Rab does a nice job of reading my mind on this one. I was going for some kind of comic overstatement to emphasize the significance of the Wrecking Crew folk in BW's production style. Clearly, the other BB's played instruments here and there during BW's peak era, then played even more...almost exclusively, on some records...through the early 70s.

And just so you know, there's plenty of room for misstatements and blown attempts at making yourself clear when you're sitting across from a camera for five or six hours, going on and on, blah-blah-blah. A lot of balls hovering over your head. You're forever wrestling to balance the loads of stuff you've got memorized with the need to get to the point asap before everyone falls asleep. All that, plus how does my hair look? Am I slumping too much? Sitting too stiffly? And is it okay for me to scratch my nose now?

That's how it feels to me, anyway.

Hey guys - I'm actually in that movie, which probably surprises me more than anyone, but whatever. I really enjoyed the day I spent with the guys who were writing/directing/shooting the piece; they were very into Brian and the story, and were smart and funny and all that. I got my DVD weeks/months ago and put off looking at it b/c I was just horrified to think of how I'd look and etc., but then I was flying from NYC to the west coast last week and had a chance to watch most of it and was thrilled to see how well-written it was, and how deeply they saw into the whole story, and created such a cool narrative for themselves.

Not so sure about Bruce's bits tho. He had a few neat things to say, but I couldn't imagine why he felt obligated to diss 'Friends' so much. I think that's a lovely album -- he basically dismissed 'Busy Doin' Nothin,' for god's sake, to say nothing of 'wake the world' and 'be still' and etc. And I'm like, really? Those are lovely little gems, whereas BJ's contributions to the songbook do very little for me. Okay, 'Disney Girls,' and every so often I'll get a charge out of 'Tears in the Morning' and/or 'Deirdre.' But his staunch m.o.r. perspective, and his stubborn insistence on giving Mike as much credit for 'GV' as he does Brian, gives me the willies.

Okay, whatever. But do check out the video. Fast forward thru my meanderings and you'll have yousrelf a really cool movie.

With all due respect to So Cold and everyone else, I think it's really a slippery slope to try to posit a logical this-because-of-that kind of narrative about the relationship between Brian's drug use and his mental illness. I agree that LSD is a powerful drug that can do wack stuff to your consciousness if you do a lot of it. But the friends/companions I spoke to who spent a lot of time with him at the height of BW's mid-to-late 60s drug moment, were unanimous in their opinions that BW barely ever took LSD. He dabbled, maybe a small handful of times, and that was it, according to everyone from Loren Schwartz to VDP to Michael Vosse and a few more folks I'm not remembering off the top of my head right now.

It's really fun and easy to blame drugs for mental illness, because it serves as such an easy way for family/friends to not come to terms with the far more ugly reality of emotional illness. But our society is particularly blind when it comes to treating the mentally ill, so I guess it's not surprising.

I really and truly believe that when it comes to pot, hash and even LSD -- which Brian did maybe a small handful of times, according to everyone I talked to who knew him back in those days -- you just don't see any longterm psychological effects, bad, good or otherwise. To the extent that Brian boozed it up, snorted mountains of coke, smoked endless cigs, etc., what we're really talking about is a guy with profound, but untreated emotional problems. Give the guy access to rational psychiatric help and there ends his need to self-medicate.

And why didn't Marilyn, et. al get him that kind of sustained treatment in the '70s? Maybe because they didn't want to admit to themselves that their resident genius had gone off the deep end? Or maybe because it's so hard for any family to admit that about one of its members? Particularly when they all come from hard-working, blue-collar, up-by-the-bootstraps kind of perspective? I'm sure that no one in the Hawthorne of the '50s would admit to seeing a psychologist to deal with their problems. Are you kidding? Just kick ass! Don't back down from that wave! Kick ass! KICK ASS!

Published in slightly different form in the Times of London last Friday (though I have yet to see actual evidence of that; the editor swears it's true, and he seems like a really nice guy). But now it's up on my website, so come and check it out...

http://www.peteramescarlin.com/node/162

Jon - I don't think it's appropriate for us to hash this out in public, if only because it's so fucking boring.  But I'm also really uncomfortable being called (or implied as being) a liar and a thief. Call me crazy, or obsessive. You wouldn't be wrong about either of those things, but your memory of what I wrote to you is so disconnected from mine, I feel like I need to say, for absolutely the last time in public, that:

1. If you have a copy of that email I sent you in '06, do send it along so I can either explain what you're misinterpreting, or try to figure out how I could have written it so badly. The point being: I would never have meant to say that I couldn't find that Fateful Quote on the internet w/o attribution, since that's precisely how I saw it, somewhere, at some time.
2. So many things seem mysterious to me. The reasons why this still bothers you after four years; why you're so sure Dennis never ever could have uttered that same, wonderfully-phrased thought to anyone else in the course of his life; why you feel like you have some concrete ownership over something someone else said.
3. And if you really did tell Howie that I stole it from you (which seems obvious, since his accusation, down to the phrasing, echoes your thoughts exactly) that seems really screwed up and wrong to me.
4. And I don't even know how to respond to Howie's random assertion that I own "thousands" of archival BW/BB pictures. Wha? My photo collection is limited to family snaps and erotic shots of Margaret Thatcher. (don't tell anyone about the last part, though. It's a secret).

