Let's not blame individual people for not being Brian Wilson;

Who is doing that?

Saying Mike and Terry Melcher put out a sub-par album is a criticism of *them*, not a criticism of who they're not.

Saying someone "isn't Brian Wilson", especially members of the BBs, does a disservice to them. There was enough non-Brian material in the BRI vaults in 1992 that they could have just pulled 10 or 12 outtakes with no Brian input from the 80s and put together a better album than SIP.

SIP was a ill-conceived choice when there were other options at their disposal. The same thing happened with "Stars and Stripes" versus working on the Andy Paley material.

Whether it was ill-conceived or not, it was an attempt to stay in the market.  They could not work with Brian because he was controlled by Landy.  Don't contort what I said.  Melcher did great work but was not Brian.  No it does not do a disservice.  It is like saying someone who is writing for The Beatles is not Lennon or McCartney. It is ridiculous.

I guess I'll bite and point out that you're contorting what I said, not the other way around.

Melcher may have done great work on other projects; SIP is not one of his shining moments. That has nothing to do with him "not being Brian" anymore than it does with him "not being Mozart."

Your Beatles comparison doesn't apply to anything I said, and doesn't make any sense to me regardless. If Ringo wrote some sucky songs, as he himself admits he did (his oft-cited story of re-writing Jerry Lee Lewis songs and everybody cracking up), they would suck because they suck, not because he's not Lennon or McCartney.

Back to the Landy point, Brian's non-appearance on SIP was caused by MORE than just the Landy factor, as I outlined in detail in a previous post. The timelines don't match up. The lingering effects of Landy were certainly a factor, but there were others.

We can agree to disagree.  It was my perception of the era, having lived through it.  I saw Brian for the first time in 1987, with Landy in the wings so I am in tune with that era.

There is likely overlap with this era as to actual dates.  But, I think it is a valid analogy.  Melcher (however close to the band he was and gifted he was) was not a BB.  He was not Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson makes BB albums.  Brian looks through a different lens that is unique to that band.  Unique is unique.  And not unlike the Beatles who have a unique sound, themselves. The 30th album.  The first 29 had Brian.  Just sayin'.   

Again, we can agree to disagree.

Let's not blame individual people for not being Brian Wilson;

Who is doing that?

Saying Mike and Terry Melcher put out a sub-par album is a criticism of *them*, not a criticism of who they're not.

Saying someone "isn't Brian Wilson", especially members of the BBs, does a disservice to them. There was enough non-Brian material in the BRI vaults in 1992 that they could have just pulled 10 or 12 outtakes with no Brian input from the 80s and put together a better album than SIP.

SIP was a ill-conceived choice when there were other options at their disposal. The same thing happened with "Stars and Stripes" versus working on the Andy Paley material.

Whether it was ill-conceived or not, it was an attempt to stay in the market.  They could not work with Brian because he was controlled by Landy.  Don't contort what I said.  Melcher did great work but was not Brian.  No it does not do a disservice.  It is like saying someone who is writing for The Beatles is not Lennon or McCartney. It is ridiculous.

[Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.]

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

The comments in bold are a complete load of crap, and I'd usually not use that kind of direct language unless comments were aimed at me, but in this case...those comments are absurd.

When you find out why that board was formed, and when you know the truth as to why and how it was formed, then perhaps make those statements as fact. Until then, how about dialing back on the rhetoric and not trying to paint a scenario that isn't accurate?

The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "other forum" BS. The exact scenario you pegged to this board's "problems" have been going on for quite some time, and based on lies and distortions used to attack other people and silence them, if not drive them away entirely.

Now suddenly it's an issue that is driving people away from here after many of the most vocal critics of this board did the exact same behavior, and you were OK with it when it was applied in another direction?

Hey Jude - others are looking at what has transpired here and have opined elsewhere.  Some who don't even post. The web is pretty much an open book.  Look at those who left recently voluntarily. 

Don't put other's stuff on me. 

Hypocrisy is a a value judgment. 

Most come here to discuss BB music and discover quickly that they need to pick a "team" and it was never that way.  There was more tolerance.  I think the conversation needs to happen.  JMHO. 

The comments were mine, not HeyJude. And the statement or opinion that "it was never that way" isn't true, as any search of the archives especially since Fall 2012 will prove - not to mention the blowups that used to happen on any number of BB boards that have since imploded or stalled entirely.

It's a case of being silent or complacent when the shoe is on the other foot. There are examples too numerous to list, but this whole notion of camps and the like ganging up on people and trying to shut them down played out long before Lee Dempsey decided to bail out here after Andrew Doe was banned. And it was the exact same scenario only applied to the other "camp", which I guess must have been OK judging by the complacency and lack of concern as people here were getting attacked and driven off the board based on their opinions and expressing it, not their behavior.

The facts are there in the archives, maybe a revisit would be in order before pointing fingers at the reasons why this board went to sh*t which have little or no relationship to what had actually been happening.

GF - there are a multitude of reasons.  Some were banned and others were bullied or watched bullying and got fed up as it took the joy out of discussing this music that is joyful.

It is the elephant in the room.  Yes, since C50's end there has been a problem.  Some could not get beyond that event and polarization happened since that time.  

If I could count on nothing else in my life, it is that people who liked and gravitated toward this music were reallly nice people. (who had great taste in music.)

And I get that some crossed-the-line...

