Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

To your first point regarding "silencing free speech", that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That sounds like an entirely imaginary argument. People have been trying for ages to equate disagreement with stifling of free speech. It's a common tactic, and it's silly.

When someone says something you say or believe in is total bulls**t, they're not trying to keep you from saying it. They're just calling it bulls**t.

As for taking a gig, if it's a fundraiser gig or other political event for a candidate, OF COURSE it's perceived as an endorsement. We already had this ridiculous "if someone doesn't specifically say they're voting for someone or that they official endorse them, then it's not an endorsement" discussion before.

And if Mike, in some hypothetical, said "We're doing this Trump rally gig, but we're not endorsing him; We just take a gig because it pays", then that might actually come off *even worse* than doing the gig due to political convictions.

The answer, the EASY answer when it comes to PR and brand management, would be for an actual Beach Boys manager to say "OF COURSE it's a bad idea to play at a Trump-related gig", regardless of whether every board member and associate of BRI is a staunch conservative. It would be a HORRIBLE PR move, and as I said above, it would probably only make it worse to use the "hey, it's a paying gig, I don't care who the event is linked to" reasoning.

Not taking any politics-related gigs is a non-issue when it comes to BRI's or MELECO's bottom line, and even suggesting not taking a Trump-related gig would hurt their income is laughable. Nearly all gigs are either normal public gigs or private corporate gigs. If Mike's tour schedule turns to predominantly political rallies and party conventions, then he and BRI have far bigger problems.

Hey Jude - here is the difference that I have seen in this election cycle.  And this is a little off-topic only tangentially related to a thread that is inflammatory because no one bothered to check the Touring Band's schedule (unless they will do a fly-over to do 2 cities in one day) - that week is booked.  So, it is moot.  They are unavailable, "apparently."

Yes, the demonstrations to "stop Trump" from appearing and silence that viewpoint have occurred this year.  Free Speech (and including political speech) is protected within some basic time, place and manner considerations.  Let's not make this either personal or confrontational.  The confrontational nonsense is one of the issues that precipitated the development of another BB board.  "Shutting people down" or the demonstrations which have been calculated to stop a candidate from appearing at a planned venue is new this election cycle.  

But, the point of whether it is a fan board's say-so over whether gig dates are accepted are beyond the point of reason, in my view and attempt to destroy the concept that music is generally a place of neutrality.  (That would be contrary to music that was protest music  and used in conjunction with a type of rally.)  

This is different from a business accepting new business which I think this is.  What is a bad idea for you might not be a bad idea for those in charge.  You think it is a horrible move, but is is not up to you, or me.  

Trump could be elected President and they could play the inauguration.  It could happen.  The more he is attacked, it seems that his base of support rises, and that includes many disenfranchised Democrats, Republicans and Independents despite the temper tantrums all-around.  

You don't like Mike, so anything he would do would not please you.  Ton of bad PR?  Trump fans, numbering in the millions, according to votes cast for him, can be BB fans (or not.)  

Plenty of Hollywood (and others) are supporting Trump.  It is not politically correct but that is what many Americans are sick and tired of.  That "filter" of political correctness which is no longer convenient.  Playing a gig is not an endorsement until it is publicly announced.  When you go into the voting booth, no one knows whom you vote for.  

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care.  

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music.  

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  

Random thoughts:

A) It isn't a big mystery as to why some folks would find it objectionable if Mike played a Trump fundraiser (or posed for pics with him, or if they had a public "BFF" ceremony, or whatever). The outrage regarding a Trump/Love connection is perhaps predictable and quickly becomes an exercise is redundancy. But the sort of manufactured (in my opinion) incredulity as to why such a reaction occurs is just silly.

B) Some eras/elections/candidates are more divisive than at other times. Nobody cares who supported Bob Dole in 1996 anymore, or who supported Edmund Muskie in 1972. Any sort of pro-Trump stuff at *this* time, in *this* election is *not* the same, objectively speaking, as many of the *numerous* times in the past where Mike or the Beach Boys or other artists played fundraisers for or otherwise supported candidates.

