Thanks Don, I appreciate the comment and the encouragement

Last year I started posting commentary on Brian Wilson on the Substack platform, under the title "A Book of Brian."

Link: https://bookofbrian.substack.com

(Or, type "bookofbrian [dot] substack [dot] com" into the address bar)

For those who are interested, the best way to get a sense of what it's about is to read the "Introduction" (in a Q & A format) and then basically explore what's there. My original intention was to offer writing/commentary on a variety of Brian Wilson and Beach Boys-related topics, but the nature of the Substack platform and how it operates makes doing that hard. As of late, what I've been focusing on is the basics (which are complicated enough as it is): recounting the story of Brian Wilson, step-by-step, chapter by chapter, with a good amount of care, detail and analysis (The most recent posting is about the car-song era of 1963.) There's currently other material in addition to this: (1) some critical commentary about Brian Wilson generally; (2) a close look at the circumstances of the Beach Boys' founding in 1960-61 that questions the assumption that Murry Wilson willingly helped his sons form the group and kindly introduced them to Hite & Dorinda Morgan; (3) a multi-part essay about the difficult issue of Murry Wilson in general. There's also an extensive list of Beach Boy reference material/information sources.

I've been aiming to post a new chapter at the rate of roughly once per week, and each installment is usually supposed to take about 10 minutes to read.

This is sort of an experiment;  to see if it's possible to publish extended writing on the internet, using a platform which is convenient, but really not designed for what I want to do but more for bite-sized blogging. I hope and expect to keep it going at least through to the end of 2024. Also, a reminder that this material is offered for free. There's an unpaid subscription option (meaning that you get new writings delivered direct to email) but anybody should be able to access it via home computer or phone. I'm grateful for subscribers, but subscription isn't necessary.

I have had to disable comments on the site for the usual reasons. However, if anybody has any comments or criticism (provided it's reasonably civil) they can reach me here on this board. I also maintain an account on the Endless Harmony board. Some readers have chosen to communicate with me though the Substack site itself (email, basically)

In these times, we all have to be self-promoters, so I'll just say that the writing ("content") is well-researched, well-reasoned and pretty good. I'm confident that serious and dedicated Beach Boys and Brian fans will discover plenty with which to engage and think about (even if readers don't agree with my views)

Thanks, and I hope at least a few Smiley board readers find the time to read some of my stuff and enjoy it.

As we both said, the real truth sits somewhere in the middle of all this stuff. And ultimately what happened with Smile cannot be reduced to a few sentences in conclusion. And thank you again for pointing out one of the factors that has the Smile narrative trying to be bent and shaped in recent years.

I  think official narratives - for businesses, or institutions - have their purpose, and I don't think I'd be interested in trying to change the official story (to the extent there is one), which would be impossible anyway.  However, it might be possible to offer informed, well-reasoned (or well thought-out) analysis for its own sake, to a tiny readership or interested and open-minded fans. Let's see what happens.

I'm resurrecting this comment from last year just for the purpose of following up on what I said above about the possibility of providing new, well-reasoned analysis for its own sake.  

I've been trying to do precisely this, actually, for the past few months - since September 2023, I think (?) - on a site called "A Book of Brian". It consists of detailed commentary on the life and career of Brian Wilson, as founded on the information that has so far been made public over the decades as well as my own take on it.

I've been using the Substack platform as a convenient means to get the writing up on the internet. Here is the link:

https://bookofbrian.substack.com

If you don't want to click on it, type: bookofbrian [dot] substack [dot] com into your browser address bar.

Although the Substack site is designed for paid subscriptions, I have things set up so that all the material is FREE for anybody to read.

I'll start a new thread shortly to offer a few more comments about this project. Thanks

I apologize in advance for a long post, but I have some thoughts I'd like to share.

Most of us really don’t know anything about Melinda as an actual, real-life person. I certainly don’t; what I know is what I’ve observed through looking at and studying Brian’s life, and through that you can infer what she provided. When I heard the news, a few things immediately entered into my mind:

-   Brian’s lyrics on “One Kind of Love” – especially the verse with about “sometimes, from out of the blue /an angel comes to you / but you’ve got to have an open heart.” (I assume on this song Brian did the words and Scott Bennett was more involved in the music – the words sound like Brian).  This is Brian basically describing what happened for him, on both her side of it, and his side of it. Not only that she provided love, but that Brian realized that he had to be willing to trust another human being—a woman—and accept love, or grace. This can and does happen for people, if they’re lucky, and Brian was fortunate to have crossed paths with Melinda, but also he should credit himself for not pushing her away (and in a way, he does, on “One Kind of Love”) Anyway, that’s how it looks to me from a distance. The song is both about Brian and Melinda, but it’s also about everybody.

-   On the same issue, another thing that I immediately came to mind is one of the most memorable scenes in the 2015 movie, when the Brian-character tells Melinda to leave his house in Malibu because Landy is coming, and he’s saying “leave… leave… but don’t leave me.” (yes I know that’s only movie, but I do believe that the events in the movie occurred as Melinda and Brian remembered them.) It’s what that scene represents which is really significant. It’s the part of the movie which communicates that Brian wants to do the right thing and knows that it’s the right thing, but he’s in a situation in which he’s trapped. This is the story of his life.

-   It was only after seeing that scene in the movie and how the movie was trying to communicate this problem that you start thinking back to the Gershwin album and Brian’s cover of “I Loves You Porgy.” In that story, that’s Bess singing to Porgy; the meaning of the song in the context of Porgy & Bess is that Bess’s life is basically out of control, she has a lot of problems (in her case it's drugs, prostitution, her attachment to an abusive, exploitative man she can't break free from) and she’s telling Porgy she hasn’t the strength to do the right thing for herself, but if Porgy can “keep her” she wants to stay with him. I have to assume Brian knew what he was singing when he covered that, and I think he covered it well because he understood the song and had lived it.

-   The last thing that popped into my mind was again from the 2015 movie: the image of Melinda standing in the doorway of her office, staring down Landy. This was the climactic moment in the film, the end of the movie basically, and that image sums up what the movie was about. I think we have to understand, whether we like it or not, that this is what Brian had been missing in his life since early childhood. And the movie is saying, that finally, the abuse and exploitation stops here, at this symbolic moment.

In 1965 they were riding high and had no reason to feel threatened by his outside pursuits.

But that's a separate point, the underlying notion is that Brian had been working with outside artists since 1963 or even '62 if we consider the Bob Norberg/Bob & Sheri tracks (and other related). Whether any of them were chart hits is beside the point, but consider Brian had been doing this fairly regularly even during the peak of the Beach Boys' success [***].

[***]

So yes perhaps the band members were jealous of Redwood, but Brian had been doing this same kind of work for the previous 5 years with artists other than the Beach Boys [***] He'd been juggling the two interests for the past 5 years and still making a lot of money for the Boys.

Brian had all but stopped working on outside projects in the middle of 1964 - the point at which he begins his effort to steer the group in a different direction. In 1965, you have the production of "Guess I'm Dumb" (which is not something the other BBs would have been concerned about because, yes, they were "riding high," but also because that tune was, by the standards of the era, very weird and utterly uncommercial - who would want to sing that?).  And also  in 1965 there is - according to researchers, I believe, like Jim Murphy and Andrew Doe - something Brian worked on by an act called "Bob & Bobby." And that's it. And then after 1965, you have 1966 and 1967, and so on.

The point is that Brian working with Redwood is not business as usual. It's "business as it used to be." At least it hadn't been business as usual for the last couple of years. What happened was that Brian had his breakdown in December 1964.  This occurred for many reasons, but one of the more immediate causes was that the nature of his career at that time was making less and less sense. The direction the Beach Boys were going in was, for Brian, wrong and anti-musical. And therefore, in his case, extremely unhealthy.  You can hear it in what's going on in the music during the second half of 1964. So then, the breakdown, and Brian comes off the road, and things start to change. Because Brian - the sole creator of the group's music - is now a studio-only composer-musician, he naturally begins to treat the Beach Boys themselves as his studio instrument. A crude way to put it is that the Beach Boys are gradually becoming Brian's "Ronettes." There is no longer any need for Brian to search for outsiders to work with. He can now do what he wants with the Beach Boys themselves. Which, from a strictly musical and artistic perspective (not the business perspective or family perspective) is the correct outcome; that's how things should be for this particular group.  "Puppets" is not a nice term, and not quite accurate, but that's the direction it's going in, and it becomes that during the Pet Sounds and Smile-era. Remember, Carl and Mike hated that "puppets" thing that was out there during that era. "Genius" and "puppets" really pissed them off.