Sweet dreams,

pac


 

Jon - This is getting absurd. We're talking about ten words in a 100,000 word-plus book that I wrote five-plus years ago. You're asking me to go back and trace the specific steps of how and where I found one quote out of the hundreds that derived from my own interviews, from years worth of books, magazines, news articles, etc. etc. etc. Is it possible today to fire up the good old Google and jump right back to where I was five years ago? Is the Internet even remotely the same as it was back then? I have no idea. I can tell you that I just did a Google search and, within less than a second, the browser came back with 960,000 pages it believes has the words 'dennis wilson' and 'if you want to know me' on them. Not all have the precise quote, but may do.  Including a DW bio on Rotten Tomatoes, which is where the following graf appears:

Stephen Kalinich in an interview with Adam Webb stated that "He had soul in his music and he was a master. And yet a primitive master in the sense that he may not have heard all of Beethoven or Bach but he had a feeling of combining the pain and the joy together." He remained honest throughout his songs, which he sung in a soulful croon. Dennis never felt loved and it was something that he always sought. This can clearly be seen in his song "Time" from his 1977 solo album Pacific Ocean Blue where the lyrics state "Known a lot of women, but they don't fill my heart; with love completely..." Dennis once stated “The greatest success in life is to feel I’m something for someone; the feeling of falling in love, the newness of love.” A lot of Dennis’ songs are expressed not only with great passion but also with great sorrow, and it is only in his music as Dennis describes that people can gain a true understanding of the person he was. "Everything that I am or will ever be is in the music. If you want to know me, just listen."

Do you see the attribution there? Me either. Do you suppose this is the only article on the Internet, or anywhere else in the world, that has lifted your quote? I don't. If only because I see fragments of my own interviews with all kinds of people pop up places. And if it's just ten words out of a book, or even a 3,000-word article? I really, honestly don't care that much.

Sometimes quotes, like brand-names, fall into popular usage. It kind of sucks, but that's just how it goes. I just find it difficult to sit here and have Howie, or anyone, accuse me of plagiarism. That's the sort of scorched earth, make-him-deny-it type of discussion that corrupts what has until this point been a really collegial and interesting conversation about a fascinating new record.


I

Ah, the Stebbins quote. Yes, it is a cool quote. Here are the salient facts about how it came to be in my book, sans attribution. In stark contrast to virtually every other quote I used. Am I sorry I didn't call out Stebbins by name? You bet I am, which is why I apologized to him in 2006. And as I also told him then, here's what happened.

1. I didn't read Jon's book. Not that I consciously dissed it, or that I didn't try to find a copy. I simply couldn't find a copy when I went looking, and then had a ton of other stuff to sift through. Whatever,  it was basically impossible for me to steal it from there.
2. What I did read, repeatedly, were other articles/books/websites that used his quote without citing its source. I actually spent some time retracing my steps there, since I felt bad about Jon feeling irked, and quickly found a handful of stories/sites that had the full quote, minus any attribution.
3. So that's what happened. It was a lapse, of sorts. I'm sorry it happened. But for you, or anyone, to imply that I did it it on purpose, well, that seems kind of weird.

Oh, and now that I've gone back to read a little more, a few other observations:

1. Howie's observation that the album is 'heavily tweaked' implies, what? Heavy auto-tuning? Not according to a lot of objective, even hard-eyed folks I've spoken to who were actually in the studio at the time. As opposed to earlier, more slapdash efforts, this time BW worked eight-hour days, sitting alone at the mic at Ocean Way, to make sure his leads were as rich and full as they could be. A guy at the record label said there's one or two auto-tune moments, and that's that.

2. Brian doing what he doesn't want to do? - Here and there, I'm sure. Peter Reum's point, which I think is absolutely right, is that above and beyond the usual give-and-take of a commercial artist, Brian rarely does anything he doesn't want to do for long periods of time. E.g., touring for more than a decade. And while it's pretty to think he's right down to brass tacks talking to you one day in 2006, I've had plenty of similar talks over the last 12 years (and more than a few less connected ones) and he'll still contradict himself from one moment to the next, depending on what he's feeling that hour of that day. As of a week ago last Thursday he was taking serious, visible pride in his touring work.