C) Those who find Mike supporting Trump as an objectionable idea aren't "spending too much energy worrying about it." It doesn't take that long to post "Ewwww" on a message board.

D) It's far more on-topic to discuss the politics of the actual band members, or public gigs (or potential gigs) for candidates than it is for members here to tell us how *they're* voting. I have some level of interest (not to the point of seething outrage) if a member of the Beach Boys supports any given candidate, from the perspective of a historian and scholar of the band. What I *don't* care about is how a member here plans to vote.

E) Who a band member supports politically doesn't typically directly effect "the music" (let's set aside "I'm pickin' up Bush Vibrations" I guess), especially when we're talking about just playing old songs in concert, but it isn't wholly unrelated to the machinations of the history of a band. Mike's politics and general political attitude may help speak to the attitude he takes towards the band, or at least its corporate and financial machinations.

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

  

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care. 

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music. 

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least. 

KDS - I hope no one hurts themselves "jumping to conclusions."  If anyone took the time to look up their touring schedule they would see that they are booked out that week.  That is not to say that they could not be miraculous, and be two places at once.   

While I can overlook any "creepiness" due to age because the writer/singer is not the same as the 'character' singing (the "You're Sixteen" example), I have always had a problem with guys in their 70's singing "Isn't it time we go steady again?"  Because in that song it clearly is being sung from an older point of view and just sounds silly when they sing it.

The other lyric that give me pause is:
"Took me back darlin' to that time in my car
When you cried all night cause we'd gone too far"

It just paint a bad picture.

Kermit - what cracks me up about this thread is that when you listen to hip hop or some of the rap music, much of it is utterly filthy.

Whatever is in the BB catalog is tame by comparison.   Using a lens from 2016 to measure the 60's or 70's is absurd and inappropriate because it is not contemporaneous.
 
The mores were entirely different and as Don mentioned, was not a feminist-based agenda.   

Trying to assign a connotation or taking a trip through Brian's cranium is impossible.  Only he knows his conceptualization process. 

When they hand out condoms in high school, there is a presumption that you can never go too far," just use protection. 

That was not even on the radar screen back-in-the-day. 

As Debbie KL said, and I agree, it was a different time and place.  Correct also, about the ages at which people married.  If you (a woman) weren't married by 24, you were considered an "old maid." That is not the average marriage age today.  And, likely parental consent was likely an issue.

And, I see no lecherous intent with Brian and the interview does talk about shaving legs, but that is not in the song and just a general off-the-cuff, "concept" comment. 

https//wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=A9AenU9iWEs

The interview from 1976. Hope it copies.   

False that it serves as evidence of a link between autism and vaccines.

It serves as evidence of injury. 

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

It does not strike me in the same way. It is more of an aspirational wishful-thinking mode. 

The tense is in the present progressive /bordering on the future "I'm going to...

and you "could" does not suggest immediacy but at some future time.   Wishful thinking.   

creepy, grooming, wishful thinking.

Sorry I don't think that way about Brian.  It looks innocent enough and not predatory as you suggest. 

Brian is indeed telling his reality: he experienced a few events in a certain sequence. I'm not sure that he believes that one caused the other, but the evidence is that it doesn't. No one's denying the reality of his experience; just pointing out that posters who assert that there's a causative relationship are most likely wrong. Intuition is very often wrong.

Emily - I liken Brian's "reality" if you will, to those thousands of parents whose children were poisoned by vaccines and who manifested autistic spectrum symptoms after an immunization where it was an "event." He is bucking the establishment.  It is a good thing.  

Then, go back to the doctor who utterly denies that the vaccine was responsible for causation.  Or a black box warning that was kept from a patient who experienced an adverse reaction.  I cited a 1964 study before it became somewhat vogue to use LSD to expand your mind.  These studies contradict each other with respect to causation.  

