along without them …

Wasn't there, more or less, an initial plan to have Smiley Smile be exactly that, the Party! of Smile, and then release a version of Smile in later '67 omitting H&V and GV and maybe other tracks? In all honesty I think I just saw that in this, or perhaps a different thread.

There was a memo from someone at Capitol (?) mentioning a 10 track Smile album to be released post Smiley.  Cam and others here know more about this, I'm sure.

I posted what follows about a year ago, but in an unfinished form.  Bought the original in September '67 and was perplexed and disappointed. This is the way I hear "Smiley" in 2016 and am amazed and delighted.


I have, filed away somewhere, an article entitled “Smiley Smile is Smile,” written by I can’t remember who and don’t know when, but posted somewhere on-line sometime around the year 2000, plus or minus 4 or five years before or after.

OK, so there’s my bow to the citation gods, but what follows is not really about that article.

Well, yes it is, insofar as what I’m about here takes the idea that Smiley was not merely a poor substitute, but in fact a perfectly logical, internally consistent, culmination of the Smile project. And that as released was poorly mastered, improperly sequenced and, despite the fact that all the pieces were readily at hand, inexplicably incomplete.

For those who haven't read the essay, here is a link to "Smiley Smile IS Smile"...

http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/rrcase-2.htm

In 1966-'67, were nationally televised TV appearances by bands typically arranged by the record companies, by the band's management, or a combination of both?

Ultimately the decision on which acts would appear on these shows came down to the talent bookers from those shows. For all of the lobbying by agents and managers to get their acts on a TV show, if the people booking those shows didn't want the band on, or couldn't fit them into the schedule, that band wouldn't be on the show

In the case of the Beatles, Sullivan actively pursued them after seeing the hype around British "Beatlemania". Ed himself wanted the Beatles on his "really big shew". He ended up negotiating with Brian Epstein, who offered Sullivan the exclusive on the band's appearances, that stretched into 3 appearances with more possibly to be negotiated (and they were).

But the point is and was, if the show didn't want a group on the air, or simply couldn't schedule when that group was available,  the group didn't get booked. The ultimate call was with the people booking and scheduling the show no matter how much hustling and pressure the managers applied.

Guitarfool2002,
I'm trying to figure out the business structure:
My reading indicates that a successful band at the time would normally have a general manager, a tour manager, a booking agent, and a pr manager (among others). Some of these roles would be outsourced (to an agency or management firm) rather than taken on as full time band employees. These roles were separate from the label and the band's responsibility (usually the GM took the responsibility on). And this team was responsible for the band's promotional appearances, both live and on TV.
Is that about right?

If so, it seems the label performed its promotional tasks and the gap (if there is one) with live appearances was on the BB team.

There was no template, especially at this time. The ultimate decision rested with the show's booking staff if not the host (as in the case with some of Sullivan's bookings). If the show said no, the artist wouldn't be on.

There was also a lot of crossover and handshake deals as far as who actually handled the bookings or how the process was worked out. Early on the Beach Boys had Milton Berle's nephew Marshall (so he could actually call Berle 'Uncle Miltie' and be accurate!) as their agent and rep at William Morris. Whatever and however he got them booked to various shows, tours, and formats might have included any number of other people involved in the process. But again, the actual shows or venues had the last word, as in yes or no.

So, you're saying that in 1966-'67 the record companies did not typically arrange television appearances for bands, and that such appearances were usually pitched to the TV shows by the band's management team or booking agents?  Were the Beach Boys management team and booking agents affiliated with Capitol Records at that time? 

In 1966-'67, were nationally televised TV appearances by bands typically arranged by the record companies, by the band's management, or a combination of both?

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.

Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?

Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00 

My post was intended to be humorous.

Oh, I know.  I was responding to the OP, and yours got lumped in.  My apologies, sir.  Merry Christmas.

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.

Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?

Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00 

Merry Christmas, Andrew, from the 'colonies'.  I hope we all have a wonderful new year, as well.  Peace.

Pamplin is not *more* deserving of courtesy than anyone else. He certainly deserves not to have his typing or spelling skills mocked. But his justifications for assaulting Dennis (and *especially* his justifications for assaulting Carl) don't deserve any respect at all. He is describing, and glorying in, thuggish, abusive, behaviour.

And he is no less deserving of courtesy. Their story is their story and they should be allowed to settle in and tell it. You know, if it is Rocky in this case. We will still have our own minds about respect after we hear their side.

Can't we develop a polite conversation over a side we haven't heard? What was their thinking at the time, what was the back story for them, do they have regrets, are they sure their memory is accurate, etc..  Cooperative instead of confrontational, both ways. We were getting there with Daro but we had gone too far and we couldn't get it back apparently and probably missed out on a lot of less controversial, but interesting, perspective from him.

Hear, hear!

"Round, round, get around
Bag it around"
I literally thought this until like a month ago. That's a lot of years of me being stupid and not hearing correctly.

also the first few times I heard Surf's Up it sounds like
"The lamps come down in Auld Lang Syne"

And then there's
"I'm gonna chop down my vegetables"

wait..it's not "I'm gonna chop down my vegetables" on Smiley Smile?

I always heard it as "I'm gonna chow down my vegetables".

:-) certainly makes more sense. I always thought that line was weird.

Not as weird as "I know that you'll feel better, when you send us in your letter and tell us the name of your...your favorite vegetable".

"Round, round, get around
Bag it around"
I literally thought this until like a month ago. That's a lot of years of me being stupid and not hearing correctly.

also the first few times I heard Surf's Up it sounds like
"The lamps come down in Auld Lang Syne"

And then there's
"I'm gonna chop down my vegetables"

wait..it's not "I'm gonna chop down my vegetables" on Smiley Smile?

I always heard it as "I'm gonna chow down my vegetables".

Ooh, I forgot one that is only a couple of years old, with subject matter that touches upon a pet peeve of mine...Junior Brown's "Hang Up and Drive".  That's the same Junior Brown that covered Brian's "409" on the Stars and Stripes, Vol. 1 album.

The Beach Boys did some great car songs, no doubt.  Other faves of mine that haven't yet been mentioned include...

Hot Rod Lincoln
One Piece at a Time
Mercury Blues
Mercedes Benz

Oh wow. Janis. How did that not get listed yet?

Not really a car song per se, I guess.  More an anti-materialism anthem of sorts.  I like it, whatever it is.

The Beach Boys did some great car songs, no doubt.  Other faves of mine that haven't yet been mentioned include...

Hot Rod Lincoln
One Piece at a Time
Mercury Blues
Mercedes Benz