3. You know what Brian really wanted to do? The fucking Gershwin album. He's been talking about it for years. When Disney offered him a deal to cover Disney songs those wicked, wicked people who are ruining his life told Disney they could have that album. . . but only if they let him do the Gershwin album he wanted to do first. Now you can tell me what's tragic about that. The fact that he's not involved in some wanky 50th anniversary tribute? I don't see it that way.

Howie - I have no idea what you're talking about, quotes-wise. You want to clue me in? Though it's always nice to see an otherwise pleasant discussion devolve that quickly into ad hominem attacks based on, well, I don't know what.

Don't ever doubt Peter Reum and his insights into BW. Really.

And when it comes to the reviews, the serious stuff I've seen -- and I have no idea who that guy at the National is, b/c I don't know what the National is, other than headquartered in Abu Dhabi, it seems -- is almost entirely positive. On the page and in person the critics I talked to are thrilled with the album. Because it's a truly huge, important addition to BW's huge, important catalogue.

And honestly, I can't think of why anyone would diss the arrangements. They all sound perfectly appropriate, and beautiful, to me. The only thing that's better is BW's vocals. Shouting on 'Summertime'? I have no fuckin idea what you're talking about. He sounds great on that, and tender and vulnerable on "Porgy" (and anyone hip to BW's relationship with Murry, et. al should understand immediately how perfect the words suit him) and full of beans and magic on the rest.

Wouldn't it be nice if BW did another daring, surprising, beautiful album? Oh wait, he just did.

The L.A. Times piece is terrific. The Reuters story a bit less so, though it's not awful. I can't figure why the guy seemed to think Brian was being "hustled away" to avoid hearing the chatter. . . if only b/c there wasn't a whole lot of chatter, and certainly nothing outside the usual random commentary that happens between 100 or so people who are gathered together into a room with drinks and snacks and music playing. And the weird/incorrect observation from Brian's nameless "pal" is just wrong. As long as I've heard from friends/intimates/collaborators of the guy, BW has been free to drive wherever, and whenever he pleases.

none that i took, but cameras were definitely out and about, some wielded by actual photographic professionals. I bet they start turning up on the 'net today. . .

I'll be writing more (much more) on this in the near future. But here's a brief report from last night's listening party in L.A.

http://www.peteramescarlin.com/node/158

(posted this on the welcome board, by accident. Here it is in a mo bettah place, I think)

Terrible news, indeed. Bob was a great friend to me and everyone who cares about Brian, the Beach Boys and great music. And I absolutely need to point out that he was invaluable in the production of "Catch A Wave," the book I wrote about Brian and the BB. So many of the best, most enlightening voices in that book - particularly Brian's childhood friends - only agreed to talk to me because Bob INSISTED they would. One guy (Robin Hood?) told me when he showed up a trifle late to our talk that he had actually decided to blow me off until Bob called to make sure he'd left on time.

I don't know what I did to deserve Bob's friendship and support, but I'll always be grateful for both. He was a wonderful guy, smart and funny and extremely sensitive to other peoples' feelings. An amazing man, and the world is a better place for his having lived here.

Terrible news, indeed. Bob was a great friend to me and everyone who cares about Brian, the Beach Boys and great music. And I absolutely need to point out that he was invaluable in the production of "Catch A Wave," the book I wrote about Brian and the BB. So many of the best, most enlightening voices in that book - particularly Brian's childhood friends - only agreed to talk to me because Bob INSISTED they would. One guy (Robin Hood?) told me when he showed up a trifle late to our talk that he had actually decided to blow me off until Bob called to make sure he'd left on time.

I don't know what I did to deserve Bob's friendship and support, but I'll always be grateful for both. He was a wonderful guy, smart and funny and extremely sensitive to other peoples' feelings. An amazing man, and the world is a better place for his having lived here.

hi TD - yeah, 'Run Devil Run' is a terrific album. The tune, too, and ditto on the harmonies. If they sound like his Linda duets she was definitely all over his mind when he was making that record. And also don't forget he arranged all those old vocals, and often doubled Linda's parts after she sang them. So he was more than accustomed to thinking in those terms, harmonically. Though I bet he altered the style a bit when he no longer had his beloved as a singing partner.

Hi Rev. Rock - thanks for the boost....I hope you've gotten your hands on the McCartney book, not sure where you are geographically-speaking, but if you're in the English-speaking world, it should be available somewhere near you. It's also coming out in a variety of countries and languages over the next year or two, but the ways and means of foreign publishers are a bit beyond my reckoning.

Next up: Bruce Springsteen. Sometime in 2012, probably.