Now, Brian has the mic, and as a result of his activism, those who denied the causation may be forced to either re-study the events or retract their studies in terms of a universal applicability.  We can always find some "evidence" to support a position.  It is important to find evidence that might not agree with our position to show that there is a divergence in opinion.  One size does not always fit all.  

There's also no evidence of a link between vaccinations and autism.
Brian Wilson is not an 'activist' for claiming a link between LSD and mental health disorders.

Brian has become a non-traditional activist in raising awarenss to behavioral health disorders.  It is called The Campaign to Change Direction.  

Which makes no claim whatsoever  that LSD causes mental health problems, so calling him an 'activist' in that context is dishonest.

The Campaign to Change Direction is not directed to LSD.  A person who goes public to raise awareness to a problem is an activist. 

 There is a relationship, otherwise there would not be a fund to compensate those injured by vaccines.  There is no denial where a fund is set up to compensate injuries. 

false.

http:www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

False?  The program is administered by the Feds, through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Vaccine compensation and injury table.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf

It would not be there with perameters if there was no injury. The National Childhood Vaccine Injur Act was promulgated in 1986.  It now includes seasonal flu vaccines. 

Brian is indeed telling his reality: he experienced a few events in a certain sequence. I'm not sure that he believes that one caused the other, but the evidence is that it doesn't. No one's denying the reality of his experience; just pointing out that posters who assert that there's a causative relationship are most likely wrong. Intuition is very often wrong.

Emily - I liken Brian's "reality" if you will, to those thousands of parents whose children were poisoned by vaccines and who manifested autistic spectrum symptoms after an immunization where it was an "event." He is bucking the establishment.  It is a good thing.  

Then, go back to the doctor who utterly denies that the vaccine was responsible for causation.  Or a black box warning that was kept from a patient who experienced an adverse reaction.  I cited a 1964 study before it became somewhat vogue to use LSD to expand your mind.  These studies contradict each other with respect to causation.  

Now, Brian has the mic, and as a result of his activism, those who denied the causation may be forced to either re-study the events or retract their studies in terms of a universal applicability.  We can always find some "evidence" to support a position.  It is important to find evidence that might not agree with our position to show that there is a divergence in opinion.  One size does not always fit all.  

There's also no evidence of a link between vaccinations and autism.
Brian Wilson is not an 'activist' for claiming a link between LSD and mental health disorders.

Emily - anecdotally, there were about 10 shots in 1983.  Now there are 36-38.

http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/cc-manatory-vaccine-scheule-1983-vs.html

More classrooms were opened to address the increase in core evaluations for special education for autism related disorders contemporaneous to the increase in vaccines.  There is a relationship, otherwise there would not be a fund to compensate those injured by vaccines.  There is no denial where a fund is set up to compensate injuries.  Big pharma denies liabilty and also the influence on docs to use the vaccines that are prepared by these pharmaceuticals with little oversight and fast-tracked for FDA approval.  

That is not to say that they are not useful.  The schedule and the number of vaccines administered is made to accomodate the doctors and not the infants and children.  As many as 5 can be given at a time. With 5 vaccines given at a time, how is the offending agent isolated?  

There are also complaints from the military of injuries caused by vaccines.  The military revaccinates recruits, even if they provide proof of a full series of vaccinations.  It is not convenient for them to exclude those who bring their full vaccination records.  So they are given double everything, even with medical proof of immunity.

http://vaccine-injury.info/military-shots.cfm

Brian has become a non-traditional activist in raising awarenss to behavioral health disorders.  It is called The Campaign to Change Direction.  

Happy Weekend people!    

Brian is indeed telling his reality: he experienced a few events in a certain sequence. I'm not sure that he believes that one caused the other, but the evidence is that it doesn't. No one's denying the reality of his experience; just pointing out that posters who assert that there's a causative relationship are most likely wrong. Intuition is very often wrong.

Emily - I liken Brian's "reality" if you will, to those thousands of parents whose children were poisoned by vaccines and who manifested autistic spectrum symptoms after an immunization where it was an "event." He is bucking the establishment.  It is a good thing. 

