Mike on The Howard Stern Show, 10/6/92.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmOpwvh4P-Y

Listening to the end of it now.  Thanks for posting the link. 

Howard can certainly make you laugh. 

Last spring a family from Montreal has been chasing down (Jane Doe #59) whether this is Manson "family" (particular style of gruesome manner of homicide) murder.
There are many unsolved murders from that era.  I am not so quick to dismiss all these unsolved murders.  Roman Polanski/Sharon Tate was high profile and got instant global because of Polanski's film world status, and continuous media play because they were "somebody." 

Many of these similarly-situated (whether in LA or not) victim's murders seem to have similar characteristics.  What I did not know (because I was only paying attention to BB-related stuff) is that those people were drug dealing, moved around, and perhaps using this "cult" mentality in their drug business. I am learning along with many others about this. 

http://latimes.com/local/la-me-jane-doe-manson-killings-identified-20160427-story.html   

And Sharon Tate's sister has been involved. (I had no idea she was still looking for answers.)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Charles-Tex-Watson-Manson-LAPD-Lawyer-Audio-Tape-Recordings-Murders-174881381.html

Only your family gives a damn if your murder is solved, decades after everyone else has forgotten.  Maybe more than the investigators. There is a poor murder solve rate.

The LAPD has been given federal grants to help solve cases going back to 2011. I am keeping an open mind, especially since a family is till coming forward for answers.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/10/11/federal-grants-help-lapd-detectives-solve-cold-cases/ 

Posted an interview with Scott Wilson's Son of a Beach Boy writing partner:
http://prayforsurfblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/pray-for-surf-interview-phil_1.html?q=interview,

Pray for Surf - that was candid and very touching. 

Thanks so much for posting the link!   

Thread bump.  A chance to review what transpired.

IIRC - I was not happy with the provocative nature of the thread title. 

Peter Reum had some words of wisdom toward the end of the thread. 

Happy Labor Day weekend - especially to those who support union workers. 

Nice article on it! The album was ok! pretty good for the music that was coming out in the 1990s

You have a point about 90's music... But, I am truly grateful that SIP had some of the last of  Carl Wilson's vocals who had shared leads on half of the tracks.

And, I do really love Lahaina Aloha with that yearning Carl lead. (Maybe it should have been released as a single. I still think it was a very strong song, probably the best on the album.)  We've lost that voice but still have those tremendous Carl vocals.   

Van Dyke Parks played accordion on two tracks.  And, I prefer Summer in Paradise live (MIC) to this version but do appreciate that they made an effort to stay in the market.

FYI - Just clicked the link and it was removed. 

Want to try to make a list here for the studio stuff. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
Beginning of the End
My Only Alibi
One Way Road to Love
Visions
Thank Him
Sandy (1965 alternate backing track)
California Slide
Good Time (Sunflower mix)
When Girls get Together (Sunflower mix without bass drum)
Tears in the Morning (Early mix without the piano tag.)
Walkin'
My Solution (Halloween 1970)
Big Sur (4/4 version)
Won't You Tell Me
Awake
It's a New Day
Daddy Dear/Susie Cincinnati run through
We Got Love (Did this get released on the SACD yet or no?)
Carry me Home
Good Timin' (1974 version)
Battle Hymn of the Republic
Rollin' Up To Heaven
Shake, Rattle, and Roll
Michael Row the Boat Ashore
Runnin' Bear
Lazy Lizzie
Life is for the Living
Hey Little Tomboy (Adult/Child version)
Deep Purple
Lines
On Broadway
Everybody Wants to Live
It's Trying to Say (Baseball's On!)
New England Waltz
Drip Drop (Teardrops on my bed)
My Solution (1980 backing track)
Oh Darlin' (Brian sings lead)

Can I put that on my Christmas wish list?

"Filledeplage": If you had read my initial post,  I was able to read an advance copy of the book, as Iain Lee and apparently a number of others did as well, including the various reviewers who have already published reviews. I'm not speaking from ignorance of the book or the contents when I wrote all of this.

Does that clarify it? I know some are trying to twist and bastardize this into whatever flaming arrows they wish to fire, but that's the long and short of it.

Well, GF - that puts me at a distinct and highly unfair, disadvantage, not having a copy of the book, in my hand. 

     

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

This goes against what you said previously:

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing.

--

The point that I thought you were making is that it doesn't matter if the children know what they are saying or not - that the fact that they are singing these words despite not knowing their meaning has negative effects.

