Who really cares when or why Mike noticed? The thing is, as a cowriter he deserved credit regardless of how one feels about him.

At what point does the piss-and-vinegar seen in the pages of Billboard come out as it's actually happening in real time, never mind 30 years later? Or as I asked about 5 pages ago, what stopped Mike from taking action at that time?

I just wonder if Mike feeling (rightfully) super slighted by the ongoing lack of ML credits situation (especially when Brian credits his younger bro Carl for Dance, Dance, Dance) is what helped lead to instances of ML's questionable behavior towards BW over the years. Mike had a right to feel slighted, but holding in that grudge didn't do anyone any favors.  Grudges always seep out in one way or another. Still, I can't help but still think that even if ML had gotten proper credits all along, BB history may have still otherwise played out similarly.

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

I don't know. Makes no sense. Song hit #3 in the US. The BBs were at their popular peak. Mike was already credited on a bunch of hits.

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

To you and me, no, Mike was not dispensable. But who knows what Murry was capable of doing. I know David Marks was much more dispensible than Mike and look what happened to him (thus my Marksmen reference). We do that Murry was very confident that he could take a couple of guys - The Sunrays - and turn them into "another Beach Boys". So, maybe Murry thought Mike was expendable. More importantly, maybe MIKE THOUGHT MURRY THOUGHT Mike was expendable. Just sayin'...  

EDIT: Also, after Summer Days (And Summer Nights), the album that "California Girls" appears on, Mike had a, shall we say, reduced role in the next two studio albums, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. Coincidence? It's possible that Mike sensed some "changes"....

You really can't help but wonder if so much of Mike's resistance to those albums was based not only on fear of the band's new music "failing" in general, but more about him throwing a passive aggressive lyric-questioning tantrum out of him feeling threatened that the place he had attained in the band that was being stripped away from him in favor of cousin Brian's "art" music. He surely felt he needed/wasn't wanted anymore (or as much as before).

I can empathize with how that must've felt, and it must've sucked... but still, how one wishes Mike could've held onto his ego more at the time.  If Mike could just fess up to this (to however small a degree), it would go miles to making improving what people think of him. He'd be humanized as a person who has made some mistakes, but has some self awareness. There's no part of me that believes that Mike hasn't thought about this to himself at one point or another. And maybe that sad fact is what fascinates me about the Lovester (who I do not hate, just feel sad that he can't/won't change)... I'm holding out hope that while these guys are still on planet Earth, that this past stuff can still be acknowledged and made better to some degree. Sometimes, people only want to hear the word "sorry" from others (I know some people think Mike has nothing to apologize for, ever, but I just don't see it that way).  

guitarfool, do you think Brian Wilson ever felt sorry or bad or sad that Mike Love did not get the credit and royalties for the songs that Mike contributed to?

I'm not guitarfool, but I'll chime in on this too... I almost think that in the first few years of the band, and even in the years preceding the band's formation, BW + ML likely developed a dysfunctional relationship which was dictated by their personalities. ML being more dominant, and BW being more passive and wanting to avoid conflict. I think ML has a bully streak in him. That's an outside observation, and I say that having known bullies in my life... feel free to tell me how crazy I am for saying such a thing, but that's what it seems like to me.

So I'm guessing that BW already had some brewing longstanding resentment in the back of his mind against ML in some fashion, which only grew in the mid 60s when the two men's artistic differences (and views for what the direction of the band should be) grew apart more and more. But I speculate that the seeds of this were already in BW's head years earlier than '65/'66 when they really started butting heads. Maybe this even went back to their childhoods. I assume that in the late 1950s, BW + ML 's relationship pre BBs must have shared some similarities with how their relationship evolved/devolved to when the band + money + fame came into play.

We're talking personalities that clash, but they are family, and that just complicates the sh*t out of everything.  So I think that, based on a resentment for being psychologically bullied to some degree, however small, that 1960s BW probably didn't feel as sorry or bad as he would have otherwise (if ML's personality were different). 1960s BW probably knew it was a f*cked up situation that wasn't fair to ML (which it certainly wasn't), but again, in avoiding conflict as was BW's pattern, he just didn't want to touch the hairy situation with a 10-foot pole. And of course, that doesn't make it right.