Then, go back to the doctor who utterly denies that the vaccine was responsible for causation.  Or a black box warning that was kept from a patient who experienced an adverse reaction.  I cited a 1964 study before it became somewhat vogue to use LSD to expand your mind.  These studies contradict each other with respect to causation. 

Now, Brian has the mic, and as a result of his activism, those who denied the causation may be forced to either re-study the events or retract their studies in terms of a universal applicability.  We can always find some "evidence" to support a position.  It is important to find evidence that might not agree with our position to show that there is a divergence in opinion.  One size does not always fit all. 

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

It does not strike me in the same way. It is more of an aspirational wishful-thinking mode. 

The tense is in the present progressive /bordering on the future "I'm going to...

and you "could" does not suggest immediacy but at some future time.   Wishful thinking.   

I find it remarkable that posted scientific studies sway no one's opinion which is based on their anecdotal sample of 2-5 people.
Obviously I should stop finding that remarkable.

Emily - you definitely shouldn't find that remarkable (although I do, as well).

People prefer their own opinions over science in 101% of scientific studies (sorry, a joke, but not).

People prefer their own opinions over the truth whenever the truth makes them look like an ass. 

I don't think Brian's an ass because his opinion/reality doesn't fit a study by someone's definition of what he means or long-after-the-fact diagnosis (especially by fans). 

You know that Brian is aware of the studies that Emily linked to on this thread?

Doesn't matter to what I said.

Yes it does. The comment you were responding to was in reference to people who choose to believe anecdotal evidence over empirical evidence. No one was calling Brian an ass because as far as I know Brian has never chosen between those two options. Do you have evidence that Brian is aware of the empirical evidence that Emily has made available?

CSM - that is just confrontational.  Even if there are empirical studies (which I take with a box of Himalayan pink) - there is always margin of error and "absolutely no absolutes."  And, even with medications or vaccines (note the Vaccine Injury Acts) there are a number of adverse reactions/effects.  Maybe Brian is one of those?  Even if there are studies which indicate another result, there is always Murphy's Law.  

If Brian says it was an "event" as described in the article, and regarded as "fateful" at 25, he is looking it as a before-and-after.  

Here is an old study (1964) before Tim Leary dosed his students at Harvard which got him fired published in the American Journal of Psychiatry.  Leary also had CIA ties and dosed some seminary students.  

"It is likely that more cases of this condition will occur because of the current fad of unsupervised consumption of hallucinogenic drugs in repeated doses." (Rosenthal)

"It should be also noted that the visual system is not the only now affected by LSD as auditory, tactile and old factor hallucinations have also been reported in the acute state." (Rosenthal)

https://erowid.org/psychoactives/journals/psychoactives_journal3.shtml

And, I believe Brian. If he says the damage happened in that way, I believe him.  Who is anyone to question his account ?

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I find it remarkable that posted scientific studies sway no one's opinion which is based on their anecdotal sample of 2-5 people.
Obviously I should stop finding that remarkable.

Emily - you definitely shouldn't find that remarkable (although I do, as well).

People prefer their own opinions over science in 101% of scientific studies (sorry, a joke, but not).

People prefer their own opinions over the truth whenever the truth makes them look like an ass. 

So very, very true.

Here is the problem I have with many of these studies which tend to "substitute the judgment of another" for the patient (or affected person.)  Often, these studies are tainted by a monetary interest and are not "honest science" but "checkbook science" - and it defies the concept that all these studies are conducted in an honest manner but "subsidized" by industry for the ulterior motive of a re-branding of an old medication for a new income stream - and is called "drug repositioning."   That is only one motivation. 

Or, they are manipulated, for industry, such as big tobacco, or the insurance companies to deny coverage for workers comp. claims. There is a tendency to suppress what is contrary to an income stream.  And changing standards for research to influence an outcome.  It is becoming politicized, as well.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-7 (this is one of many - and there are many which provide the basic schemes of research that is manipulated for profit or to prospectively counteract a class action lawsuit for multiple injuries.   