But others who just tried to give all band members the benefit-of-the-doubt get insulted, shut down and silenced. I happen to think that everyone makes mistakes, but that everyone deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.  I am not blaming mods who donate their time and expertise (but more those who "think" they are mods and chill any opinions that they don't hold.) And who gang-up in unison like a high school clique.  

And that is my opinion.  

You're telling me of all people about getting bullied and having the joy taken out of the music, as you've watched those with grudges try to have me removed as a mod on multiple forums and platforms? Then when that failed in light of the truth coming out, they then tried to insult me personally, name-calling, a "campaign" involving several now-banned members, up to and including dragging other moderators into the muck by insulting them too as recent as last week after the attempts to bullshit the facts failed again...and add in all the fake accounts, all the lies, all the personal insults, and it's still continuing?

I'll discuss the facts but don't try to sell me snake oil.

And if you want to mention bullying and chasing people off, consider what happened to Peter Hollens.

Whose "side" did that, FDP?

GF - yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That, some, who are just plain old fans who signed up for discussion because they love the Beach Boys got more than they bargained for.  And, yes, from where I sit, that is what I see, now, after around 10 years or so here, including lurking before I signed up.

And, I am not defending someone else's bad actions or bad behavior but position-based issues where the poster is lambasted needlessly.  Those opinions that are not endorsed by some here.  That is not tolerance.  Not everyone is going to agree on everything. That is life.

Yes, I feel that some left because they observed exactly this treatment. I am giving my observation.  I am not selling snake oil. I have no fake account so please don't lump me into that group.  Those who do that, own it. 

And, I am unfamiliar with the Hollens situation, so I cannot comment. 

Hey Jude - Melcher (talented as he was) - was not a BB.  Even if he was around during Pet Sounds.  There was no substitute for Brian and his regret was clear on the Endless Harmony DVD.  

Terry Melcher had a bigger hand in SIP than any individual other than Mike. Doesn't matter whether he was an actual BB or not. I would never argue, for instance, that Joe Thomas wasn't a prominent player in TWGMTR. Much like Melcher, he co-wrote most of the tracks and was involved in the production side of things as well.

I also think you're overstating Brian's "regret" on the EH DVD. His comments were specifically about "Kokomo"; SIP isn't even mentioned in the documentary and the circumstances regarding his non-appearance on SIP are *not* necessarily the same as those for "Kokomo." Also, my own personal interpretation of his very brief comment on that one was that he was bummed, and that's about it. I don't think he loses sleep over it.

Kokomo was the biggest seller since GV.  That was the "era" of Kokomo.  SIP was important enough as a song performed live to be included in MIC.  I think that speaks for itself.

I don't believe conflating "Kokomo" and SIP is appropriate when referencing Brian's statement in EH (made *specifically* about "Kokomo" only) or Brian's reasons for non-participation.

As far as track selection on MIC, a lot of different factors go into that. I wouldn't pretend to assume the precise reason for inclusion, or whether compilers thought it was an "important" song. I don't like to make those assumptions, because it then tends to imply they find other songs left off as less important. I don't think, for instance, that "SIP" needed to be on the set any more than "Still Cruisin'" as a random example.

Hey Jude - Kokomo and SIP are from the same era or body of work from late 80's early 90's. Conflating?  SIP is kick-ass live, as are Carl's vocals.  (My opinion.)

Still Cruisin' still had foisted on them, with Landy's forcefullness, "In My Car" (wife from Baywatch) or Make it Big from Troop Beverly Hills.  Same basic era.  

Found a quote on wiki..."Mike Love said, 'The theme of that album was to have been songs that have been in movies.  It was basically a repackage. But then it got watered down with politics, meaning Brian's Dr. Landy forcing a song called "In My Car,"  whch was never in a movie..."  

Did not know that Still Cruisin'  went gold in the US (and Austria) and gave them the best showing since 1976."  From Album Sales Records. (I am not familiar with this source.)  

Let's set the record straight on that, and yes I have looked at that era extensively and posted here about it.

The album that became Still Cruisin' was supposed to have been a new Beach Boys album to capitalize on the success and renewed exposure from Kokomo and Cocktail. There are quotes from Capitol execs who were banking on the talent in the band to come up with strong original material to fill an album, and gave them a record deal for new singles that had conditions based on the success of what they hoped would be follow ups to Kokomo.

Despite having a Grammy award winning songwriter in Bruce, and Mike, Carl, and Al as songwriters within the group, the band could not come up with a solid album of new material. Capitol still needed something to put Kokomo on under their own label to drive sales and make bank, as Kokomo came out on a soundtrack and under a one-off release under another label when the band literally did not have a label deal.

Despite articles and reports that had the band saying they wanted to make new music, they wanted to get on the charts, they didn't want to be a traveling oldies revue but instead focus on cutting new records...they simply did not or could not deliver.

Thus, Still Cruisin became more of a catch-all compilation rather than a solid album of new Beach Boys music, yet it sold exactly as Capitol probably wanted because fans could buy a "Beach Boys" album to get the song Kokomo, rather than having to buy the Cocktail soundtrack to have the song.

And since there was no follow-up of strong or successful original material as Capitol had put in their deal to the BB's, the label passed on releasing what did become their next album, SIP, and that had to be shopped to a lesser label because Capitol passed on the deal.