I really, really doubt it was any kind of black-and-white evil concerted effort to screw someone over for years, but more something that included many factors, like BW thinking "this person has f*cked with my artistic vision and has given me emotional hardships to some degree, so why am I gonna make some kind of effort to fix this". I sincerely think this likely approximates some of the thoughts that BW had about ML at the time. I empathize with this resentment, though its very existence is simply my educated guess. ML defenders can say all they want about how this is untrue, but nobody except BW can know for sure. And sadly, even if BW categorically stated this is/was the case, there would be people saying he was being fed the answer. And the messed up thing is, since BW's latter-day answers (like on Beautiful Dreamer) are doubted by many people (for real, legit reasons of thinking he is being fed some answers), it enables history to be re-written by people with different agendas, and further complicates the wacky BBs story, which is almost like a SMiLE puzzle in and of itself.  

Murry's ethical shadiness on business dealings (despite his letters to BW stating how ethically sound a father he was) must've rubbed off on BW to a degree, but I think a big part of the equation was BW having some resentment against the person (ML) who was being legitimately wronged by being uncredited for years. And certainly, who knows how much of ML's "questionable" behavior over the years stems from his own resentment (which he apparently kept inside for 30 years) about the unfair songwriting credits situation? Those feelings don't just stay inside someone. They are gonna come out, TM or no TM. Basically, how much of everything on both sides is due to grudges?

So tragic how dysfunctional family behavior (from many sides) has been a huge thorn in the side of this wonderful band (duh, but I felt it needed to be said anyway).

Just an outsider's humble opinion.

Who exactly are you arguing with that has that position, tho? Then they could answer your questions.

I thought my post was pretty clear. Sorry. I'll try to make it clearer.

Since the end of the reunion, there have been endless posts and shots aimed at Mike for supposedly, prematurely ending the BB reunion. An overwhelming number of these posts were written by Mike haters/Brian lovers. An overwhelming number of those posters also opined that Brian Wilson is better off without Mike Love, both in concert and in the studio. If that is what they believe - and that is how I interpret their opinions - then they should be happy that the reunion is over - AND THANKING MIKE! Brian is now free from Mike Love! In my opinion, wanting the reunion to continue, with Brian and Mike in the same band, and at the same time wanting Brian Wilson far, far away from Mike Love, is hypocritical.

I think many people, even if they have major issues with the Lovester, still think that his place in the band gives the project a deeper, emotional meaning, and adds something positive of value to the project (or at least has the potential to be positive).

But that isn't what they expressed in their posts. There is a direct relationship between the posters who are most negative about Mike Love, yet want(ed) Brian to continue to be associated with him in the reunited Beach Boys.

I keep using the term overwhelming but I can't think of a more accurate word. An overwhelming number of posters said that they DIDN'T want any more of Mike's "Beaches In Mind" and "Spring Vacation" lyrics with Brian's music. An overwhelming number of posters said that they prefer a BAD setlist as opposed to the surf & turf "hits" that Mike prefers. An overwhelming number of posters wanted no part of a Mike Love composition like "Daybreak Over The Ocean" on a Beach Boys' album. An overwhelming number of posters are looking forward to Brian's new solo album because it will be (and I'm paraphrasing posters) more artistic with possible suites - the kind that Mike wasn't isn't in favor of.

In this thread alone posters are calling Mike arrogant, divisive, and mentally ill. Posters are claiming that Mike is insensitive, mistreats a mentally ill individual, and doesn't love certain family members. They are criticizing his answers in BB-related interviews and even criticizing his wearing of hats.