Smile falls apart, the group is stripped bare in 1967, without releasable music at a time when lack of constant presence on the radio and in the stores means you're finished. In the mind of the family, Brian's problem is drugs and nefarious outsiders.  As has been discussed here many, many times (including by Guitarfool and myself) after Smile is over, the rest of 1967 marks a time when the non-Brian Beach Boys (aka the Wilson family) takes the reins and basically takes over. What they do (as evidenced by many things that occur in 1967) is revert to the band model of 1963-1964. It will become a  "band," a "group" a "family" rather than a Phil Spector + progressive music deal.  The band gets the production credit as a matter of principle, even though anybody with ears knows who produced Wild Honey and Friends. (And what about those songwriting credits on Friends? Really?) Brian is squirreled away in Bellagio and the wall goes up.  Sorry everbody, but this is what happened.

It's not a coincidence that Brian suddenly (it seems) reverts back to the outside-project model of production during 1967.  And that this "Redwood incident" (which did happen as Hutton and especially Negron have described in detail - let's just accept that as a given) occurs in an outside studio, not Bellagio. (This is why Hutton, specifically, has called into question the installation of the studio in the house) Brian's actions with Redwood speak for themselves. What they say is, "okay everybody, if this is how it is now, if I am (a) unable  to use the group in the way I want, or (b) not allowed to do that anymore, or (c) too mentally unstable, for some mysterious reason, to fulfill my duties as hitmaker, then I want to go back to the way it was, when we were a more unified band doing car-surf-high school and I did outside stuff."  This is what Brian's actions are saying - whether he could consciously think this, or articulate it verbally is another question.

And the answer to Brian's implicit proposal is no. At which point Brian is faced with a life choice. He didn't have to capitulate, but he did.  And so then, the real issue is why did he capitulate.

Taken in that way, it's hard to rectify why the band would be jealous of the music Brian was making with Redwood when they already had a new single to herald their new sound, they were probably already in talks to plan out everything else needed to fill in the album around the single, and the sounds Brian was doing with Redwood including a rewrite of a thrown out song from years prior which they didn't record originally and a song which had the more overblown production style Brian was using on Smile and which they perhaps said they didn't want to do, or agreed with Brian in the change in direction, or however else that point can be spun.

Right - they were not "jealous." What was going on was something beyond mere jealousy (they had no reason to be jealous of a scuffling no-name vocal group). It was something more serious. They believed that they held first priority claim to Brian's creativity, and I believe they wanted to protect that creativity from being poached by outsiders.  And so with the Redwood thing they were exercising their rights. And they weren't wrong to do it. If Brian didn't like it, he could leave the group. That was the unstated, underlying challenge being made. Just as Brian's actions can communicate a certain implicit message, so can the Beach Boys'.  At that point, Brian could either leave the Beach Boys or do what he did. 20/20 hindsight of course.

I don't think any of the Beach Boys - Brian included - would ever agree to this reading, but I think this is what was going on. It's really tragic, if you see it from the perspective of Brian Wilson. If you are a Beach Boys person and want the group to stay together, you should celebrate the Redwood incident.

As we both said, the real truth sits somewhere in the middle of all this stuff. And ultimately what happened with Smile cannot be reduced to a few sentences in conclusion. And thank you again for pointing out one of the factors that has the Smile narrative trying to be bent and shaped in recent years.

I  think official narratives - for businesses, or institutions - have their purpose, and I don't think I'd be interested in trying to change the official story (to the extent there is one), which would be impossible anyway.  However, it might be possible to offer informed, well-reasoned (or well thought-out) analysis for its own sake, to a tiny readership or interested and open-minded fans. Let's see what happens.

I have picked up a thing or two from Bill Tobelman's site. Most of the information there is presented in a disorganized fashion. Maybe that's fitting, however, appropriate to the subject matter. 

Basically it comes down to the idea that Brian Wilson was/is a human being. See him as a human being during the Smile-era, dealing with certain emotions and exhibiting certain behavior.  It's not an either/or situation where we have to choose between two extremes: (1) he's insane or (2) it's all just in good fun.  He's having trouble, it's serious trouble, and at the same time he's making music.  Can the two things be related in some way?  If so, how...  one thing that might influence a person's view is their subjective opinion about the music Brian was creating during this time. If you don't like the music of Smile (and Pet Sounds), then you might be more receptive to the view that Brian was insane, or sick, or is fried on drugs, etc.  This is in fact a good way to discredit Smile and Brian's efforts to create that music.  You can "pathologize" Brian Wilson as mentally ill, and by extension, you can do the same to the music, and thereby discredit it. 

On the other hand, if you're a big fan of Smile and similar music, and if the music makes sense to you when you hear it, then you're confronted with the apparent fact that he was having trouble while he made it - paranoia, irrationality, effects of a bad LSD trip, inscrutability, etc.  So you have to reconcile these two things, and there are various ways to do that. The best way to do this, in my opinion is to see Brian as a human being first, rather than as "mentally ill" or a "genius."

I'm just offering that middle ground for discussion and to suggest to others that maybe they consider a different angle for some of these stories or anecdotes, not that it was 100% either way.

So I think "middle ground" is the right way to think of it - a position that reconciles, or harmonizes different facts in a way that makes sense.  Easier said than done. But it can be done, provided that some very unpleasant realiies about Brian's life are fully aired, so that Brian's actions as of the mid-60s can be properly contextualized.

I was thinking about this and considering too how many stories there are of musicians doing crazy things or acting crazy, to the point where it becomes part of their "legend" and is actually looked on as a funny or positive thing by (at this point) multiple generations of fans. We know many of the legendary tales of rock and roll debauchery and bad behavior. But consider if it were not Keith Richards, or John Lennon, or Pete Townshend, or name any other rocker: Would it be considered normal behavior to drive a car into a swimming pool, throw televisions out of hotel windows and destroy hotel rooms, smash and destroy expensive guitars, wear a toilet seat around your head, etc etc etc. Absolutely not, yet those stories and behaviors are looked on fondly by fans. If your neighbor who is a regular working guy suddenly threw a TV out of his bedroom window or went out to grab a coffee wearing a toilet seat around his neck, you'd think "wow, that guy flipped his lid" or something. But if a rocker does it, many fans think it's hilarious.

Again not suggesting anything about the topic at hand, but you can see where there is a middle ground which makes such behavior acceptable if not accepted and almost praised by celebrities' fans and what would be considered strange or totally crackpot if the guy who works a normal job were to do the same thing.

Some people just have a bizarre sense of humor which makes things even more hazy. And with Brian Wilson specifically, I think unfortunately some fans after reading and hearing things about him might assume the guy acted a certain way or was a certain way 24/7, even during the bad periods, and that just wasn't the case as it isn't the case with most people in similar situations.

There are some books and at least one documentary in which David Anderle mentions Brian's idea to have Anderle, or some other friend, start a fight in a bar, so Brian could record the sounds.  This is usually offered as evidence of Brian's craziness, or at the least, his strange eccentricity at the time.  Which makes sense - who would want to do that.  It's interesting, as a kind of minor footnote, that Alex Chilton apparently did something very similar around the time he was recording Big Star Third (another album that collapsed)- they're in a bar, Chilton picks a fight, and someone has a recorder and hits "record" and apparently there was, or is, a tape out there (this is mentioned in the Chilton biography). Jim Dickinson was, I think the producer or somehow involved in those sessions, and later, Dickinson produces the Replacements' Pleased to Meet Me, on which, lo and behold, one of the cuts features (pre-fabricated) bar-fight sounds in the middle. It could just be a coincidence though.

But consider if his issue was The Beach Boys trying to "chase" The Beatles in '67, why wouldn't he then go after The Rolling Stones? The "bad boys" of rock and roll, the blues-driven ragtag dangerous rockers who ironically the same month Wenner penned his diatribe against the Beach Boys would release an album whose cover featured Mick dressed as a wizard with a ridiculous cone hat and the other band members dressed like actors at a Renaissance Faire where someone spiked the apple cider with bad acid.

Forgot about this... true. I think John Lennon called them out for this in his (in)famous 1970 interview with RS, and he specifically upbraids Wenner for missing this. Ha ha. (But no critics were calling the Rolling Stones "geniuses" in 1966-67.  This again points to the possibility that Wenner really was interested in taking down the opinions of other critics, rather than taking down the Beach Boys for sport.

Wenner himself had and carried numerous biases that found their way into his writings and operation of his magazine, not the least of which was his love of John Lennon over Paul McCartney no matter what the quality was, and his bias toward Bay Area bands over LA bands, like a territorial thing where my home team is better than yours simply because I live here and you live there.
 

Forgot about this too. True, this is always a thing, most of the animostity directed from north to south. 

Or maybe he was legitimately let down or upset by The Beach Boys, who knows. But whatever the case, his diatribe against them seemed to have more to do with him than the actual band, who admittedly was not in the best of shape at the time.