That's the brass tacks of the Still Cruisin album being a comp rather than a new album. For more info, search my posts in the archives here for even more detail. The band did not deliver when the market was hot for them to release a follow-up to a #1 single despite having four songwriters in the group and access to the same team that produced Kokomo.

And, yet, it is always noted that it (SIP) not Still Cruisin' was a Brian-less album while he was in the vise-grip of Landy.  I don't want to mix the two up.

Still Cruisin with sales did well with sales and got a lot of airplay on the radio alongside the ones used in the movies.

As for Still Cruisin'  - I do look at it as a semi-compilation with the oldies - still used in films as many still are.  Yes, Kokomo was on it and was a huge hit.  And saved people from buying that sound track as well as Troop Beverly Hills which was also huge with Make it Big. Or I Get Around from Robin Williams' Good Morning Vietnam.

Let's not blame individual people for not being Brian Wilson; no matter how talented they are in their own right.  They are not Brian.  They likely could never look at a song in the same way.  

[Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.]

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

The comments in bold are a complete load of crap, and I'd usually not use that kind of direct language unless comments were aimed at me, but in this case...those comments are absurd.

When you find out why that board was formed, and when you know the truth as to why and how it was formed, then perhaps make those statements as fact. Until then, how about dialing back on the rhetoric and not trying to paint a scenario that isn't accurate?

The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "other forum" BS. The exact scenario you pegged to this board's "problems" have been going on for quite some time, and based on lies and distortions used to attack other people and silence them, if not drive them away entirely.

Now suddenly it's an issue that is driving people away from here after many of the most vocal critics of this board did the exact same behavior, and you were OK with it when it was applied in another direction?

Hey Jude - others are looking at what has transpired here and have opined elsewhere.  Some who don't even post. The web is pretty much an open book.  Look at those who left recently voluntarily. 

Don't put other's stuff on me. 

Hypocrisy is a a value judgment. 

Most come here to discuss BB music and discover quickly that they need to pick a "team" and it was never that way.  There was more tolerance.  I think the conversation needs to happen.  JMHO. 

The comments were mine, not HeyJude. And the statement or opinion that "it was never that way" isn't true, as any search of the archives especially since Fall 2012 will prove - not to mention the blowups that used to happen on any number of BB boards that have since imploded or stalled entirely.

It's a case of being silent or complacent when the shoe is on the other foot. There are examples too numerous to list, but this whole notion of camps and the like ganging up on people and trying to shut them down played out long before Lee Dempsey decided to bail out here after Andrew Doe was banned. And it was the exact same scenario only applied to the other "camp", which I guess must have been OK judging by the complacency and lack of concern as people here were getting attacked and driven off the board based on their opinions and expressing it, not their behavior.

The facts are there in the archives, maybe a revisit would be in order before pointing fingers at the reasons why this board went to sh*t which have little or no relationship to what had actually been happening.

GF - there are a multitude of reasons.  Some were banned and others were bullied or watched bullying and got fed up as it took the joy out of discussing this music that is joyful.

It is the elephant in the room.  Yes, since C50's end there has been a problem.  Some could not get beyond that event and polarization happened since that time.  

If I could count on nothing else in my life, it is that people who liked and gravitated toward this music were reallly nice people. (who had great taste in music.)

And I get that some crossed-the-line...

But others who just tried to give all band members the benefit-of-the-doubt get insulted, shut down and silenced. I happen to think that everyone makes mistakes, but that everyone deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.  I am not blaming mods who donate their time and expertise (but more those who "think" they are mods and chill any opinions that they don't hold.) And who gang-up in unison like a high school clique.  

And that is my opinion.  

Hey Jude - Melcher (talented as he was) - was not a BB.  Even if he was around during Pet Sounds.  There was no substitute for Brian and his regret was clear on the Endless Harmony DVD.  

Terry Melcher had a bigger hand in SIP than any individual other than Mike. Doesn't matter whether he was an actual BB or not. I would never argue, for instance, that Joe Thomas wasn't a prominent player in TWGMTR. Much like Melcher, he co-wrote most of the tracks and was involved in the production side of things as well.

I also think you're overstating Brian's "regret" on the EH DVD. His comments were specifically about "Kokomo"; SIP isn't even mentioned in the documentary and the circumstances regarding his non-appearance on SIP are *not* necessarily the same as those for "Kokomo." Also, my own personal interpretation of his very brief comment on that one was that he was bummed, and that's about it. I don't think he loses sleep over it.

Kokomo was the biggest seller since GV.  That was the "era" of Kokomo.  SIP was important enough as a song performed live to be included in MIC.  I think that speaks for itself.

I don't believe conflating "Kokomo" and SIP is appropriate when referencing Brian's statement in EH (made *specifically* about "Kokomo" only) or Brian's reasons for non-participation.

As far as track selection on MIC, a lot of different factors go into that. I wouldn't pretend to assume the precise reason for inclusion, or whether compilers thought it was an "important" song. I don't like to make those assumptions, because it then tends to imply they find other songs left off as less important. I don't think, for instance, that "SIP" needed to be on the set any more than "Still Cruisin'" as a random example.

Hey Jude - Kokomo and SIP are from the same era or body of work from late 80's early 90's. Conflating?  SIP is kick-ass live, as are Carl's vocals.  (My opinion.)

Still Cruisin' still had foisted on them, with Landy's forcefullness, "In My Car" (wife from Baywatch) or Make it Big from Troop Beverly Hills.  Same basic era.  