And yet, those are the posters who wanted Brian Wilson to continue in a band with Mike Love? To continue to tour with Mike and record another album with Mike? For, as you stated, a deeper emotional meaning and something positive? It doesn't sound positive to me. Hey, I'm repeating myself and beating a dead horse. And, this is all I really wanted to say on the matter anyway. Thanks for reading. Seriously.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I was really happy to see ML + BW working together again, and it seemed (likely due to glossy interviews which made things look more harmonious than was really happening) that their personalities could somehow mesh again. I would have liked to have believed that a corner was turned in their artistic/personal relationship. Maybe a corner was turned, to a degree. But it went sour anyhow soon enough.

I think people just wanted Mike to change in some way, to turn over a new leaf.  To be able to compromise (for longer than a few months) and be a team player. They want to see BW work again with that guy. But ain't gonna happen with that 72 year old feller, if he has (and ML does have) an out to the situation that makes him happier, damn the consequences. Hence the frustration. And the endless, admittedly circular discussions.

These guys are too different to be able to work together anymore. </stating the obvious>
 

After all, BW getting his way only gave us the best music of his career, like PS.



Damn right. The great BW should be given free reign to compose and direct TBB. His brilliance and strong leadership skills will enable TBB to get back on top recording new material that hits number one on all charts. The evil that is ML will be relegated to being a backup bit player forever screeching in interviews, fallacies and falsehoods concerning the real God in the band.

To me, "BW getting his way" doesn't mean that ML is shut out of the creative process. Unfortunately there are massive egos involved. And much, much history.
Nor does  "BW getting his way" mean that ML = evil. It's not a black and white situation, never has been.

Who exactly are you arguing with that has that position, tho? Then they could answer your questions.

I thought my post was pretty clear. Sorry. I'll try to make it clearer.

Since the end of the reunion, there have been endless posts and shots aimed at Mike for supposedly, prematurely ending the BB reunion. An overwhelming number of these posts were written by Mike haters/Brian lovers. An overwhelming number of those posters also opined that Brian Wilson is better off without Mike Love, both in concert and in the studio. If that is what they believe - and that is how I interpret their opinions - then they should be happy that the reunion is over - AND THANKING MIKE! Brian is now free from Mike Love! In my opinion, wanting the reunion to continue, with Brian and Mike in the same band, and at the same time wanting Brian Wilson far, far away from Mike Love, is hypocritical.

I think many people, even if they have major issues with the Lovester, still think that his place in the band (and Bruce, who by default is also MIA when ML is MIA from the full BBs) gives the project a deeper, emotional meaning, and adds something positive of value to the project (or at least has the potential to be positive). I think that some people are disappointed that ML isn't working with BW in a capacity that lets BW call most of the shots around here. I don't believe the BBs are meant to be a full democracy. Few bands are.

BW missed the way he used to call the shots, and, in my estimation, he started getting back into a position with C50, just to get the itch where maybe he felt (despite opposition, like ML's gunshot-to-the-head analogy to the 3 best songs on the album) that he would be able to be the "boss" of the BBs again. Not in a negative way, but in a way that lets the guy who is the monster artist of the group be the leader. But a new BB "boss" was/is in town. The rules had changed. I suppose they'd really first changed way back when BW withdrew back in the late 60s.

Yes, it's a complex and contradictory situation especially with the BRI voting clause. But still, in a nutshell, that's how I see why some people (BW lovers) want ML + Bruce to be back with BW, as long as it's BW's way to a large extent. And why is this a bad thing? After all, BW getting his way only gave us the best music of his career, like PS.

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

The huge arguments stem from the fact though that there is a contingent on here who don't seem to be able to accept the slightest criticism of Mike, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

I've heard of other major artists who read messageboards and get royally pissed over internet sh*t-talkers, and sometimes personally even get into online pissing matches with random haters in cyberspace. I don't think ML would bother with getting involved himself, but I just wonder if he has ever slipped a few bucks, or leaned on people in a "favor" capacity to be his uber defenders.

And yes, I know that some people just respond with a knee-jerk reaction to defend him, to counter the oodles of ML misinformation that has permeated for years. And they have the right to do that, if they feel that his actions can be found to be legitimately defensible.

But that being said... I still ask my above question.