Let's not parse.  A 5 year old, riding a school bus from a housing project in a city, knows what an "ass" is where the older kids are singing all this stuff.  They likely do not know what a "contact high" is.  

And, Kokomo was written for an R-rated movie.  But, I suspect your own child is being gently-reared, which many of my students were unfortunately, not.  

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

I'm saying again, I did not see it in the book. Unless I simply glanced over it or missed it. But I did not see it in the book, and everything I've written comes from actually seeing the book. Just to clarify. And I was hoping Mike would address it, since it was a major issue in music and still resonates today, and Mike found himself seeding funding to an organization which I'd estimate an overwhelming majority of musicians opposed then and still opposed now.

It would have been interesting to hear Mike's take on funding the PMRC 30 years removed, but alas it doesn't seem to be the book to do that.

GF - Do you have a copy of the book or just reading the extract on amazon?

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

I agree - 5 is a magic time. In a week, she will be going into grade one. A whole different ballgame!

Cigarettes are not an act of expression, and music is, so I see a distinction there. I'm not entirely certain what the reference to pornography means. If you know it when you see it, then obviously I wouldn't need a label telling me that it's not something for children, which it most definitely is not. Despite the use of the term "porn rock," my hunch is that that term was used not to accurately describe music but rather as hyperbole to drum up support against the music.

First Grade is tough. Kindergarten, on the other hand, is the "child's garden," (German term.) It was more a consumer viewpoint, buying and labeling CD's, rather than strictly expression.

The expression is one of the most famous phrases from the US Supreme Court, came from an obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964.) It had to do with the Louis Malle film, Les Amants (The Lovers) being shown in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  The quote came from Judge Potter Stewart.  Yes, it is vague.

You would probably have the discretion to know what is appropriate for your child, but, many of the parents of my students were still teens themselves, bringing their kids to school and whose education was interrupted at 14 or so, to become parents, so labeling I think could be a useful consumer tool for them to know what was appropriate listening for their kids.  

Appreciate the cutesy wink smiley but nope, don't see what you say. he's troll.

No, he isn't.  I disagree.  He has a literary style all his own and is spinning an historic BB yarn.  That is not a troll.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

Back to the book, maybe someone else who has read an advance copy can help me fill in the gaps in case I missed it or am overlooking it...but I was hoping Mike would have addressed the issue of him giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the mid 80's. Most people - music fans - remember this as a pretty big issue overall, and it became part of the national dialogue if not a rallying point against music censorship which even led to documentaries and other films being made about the music community fighting back against the politicians who were advocating warning labels on albums for explicit lyrics and censorship in general.

Again, maybe I'm missing it, or it simply wasn't addressed. It wasn't a popular decision to fund the PMRC, and I would have liked to read Mike's thoughts on that decision after 30 years and whether he took any heat personally for giving them seed money when the majority of the rock community was strongly against what the PMRC was trying to do with censorship and labeling albums for "explicit lyrics".

In case anyone isn't familiar with this story, I took this from the online Billboard archives, September 1985, and that's why the highlights are on the article.





And again, if I missed where the book did address the PMRC seed money topic, please let me know.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

As the PMRC was an issue that galvanized musicians and artists in general on the issues of censorship in the mid 80's (and still to this day), and again unless I simply passed over it but I don't recall the book discussing Mike's seed money and support given to the PMRC, I was hoping Mike in his book would have addressed it and given his point of view, or explained/clarified his support of a group and a campaign that the majority of musicians were fighting against.

GF - I completely get the censorship thing and the positions which would likely clash.  But, when impressionable kids are singing sexualized lyrics or violent lyrics, (and do not even know what they are singing) there needs to be some reasonable safeguard in place to keep that from their ears.  Or at least guide purchases.  

And there are plenty of double entendres in BB music, which have been discussed, and that is fine, because most of that would be consumed by 13+ year olds, who are not little ones, and by the time you figure out what a double entendre is, you are old enough to be a consumer.  

But pre-school and grade school kids? A lot of cable companies and satellite companies have chips or blocks you can set to preclude that kind of viewing or music stations that broadcast x-rated stuff.  Is that so different?  

I like the OP's avatar - caricature 4-eyed guy with fat rosy cheeks - but his posts read like trolling.

RRA1 - Hank Briarstem is the 3rd person omniscient!   