I once read a book dealing with student protests ("Free Speech") at the Univ. of California (aka Berkeley)  that started in Fall 1964. The book had nothing to do with music, but in setting the scene it mentioned some earlier forms of student activism that went back to the previous year - 1963.  Some students were involved in publishing an unofficial course guide that basically rated the professors - kind of akin to a "Rolling Stone consumer guide" but supposedly for students to decide what classes to take. Wenner was a freshman at Berkeley, and involved in this student organization. In this book I read, a guy who was involved in writing the course guide said Wenner would come into the meetings (this would be fall 1963, I'm guessing) with a surfboard and wearing "baggies." 

Second, Wenner seemed to have an axe to grind against The Beach Boys or Brian in particular. He wrote with a bias against the band and Brian in that article, I know that piece too, which seemed more like click bait would look today. Pick a fight, get more readers and your advertisers are happy. I saw no reason in the context of that piece when it ran in RS to level such a base attack against the group except if Wenner were trying to be provocative and pick a fight to get more readers for his then-new magazine. It wouldn't be the only fight Wenner would pick, look at what he did with Chicago and how a band member's comment to him caused Wenner to try to keep them out of the R&R Hall Of Fame all these years. Add other bands to that list too, Wenner's hit list.

At that time, in '67-'68, The Beach Boys as a band in general had been making music for roughly 5 years. 5 years! Unless Wenner had a serious axe to grind with them beyond the norm, I still don't understand where that vitriol came from.

As far as not understanding the the source of vitriol, I think you've basically answered the question with your commentary on "click-bait"-type motivation. Though it was on a higher level than mere clickbait, it is similar in that the motivation has to do with the business of publishing and journalism and less to do with pure music criticism divorced from the need to get readers (today: 'views").   His criticism isn't really directed at Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys, but instead at what he saw as the then-prevailing consensus among the nascent rock 'n' roll critic community. It was an attack on the likes of - I'm guessing - Paul Williams, the New York Times (which described Smiley Smile as "holy" music, or something like that) and also of course Derek Taylor-originated P.R.   It's reasonable, I think, to assume that Jann Wenner wanted to interpose himself and Rolling Stone into the newly-forming, post-Monterey rock 'n' roll culture, to ensure that Rolling Stone would eventually become the preeminent arbiter of quality: Rolling Stone will tell the kids what's good and what's not good (which is basically the same as what the R 'n' R Hall of Fame does) After all, this is what Rolling Stone would become (at least for a while) for better or worse, and therefore it's reasonable to assume that this is what Wenner wanted to do from the beginning.  And he succeeded.  "Don't listen to Derek Taylor, the guy at Crawdaddy, or the New York Times, listen to Rolling Stone"  is what's going on.  Brian is collateral damage in this effort - "thrown under the bus" over the course of one page, as part of a larger effort to build Rolling Stone - which itself is part of the mainstreaming of rock culture and the counterculture.

So it is symbolically proper that the new voice of the new culture has as its first order of business the knocking of the Beach Boys, especially coming on the heels of Smiley Smile, which was undoubtedly a disappointment - a letdown after the precision and focus of  Pet Sounds and the huge success of "Good Vibrations." Smiley simply did not correlate with all the hype about Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.  Guitarfool mentions Wenner's lack of "balls" - kind of true, as it really wasn't that brave to knock Brian and the Beach Boys at this point - they were already down, or at least Brian was.  Smiley sounded really bad, especially compared to Sgt. Pepper.  By the time of the Wenner piece, a bunch of factors had already come together to throw Brian under the bus, so Wenner was only saying it outright, in public. Anybody who might have read it would have already come to more-or-less the same conclusion about Brian.  The Steven Van Zandts of the era - what would somebody like that have thought if he had read Wenner's article? Probably would have nodded in agreeement. 

Wenner didn't know what really had gone on behind the scenes (let alone Brian's personal backstory); there's no way he could have known any of it.  One thing he was aware of, however, was that Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys were not indistinguishable from one another.  He couldn't have known about the true extent of the division between Brian and the group business, that in fact there were two different operations that had by then evolved to become directly opposed to one another: studio-craft vs. touring entertainment. Still, he was at least aware that Brian did not tour with the group, something I don't think the average fan was necessarily even aware of in those days. For a lot of people - even paying concert-goers, it was just a group of guys in striped shirts.  So Wenner makes a point of saying that Brian doesn't tour with them anymore. And his attack is therefore two-pronged: (1) Brian is not a genius and (2) The touring Beach Boys are not serious. This is what he wrote:

"In person, the Beach Boys are a totally disappointing group. [***] Brian Wilson does not tour with the group and in person they are nowhere near their records, especially with their surfing material. To please their fans, they do their own material, but they make fun of it. Their old material is fine and they should do it with the pride that they have evey reason to take, but instead they make fun of it on stage.  Any group with its head on straight wouldn't do material they didn't dig, but the Beach Boys are not far enough into their thing."

This part of the criticism is specifically aimed at the other Beach Boys, and not at Brian. (Wenner is in fact respectful of Brian's talent in the article - again, his objection is to the genius-hype, the mediocrity of Smiley Smile and the histrionics of Brian's acolytes in the critical community). He's a critic, his view is totally subjective and somebody else who saw the same show could have thought the same performance was transcendent.  But for Wenner, something was emanating from the Beach Boy stage that put him off. For him, it boils down to lack of seriousness and insincerity. I think he nailed it, whether we fans like it or not. 

To tie it in, does any of that sound like The Beach Boys? One group was writing their own material, the other was a cover/tribute/parody band. One was earnest in what they wrote and sang about, the other was sending it up while having a love and appreciation for it. The Beach Boys would never sing "Teen Angel" and camp it up as Sha-Na-Na did, and if they were to do Teen Angel on stage, I'm sure Mike or whoever would be 100% sincere with no sense of irony in delivering the vocal and wouldn't do it in character.

So there's perhaps the difference. Sha-Na-Na were doing parody, The Beach Boys were 100% sincere.

Thanks for the information. It makes sense. Yet here at the end, the issue of contrasting Sha Na Na's humor and parody with the Beach Boys sincerity doesn't sound right.  I'm basing this mainly on Jann Wenner's critique of the Beach Boys from a very early issue of Rolling Stone, Nov. or Dec. 1967. In his article, Wenner, among various other things, specifically says that the Beach Boys are not serious. To him, this is not a good thing.  Specifically, he says that when they play concerts, they are making fun of their own songs.  I wasn't around then, but this always sounded right to me, because for those of us who were around later on, the Beach Boys were not serious in their presentation (again, "Village People" - fun and enjoyable at best, but still a clown-show).  

Wenner's viewpoint is, for Beach Boys historical purposes, very important; not because millions of people read that little one page article in a new underground magazine, but because it was written by somebody who would eventually wield a lot of influence over what qualified as good rock 'n' roll and what wasn't; what was good vs. what wasn't serious, and therefore, not as good. 

Maybe then the difference (a difference at least) is that Sha Na Na are making fun of an era, a time-and-place, having fun pointing back to childhood, etc (and, as you say, doing it well), while the Beach Boys - if Wenner is to be believed - are making fun of themselves.  (And doing so at a time when another member of the group is at home trying to make serious music)

With “Pet Sounds”, Brian created music that he knew he would be seeking “the other guys” to come in and fill out vocally. And, it was created with no desire to break away from them.

Unfortunately for all involved (except music fans) I think Pet Sounds was created with this desire, albeit an unexpressed or unacknowledged desire. A wish on the part of Brian that he seems to know can never be fulfilled. "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" is pretty straightforward about Brian's state of mind - "I wish I could find other people to work with, so I can make music of the kind that you are now listening to on this album." It's also a wish for a different kind of audience, a different culture, in which his kind of music can be accepted.

The Beach Boys never had that. Never. There was never a particularly shared vision, either of the material or the performances or the albums. The members never particularly valued their work, with a few exceptions. They not only didn’t know they were great, they couldn’t agree on what was even good.

They must have known how good they were vocally, and that their tunes were not easy to execute either live or in the studio.  In later years, they had to have known about having once been great. During the 1960s, did they see themselves as great? Hopefully not - they were young, working hard and moving from one thing to another; not enough time to step outside of yourself to admire your own work. Brian might accept people referring to him as a "genius" today, but at the time, it would have been, as he once said, "I thought I had talent, but I didn't think I was a genius."

Unlike even The Rolling Stones, who have had a few eras but orbit around the Jagger-Richards collaboration, The Beach Boys never even had a constant center of creative gravity. Brian wrote with people outside the had from the start. Various members helmed albums in the 70s and 80s. Outside musicians — even members — came in and out. The entire band and its history is best understood as some sort of loose collective, one that encompasses the Flame and the Honeys and the Wondermints and Billy Hinsche and friends.