Pretty good song, but Brian already had "Custom Machine". Couldn't see him wanting another song for the album with Custom (or Kustom) in the title.

Ordinarily with most bands that would make sense, but keep in mind how many songs with "Surf" in the title there were on the early albums! 

I think the song is decent, not super...  but I can see how it would bug a band member to have their song(s) rejected, particularly while a re-release of a song that already came out makes the cut.

Silly question, but do you know why David Marks spelled the song's title with "K"s instead of "C"s? (I like it better as "KKS" myself, for no particular reason).

Doesn't BW (who has endured many wasted years of misery in his life for a myriad of reasons) deserve to have a bit of things "his way" at this point? It's called COMPROMISE. Again - if it meant some self-sacrifice on ML's part, we know what the answer is/was.

How soon we forget: Mike did exactly that for the C50 tour. Brian got all his band, Mike got two of his... Mike compromised on the number of gigs originally scheduled by a factor of almost 50%... Mike ceded control to Thomas & BriMel. I'd say that in this regard, Brian had pretty much everything his way last year, touring and in the studio.

And I know what you're going to say here, so my pre-emptive response is, very, very few people know exactly what went on during the final weeks of the C50 tour: pretty much all we know here is what we want to assume, and that's based, as far as I can make out, on what people want us to believe.

I'm in total agreement that Mike certainly compromised to make the C50 work. Absolutely. And I applaud him for that.

It's the fact that he couldn't find it in himself to make the compromise continue, for the better good of the "band" (because the compromise was presumably too much to take, or at least this is how it seems to an outsider like myself) that makes so many people so bugged.

Of course, if other facts come to light eventually, mine (and public opinion on the matter) may shift somewhat. I want to like Mike. I really do. I don't hate him as a human being, and I appreciate his artistic contributions - I just think, IMHO, that he's a messed up dude in some major ways that affect those around him in a big way, which he seems oblivious to own up to.
 

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own!  

IMO...Mike is addicted (in a bad way) to *constantly* being on the road, and to fulfill a desperately needed amount of adulation while being in the spotlight. I am saying this honestly not in an attempt to "bash", but in an attempt to understand an individual (who I do not know personally), and to wrap my head around behavior that most people just brush off as him being simply "a jerk".  I think ML is emotionally ill.  People are who they are for certain reasons, and I believe "the road" is something that has long ago turned into an addiction/escape of sorts for him. When a person's priorities get as screwed up as I believe Mike's are (and I see parallels of priorities being screwed up for other addicts, like BW + DW back in the 70s/80s), the "important" things in life fall by the wayside.

I understand that at the end of C50, if Mike were to continue to reunion, he was put into a position of having to have made big changes to his comfortable way of life on the road (the M&B way) in order to acquiesce to “BW’s way” or to the needs of the then-current reunion lineup.  Nevertheless, I think that a person with their priorities set straight (my idealistic way of hoping that ML would’ve acted) would have realized that burying the hatchet, and compromising/being willing to lose some of your “battles” (like he surely did during C50), is truly worth it for the greater good of the band, and what it stands for. SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. This would be called an act of being selfless. I just wish he could’ve been that way.

Doesn’t the fact that ML knows how sensitive a person BW is (even with his current emotional support system) mean that he would think about how much stress/grief/hurt feelings he’d be putting a person through (with known mental issues) by making BW feel as though he was "fired"? Even if this "fired" speak was only a feeling, it's still putting someone through emotional anguish. Part of me wonders if ML actually thinks the mental illness that BW has is actually an act, because ML’s actions make me think these thoughts never went through his mind.

IMO, ML’s addictions to the road/his lifestyle, and what he’ll do to achieve what he wants (no matter how that hurts others), are just as destructive in their own, different way, as the addictions that the Wilson brothers suffered.

Now I await a bunch of people to tell me how off-base I am.