Found a quote on wiki..."Mike Love said, 'The theme of that album was to have been songs that have been in movies.  It was basically a repackage. But then it got watered down with politics, meaning Brian's Dr. Landy forcing a song called "In My Car,"  whch was never in a movie..."  

Did not know that Still Cruisin'  went gold in the US (and Austria) and gave them the best showing since 1976."  From Album Sales Records. (I am not familiar with this source.)  

[Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.]

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

The comments in bold are a complete load of crap, and I'd usually not use that kind of direct language unless comments were aimed at me, but in this case...those comments are absurd.

When you find out why that board was formed, and when you know the truth as to why and how it was formed, then perhaps make those statements as fact. Until then, how about dialing back on the rhetoric and not trying to paint a scenario that isn't accurate?

The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "other forum" BS. The exact scenario you pegged to this board's "problems" have been going on for quite some time, and based on lies and distortions used to attack other people and silence them, if not drive them away entirely.

Now suddenly it's an issue that is driving people away from here after many of the most vocal critics of this board did the exact same behavior, and you were OK with it when it was applied in another direction?

Hey Jude - others are looking at what has transpired here and have opined elsewhere.  Some who don't even post. The web is pretty much an open book.  Look at those who left recently voluntarily. 

Don't put other's stuff on me. 

Hypocrisy is a a value judgment. 

Most come here to discuss BB music and discover quickly that they need to pick a "team" and it was never that way.  There was more tolerance.  I think the conversation needs to happen.  JMHO. 

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  I think (an observation) is that Lahaina Aloha was the strongest song with Carl's extraordinary yearning vocals and should have been the single released.  I do think that taken-as-a-whole, that SIP shows that they all needed each other.  I think they need Brian's production skills alongside their vocals.  

From the Endless Harmony DVD, it appears that really Brian really regretted (because he was locked away by Landy) that he was not involved with that era of work because he was forcibly separated from his bandmates.  

The music is not bad; it is the presentation that didn't work well. At the time, it didn't seem that bad but now sounds a little dated.  But, I still actually like that album just because it was something new and demonstrates that they were still trying to stay-in-the-game.

Guess I look at it differently.  

You think Summer of Love, with its "doing it with you would be so very cool" barf-tastic lyrics is a good song, and that it's just production that is its problem?

Still waiting for FDP to respond to my question...

CD - I guess I have a problem with someone asking a question in a confrontational manner.   

The lyrics?  I did not write them.  You think they are barf-worthy?  That is your taste.  So what  - you don't like them.  That is your choice.  You you trying to censor Mike or whomever penned them?  Seriously.

I'm asking you if you actually like the song (production values aside), and think there's some gem of a song lurking underneath the early '90s production, as you insinuate is the case with the album as a whole. I'm curious to know if you think that's true with regards to the song Summer of Love. That is all.

CD - as a song, I think it is mezza-mezza.  How many songs that look so-so, end up as big hits because of the vocals or the arrangment?  

eg.  Help Me, Ronda on Today v. Help Me Rhonda on Summer Days.  I

And, I do think it depends on the vocals and arrangment. But also, that if Brian was a "free man" during that "era" because that TV time-span (Baywatch, Full House, You again) or (Cocktail) for Kokomo was an "era" for them and Brian's participation would likely have made a difference.  

We now know Brian was not "free" to work except for that poor-excuse-for-a-medical provider.  Brian's talents were being exploited elsewhere outside of his own corporation. BRI.  

Hey Jude - Melcher (talented as he was) - was not a BB.  Even if he was around during Pet Sounds.  There was no substitute for Brian and his regret was clear on the Endless Harmony DVD.  

Terry Melcher had a bigger hand in SIP than any individual other than Mike. Doesn't matter whether he was an actual BB or not. I would never argue, for instance, that Joe Thomas wasn't a prominent player in TWGMTR. Much like Melcher, he co-wrote most of the tracks and was involved in the production side of things as well.

I also think you're overstating Brian's "regret" on the EH DVD. His comments were specifically about "Kokomo"; SIP isn't even mentioned in the documentary and the circumstances regarding his non-appearance on SIP are *not* necessarily the same as those for "Kokomo." Also, my own personal interpretation of his very brief comment on that one was that he was bummed, and that's about it. I don't think he loses sleep over it.

Kokomo was the biggest seller since GV.  That was the "era" of Kokomo.  SIP was important enough as a song performed live to be included in MIC.  I think that speaks for itself.

Why is what everybody else is doing "attacking" and "bullying" and "stalking", but your posts aren't?

No, I don't agree with some things and will state why and how when applicable.

You also have, at numerous junctures, either ignored or mischaracterized things I (and others) have posted here. You sometimes mischaracterize it even when you can scroll up a few posts to verify what was actually said.

I admit that asking someone "have you even read the other posts in this thread?" is a somewhat pointed question (though it's not attacking or bullying or stalking), but when you continually ignore what everybody else is posting and offer non-sequitur responses over and over and over, I strongly sense the other posts *aren't* being read.
 
I'm not a Mod, never claimed to be and don't post anything that indicates I am. What I do take issue with is your accusations of "stalking" and "attacking" and "bullying", I take those accusations (whether against me or others on this board) very seriously, and I would humbly suggest that YOUR accusations tread far closer to breaking the rules of this board.