I'd say that Brian was, and is, the center of gravity - to such a degree that he exerted tremendous influence over the band even when absent; the void he left.  The reason other members got creative or at least tried to be creative is a function of Brian's absence.  George Harrison wrote tunes because he "had something to say" - he wanted to write songs, even during a time when John and Paul were at their peak. It wasn't as if George started writing because John and Paul were tapped out. This is what happened here.  Dennis might be the exception.

Right. This is basically a "JD" (juvenile delinquenrt) stance of true '50s rock-and-roll.  Those rebels and greasers aren't going to like the Beach Boys. But that shouldn't mean that all the people who ended up rejecting the Beach Boys were rebels who wanted to burn down their schools. I suspect that, even in 1963, there were well-behaved high school athletes who heard the song and didn't like it.

It would be interesting to weigh Steven Van Zandt's comments about the Beach Boys with what he's said many times about the Dave Clark Five. Steven champions the DC5 as one of the best rock and roll groups of the 60's, and has been involved in numerous documentaries about them as well as fighting to get them into the R&R Hall of Fame. And look at any photos and videos of the DC5: They're clean cut, well groomed, neatly cut hair, and often matching suits. If the term "square" would apply to a band's look, check out the DC5 and see what you think their image is.

And if it's about judging the groups solely on the records, and Van Zandt was actually challenged by an interviewer on his promotion of the group as real rock and roll and some of the best and told the interviewer that the proof is in the records, it kind of goes against the stance of rock and roll being about cutting class and smoking and juvenile delinquency when you look at the fact one of the bands he promoted most heavily would be considered squares in matching outfits and short haircuts.

So yes the answer is in the records, of course, but it's interesting what he said about real rock and roll and all that and then to see one of the groups he promotes as real rock and roll were a group of square guys with prep school looks. Then he says it doesn't matter because it's in the records...well so was the music of the Beach Boys no matter what they looked like. And some of the DC5 songs were similarly about summer and young love and school dance romance and all that, just like the BB's had some cheese in their lyrics. But they were good records.

Don't get me wrong, I dig the DC5 and their music and don't care what bands looked like, but the contradiction between what he thought of the BB's versus the DC5 is pretty obvious.

I was watching a film not long ago - I think it was something called Festival Express (famous hippies boozing it up on a train) which features Woodstock-ish, "dirty hippie" scenes and rock musicians like the Grateful Dead playing to a counterculture audience around 1970 or so (the crowd is unruly, and angry, and Jerry Garcia assumes the role of responsible adult and tries to talk them down from the stage.) And in this film, the group "Sha Na Na" pops up - Bronx-style greaser doo-wop - and the hippies are digging it. So why is Sha Na Na okay, while the Beach Boys, who excel at that kind of thing, are not accepted? Is it because of the "Be True to Your School" thing?  I throw up my hands at this point
 

The Beach Boys were never “cool” and that was a problem for them but in recent years you could say that the definition of cool has changed and the BBs are now considered cool in retrospect

Right... as long as the word "cool" is seen as shorthand for something that's harder to pin down. "Cool" itself is hard, if not impossible to define. It seems to me that what is "cool" is entirely dependent on how one is perceived by others.  So the Beach Boys aren't cool when people don't like them, and they are cool when people like and accept them.  In that sense, the Beach Boys were very, very "cool" in 1963.  Most of that material (surfing, beach, cars) was extremely trendy, and therefore, "cool" by the standards of the time. The Beach Boys, as people, were cool too in those days because they were writing and performing cool, trendy music that made a lot of money.   The cool concept and the ephemeral, fashion element of rock 'n' roll culture would come back to bite the Beach Boys very hard, but I'm sure they were all just fine with  popularity and coolness in that year of 1963, when they were the coolest thing in American music. 

I'm not sure it's as simple, or as cut-and-dried as a cool vs. uncool dichotomy.  Brian eventually, and haltingly, with stops and starts, made his way (dragging the band along with him) from the likes of "Be True to Your School" to the Pet Sounds era.  Does that effort signify his effort to be cool? I would say not. Rather, he was simply trying to be sincere and honest in the music; to write songs that he himself could believe, and that the listener can believe.  Same with Smile, which among many other things is an intensification of the Pet Sounds approach to music.   Jules Siegel did a great disservice to Brian and to an understanding of Beach Boys history by inventing the idea that "Brian Wilson wanted to be hip" during the mid-'60s. (Mike Love repeated the accusation in his autobiography, with, as with Siegel, absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.)  Brian wanted to be "hip" or "cool" only to the extent that hip and cool can be equated with good, sincere music.  Otherwise cool doesn't come into it.  Pet Sounds most certainly wasn't cool - it was less cool in 1966 than "Be True to Your School" was in 1963.  If this is correct, then Brian's actions suggest that in his mind, the Beach Boys' problem wasn't lack of coolness, it was lack of sincerity and honesty, and he tried to remedy that the only way he knew how.  Brian being sincere is not cool - never was, never will be.

As Van zant said the rock and roll attitude was to cut school to smoke cigarettes and cruise the neighborhood-not to be the quarterback of the football team and sing around the piano with mom and dad. 

Right. This is basically a "JD" (juvenile delinquenrt) stance of true '50s rock-and-roll.  Those rebels and greasers aren't going to like the Beach Boys. But that shouldn't mean that all the people who ended up rejecting the Beach Boys were rebels who wanted to burn down their schools. I suspect that, even in 1963, there were well-behaved high school athletes who heard the song and didn't like it.  Just as there had been legitimate sufers in Southern California who actively disliked the Beach Boys and their surf songs. Why? Because the surfers could hear the tunes and know that they were b.s. And this brings us to what you've told us about Costello's comment:

However-as Elvis Costello said once-part of the appeal for Europeans of the BBs is how American they were-the way they wore sweaters and had their combed neatly like for a school photo and the things they sang about fascinated people in England who didn’t really have the traditions of malt shops and cheerleaders and cruising.

I've always suspected that the Beach Boys' popularity overseas had something to do with the fact that the Europeans actually believed the songs.  Beach Boys beach and surf and sunshine worked well as a product for export - it plays better and better the further you get from Southern Califiornia. So the real Southern California surfers heard these kinds of tunes in a certain way, while someone far away in a cold climate hears something that sounds exotic and authentic.  Americans were probably more sensitive overall to the fakery and commercialism in the songs, right from the beginning. It was a fad, even Beach Boys' young fans understood it as a fad on some level, and it wasn't to be taken seriously.  In 1964, Capitol's Teen Set is telling its readers outright that the Beach Boys write about fads, and hey kids, isn't that great?  It was diversionary fun and great, until, as Brian knew at the time, something more fun comes along. And something more fun did eventually come along: adulthood, and the Boomer fans dismissed the Beach Boys - they never forgave the Beach Boys for pandering to them when they were kids.  Again, this is what Brian is getting at in the 1974 interview. 

"Be True to Your School" aside, so much of the surf-and-car era is great; the musical quality is very good. Which was itself a double-edged sword. Because it was so good, the Beach Boys had great commerical success. That's the good part. The bad part is that their outstanding quality was in service of falseness.  Because it was so good, people believed the falseness.  What Brian tried to do with the Beach Boys is channel that excellence toward truth.
 

More long-winded pontificating from me, as inspired by my lifelong antipathy toward "Be True to Your School." To follow up on your responses...

I was relating it to the original thread-BBs fans who hate the whole idea of Be True To Your School and Barbara Ann-and Beatles fans that don't want to know about their hero singing Bip Bop or Mary Had a Little Lamb or Broad Street

I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Paul is not Beatles. That's the position. If Paul solo = Beatles, then the comparison is more on point.  I think a better analogy/comparison would be if Paul and the Beatles started their career, and achieved initial popularity with Bip Bop and had a No. 6 hit with Mary Had a Little Lamb, while working under the name "Beatles." And then fans (and the Beatles themselves) were later on confronted with both "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and "Strawberry Fields" and were expected to make sense of that dichotomy.  That is sort of like what the Beach Boys actually did, with "Be True to Your School" epitomizing the worst of that stuff.  I do think it's interesting and telling that in the 1974 interview Brian is asked about all kinds of songs, but he singles out one record - "Be True to Your School" - as the one that "blew their career." Maybe I'm reading too much into that comment though. (but I'm not)

The Beach Boys are not and we’re not the Beatles. The levels of self awareness — and support from those around them — were totally different. Comparing the two groups simply created problems.