I think you have a point in Mike being addicted to touring. Whether that's a bad thing in itself is debatable. There are a lot of possible reasons why Mike didn't want to continue C50 and that was only one of them. The others included the added expense of Brian's big band. Which does make a great sound, but Brian's addiction to having  a big band has even lost Brian some money at times, I'm sure. Mike is used to making money, not losing money, or breaking even, or making less money than he already was. There's also the Joe Thomas thing, and the Melinda Wilson thing, and the fact that Mike and Brian themselves may not see eye to eye anymore.

I would never blame Mike for causing poor mentally ill Brian additional anguish. If Brian is that fragile, his wife and support system should have shielded him from the reunion in the first place and never let it happen, because there was a chance it might not work out in the short term, let alone the long term. I would hate to think that Brian has to live in a glass cage and protected like an endangered species. If that's so, it's  not just Mike who's caused him anguish. How about the entire Joe Thomas debacle when Brian first worked with him, and his wife had to sue, and Joe sued her? Didn't that cause Brian emotional anguish? Yet here he is working with Joe Thomas all over again. I wouldn't worry too much about Mike making Brian crazy. He's used to it.

KittyKat - you make a good point, that there are certainly others like Joe Thomas whose actions at one point or another (litigious or otherwise) could have caused Brian anguish. And I can't pretend to "know" Brian and what makes him tick like his family and those around him. He is very strong. To me, it just comes down to ML's selfishness and ML sh*tting on everyone's parade (including the BB's legacy and the "big picture") to attain selfish needs. And ML's complete lack of self-awareness.  

Wouldn't the fact that Brian seemed to be perking up over the course of the tour, and really, truly enjoying himself (and wanting to be a BB again) make someone in a position such as Mike want to celebrate this? Doesn't BW (who has endured many wasted years of misery in his life for a myriad of reasons) deserve to have a bit of things "his way" at this point? It's called COMPROMISE. Again - if it meant some self-sacrifice on ML's part, we know what the answer is/was. So tragic, the history of these guys' relationships, that things went down like they did in the end.  It really seems like actions have hinged on resentment. I wonder if it's somehow subconcious "payback" for ML having been slighted (in a big, legit way) by the songwriting credits over the years.

And while there are people on this board who I've seen post things in the nature "Mike doesn't care what people say about him", it's very apparent to me that ML is very self conscious of and concerned with what others think about him. Why do you think he wears a hat 24/7? He's super self conscious about his image. When an obviously self-conscious/image-conscious person repeatedly does actions that are so obviously going to cause the vast majority of people to think HIGHLY negatively of him (in a very, very deep way, as evidenced by his standing on any YouTube video's comments, etc), it is all the more perplexing when they keep reinforcing the pattern (like the C50 ending debacle) and then wonder why everybody hates them. I call this emotional illness. Maybe as an outsider, I have zero right to say this. But it's my opinion.

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own! 

IMO...Mike is addicted (in a bad way) to *constantly* being on the road, and to fulfill a desperately needed amount of adulation while being in the spotlight. I am saying this honestly not in an attempt to "bash", but in an attempt to understand an individual (who I do not know personally), and to wrap my head around behavior that most people just brush off as him being simply "a jerk".  I think ML is emotionally ill.  People are who they are for certain reasons, and I believe "the road" is something that has long ago turned into an addiction/escape of sorts for him. When a person's priorities get as screwed up as I believe Mike's are (and I see parallels of priorities being screwed up for other addicts, like BW + DW back in the 70s/80s), the "important" things in life fall by the wayside.

I understand that at the end of C50, if Mike were to continue to reunion, he was put into a position of having to have made big changes to his comfortable way of life on the road (the M&B way) in order to acquiesce to “BW’s way” or to the needs of the then-current reunion lineup.  Nevertheless, I think that a person with their priorities set straight (my idealistic way of hoping that ML would’ve acted) would have realized that burying the hatchet, and compromising/being willing to lose some of your “battles” (like he surely did during C50), is truly worth it for the greater good of the band, and what it stands for. SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. This would be called an act of being selfless. I just wish he could’ve been that way.