I also suggest this whole thing be dropped and we get back on topic. I again have to opine that I worry that there are people who *want* threads that include comments critical of Mike to be derailed and sidetracked and to descend into chaos.

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start. 

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

 
 

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  I think (an observation) is that Lahaina Aloha was the strongest song with Carl's extraordinary yearning vocals and should have been the single released.  I do think that taken-as-a-whole, that SIP shows that they all needed each other.  I think they need Brian's production skills alongside their vocals.  

From the Endless Harmony DVD, it appears that really Brian really regretted (because he was locked away by Landy) that he was not involved with that era of work because he was forcibly separated from his bandmates.  

The music is not bad; it is the presentation that didn't work well. At the time, it didn't seem that bad but now sounds a little dated.  But, I still actually like that album just because it was something new and demonstrates that they were still trying to stay-in-the-game.

Guess I look at it differently.  

You think Summer of Love, with its "doing it with you would be so very cool" barf-tastic lyrics is a good song, and that it's just production that is its problem?

Still waiting for FDP to respond to my question...

CD - I guess I have a problem with someone asking a question in a confrontational manner.   

The lyrics?  I did not write them.  You think they are barf-worthy?  That is your taste.  So what  - you don't like them.  That is your choice.  You you trying to censor Mike or whomever penned them?  Seriously.

OSD - are you saying that Brian's guidance would not have made a difference? Brian appeared to regret not being on Kokomo and Landy made sure he was on the Spanish version. 

SIP was a Melcher/Love helmed project from the outset.

Brian adding some vocals (as he did on the Spanish version of "Kokomo") wouldn't have been anything approaching "guidance."

If they had junked the album and started over from scratch, things could have been different. But just adding Brian to SIP the way Carl and Al were added wouldn't have made a huge difference. It would have helped marketing as far as precluding critics from pointing out Brian's total absence. Maybe Brian would have come up with some cool vocal arrangements or something. But it wouldn't have made "Summer of Love" suck any less, or make "Island Fever" any less cheesy, etc.

Hey Jude - Melcher (talented as he was) - was not a BB.  Even if he was around during Pet Sounds.  There was no substitute for Brian and his regret was clear on the Endless Harmony DVD.   

Hey Jude - we are not talking about Parks. This is just band members.  And yes, Capitol was an enemy and it seems that Murry played ball with them (certainly with the SOT sale.)  So, these "kids" were screwed.  I consider those in their 20's "kids" for purposes of dealing with the sharks they dealt with.

You have another position about the time-line.  I subscribe to the Gaumont Palace interview.  I find that they were swimming upstream and struggling to stay afloat. 

I'm not sure what else to add.  You've created your own topic, debate, and conclusion.

To answer responses to your off-topic, non-sequitur posts, responses that despite their better judgment still *try* to speak to whatever it is you're talking about, with "we're not talking about Parks" is insulting, to be honest.

It's unfair to sidetrack a thread with nothing *but* things we're "not talking about", but then when someone tries to decipher what you're talking about by bringing other points and examples in, then claim that it's "not what we're talking about."

Nobody was talking about the Gaumont either, or Capitol Records. Wtf?

Hey Jude - you don't agree.  You don't need to attack the content of what I wrote but somehow feel entitled to "stalk" what I post.   

It is my opinion based on 50+ years as a BB fan, seeing the ups and downs for myself, not reading it in some book in a music course.  It is not for you do decide what added info is "sidetracking." That is censorship. 

This board has lost some very valuable posters due to the bullying of long-time posters who choose not to disparage individual band members or their opinions.   I am sorry to see them leave, because I have appreciated their input.  If this board is to survive it needs to become more tolerant of all opinions. 

You are not a mod. If you can't understand Gaumont Palace, and the intent of the speakers, at the time it was recorded, and their very clear feelings against Capitol, you might not be looking at the bona fide positions clearly. 

http://youtu.be/uehyh57k2_E   part 1

http://youtu.be/so7lsV6i4V4   part 2

Hope they copy.

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  I think (an observation) is that Lahaina Aloha was the strongest song with Carl's extraordinary yearning vocals and should have been the single released.  I do think that taken-as-a-whole, that SIP shows that they all needed each other.  I think they need Brian's production skills alongside their vocals.  

From the Endless Harmony DVD, it appears that really Brian really regretted (because he was locked away by Landy) that he was not involved with that era of work because he was forcibly separated from his bandmates.  

The music is not bad; it is the presentation that didn't work well. At the time, it didn't seem that bad but now sounds a little dated.  But, I still actually like that album just because it was something new and demonstrates that they were still trying to stay-in-the-game.

Guess I look at it differently.  

At the time it didn't sound bad Yes, of course, just release any old slop they can come up with, slap the BB name to it all the while helping to annihilate  the legacy.  

OSD - are you saying that Brian's guidance would not have made a difference? Brian appeared to regret not being on Kokomo and Landy made sure he was on the Spanish version. 

Hey Jude -  please stick to the point. 

First of all, I *DIRECTLY* addressed your point (by disagreeing with it), even though your point had nothing to do with the issues raised in previous posts.

If anything, you've helped to prove the point I was making that Mike defends himself by deflecting from the issue of what he admittedly *didn't* like about what Brian was writing at that time and instead attacking the literal factual veracity of whether he specifically can be proved to have uttered the specific phrase "don't f**k with the formula."