Often a parent will bring a child to the doctor and won't be listened to as far as symptoms are concerned, and, yes they are doctors, but the "listening" quality is ignored.  I am listening to what Brian is saying because no one knows the "event" and the "result" better than Brian, who is pretty straightforward and candid.  He tells it like it is.     

Before I believe a study, I want to know who funded it, and whether the researchers have a nexus to a drug company or a type of reward system which causes the "variables" to be manipulated.  It is how "black box warnings" came to be on medications, and many are after-the-fact with multiple injuries reported and a rush to advance the drug to the marketplace. 

People would be hurt, and it would be discovered that the science was hurried or manipulated to arrive at a certain result.  If Brian says that his symptoms came after taking LSD, I am believing that source because it is not a second hand source, it is the primary source of information.  He describes an "event" and what followed after that event. 
 
As for me, if Brian says it was LSD that caused (or even aggravated or exacerbated a preexisting condition,) then that is a primary source and not because he is the Great Brian Wilson, but because he (was the patient) who had that experience and reported that outcome and in that sequence of cause-and-effect.   

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

Emily - if you were called a tomboy - it may have been a recogntion (even an outdated one) that you had a certain parity alongside the boys. 

Even Queen Elizabeth worked on trucks during World War II.  It was a recognition of parity.  Did that make her a tomboy or a greasemoney?  And, I'm not thinking that Brian had an evil sexualization or objectification thing going on and did not get that from that interview. 

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips, rather than Sport Illustrated or swapping Beatlles cards instead of baseball cards.  It was a compliment, I think, because even though she engages in stereotypically male activities, it probably won't last forever.  Sex stereotypes were more profound and articulated, before the 80's.  I think Title 9 was 1979.

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation. 

   

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy no matter what the age of the protagonist. Lazy Lizzy is only not creepy and stalkerly if you imagine Lizzy and the protagonist are good friends or family, which is a stretch of a read.

Emily - Boomers (and those generations earlier) would often refer to a girl who would climb a tree (generally reserved for the "boys") as "tom boys."  It has more to do with athleticism in girls and women which was not accepted as widely as today.  It was almost a term of endearment, back then, even if it is not considered in that way now.  One would overhear aunts, uncles, even grandparents lamenting that a girl would be doing what the boys were doing, and should go "put on a dress" and be a "young lady" rather than engage in what was perceived as "boys only" activities. They would have preferred that girls stayed in and played with their Barbie dolls.

It was, in my view a prefiguration, in the literary sense of girls breaking the glass ceiling in sports (and other areas)  and the basis for Title 9, in the school/academic context in the US to provide girls equal opportunity in athletics.

"Tomboys" have more to do with a breaking with sex stereotype than a "mind in the gutter" connotation.  It reminds me of Brian's "The Waltz" (also authored by Van Dyke Parks) which is also a throwback concept of "girls in their angora sweaters" - which someone from the 50's or early 60's would readily understand.  I get that younger people would find it creepy but support that Brian was coming from a very innocent place.  That is not to say that the sexual innuendo thing was not present in some of the music.  It was.  But, these two Brian songs are very innocent.  There is an interview on Youtube where Brian discusses the genesis of the song.

Too bad the boys had "to wait for the girls to grow up and put on a dress" - in the meantime, they could enjoy the company of young ladies who had manifest a level of athleticism, which was less accepted as an acceptable concept for girls.  

Girls were breaking athletic stereotypical barriers, climbing trees and playing baseball.  

I'm still a bit confused; were the Boston Pops at the Tanglewood show? The setlist.fm entry says so, and the similar setlist suggests it. But the review above of the Tanglewood show doesn't mention the presence of an orchestra, which would be a pretty significant omission for a show review.

The Boston Pops was not at Tanglewood, just the two Symphony Hall shows Fri and Sat.