Grillo's right, BW did a top-drawer job on "God Only Knows." Screwed up his cue for "Midnight's Another Day," though, and there was this awkward low voice thing he's doing onstage (or did last night) on the "Lost in the dark/no shades of gray" line that he sings higher on the album (now Foskett sings the high line).

I was pleasantly surprised by changes in the setlist, compared to what I'd seen on setlists previously on the tour. THey opened with "LIttle Girl I Once Knew," and worked in "Add Some Music" in there, too. I still wish he veered away a bit from the usual Beach Boy hit machine ("Barbara Ann", for the love of god). And it'd be nice to hear a small scattering of newer good stuff. "Lay Down Burden," say, or "Soul Searchin" or so many more.

That said, it's hard to diss a guy for not playing new stuff when he plays every song on his new album.

Yeah, and the "Midnight's Another Day" is nothing to sneeze at, either.

Double wow.

hey boys: thanks so much. I'm always delighted to hear about people reading the book, and when they come away feeling like it was a worthwhile experience, well, obviously that's better yet. So thanks for that.

Good timing, too -- i'm neck deep in a new book now, about Paul McCartney, and so I'm in the midst of the same struggle I was in the midst of when wrestling with "CAW." Encouragement is always welcome.

I'd hate to write one of those books where in the author seems to loathe his subject. For me the trick is to both humanize the subject and celebrate his achievements. . . though of course this means you also need to acknowledge his failures. No one is perfect, just as no one is perfectly awful. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and it's the combination of these things, and how they both fuel and detract from a person's work, that fascinates me.

Anyway, thanks again. Back to work...

I think it's possible to construct a bad review of the album. I really like it, though, I think its strenghs outnumber its shortcomings by quite a bit. But the shortcomings are there, and if they truly clatter in your ears, well, there's a case to be made.

This dude in the Guardian doesn't even come close, though. His/her position pivots largely off of an actuarial argument: That pop musicians can only work successfully for a finite number of years, after which point they're just sort of sad and pathetic. More examples can be brought to bear, but any rule has exceptions, and art and creativity are nothing if not riddled with oddities and exceptions. Bruce Springsteen's latest album, for instance, is probably his strongest work in 20 years. A beautiful, passionate album that gets to the heart of so many personal/political/social struggles it's alarming. And yet the man is 57 years old, so wtf?

The Guardian guy's main argument with the album seems to boil down to this:  "It's just not any good at all." But as critical writing goes. . . .neither is that, since it tells you precisely nothing about the work being discussed. So how old is this guy? And is it time for him to maybe think about hanging up his laptop?

I was kidding, right? Everyone knew I was kidding? See, the point was, once upon a time there were these cousins, friends and brothers, and first they got famous, and then they got rich, and then they spent the rest of their lives suing one another, often for no discernible reason....and so....oh, never mind.

There's music and then there's personalities. And while I'd encourage your friend to find and enjoy Mike's better contributions to the Beach Boys, I'd caution him, or anyone, from forgetting the offstage machinations that helped diminish so much of what would come later. The Beach Boys' failure to go on creating the lovely music they made between 1962 and 1973 (with a few rare exceptions) can be traced to a vast catalogue of failures and problems. But Mike's role can't be overlooked, and the choices he made following "BWPS" are a primary example. Yes, there are far too many problems to go around. It's like an Agatha Christie mystery, everyone has a motive and a weapon. And Mike is in the middle of the whole mess.

Oh, the Hoskyns interview. I wrote a bit on that in the pac thread earlier this morning, 'cause I only just caught up with Barney's story the other day. And I was surprised to see how much slack he cut Mike, if only because Barney is a really smart guy and a brilliant writer and I absolutely loved his "Hotel California" book from '06. All that said, I think he was being willfully naive in letting Mike pretzel the facts like he does. He lets Mike do his usual subtle-to-not-so-subtle ridiculing of Brian (the bit about why Brian "can't sing like that anymore," which isn't quite true, and ignores Mike's own vocal shortcomings) and doesn't even mention Mike's post-"BWPS" lawsuit, which struck me as a nakedly hostile gesture, designed less to right an even remotely-visible wrong caused by the 04 Smile, than to pee on Brian's moment of glory.

I don't want to demonize Mike, or assert that Brian is incapable of doing ill-considered and even downright selfish and stupid things. He can be just as hostile, in his way. I thought Mike made some smart, sensitive points about Dennis's life and work, and how difficult it was to separate his art from his (rapidly-exploding) life during the mid-to-late '70s. It's also important to note that the extended Wilson/Love family is something other than a model of healthy intra-family dynamics. Oh. My. God. But any coherent story on Mike has to at least note the existence of these things. To do otherwise isn't setting the record straight, as much as it is another attempt to distort the record altogether.