I suggest reading the posts in the thread will help you stick to the point.

Your suggestion that the band was always a 100% united artistic front is laughable; and is proved wrong by statements from the band member themselves, including Mike Love. They formed a company; they were arguably a united business front (though plenty of stories about how their business operation was run would suggest they weren't really even a united there either).

Hey Jude - Gaumont Palace is the official credible statement as far as I am concerned.  It is straight out of their mouths and full of frustration at the record company.  Laughable?  Each one weighed in.  And it was concerning more artistic and creative control.  Are you saying that they were lying? All four of them in 1971?

There was confrontation between the record company and the band.  Why would they release Best of Vol I, only 8 weeks post? The time-line says it all.  No confidence.  And really no bona fide promotion.   

Against all those odds the singles mined from Pet Sounds did extraordinarily well, but that was no thanks to Capitol.  After all, GOK was a Side B release. 

What are you talking about? Are you reading and responding to a different thread?

All of the band having a beef with Capitol (e.g. a common enemy) is not at all the same thing as having a united artistic front where everybody in the band has the same level of interest and engagement and ability to relate to the material Brian was writing.

All of the band agreeing that they're pissed at Capitol Records has nothing to do with what Mike thought of the lyrics to "Hang on to Your Ego" or the lyrics of Van Dyke Parks.

Hey Jude - we are not talking about Parks. This is just band members.  And yes, Capitol was an enemy and it seems that Murry played ball with them (certainly with the SOT sale.)  So, these "kids" were screwed.  I consider those in their 20's "kids" for purposes of dealing with the sharks they dealt with.

You have another position about the time-line.  I subscribe to the Gaumont Palace interview.  I find that they were swimming upstream and struggling to stay afloat. 

Hey Jude - I think that Brian's being "imprisoned" by Landy has everything to do with the direction SIP went.  

I disagree. Brian not being there didn't force Mike Love and Terry Melcher to hack out a bunch of sub-par songs. As I've already said, no Brian involvement certainly didn't help, but it wasn't the downfall of that album.

People bought "Kokomo" without any Brian involvement; so they would have bought SIP too if enough people would have liked it.

Using Brian being held hostage by Landy as an excuse for SIP sucking is pretty lame, in my opinion.

Hey Jude - if you think of the BB's as a unit, and I still do, regardless of where they are physically in the cosmos, and how they work together, it was a retro-feel album, maybe trying to tie the TV shows into some BB product.  Yes, Brian's absence as a result of Landy, did not help the band as a whole.  

SIP "live" on MIC is pretty universally regarded as awesome.  Kokomo had John Phillips (about 4 guys I think) working on that record.  I think they had to make some move, strategically.  And it was the first and only album to have no Brian work (wiki.) So, I consider that significant and apparently others do as well. It was their 30th year as the BB's and Brian was not there.  That speaks volumes.  I don't know how to work around that fact.  I don't think you can work around not having Brian for an album at the 30 year mark.  

"All of the surviving original band members except Brian Wilson (who was in the legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy.)" (wiki)

That is a fact.  The ONLY BB album without any of Brian's work.  It sounds more processed, now, but did not impress me that way when I first bought it.  Maybe there was so much other music that was processed that you just get used to it.  But, now I think a second-look for some of the songs themselves, would not be a bad thing.  It is not the first time I felt that the wrong single was used.  I bet Brian would "re-imagine" SIP with a great, perhaps more accoustic approach.  

And,  I feel that Sunflower should have been Our Sweet Love with that as a the single release and think it would have been a big hit.  Nothing "dated" and a universal theme. Same for SIP;  I think Lahaina Aloha should have been the single.  My position.      

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  

I can't speak for urbanite, but I don't think questions as to the quality of SIP have much to do with whether Brian was participating or not.

When people say the album sucks, they're not saying it sucks solely or even much at all because Brian wasn't there. That certainly didn't help (especially with promotion and with critics, who could easily point out his absence).

The other band members were more than capable of doing some strong material without Brian. SIP just wasn't it. Just about any other artist with a modicum of humility would have spoken up about SIP being a humbling experience. Not Mike. He instead explains why TWMGTR hitting #3 was somehow an underperformance.

Hey Jude - I think that Brian's being "imprisoned" by Landy has everything to do with the direction SIP went.  There were some cool musicians (such as Parks on accordian) but it did not come together as well as it might have with Brian's direction.  For the time, it still was not bad because some stuff got airplay by other routes.  

Yes, they were well-able to strong material without Brian but, being a throw-back album - with retro stuff, going back to their genesis, Brian might have been able to approach the material differently and use less of the computerized stuff. (Even if at the time it was cutting edge. )

Hey Jude -  please stick to the point. 

First of all, I *DIRECTLY* addressed your point (by disagreeing with it), even though your point had nothing to do with the issues raised in previous posts.

If anything, you've helped to prove the point I was making that Mike defends himself by deflecting from the issue of what he admittedly *didn't* like about what Brian was writing at that time and instead attacking the literal factual veracity of whether he specifically can be proved to have uttered the specific phrase "don't f**k with the formula."

I suggest reading the posts in the thread will help you stick to the point.

Your suggestion that the band was always a 100% united artistic front is laughable; and is proved wrong by statements from the band member themselves, including Mike Love. They formed a company; they were arguably a united business front (though plenty of stories about how their business operation was run would suggest they weren't really even a united there either).