Hopefully once they get back on the road at the end of the month, the setlist will get back to around 40 songs or so. It's a bit of a bummer to see a non-orchestra, non-festival show with no opening act only go to 34 songs as apparently was the case at Tanglewood.

Yeah, what's up with that? 

For whatever reason, Setlist FM does say that Tanglewood was an orchestra show, but many that was just a careless typo. 

The setlist.fm website allows one to copy and paste entire setlists, which is indeed often convenient when the setlist doesn't change much from show to show. There seems to be one or two people in particular on that site that feel the need to jump on and be the first person to update setlists, and it's no coincidence that they seem to be the one(s) who occasionally don't pay close enough attention to whatever they're copying and pasting to account for the changes between shows. This is especially true for little addendums and notations like the mention of a Brian show featuring an orchestra.

Hey Jude - they "copy and paste" alright, make a minor modification, such as a cover song artist name substitution, and then attribute it to themselves.   

I think Brian, originally, was the sanest in the crazy world revolving around him. That takes a big toll on anybody, particularly when you are also the main money provider.

And, I would agree.  Brian misses nothing on stage, looks pretty aware of everything that is going on, notices audience members, will send a smile their way, or the OK sign, but, even if there was some underlying issue, Brian treats the LSD as an "event" in the same way being in a car accident is...an event" - marked in time, that Brian tells us, that had a profound and lasting/permanent effect.  

Brian would know best as one knows one's own self.  Substances, whether prescribed or not, can have no effect or a lasting effect.  Brian asserts that it was lasting and not in a good way.  

Probably referencing Carl's back problems. He tried to lift and move a heavy television set and wound up in traction.

I would not be surprised if Carl's back problems were either partly, or perhaps even entirely psychosomatic in origin, due to stress and emotions. Not to downplay actual physical injury which of course is possible... but I speak personally as someone who overcame some debilitating pain by learning about psychosomatic pain (specifically, Dr. John Sarno's book "The Mindbody Prescription"), as well as a coworker with years of debilitating back pain who also largely cured herself via reading this same book, after I lent her my copy. Sounds crazy, and I would not have believed it had I not experienced it myself...but it's true.

Don't mean for this to sound like an infomercial, just sharing my story, and how my experiences have led me to often gravitate toward thinking that many others who have physical pain (in particular, back pain) can be a result of, or at the very least, significantly exacerbated by, emotional issues. Even if Carl had doctors diagnose him with some sort of back injury, such a diagnosis can still be incorrect, with the psychosomatic origin being the real, underlying cause.

Goodness knows Carl had a lot of emotional turmoil in his life regarding his family, way more than anyone should endure.

CD - I'm not a doc.  What I do know about back pain, is that it can be structural (genetic) or caused by an "incident" such as moving a TV, or even some kind of growth, which struck a nerve (pun intended) as I did a similar dumb thing and my range of motion was affected for years, and swimming helped me to regain most of it. 

And, often when docs can't identify the cause or source of the pain, it goes to the psychosomatic pile. Having watched big brother Brian's shuffling and assisted gait, suggests to me, that there is a structural relationship that both brothers dealt with.  Some kind of commonality. Carl's predisposition was likely exacerbated by moving that heavy TV. 

Stress does not help and can tighten up the muscles in an already bad back, but when docs can't see it on an x-ray, and a lot of this was before the really sophisticated scans were developed, I'm thinking the brothers shared probably something else in common besides great hair and voices.   

This is why I find it very interesting to explore the dynamics of the band in 73-75, when Jack left and there was a great deal more "bottom line" pressure coming into play. It seems that Carl found himself stymied by this development and was unable to find a path through a maze of competing interests. Carl always seems to have needed a writing partner and Jack's departure may have contributed to his inability to pump new songs of his own into what suddenly seemed to be a songwriting vacuum. (Please note that I herewith acknowledge the knee-jerk dissent about Jack's character and talent that is likely to enter these pages below in a reply from filledeplage.)