I agree to the extent that the Beach Boys should not be judged against the Beatles in terms of quality, style and sound. The Beach Boys should be judged against the Beach Boys. Is the band/group achieving what they are capable of achieving, leading with their strengths, and sidelining, or covering their weak points etc. This is a complicated question, in the end I would say that the Boys, as a collective group/business/organization/family ended up presenting their worst musical selves to the public, while many great musical moments - whole albums and individual tracks - were buried, suppressed, unfinished, outright unreleased as inconvenient musical facts.  By the 1980s at the latest, the Beach Boys were a joke in the mind of the public - in my admittedly subjective opinion, they were closer to the Village People than the Beatles.  There were people who knew about the group's quality, but as the likes of David Leaf, Domenic Priore, Darian, et. al have explained, nobody was into the good stuff. If you were a true fan and respected Brian's work, you were a member of a small cult.   A legitimate working musician like Steve Van Zandt apparently wasn't aware.  How and why that happened is the ever-present controversy that gets people riled up.

Comparing the Beach Boys to the Beatles in terms of their different career paths, approaches to music, personal relationships, level or artistry, etc. etc.  is a useful thing to do, in order to help understand what went wrong (for Brian Wilson - who constitutes the "Beatles" element in the Beach Boys) And for what it's worth, maybe you could say that Brian "compared" (for lack of a better word) himself to the Beatles starting probably in the middle of 1965. Then, at the end of the year, they're doing Rubber Soul, he's doing Party and "Hully Gully." We know what Brian did next.

By the way-I’d say McCartney is a similar one for me and a segment of people I meet. Obviously those of us who listen to the great Fabcast know that Howie is a major fan-but I’d argue Paul’s solo career divides Beatles fans. Most of them feel that he rarely made a misstep as a Beatle but that his twee side hinted at in the Fab Four really came out in the 70s. So I meet lots of Beatles fans who only own one or two Macca albums but have everything by the Beatles ever put out!

This, weirdly, is true for a certain subset of "Beatles fans." This has been discussed as well on Fabcast.

I really find it supremely odd, especially when we're talking about the first few years after the break-up. And it's even weirder that it extends to today. There are fans who collect every burp and cough from the "Get Back" sessions, every mono matrix pressing variation of every Beatles album, who have no time for "All Things Must Pass" or "Ram" or "Band on the Run" or "Imagine" or "Plastic Ono Band." It's like, you have more Beatles albums there! Wtf?

Having known people who lived through that era, those who *got it*, absolutely understood that "Back Seat of My Car" was Beatles, that "Crackerbox Palace" was Beatles, etc.

Yes, it eventually deteriorated to varying degrees. I haven't even bought the last 3 or 4 Ringo albums. I still get the McCartney stuff, but it's a struggle.

But like, just like I'd find it very strange to buy the Beach Boys '85 album but have no time for the Brian Wilson '88 album, Beatles fans had TONS of music after the Beatles broke up that was still that thing. Sure, it often reinforced that they were better together, how Paul could fill in gaps on John's songs, how John could add his acerbic nature or downbeat thing to Paul's stuff, how despite George's at least partially understandable animus, Paul was a *key* component to many of George's best songs, and so on.

And really, a similar thing happens with the Beach Boys. Imagine Al and Carl singing on BW '88. Imagine the best stuff on "No Pier Pressure", and the Paley stuff, FILLED with Beach Boys vocals.

But individually, to varying degrees at various points in time, they still were the thing they had been when they were together.

I have to respectfully disagree with the premise here, and how it relates to Brian Wilson's problems.  The basic disagreement is on the idea that the Beatles' solo music is, in substance indistinguishable from Beatles' group music.  To me, there is a difference.  Perhaps in terms of songwriting technique and method, the solo stuff is the same - I can't comment on that sort of thing. But those albums - All Things Must Pass, Ram, Plastic Ono Band - could never have existed if the Beatles had stayed together. Of course, if the Beatles stay together, there can never be All Things Must Pass, because George never had that kind of standing in the group. Paul McCartney could never take over an entire album and fill it with his sensibility and kind of music, and basically just take over the whole record-making process, if he had stayed in the Beatles. This was a problem weighing on the group in the late 1960s; obviously it's there in the recent movie. With Ram, and others, Paul is now free to be himself - lots of good stuff, and also mush like "Another Day" about which you wonder if the the other Beatles would allow him to get away with. And as far as John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band simply cannot exist if John remains in a Beatle-situation. You could go so far as to say that this album encapsulates, more than any other single work, why the Beatles had to break up.  The leader of the Beatles (yes, he was) explaining why his life as a Beatle, and as a person, had become intolerable. And this leads us back to Brian Wilson.

Plastic Ono Band was John Lennon's Pet Sounds. It doesn't sound like it, but it was - in the sense that it was the album that couldn't have been made in a band situation.  It's also the album on which John is expressing his humanity - "I am a human being" which is what Brian is doing on Pet Sounds.  John can only do it after the Beatles "cease to exist."  Brian is trying to do the same thing long before Lennon did it, but Brian is trying to do this  while remaining a Beach Boy.  Brian is making a solo album in form and substance, but unlike John Lennon, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Not going to work, not in the Beach Boys, or most groups.  (Pete Townshend sort of got away with doing this when he steered his group into Tommy, but he allotted important roles for the other members, and also the weirdness of Tommy couldn't be seen as threatening an accrued commercial success; the Who had nothing to lose, basically)

The Beatles did everything right, it seems. Not only while they were together, but they even "fought" in the right way by breaking up when it was time to break up.  (In my view, had they stayed together, their music wouldn't have been even as good as the good solo albums were , and also the public wouldn't hold their classic music in as high regard as it does today)  They had become individuals with different personalities forming and different interests, and different lives. Time to break up.  This is what would happen in the Beach Boys, at least with respect to one member: Brian Wilson. He is becoming an individual person in the mid-60s, yet at the same time, there is a part of him, a voice inside him saying "you are a Beach Boy, not Brian." (there are, of course external voices surrounding him telling him the same thing) So, it quickly gets to the point where there is a conflict between "Be True to Your School" and "Surf's Up." We can say today that it's all "Beach Boys" but it's not.  And during the relevant time in the 1960s, something had to give, something had to give way, just as something had to give for the Beatles ca. 1969-70. For the Beach Boys it's either break up or stay together. If the former is impossible to conceive of, then fine - you stay together.  But then you have a stark choice: drop the "Surf's Up" approach (bury it, memory-hole it) or instead purposefully kill off "Be True to Your School" and its conceptual stance, and music of that ilk. And if you decide to kill it off, you have to be merciless and violent about it. Kill it, and salt the earth.  This was impossible, Brian knew it was impossible, and he tried to do it in his subtle way, with subtle music, and etc. etc.

And this summons the story of the third Big Shot of the Sixties (along with Lennon-McCartney and Brian Wilson): Bob Dylan. What Bob is doing in 1965-66, with the electric music and especially the '65-'66 tour is violently killing off his protest-folk persona, and with hard rock and volume, ramming it down the audience's throat to make sure everyone understands who is in charge of Bob's career trajectory; who is calling the shots. What's Brian Wilson gonna do? First he would have to leave the group. Or, at a minimum, he has to be willing and able to perform live. And even if he can do that, what's he going to do? Go out on stage and sing "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" to a bunch of teenagers? Brian was way ahead of his time, out of his time. But only Brian was the outsider, not the Beach Boys.

I'd say "There's A Place", recorded in early 1963 and likely written in late 1962, is pretty similar thematically to "In My Room."

In general, the Beatles were just more mature across the board. They wore suits, they smoked, they drank, all in interviews and on film. They seemed far more like adults far earlier on than the BBs. They were always very open about how they did write a lot of love songs with first and second person pronouns, but while obviously "Love Me Do" is not an introspective song, but their songwriting across the board never got as juvenile and goofy as the worst filler on the early BB albums.

"In My Room" is an amazing miracle, a song to this day, while obviously widely loved, probably still doesn't get enough attention and credit. I take nothing away from it. A great universal lyrical moment for the band thanks to Brian and Gary Usher; mature and introspective but also relatable to young people as well.

Interesting discussion here

The Beatles were formulaic to a certain extent in their early days, as were the Beach Boys but the Beach Boys formula was fad-oriented - external fads like surfing first, and then the venerable car song presented as a new fad or craze (entire batches of songs about cars).  The Beach Boys were selling external products. The Beatles could also be said to be a "fad" or "craze" in the U.S. in 1964, but at least they themselves were the fad; the craze-element was the Beatles themselves, not something external.  Young people wanted to be "like the Beatles" - they did not want to be like the Beach Boys (either in terms of style, or even musical style - it was the Beatles, not the Beach Boys that caused countless young people to pick up electric guitars and form bands) but instead wanted to be a surfer, or go to the beach, or buy a surfboard, etc.  The Beach Boys were, and are, always "selling" something to the audience, pointing the audience away from their musical quality and toward something external.  Even, in later years, they are selling Maharishi, then selling or marketing Brian himself during "Brian-Is-Back" and so forth.  "Add Some Music to Your Day" is a sales pitch song.  Brian of course wanted to avoid this, and that's the story of what he was trying, and ultimately failed, to do at least as far back as 1964. In 1963, Brian is still, for the most part, willingly writing in craftsman/businessman-mode. Therefore he does "Be True to Your School" which he soon comes to regret.  And as Guitarfool says, "In My Room" is on the B-side - a song that Brian may have written in business-mode to a degree but was at the same time about something that did in fact mean something to him: being in the music room and working on music and being alone with music and his emotions.  i don't think we can say the same thing about "Be True to Your School." I don't think he cared about that kind of stuff at all.