Doesn’t the fact that ML knows how sensitive a person BW is (even with his current emotional support system) mean that he would think about how much stress/grief/hurt feelings he’d be putting a person through (with known mental issues) by making BW feel as though he was "fired"? Even if this "fired" speak was only a feeling, it's still putting someone through emotional anguish. Part of me wonders if ML actually thinks the mental illness that BW has is actually an act, because ML’s actions make me think these thoughts never went through his mind.

IMO, ML’s addictions to the road/his lifestyle, and what he’ll do to achieve what he wants (no matter how that hurts others), are just as destructive in their own, different way, as the addictions that the Wilson brothers suffered.

Now I await a bunch of people to tell me how off-base I am.

I really like this song too, but does anyone else find it hard to not think about the Four Seasons' song Sherry? Particularly at the part in the song where Brian sings a long extended, "Sherrrrrr-errrrey baby"?

It seems like it had to have been a deliberate FS nod/ reference, no? It wouldn't be the first FS reference in a BB song either, since Surfers Rule had one too. But in this case, I feel that it detracts just a bit from the listening experience. Maybe it's just me.

I really, really like the extended "Meant For You" - it just feels so bizarre (in a good way), and the "puppy" and "pony" lyrics seem almost psychedelic and Smiley Smile-esque in their seeming randomness.

I've tried to conceptualize what the "puppy" and "pony" lyrics mean in relation to the title of the song and Mike's sung lyrics at the start/end of the song... at first glance, I thought they seemed almost unconnected... as though Mike's lyrics were a boy-girl love type of thing, vs the random "puppy" and "pony" lyrics sung by Brian.

But then I thought about it... Maybe this is over-thinking it, but does anyone else think that with the extended lyrics, the whole "meant for you" lyric concept was intended to be referring to love in one's heart for friends/siblings/parents, and how that was related through (admittedly slightly out-of-left-field) lyrics about parents/siblings of puppies and ponies? And how animals have the same (universal with humans) type of love for each other?

Of course, that totally changes the theme/meaning of the edited Friends LP version of the song. That's my take on it, anyhow.

[20/20]

Tape is about five, six minutes - remember, it was done on an 8-track so both takes are there, on separate tracks. Why wasn't it on UM ? I'm guessing for the same reason little of 20/20 was: not all the multis were in the BRI vault.

The fact that there are 2 full takes of the fade is hilarious. Reminds me of the scene from Boogie Nights ... "Jack, I can do another take if you need me to". The BB's pioneered pornography too!

Good thing Murry wasn't in the studio to lend his two cents, Help Me Rhonda-style. Can you imagine the session tapes for a convo like that?

Do the original multitrack tapes for the of this song exist?

And if a vocals only mix were released, would it contain the fade?






(yes, I'm joking).

I'd pay big bucks just to get a clear(er) take on the "Mike Come Back To L.A." segment.

I concur. I mean, this documentary has to be less embarrassing to the band when compared to Adult/Child, right?  A/C is another obvious item that needs proper release, but I feel that it's more of a no-brainer to put this out.

I mean, band member embarrassment must be the reason this has stayed in the vault for so long, right?

"Our Team" is another piece of material that has not been released, whose non-release after 36 years seems really strange. Can you imagine another major band having a professionally filmed documentary which shows deceased bandmembers recording songs, and the only known video performance of them doing lead vocals, and having such an item languish in the vaults?  (Other than LIB, but that was certainly a film that showed The Beatles at a greater time of disagreement, which was obvious and palpable on film, compared to this.)

Only in the world of this nutty band that we love.

Sorry, when I went to modify part of the summary, the title got erased. This is in regards to the documentary "Our Team."

Sign me up

 I guess this documentary is the Beach Boys' version of the Beatles' "Let it Be"... No, I am not comparing the material. But it is a period in which both bands are not exactly proud of. There was major tension.

But LIB was at least released at some point on laserdisc. Everybody knows it's a matter of time before the LIB documentary comes out. These bands are both cash cows. It will happen eventually. So let's get the Beach Boys' doc out now!

I doubt that will happen.

 Maybe you are right. But I hope not. After all, it shows the group recording songs in the studio, which is a rarity. This time period is not all that far from their classic period.