When Endless Summer hit in '74, there were several available responses to it that could have at least given the band options for creating a contemporary identity that could stand alongside the pre-Pet Sounds material. WB did make a (pretty feeble) attempt to cash in on the buzz from ES when they rereleased "Sail On Sailor" in '75, but it's rare to have lightning strike twice--what was needed, and what the band failed to supply to WB at the time, was fresh material. That didn't happen, and '75 brought more oldies-based success and a sudden crisis point in Brian's condition, which resulted in "the intervention known as Landy I" and pushed the band into the "Brian Is Back" scenario, effectively kicking the 67-73 material to the curb. Dennis' response was to get his solo LP together; Carl's was to have a series of personal setbacks--marriage, health, drugs--that bottomed out for him in the late 70s, from which he battled back with new writing partners and, a bit later, his go at a solo career.

DM - I think that the other two Wilsons had untapped talent and Jack did not confer talent upon them.  I think that Jack's contribution is less than the Wilson influence on him (Jack) - maybe that is poorly expressed but my take is that Jack got more from them than the other way around.  And it is a function of that 6-7 year window when the Boys had to re-invent themselves and perhaps that, is what Jack was helpful with.  

It is hard to explain that post-Vietnam era of levity, with former teens were coming of adult age and responsibility. The Beach Boys fit in better with their "down time" with the resurgence of the interest in the earlier music and the tremendous sales of Endless Summer.  How else can that dynamic going to #1 in the USA and Canada, be explained away?  Jack was "over."  (Notwithstanding his continuous tendency to be disingenuous.) I would argue that it is not knee-jerk.  A person's credentials should reflect who they are "at that moment" and not whom they wish they were.

How can the dynamic of the emergence of disco be explained?  It is not that Carl (or Dennis) would abandon solo work (as evidenced by their solo albums) but that the times had changed again in that seven year window.  It went from 1965-66 to a serious wartime climate, to 1973-4 to a peacetime climate and they had been very successful in the commercial context, during peacetime.    

Would you mind answering my question above?
What makes it highly likely that it came from Melinda Ledbetter?

1. I don't know the answer to (or care about) the irrelevant question you posed. Anyone who is interested in the relationship between LSD and latent psychosis can look it up for themselves. Anyone who is super interested in the specifics of Brian Wilson's mental health -- be it whether he is genetically predisposed to mental illness, how far you can trace it in his family tree, or if he's really schizoaffective like his doctors say he is -- should be more concerned with their own mental well-being.

2. Until September 2014, it was never claimed by anyone on record that Wilson experienced auditory hallucinations before taking LSD. Obviously someone close to Wilson knows something the public doesn't. Everything in the L&M film was 'fact checked' by the family, with Ledbetter as primary consultant. It's not 100% that the detail came from *her* specifically, but if she thought the '1963' date was inaccurate, it almost certainly would not have made it into the film.

Oren Moverman was very much interested in 'setting the record straight' based on what Ledbetter (or other people) had to say.

• Moverman: "One of my favorite corrections in the Brian mythology is when he’s sitting with Melinda and he’s at the piano and he’s like, “I don’t know, it just comes out,” and she says, “I have to ask you, did you really spend two years in bed?” And he says, “It was actually three years,” and then we added that line, “At least that’s what I tell people.” And there were sort of like these little things were there was sort of like a whole mythology about who Brian Wilson is and what his life is, but some of it is real, some of it is based on reality, and some of it is kind of an exaggeration or manipulation of facts or lore that just sort of happened through the years. So we were playing also with the idea that some of it may not be true. ... I think everything in the movie is based on fact, everything is based on research, but there were definitely shortcuts that we had to take and different things that we hand to twist around.  The Brian/Melinda story, every single scene in that part of the movie happened, because I talked to Melinda and she told me all these stories and I just transformed them into scenes ... all those things really happened at least in the way she told them. So that was sort of the official story."

So if she (or somebody else) knows better, why does Wilson always say that the hallucinations started after the LSD? Who knows. Go ask him. Or her. Or continue pointlessly discussing this inconclusive subject for a further 50 pages, as these threads tend to go.