My assumption is that both "In My Room" and "There's a Place" were inspired by "Up On the Roof" by Goffin-King.  Almost certainly in the case of Usher and Wilson; the "miracle" element in the song is that it was unintentional. Basically, with "In My Room," Brian and Gary have stumbled upon the Pet Sounds songwriting model. Brian will have to wait a while before he could return to that in full force, but when does it's with more purposeful intention - with Pet Sounds, Brian wants to write mature, introspective songs, while with "In My Room" it happened by accident (happy accident, or miracle) At the time, I think Brian and Gary just thought they were doing a Goffin-King type thing. I doubt they (or anybody else) appreciated at the time that they had done something that could very well have been unprecedented in youth pop music.  Neither "Up On the Roof" nor "There's a Place" are as introspective or solitary as "In My Room"

I don't think the song was sincere. It was business.  Brian is an artist, with an introverted temperament. "Rah-rah, look at me and my letterman jacket, and I play football" has never been his thing (and I don't think he would say what he said in 1974 if he believed the song had any artistic merit, or if it meant anything to him. He was about 32 years old on that interview, and sounds very lucid, and he was correct). To hear genuine sincerity (at least sincerity from Brian Wilson as an individual) you flip the "Be True to Your School" single over and get "In My Room."

As for Mike's end of it, he is not and had never been an artist.  This is not a crime. But for him, the "art" in music is one and the same with the business element.  For Mike, "Be True to Your School" is sincere not because it expressed his inner feelings about high school, but because it qualifies as "success." Mike is sincere in his salesmanship - he sincerely wants to sell.  Therefore "Be True to Your School" is a sincere statement from Mike.

Now you could say that in this respect, "Be True to Your School" is no different that the surf and car hits; that Brian didn't care about surfing and car-customization any more than he cared about high school spirit.  So why are those songs ("Catch a Wave" "Little Deuce Coupe" "Surfin' Safari" etc.) better than "Be True to Your School?" I can't answer that off-hand... but one difference is that the Beach Boys stumbled into the surf-craze with naivete and found that for some reason it worked.  As of the time of "Be True To Your School" they are purposefully intending to write for teenagers - to write down to them - and it just comes through on the song.  Also, there's that authoritarian element in the song which does not fit with youth culture or rock 'n' roll at all, while "let's go out and catch a wave" and "check out my hot car with a big engine" is consistent with rock 'n' roll.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of another song in rock/pop with the same character as "Be True to Your School." It's like if someone put out a song titled "Clean Up Your Room." That might be a proper sentiment, but it makes for bad pop music.

What's fascinating is when we consider Be True To Your School was released as the single, the A-side, with "In My Room" as the B-side. And many DJ's started to flip the record over and play In My Room as the lead song. And the B-side in this case also became a hit, in some regional markets it went top-5. In decades to come, the B-side became one of the most beloved songs of the band's catalog, one of Brian's most praised songs, while the A-side exists as kind of a novelty.

So there was the contradictory nature of the band's music on full display as this single existed in 1963 into 1964: You had the rather old-school throwback (with some pretty cool production, I'd say) school spirit song with cheerleaders featured juxtaposed against one of the most introspective and personal songs the band would ever record, a direct glimpse into Brian's personal life and childhood wrapped into a gorgeous and musically sophisticated ballad.

Isn't that contradiction and coexistence in musical styles and lyrical themes one of the key subjects in discussing the band's musical output? There it was on display in an early single.

And as far as introspection and putting yourself into the song and into the listening public's ears, Brian had this going on with In My Room in late 1963. The Beatles wouldn't do this kind of introspective writing until a year later.

A+

There is (was) an audio interview with Brian Wilson floating around on the internet; it's from 1974 or so (the era of the Endless Summer revival) and the interviewer asks Brian about "Be True To Your School" and Brian says that "The Beach Boys blew their career" with that song. 

The interview is on YT, relevant commentary starts at around 12:10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEeqwNl17YM

So I was thinkin' about how much I've never been able to dig "Be True to Your School" and why it bothers me so much and then it got me to thinkin' about whether perhaps this song alone has been to blame for some people seeing the guys as unhip and/or "square" over the years. It also surprises me sometimes that "Barbara Ann" is singled out as the song that could perhaps be left off a Mike, Brian or Al setlist while this song escapes notice. Now I know we all have very different tastes and what I like, might not be liked by the next guy.

It should bother you as it's a very bad song; for me, it's far and away the worst Beach Boys song from their classic era.  This is an early example of the Beach Boys doing something that, at a specific moment in time, according to very short-term thinking, could be justified as a good decision.  They were a "teen" group who sang fad songs and songs conceived and crafted to be for, and about "teenagers" and "teenage life." According to that business model, writing about school spirit in this particular way would seem reasonable.  Reasonable from the perspective of the record-making business.

There is (was) an audio interview with Brian Wilson floating around on the internet; it's from 1974 or so (the era of the Endless Summer revival) and the interviewer asks Brian about "Be True To Your School" and Brian says that "The Beach Boys blew their career" with that song.  Brian probably means "blew their career" in the artistic, or creative sense; that it later became difficult for the group to be taken seriously as musicians or as a legitimate creative entity.   Literally, that's not true - it's not just one song that could have effectuated that outcome, but it's a correct statement in that the song represents so many things about the Beach Boys that ultimately interfered with the creation of good music: Insincerity, pandering to the audience, childishness, and in the case of this particular song, a strain of Murryesque authoritarianism - the singer lecturing the listener about being loyal. 

Sorry everyone... I could go on. When I first heard the tune on Endless Summer, it stuck out like a sore thumb on that otherwise great compilation album.  Note that Zappa reserves his bile for "Be True to Your School" and not the surf or car stuff (is it true that Zappa's "Status Back Baby" from Absolutely Free is a parody of this kind of high-school culture, if not the Beach Boys themselves? Sounds like it)

(And just because it's possible to agree with Zappa on this particular point doesn't mean that his brand of contrarianism, vulgarity, and frequent, purposeful effort to offend the listener is any better)

In these early days, in '62-'63,  it was possible for Brian and Mike to work together, to contribute elements to teenage pop records and make them work, but on this one they really messed up. It's said that Brian came up with the idea for the song, and it's a bad idea. Mike's lyrics are, to me, terrible, and his vocal is obnoxious and unlistenable.  I say these things because I am a fan of good Beach Boys music.

hey have a look/listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t36rOwd19Y (Album promo)

I've had some difficulty following this thread, but I gather that there has been some dispute over what "Love to Say Da Da" is, or was, supposed to be.

It seems that Brian is working on the song in some form in late December 1966. Dates of December 22-23 have ( I thought) been out there, and sloopjohnb72 here in this thread has mentioend December 27-28.  I certainly am not one to know whether or not it was just instrumental/piano in these days, or if Brian had already come up with the wah-wah-whoa-ah vocal pattern at this point in December.

In any case, these late December days constitute the time period during which Paul Williams of Crawdaddy magazine visited Brian at his house. Williams recounted time spent in Brian's swimming pool early in the morning of Dec. 24, 1966:

“So at the end of the night we went to the pool, watched by the dogs. I kept my glasses on, because standing in that pool we could see the lights of Los Angeles (or the Valley) twinkling below us like a natural wonder. The water was warm.  Brian told me enthusiastically the it was heated to exactly 98.6, body temperature. ‘So if you get down in the water like this’ (he demonstrated) ‘and stand up, it’s like being born, like the feeling of being born.’"

This suggests that to Brian's way of thinking at the time, "water" and baby" and "rebirth" go together - each are components of one whole conceptual piece; it's not either-or.  The fact that a "baby" song could morph into a "water" song would then seem to be natural and understandable . And in Brian Wilson Presents Smile, the concept is fully realized. The idea comes to full fruition in the third movement, which in my opinion is perfect, as (among other things) it makes perfect use of the "Da Da" concept and music. In those passages, BWPS fully actualizes the idea that Brian was talking to Paul Williams about that night in the swimming pool.