If this was in regards to an album that was only two or three albums prior, you could bet your bottom dollar this would be already on the market.

Sorry, when I went to modify part of the summary, the title got erased. This is in regards to the documentary "Our Team."

Come on… This is a very interesting snapshot into the group's history… It boggles the mind this has not been released yet. I realize this is not exactly a time in the group's history that everybody is proud of, but it deserves to be seen. It will make some sales. The Beach Boys Corporation, plus the wives and managers, must know this.

This will come out at some point, I have no doubt about that. Maybe it will take the passing of certain band members, sad to say. But I feel that in my lifetime, this will be released. It will extract cash from fans' pockets, which is the main purpose of releasing product. Why not now?

1. BW gave it the same intro as "Don't Back Down" (should this be added the song the song "connections" thread?)  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcxfT9c_HPw

You mean the "count off like" bass drum?

Yes.  Same tempo and everything. (I'm slightly joking, but it's kinda sorta true!)

1. BW gave it the same intro as "Don't Back Down" (should this be added the song the song "connections" thread?)  

2. Maybe it's just me, but this guy on Youtube who posted it doesn't seem to like the song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcxfT9c_HPw

If you grew up (or lived in, or otherwise spent much time in) the greater LA area in the 1980s and 1990s, Wally George, host of KDOC-TV's "Hot Seat," needs no introduction. If you're not familiar with him, put his name in YouTube and prepare to be amazed.

A few hours ago OC Weekly, the alternative paper in Orange County (aka Wallyland during the aforementioned decades), posted its current cover story,

http://www.ocweekly.com/2013-10-03/culture/wall-george-hot-seat/

 an oral biography of the man and his times. As one might expect of anything concerning Wally it contains many startling things. But none quite as startling as this quote from musician and sometime Manson apologist Nicholas Schreck, a frequent Hot Seat guest:

"He was a frustrated performer and musician himself, and I don't really think he took this Republican persona as seriously as he presented it. He told me that he used to be a music reviewer for a magazine or newspaper. We got to discussing our mutual taste in music for the film composer Les Baxter's and Martin Denny's 1950s and 1960s exotica music, and we were both very admiring of Brian Wilson's more experimental work, so it would be surreal to see the difference between our onscreen relationship and our off-screen."

Well - I knew that Wally, back in the late '50s and early '60s, often reviewed exotica and tiki-lounge music in the pages of the Los Angeles Times - see

http://tikilagoon.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-exotic-sounds-of-wally-george.html  which includes an amazing photo of the young Wally with thick, dark, apparently real hair.

But to picture Wally groovin' to "Cabinessence," "Surf's Up" and SS and maybe even Love You - right into his days as the be-blazered predecessor of Morton Downey Jr and Jerry Springer, and beyond? Man, that's some kind of image.

As it happens, Brian, Dave, Al and Jeff are playing in my neck of the woods, Washington DC, on the tenth anniversary of Wally's death.

I wonder if, between now and then, I'll have the nerve to Tweet a link to this article to Van Dyke.

That is hilarious, and I have enjoyed Wally's show (as a super guilty pleasure at the absurdity of it - I disagree completely with his politics) for many years... The crazy thing is, that literally just today at work during some downtime, I was showing my coworkers a Youtube episode of Hot Seat where the audience + Wally got into a pre-arranged singalong (with Wally on lead vocals, audience on backing vox) of "Louie Louie", only redone as "Wally Wally"... and I commented to my coworkers (who know I'm a Beach Boys nut) that the BBs covered "Louie Louie" too, and I was annoyed that Wally omitted the key change that is supposed to occur later in the song, per the BBs vocal arrangement.

So needless to say, to read this post of yours was *super* crazy weird timing for me.  (I had no idea about this OC Weekly article when I started watching Wally clips today, or that Wally was a BW fan for that matter, though it makes sense when you think about it).

My Bloody Valentine
Smashing Pumpkins
Sonic Youth
The Beatles
The Beach Boys

and not necessarily in that order.