Here is a link to a Brian interview.  Straight from the master.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/brian-wilson-hallucinations_n_7520014.hml

Hope it copies! 

fdp, how do you feel about the fact that Mr. Drumpf is now saying that there is "something going on" with President Obama and that maybe he's in cahoots with ISIS?

I find it disgusting.

sdj - I am not privy to whatever is going on there and am not responsible for his commentary.

Well do you think what he's saying about President Obama is accurate? Do you think our duly elected President is indeed in cahoots with ISIS? How about his birthplace? Do you agree with your candidate of choice that President Barack Hussein Obama is actually not American born but instead a Kenyan? How about his religion? Do you believe he is a Christian?

I'd love to hear your answers.

Well, sdj - I have no answers but it was an issue for Hillary in 2008.  You could start there and let us know what you find.  

No fdp, you don't get it. I don't care about Hillary in 2008 (though in fact she never said he wasn't Am
I care about your opinion. I think it would be informative to the board if you answered these following questions:

• Do you think our duly elected President is indeed in cahoots with ISIS?
• Where do you think President Barack Obama was born?
• Do you agree with Donald Trump that President Barack Hussein Obama is actually not American born but instead a Kenyan?
• Do you believe President Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian?

sdj - it is no consequence if you think that I "get it" or not.  The law is the law with regard the criteria of being born in the US or some carve-out, specifically to be President.  Someone earlier said that it came from Obama himself where he was born.  But one can be a Senator or Representative and one needs to be a citizen of the US.  But the requirement is more stringent to be President and be "natural-born" and defined in the 14th Amendment.  There is a lot of detailed info on usconstittution.net which can answer most of these criteria.

"There is an exception in the law - the person must be 'subject to the jurisdiction's the United States.  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example from the provision." Diplomats maintain allegiance to their home country." From usconstitution.net  

The questions are moot because he has been in office for nearly eight years.  That is all after the fact. We are going forward.  

Do you think Donald Trump is a Christian?

sdj - Do you think he is a Christian?  What I think is of no consequence.

Thanks Mr. Desper...your posts are always a pleasure to read.   

fdp, how do you feel about the fact that Mr. Drumpf is now saying that there is "something going on" with President Obama and that maybe he's in cahoots with ISIS?

I find it disgusting.

sdj - I am not privy to whatever is going on there and am not responsible for his commentary.

Well do you think what he's saying about President Obama is accurate? Do you think our duly elected President is indeed in cahoots with ISIS? How about his birthplace? Do you agree with your candidate of choice that President Barack Hussein Obama is actually not American born but instead a Kenyan? How about his religion? Do you believe he is a Christian?

I'd love to hear your answers.

Well, sdj - I have no answers but it was an issue for Hillary in 2008.  You could start there and let us know what you find.  

No fdp, you don't get it. I don't care about Hillary in 2008 (though in fact she never said he wasn't Am
I care about your opinion. I think it would be informative to the board if you answered these following questions:

• Do you think our duly elected President is indeed in cahoots with ISIS?
• Where do you think President Barack Obama was born?
• Do you agree with Donald Trump that President Barack Hussein Obama is actually not American born but instead a Kenyan?
• Do you believe President Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian?

sdj - it is no consequence if you think that I "get it" or not.  The law is the law with regard the criteria of being born in the US or some carve-out, specifically to be President.  Someone earlier said that it came from Obama himself where he was born.  But one can be a Senator or Representative and one needs to be a citizen of the US.  But the requirement is more stringent to be President and be "natural-born" and defined in the 14th Amendment.  There is a lot of detailed info on usconstittution.net which can answer most of these criteria.

"There is an exception in the law - the person must be 'subject to the jurisdiction's the United States.  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example from the provision." Diplomats maintain allegiance to their home country." From usconstitution.net  

The questions are moot because he has been in office for nearly eight years.  That is all after the fact. We are going forward.