As ever, it is useful to keep in mind that the Beach Boys is not just a band, or group, that makes music.  Before that, they are a family. It so happens that this family makes music and then found commercial success with that music, but they are a family first and foremost.

For the Beach Boys, Smiley Smile is preferable to whatever Smile could or would have been because Smiley is, in their collective mindset, a collective endeavor by the whole band ("Produced by the Beach Boys") with all members engaged in the creation of the album.  The album is recorded in sequestered  family space, Brian Wilson's home, away from the outsiders and various external "bad influences" that are perceived to the cause of Brian's problems.  In this way, Smiley Smile is indeed Smile - but only the Beach Boys' version of Smile, not that of Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks.

During the time period in question, they primary operating goal of the collective Beach Boys is not musical, let alone artistic.  As of mid-1967, the main purpose of the Beach Boys is to stay together as a family/band. Their career is, arguably, in jeopardy during the Smile-era, and once Smile collapses, it becomes more apparent that something must be done, and done quickly, to right the ship, or to revert the Beach Boys back to its prior equilibrium state - that of a unified family organization, rather than an artistic dictatorship whereby all members of the family are at the mercy of the whims of one eccentric family member.

Stability is goal number one, because if they cannot do that, then everything else - chart ranking, singles, musical quality, etc. - is moot.  Because of Brian's actions circa 1966-67, the family foundation of the Beach Boys had been in jeopardy.  If that hadn't been the case - for example, if, hypothetically, Brian had hired Tony Asher to help him write happy, up-tempo songs about boy-girl relationships - there wouldn't have been as much of a problem.  If the family foundation is strong and secure (i.e., nobody in the band is going to leave, or go solo, or do anything that threatens the existence of the band) then yes, it is possible to move on and try to make good music. This was the state of things in, say, 1963, and into the first half of 1964. In those days the Beach Boys, as a whole, single entity, is in good shape (especially if they can put some distance between themselves and Murry, which they did)  Brian Wilson, however, as an individual, is progressively in worse and worse shape, as signified by the nervous breakdown at the end of 1964.

Anybody can fill in the rest... it's basically a tug-of-war between Brian and what he represents (both positive and negative) and the Beach Boys business family and what it represents (both positive and negative). Anyway, this dynamic is a significant (though not the only) reason Smiley Smile sounds the way it does in comparison to the Smile Sessions music. Smiley was a function of business necessity (survival) , not just unfettered artistic license on the part of the band members, as if they could easily choose what they wanted Smiley to sound like.

Smiley is a a reflection of the Beach Boys as of mid-1967: talented, but hopelessly dysfunctional.  I appreciate Smiley too, but to really celebrate the album, you need to push the dysfunction and family problems out of your mind and pretend that the Beach Boys are happily unified and are intending to make a cool, weird, left-field album.

Isn't Brian already retired, basically? The endless touring thing looks to me like what Brian is doing during his retirement (what some people call the"golden years").  Some people go fishing, some stay home and stare at cable news, Brian Wilson goes out on tour and does whatever it is he and his band do. 

If Brian Wilson had been touring all his life - had touring been his main thing and/or his claim to fame, or if he had been known for great, entertaining, live showmanship, then the question, 'should he come off the road' be more salient.  But he's never been that person.  Brian is on stage being what he is - an old man - and at least in my experience, I have never seen him attempt to be anything other than what he is.  It's not for everyone, that's for sure.  I rarely go to concerts, but I have seen old guys doing legacy shows - Rolling Stones, Randy Newman, Tom Petty (I was at his last concert in Hollywood Bowl and he was not in good physical shape at all) - and it's all sort of the same. To me, a Brian show is no different than these people; it's all nostalgia, and in varying degrees, a show of respect and gratitude from the audience.  I saw the Stones sometime in the 2000s. I have to say, Mick Jagger was incredibly fit and spry, and he sang "Wild Horses" very well.  But for me, that performance is no less silly than going to a Brian Wilson show. I have no idea if Townshend and Daltrey still tour, but if they do, and if Pete is out there windmilling, then that's more ridiculous than anything at a Brian Wilson show.

What Brian is known for, on the other hand, is studio-recorded music. That's the reason why he's known; why people talk about him.  So the better question is should he stop recording? First of all, he records only intermittently (or at least new recorded music from Brian surfaces only intermittently); can you say that he is basically retired from recording? It's a matter of personal opinion, but for me, the Gershwin album was the last recording project of any consequence; he had a good run starting from Smile in 2004, the Christmas album, Lucky Old Sun and Gershwin. Disney had some good tracks (as did Getting In Over My Head).  "One Kind of Love" was a good song; the kind of thing you want to hear from Brian Wilson, rather than those awful Brian Wilson-Joe Thomas songs.  In fact, if news of a new Brian Wilson album came out and it was expected to be filled with Wilson-Thomas songs, I'd be the first  to say, "please, no more."

So, to recap: he's already retired.  Or, maybe I'm giving him too much of a break.

Kudos and thank you for an excellent and informative episode and interview! And belated thanks for the great interview you did with Howie. Both are essential fan listening, and very rewarding.

I'd just like to ramble a bit about the "Long Promised Road" interview. Some very enlightening - and perhaps more importantly, truthful - information came out of your discussions.

I'll be as forthright and as honest here as I can without going too far, but what really disappointed me and upset me especially in the last 9 (going on 10) years was the sense that some who were thought to be trustworthy keepers of information and news about the band but about Brian and his life specifically were not being honest with the fanbase. Much information that was coming out about Brian, apparently by people who "knew him" and could supposedly speak from authority, was simply false or distorted from the truth. There were pictures painted of this man specifically during the time frame which is the focus of this film which were giving fans an incorrect image of him and his life. People who truly knew also knew how false and sometimes ridiculous all of the gossip and rumor really was. I'll leave it at that.

How refreshing it is to have a film like this for fans to get a glimpse into some of what Brian Wilson does and who he is, in a more casual and cinema verite way to where the audience watching can view the various scenes and form their own opinions on what they are seeing and witnessing through the cameras. Of course the arguments might center on how scenes were edited, how the filmmaking process tells a certain perspective over another, but ultimately fans can see this man in the film and take from it an opinion formed on their own versus having these perspectives and opinions filtered through others with potential bias and agenda driving their words and actions.

I encourage all fans to listen to Messrs. Fine and Wilson on this episode as they discuss what they witnessed, experienced, and captured on film after spending time with Brian Wilson. What they say at various points is in line with what those who truly know the man and have spoken about their experiences versus those who have claimed to know the man but in reality were more observers (or less) than friends.


One thing struck me listening to the podcast. There is a section where the topic of Landy comes up, and how it was discussed that Brian rarely if ever has a negative word or action toward someone, and in Landy's case - to borrow and old song title - Brian chose to accentuate the positives and mentioned that Landy helped him quit smoking and lose weight, while still being upset at how Landy would treat him and speak down to him.

Is this an example of simply seeing the glass half full, and accentuating the positive? Or is it something deeper and perhaps more spiritual in nature?

I'd guess yes to both.

This past year with all the sh*t going on, I got very invested in following and listening to Bobby Whitlock and his music, but mostly through his personal YouTube channel where he basically talks and tells stories to his fans. There are several moments in his videos of the previous year or 2 where what he says can bring tears to your eyes. Bobby was the son of a Southern preacher, of the fire and brimstone variety, where the only music worthy of attention was spiritual music. Yet that same father had his own demons which would come out in his private life as he was trying to save his church's flock from sin.

Bobby himself has been wronged, stolen from, lied about, and harmed by people close to him and who he thought were friends or people he thought he could trust. He says he could have easily held a grudge, demanded some kind of penance or retribution from and for those people, and he could have carried that anger and hurt with him and let it consume him. Instead, he said the most liberating thing he could do was to let it all go, forgive whoever wronged him, and take that weight off his shoulders so he could focus on living in the moment and looking to the future rather than holding grudges from the past. He said lifting that weight off was the best feeling in the world. And, he also said that those people who wronged him are the ones who now are carrying that burden with them and onto their own karma...he himself washed his hands of them and whatever they did to wrong him, and can move forward.

I saw a parallel to Brian Wilson, again specifically in the past 30 years covered in this film. I don't think he wants to deal with the bullshit or bullshitters anymore, and wants to be happy living life. He enjoys his food and his regular visits to that deli and other restaurants. He likes Marie Callendar's pies and cheese pizza. He enjoys traveling on the road and playing with his band. He could easily hold a grudge against any number of people who wronged him or who still sometimes say or do things to hurt him, but it really doesn't seem to be in his soul to hold or convey that kind of anger anymore. Yes he will speak out, but do you ever see him lash out against someone or something publicly? Does he look like the kind of guy who continually drags up negatives from the past instead of mentioning the good or looking forward to something positive?