Back to the book, maybe someone else who has read an advance copy can help me fill in the gaps in case I missed it or am overlooking it...but I was hoping Mike would have addressed the issue of him giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the mid 80's. Most people - music fans - remember this as a pretty big issue overall, and it became part of the national dialogue if not a rallying point against music censorship which even led to documentaries and other films being made about the music community fighting back against the politicians who were advocating warning labels on albums for explicit lyrics and censorship in general.

Again, maybe I'm missing it, or it simply wasn't addressed. It wasn't a popular decision to fund the PMRC, and I would have liked to read Mike's thoughts on that decision after 30 years and whether he took any heat personally for giving them seed money when the majority of the rock community was strongly against what the PMRC was trying to do with censorship and labeling albums for "explicit lyrics".

In case anyone isn't familiar with this story, I took this from the online Billboard archives, September 1985, and that's why the highlights are on the article.





And again, if I missed where the book did address the PMRC seed money topic, please let me know.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

I used to think that Surf's Up had some god awful tracks that were almost insulting. "Take A Load Off Your Feet" and "Student Demonstration Time" come to mind... But eventually I realized, I was being too serious. "Feet" is hilarious, and the sound effects are quite inventive, and "Student Demonstration Time" actually rocks for a BBs song, and I'm actually a fan of Mike's vocals in that song.

Overall, I think Surf's Up isn't as good as Sunflower, but I think it's still  a great album. I'm a producer, myself, and think that Sunflower has such a rich, lush sound that is almost hard to describe, and Surf's Up sounds a little bare, in comparison.

I'm getting sidetracked... I love the Surf's Up album, and can't believe its 45 years old!

Surf's Up is one of my favorites but, I never compare it to Sunflower.  It was a great gift to myself starting my last two semesters in undergrad. 

Sweet to finally have a recording of "Surf's Up" which was featured as a Brian solo on Leonard Bernstein's Inside Pop program in 1967.  It marked the end of a five year wait for Surf's Up.  Great stuff on that LP. 

Thanks to the OP for the reminder. 

Fans who post here, should not be put continuously on the defensive if they see all of the Beach Boys where ever they play. It is what has led many posters to leave this forum, which is pretty sad.  JMHO        

You're right, they shouldn't. But if a poster gets to see Mike n Bruce wherever they play because travel and concert ticket costs are being covered by someone involved in the group, then maybe it deserves to be brought up.

Seriously, I'm not the hugest Mike Love fan in the world, but if I were offered an opportunity to see their band quite a bit without having to spend hardly any money, I'd jump at that chance too. But I'd also admit it.

That is very interesting to know that my gas is being paid for by the band.

And, I will have to double-check that against my credit card charges.  Then, I have to go check the mail for that check.    

Wait, how did ANOTHER puff piece on Stamos come out of this particular discussion?   

The response was to GF.   

In terms of my referencing both Cam and filledeplage's posts as having a familiar ring, again...I did not accuse anyone of plagarizing anything. I did notice a similarity between the section where Mike talks about Full House and John Stamos and the benefits to the band's legacy, and posts like this which I remembered reading here several years ago from filledeplage and others who would offer these same points when other posters were being critical of having John performing with the band, or similar debates. And there were plenty of them:

Glad you're back and saw the show.  Stamos seemed initially sort of a non-conventional choice, but, he has, in his own right become part of American culture, whether people like it or not. His former series ran eight seasons and it in virtually every TV market on this planet. He has a following that the "classic" rock fans, who are "purists" might not appreciate. But, those of us have raised kids, who have become BB fans as a direct result of Full House, despite musical brainwashing can be grateful that he drew fans into the mix, with the BB cameo appearances on his series. Those millions of kids were a captive audience for The Beach Boys. Uncle Jesse made the introduction.

Stamos and The Fat Boys, made fans out if my kids.  My son's girlfriend can't wait to see the BB's but she really likes Stamos, and wants to see them because of him. I'll take it.  I find his drumming closer to Dennis' - very straight-forward without the fancy stuff.  And for each one who finds it cheesy, ten (young fans) are enamored with him and the BB's by extension.

Just my opinion: If you read that quote, and click on the quote link to read the rest of that thread from 2014, you might soon read that section where this is addressed in the book and feel as if it sounds familiar, as something you've heard before. And that is only one example so far.

Let the readers decide when they can get their own copy.

GF - there is little or anything in that/those posts that is/are not common knowledge or within the common background of experience seeing Full House in the 80's-90's or on Nick at Night.  I articulated it, but I didn't make it up nor was I urged, paid, or whatever to post here.