Hey Jude - Gaumont Palace is the official credible statement as far as I am concerned.  It is straight out of their mouths and full of frustration at the record company.  Laughable?  Each one weighed in.  And it was concerning more artistic and creative control.  Are you saying that they were lying? All four of them in 1971?

There was confrontation between the record company and the band.  Why would they release Best of Vol I, only 8 weeks post? The time-line says it all.  No confidence.  And really no bona fide promotion.   

Against all those odds the singles mined from Pet Sounds did extraordinarily well, but that was no thanks to Capitol.  After all, GOK was a Side B release. 

So once again it appears you didn't actually read my posts, where I asserted numerous times that ascribing "don't f**k with the formula" to Mike is not correct.

While the rest of what you say has nothing much to do with the conversation at hand, I don't agree that the group situation in 1966-67 was some sort of unified, artistic front from *all* of the band against the evil Capitol Records.

There was apprehension within the band as to the material Brian was producing. It doesn't mean they rejected outright what Brian was doing. But they were not all 100% on board without any misgivings; even members of the band including Mike himself have admitted as much.

Capitol Records probably wanted "Smile" completed and able to be released as much if not MORE than anyone in the band. Maybe they didn't "get" it, and clearly others including Mike didn't either, but both Mike and Capitol were ready to make the album happen.

But again, I think the idea that all of the Beach Boys equally and with a united front were rejecting the "formula" in the face of a Capitol Records that "didn't get it" is silly and way too much of a generalization and oversimplification.

Hey Jude -  please stick to the point.  Don't F with the formula originated with Capitol.  You don't know if you were not there but we all know from that Gaumont Palace and it is confirmed when they  outed Capitol during that interview.  That was circa 1971.  So, 40+ years later the same b.s is spinning out there. 

When a business model changes, there is always apprehension.  Apple dropped the headphone port.  There is and was apprehension.  No one knows how it will work out.  Pet Sounds was much the same.  No one knew.  Capitol had no faith in them.  They only had enough faith for The Beatles and not for the home team.

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  I think (an observation) is that Lahaina Aloha was the strongest song with Carl's extraordinary yearning vocals and should have been the single released.  I do think that taken-as-a-whole, that SIP shows that they all needed each other.  I think they need Brian's production skills alongside their vocals.  

From the Endless Harmony DVD, it appears that really Brian really regretted (because he was locked away by Landy) that he was not involved with that era of work because he was forcibly separated from his bandmates.  

The music is not bad; it is the presentation that didn't work well. At the time, it didn't seem that bad but now sounds a little dated.  But, I still actually like that album just because it was something new and demonstrates that they were still trying to stay-in-the-game.

Guess I look at it differently.  

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

I suppose it depends on how we define the word. I think all of the guys in the band have about one thing or another. That kind of goes for most anybody, especially public figures.

Has Mike ever been unfairly attacked? Sure, absolutely. So has just about every public figure, especially in the internet age of the last 20 years, including Mike and Brian.

The issue, and this goes back to another post I just made in the "Mike's Book Discussion Thread", is that some (for instance potentially Mr. Lee and certainly Mike Love) believe highlighting the sliver of truly unfair accusations and attacks (such as "Mike fired Brian", or vile internet trolls on Facebook and the like) is more important than discussing more fundamental issues of why so many seem to take issue with Mike. Indeed, as I mentioned in that post, defending himself against the small amount of truly incorrect statements about himself allows Mike to deflect and avoid answering accusations and questions that aren't unfair or incorrect factually.

Avoiding that pitfall is something the Rolling Stone article from February did quite well. It didn't let Mike get away with dismissing criticism by correctly pointing out that he didn't literally say "don't f**k with the formula" or that he didn't actually literally fire Brian. It didn't let him get away with rightly pointing out the good work he has done, or that he has friends and is nice to plenty of people. That article pointed out where criticisms and attacks were more specious and where they were more valid and in fact reinforced by Mike's own actions and comments while interacting with the author of the article.

Hey Jude - ascribing a corporate narrative to a band member is false.  "Don't F- with the formula" was from Capitol and is continuously being ascribed to a certain band member.  It was not Mike's.  It was the outright rejection of Pet Sounds where IIRC, Mike went with Brian to Capitol to lobby the album.  Capitol threw the Beach Boys under the bus after The Beatles signed with them.  

It was the corporate narrative of Capitol to look at their life-cycle and wind-them-down by offering the Best of Vol I - almost contemporaneous to Pet Sounds.  They were regarded as having an expiration date and outlived-their-usefulness.

Hence the organization of Brother Records.  It was the BB backlash to the corporate narrative of surf-cars-girls. For BRI to get off the ground, required unanimous cooperation from all the members and appears that it was done for creative control.  It was Capitol who were "f-ing" with the new evolving Beach Boys formula.  

Watch the Gaumont Palace interview for support of that fact. Al, Mike, Carl and Dennis were in unison about what happened.  

But the issue here is that the claims were made on what was at the time the #1 morning show in Los Angeles, heard on station KROQ, in the fall of '92. At that time the Manson case and the court cases related to it were roughly 20 years old and not only were most of the individuals involved on all sides still alive, but some were still working on the police force and in various prosecutor's office and DA positions who were there in 1969 and knew the case firsthand.