For that matter, how many of Brian's songs convey any kind of anger or hate or rage, both in the music and the lyrical content? We're hard-pressed to find examples. He speaks through his music, and just listen to what he chooses to say to his listeners.

I struggle with the issues of holding grudges and holding onto instances where I felt wronged or otherwise. I struggle too with wondering how even what I thought was an insignificant action or word on my part could have had a negative or serious impact on someone for years, and how to make it right. I think many of us might share those same concerns and issues. But when I hear guys like Bobby and Brian, two guys who have every damn right to hold serious grudges, have every right to be angry, and who would have the right to lash out if not seek some kind of penance from being wronged in the past, instead speak of letting go of burdens and grudges, enjoying every day as the best day of their life, and taking in the simple pleasures like eating a sandwich or sitting outside enjoying a nice breeze, it's something to work for. Maybe it comes with a little more age and experience, and even that can give us something to work for. That kind of peace and sense of enjoyment in everyday life that Warren Zevon expressed in one of my favorite quotes "Enjoy every sandwich".

I think if anything the filmmakers captured glimpses of that part of Brian Wilson which fans really, really need to see with their own eyes in order to understand everything else they've heard and read about him. It's pretty inspiring stuff.

These are perceptive and intelligent comments; I haven't heard the podcast, but with respect to the following:

For that matter, how many of Brian's songs convey any kind of anger or hate or rage, both in the music and the lyrical content? We're hard-pressed to find examples. He speaks through his music, and just listen to what he chooses to say to his listeners.

This is a totally correct observation about Brian's music and approach to music. It is something to admire about what he did or tried to do; however, his inability to express anger/hate/rage [with the notable exception of "Fire"] was/is an enormous problem for him.  Everyone of Brian's peers - big names from his era - such as Townshend, Hendrix, Zappa, Ray Davies, Jagger/Richards, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, even McCartney on occasion can express anger, criticism, negative emotions and sometimes be downright cruel or nasty in their music (either lyrically or in terms of the way the music is performed). Brian couldn't or wouldn't do that.  He paid an enormous price for that, regardless of whether it was a conscious decision on his part. 

Regarding Brian's seemingly weird choice of "It's OK" in the car, multiple times (when he really hasn't touched the thing since the 70s apart from being on stage during C50), I think it's quite possible that, at the time they shot those bits, Brian was preparing to do the studio re-record we see later in the film, and he's just getting some extra acquaintance with the song again. Now, *why* he was re-recording it then, I dunno. Maybe it was the opposite, maybe he kept suggesting the song in the car and then they cut it. Or maybe they cut it first, with a very general idea of the theme of something being "okay" for Brian.

But it is funny, because contextually for fans it almost seems at first like Brian's using a Mike-centric song as some sort of therapeutic white noise or something.

For a while, I've wondered what exactly is up with the song "It's OK." It never made sense to me as a song. The final version from 15 Big Ones (which, in my opinion, is a shrill, annoying, unlistenable thing) is as we all know a standard back-to-the-beach record, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the song was conceived - by Brian - to be that.  I personally doubt it was, though I don't think there's any factual basis for my saying that. It's just (educated ) speculation. 

My assumption is that Brian came up with the music/musical feel/chords for "It's OK" and also came up with the tag line - "It's OK." My assumption is that the Beach Boys/Mike then take the song and turn Brian's (unfinished?) "It's OK" concept into a (dumb) summer-fun song, and that's what we get on 15 Big Ones.  In the finished version, the Beach Boys are saying, "it's ok that were doing this, that we've resigned ourselves to this thing we're doing, and it's ok for fans to like this kind of music from the Beach Boys."

Is this what Brian was originally thinking, though, by saying "It's Ok?" It might - he might have been thinking, "I've to get back up and write happy summer songs for us, and it's ok if I have to do that." That's possible.  Or, Brian was referring to something else. In Brian's 2016 book (I Am Brian Wilson), he says, with respect to his auditory-verbal hallucinations, "they are frightening... When I’m working on a record in the studio, they’re less likely to be there.  Lots of the music I’ve made has been my way of trying to get rid of those voices.  Other strategies didn’t really work." It's possible that to Brian, coming up with It's OK was his way of telling himself It's OK or it's gonna be ok or something.   Or maybe not. But if so, it would be consistent with the way it is used in this new documentary.  Otherwise, it's indeed hard to imagine Brian wanting to hear a mediocre Beach Boys song that, in it's finished form, represents so much of what went wrong in Brian's life and career.  Although anything's possible with Brian and the Beach Boys.

I had the profound pleasure of seeing the film at the Laemmle theater in Westwood last night along with a post-film Q&A by Brent Wilson, Jason Fine, and Brian Wilson.

In a nutshell, the film is a GAME CHANGER. It's a truly worthy (and very different) documentary counterpart to Love & Mercy. For anybody learning about the story of Brian Wilson, *both* of these superb films are absolute must-sees.

Among many other unexpected firsts that this film shows, latter day Brian is seen in the studio fully in charge, kicking butt, very much engaged, getting stuff done, which definitely goes a ways to prove how much confidence and self sufficiency Brian Wilson still has at this time in his life when he's feeling it. The amount of empathy gained for what Brian has to go through on a daily basis to deal with the voices in his head is quite profound.

There have been many people who over the years have claimed otherwise, and many assumptions by fans have been spoken about how Brian doesn't do anything much in the studio and lets people do everything for him…, but this film proves Brian has still got it, which as the filmmakers noted afterwards in the Q&A was shown in the film virtually live and mostly unedited just as the events happened in front of them.

The film is a brave piece of filmmaking, and many raw moments that might be considered a bit surprising that they let in the film were right there for the audience to see. Both in terms of raw sounding latter-day live performances, and also just in terms of Brian physically looking like a dude who is almost 80 and has lived a hard life in many ways, you're going to see some stuff on film that isn't sugarcoated and I really appreciate that they let this level of honesty into the film.

The new song heard in the film "Right Where I Belong" is super, and I think most people would agree it's among the best top shelf songs in his solo career.

Brian speaks about topics that you would not expect him to speak about, and so much of the credit goes to Jason Fine for setting a comfortable tone and environment which Brian was extraordinarily responsive to.

Brian Wilson is very much still there, but it takes the right environment for him to come out of his shell - and this film provides such an environment in a way that I think will be stunning for people to see. It's unlike any documentary ever done about Brian; in my opinion it was made with a similar level of filmmaking artistry, emotion, and craft that Love & Mercy was made with, which is a rare compliment.

I can't wait to hear what everybody else about the film once they see it.

Thanks for the report.  Anything else interesting occur during the Q&A, aside from what you mentioned above?

In a nutshell, the film is a GAME CHANGER. It's a truly worthy (and very different) documentary counterpart to Love & Mercy. For anybody learning about the story of Brian Wilson, *both* of these superb films are absolute must-sees.

[***]

Brian speaks about topics that you would not expect him to speak about, and so much of the credit goes to Jason Fine for setting a comfortable tone and environment which Brian was extraordinarily responsive to.

[***]

Brian Wilson is very much still there, but it takes the right environment for him to come out of his shell - and this film provides such an environment in a way that I think will be stunning for people to see.

I thought the doc was good - well made and sincere - probably, as is usually the case - intended for viewers who don't know too much about the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson but who might be interested to learn more.  At the same time, for more seasoned and/or knowledgeable viewers, it's still worthwhile. You have to assume this is the last Brian Wilson documentary - kind of an updating of the Don Was doc from the 1990s (but with a new set of talking heads attesting to Brian's greatness, including notably, conductor Gustavo Dudamel of the L.A. Phil likening Pet Sounds to a song cycle by Mahler or Schubert lieder) and as somebody already said somewhere, a kind of addendum to the 2015 movie.

I disagree with the idea that Brian speaks about topics you wouldn't expect him to speak about, and I disagree that Brian "came out of his shell" or was "extraordinarily responsive" to any of Jason Fine's comments and gentle prodding.  Keep in mind, though, that as early as 1967, David Anderle accurately assessed Brian as "nonverbal" or a "nonverbal human" who "doesn't talk." That aspect of Brian has always been there, and over time - due significantly to the way the circumstances of his life and the kinds of people who he was surrounded by drove him further and further inward - it has intensified to the point where he is scarcely communicative at all in any kind of public or semi-public situation.  Hopefully watchers of the new documentary will understand that Brian is not there in the movie to provide answers for us or to explain - he has done enough of that already over the years in various forms - but is there in the movie just to be there. (the cynical viewpoint is that he is again being exploited in this film by his "handlers")  It's up to the viewers to be curious enough to wonder why Brian is the way he is, and what happened over the course of his life. The doc doesn't provide answers (it shows the "what" but is light on "why") and shouldn't necessarily be expected to do so.