If claims are broadcast on KROQ in Los Angeles in fall 1992, on the #1 morning radio show in the city, that there could be yet another murder involving Manson, people close to the case would have found out about it. Now in 2016 when many of those people involved are either passed on or retired, it's a hot issue? They had word of this in 1992, they had more opportunity and more firsthand resources still on the force who worked the case at that time, and now it's a hot issue? It already would have been in 1992 if it was truly new info for those involved on the investigative and procedural front.

The 1992 timeline is relevant because what was not known about DNA relevance and internet sharing and the indexing systems of evidence. Now if you leave a water bottle behind you, an investigator can take that to a lab and connect you to a crime because you leave DNA everywhere.  Family members can be used for DNA samples to unidentified remains.   These criminals are now coming up for parole hearings. That is news.  Where are all those missing bodies?   

Howard Stern is Howard Stern and has made a living on being provocative and he is an equal opportunity insulter/offender.  He tells it as he  (Howard) sees it.

Shame on that office if someone is coming forward in 2016 and their family member is Jane Doe #59 and they don't re-open her case without the glare of media pressure.   It is an embarrassment to have the feds come in with money to help solve cold cases. 

What you aren't looking at is the politicization of cases and they can be, especially high-profile big money people who have influence in both law enforcement and in DA's offices.

The "nobody" people deserve an answer too; not just the Roman Polanski's of the world.      

 

The claim is to make Dennis look bad by making him an accessory to murder.

An accessory or a terrified witness?

Getting back to the actual topic that generated some headlines and teasers this week - Consider all of the comments and calls to 'reopen' the case and again all the reaching out to various police officials and DA staffers and all of it.

It's 2016. The claim was made by Mike on a syndicated radio show in 1992 (and possibly earlier if something turns up?), there is audio of the claim being made. If there had been enough to go on to reopen the case, surely word would have gotten back to the DA's office at the time (fall 1992), and to those who were involved in the original investigations and prosecutions since the original investigations were just over 20 years old at the time and many of the original people involved on all sides of the Manson case were still alive.

Being somewhat of a follower in the historical sense of the Manson case and interested in the details and background that didn't make it to Bugliosi's successful prosecutions and subsequent book - especially since it goes to the darker core of the LA rock and celebrity scenes that I'm sure most would like to see thrown down the proverbial well and forgotten for eternity - It is surprising to see this much space being devoted to reopening the case when the same information being promoted as warranting a re-examination and reopening of the case has been "public" since 1992. At least since 1992 where we have the exact same claims being made on air.

GF - Here is the big difference (or some of them) as between 1992 and now. 

First, the growth of the internet can raise awareness and have people pull to gather to share information about missing persons or evidence, and John/Jane Doe cases.   
 
Second, the greater awareness of prosecutorial misconduct and the general ethical awareness of not hiding-the-ball with evidence. DA's offices are run by lawyers who got elected.   

Third, the emergence of DNA evidence and "innocence projects" which unearth evidence that should have been "exculpatory" - meaning the person in prison was "framed" so it all cuts both ways.  We have all seen on TV people who have been decades in prison for crimes they did not commit.  Now those prosecutors face ethical ramifications.  And, while I am not accusing those prosecutors of misconduct, I find it telling that they don't want the door opened to re-examine their work.  They should welcome new information about cold cases. They should welcome a new generation taking  fresh look at the cluster of cases that remain.  If the feds were happy with their case solving record, they would not have infused federal dough in 2011.

Fourth, when I finally read this book, I will look for the context in which Dennis may have "blurted out" this information to Mike.   

The fact remains that there is much that is unsolved, concerning crimes that had the gruesome and heinous markings that went beyond just killing someone with one bullet.  The bodies were hacked, after they were dead, and their blood was used as paint with bizarre messages. 

This is not about Mike.  I look at it as more about Dennis.  If I were one of Dennis' kids, I might want to know if part of Dennis' torture, that made him an "unavailable parent," related to something horrific that he witnessed.  What is striking is not that he did not report the incident.  He was too terrified to testify.  Why would he call the cops if he was too afraid to sit in a courtroom full of armed officers and testify? 

And why it surprises people, given Dennis did not testify, after the Manson family ripped him off in 1969 dollars to the tune of $100k, and threatened his children, surprises me.

 

Do we know if Carl submitted any original material for "Summer in Paradise" that was rejected...or recorded but left unreleased?

I've always had the impression it was a Love/Melcher project all along, and Carl didn't even participate as heavily in the sessions as Mike did.

I've heard no evidence that he proffered any material for the album.

I think Carl was writing and cutting stuff in the early-mid 90s, some of which ended up on the "Beckley Lamm Wilson" album. But I always figured Mike spearheaded the SIP album, and it essentially as we all know came across as a Mike Love solo album with some vocal contributions from the others. (Yes, I know, it has 1/2 of a Bruce song on it).

And thank goodness it has the Bruce tune on it, that's one of the best songs on the record (despite the wretched drum sound on that tune, the song's not too bad IMO).

CD - the songs are not bad.  It is the production.  It would be great for Brian to take a second look, (add his own vocals)in order to preserve Carl's vocals (if those tracks were isolated) and do some reworking of the orchestration.  It was new technology for that time and maybe the overall approach in hindsight might have been a mistake.  But the environmental message has not been lost.  And SIP live is fantastic on MIC.