And, it is also common knowledge that Stamos did popularize "Forever" on his program for millions to be exposed to the music of The Beach Boys and in particular Dennis' song which was given air play that otherwise would likely never have happened.

The Beach Boys and TV shows from their inception, such as Lassie,  Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days and Full House are a part of American culture.  It is not news. And I just finished reading the Mike book freebie on amazon, looking for whatever these wild accusations might be.  It was not a full version of the book.  

"Similarity?" Stamos toured with The Beach Boys and I saw them in the 80's when Carl was running the show and Brian was on Full House.   Stamos gave much needed publicity to the band when they were in their late 40's or early 50's and were considered a has-been oldies band by many.  

And, when you are looking at what I have written, you might check out that other disparaged (on this board) BBB where I posted 2 reviews after seeing Brian on this recent tour. I think of those band members as "Beach Boys" which defies logic for some here.  Maybe it is generational.  It is not an original position and is one held by millions of fans.  They are still The Beach Boys - just playing in different venues.  And that is my opinion.  

Fans who post here, should not be put continuously on the defensive if they see all of the Beach Boys where ever they play. It is what has led many posters to leave this forum, which is pretty sad.  JMHO        

While I am wary of providing too much milk before the cow is procured, you are correct in your assessment of Michael’s “Tang Problem,” which he has, of course, on many occasions, spun as his “Tang Mastery” – many of you might recall the Rolling Stone article, “Mike Love, Master of the Tang.”

But it is clear that during at least one concert Michael was under the influence of Tang, forced as he was to depart the stage in the middle of “Shut Down” in order to relieve himself. Which one of us wouldn’t have emulated Denny’s practical joke by bestowing upon Michael a box of adult diapers during the next night’s performance?

Michael was infuriated, of course, and accused Denny of treachery.  But insiders knew that Carl accompanied Denny to the pharmacy and might have actually paid for the contraband.

In any event, Michael seemed to cut back rather dramatically on the Tang, at that point, so who is to say that the Wilson brothers’ prank didn’t save Michael a good deal of further embarrassment?  This band has, as you know, a rather complicated history. He said, she said, though who “she” is escapes me at the moment.

Perhaps a nap.

You have been missed, Hank! 

[death threats are never justifiable]

There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

[death threats are never justifiable]

 There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

Death threats are never justifiable but how would he justify fans threatening his death?

Read what I wrote again. Having perspective on why fans might be upset is not the same as justifying death threats.

As in "Death threats are never okay. But I wonder what I did that might have upset fans."

Hey Jude - it is "crossing the line."  And another poster mentioned fans (fanatics-borderline or bona fide mentally disturbed and dangerous individuals) who have this "associative" thing going on where they think they "know" a performer or celebrity, where it threatens their personal safety and that is never "ok" nor "qualified or justified" or by being "upset" - or perceive that Brian is a family member whom they have to defend by threatening another band member.   Or that Brian (or any other musician/artist) is their "personal savior."  It is a most dangerous place.

And, I can assure you that I have met some of these such "marginal people" who have built up a "Brian thing" in their minds where  they needed to be talked-off- the-ledge.  For example, at one meet-and-greet C50 event, I landed next to a "borderline" fan who was literally crying in the line, that Brian's/Beach Boys' music had literally "saved her life" and she was diagnosed with a serious behavioral disorder so the music was a huge help.    

This person was literally shaking at the prospect of "what to do" and "what to say" to Brian during the photo op.  (There was no personal chat, as I had to explain and just put on a big smile for a great photo to have forever.)  

There is a hard line - for personal safety that, never gets "justified" for a threat of violence.  And those of our artists such as Lennon or Selena, etc. are lost forever because of people who felt "justified" to take matters (that are none of their business) into their own hands.  There is never justification.  

 

Worth a retelling of the story of its acquisition?

On my honeymoon, summer of 2000, my wife and I drove from Colorado to SF and LA. On a whim, I drove up to Laurel Way and arrive at 1448.  I get out and start photographing the outside of the place, when the current owner comes out and starts to write down my license plate number. So I tell her about my honeymoon, my lifelong love for Brian Wilson (she actually bought the house from lawyers, but was well aware of the legacy from the occasional stream of visitors). We had a friendly talk, and then she said that she had something that I might be interested in. She was re-modeling the house and the pool in the back, and brought me out to the side of the house. On the ground lay this Grauman Chinese Theatre size slab of cement that she had extricated from the side of the pool (you can see them in the "Sloop John B promo very clearly) with the inscription “Brian and Marilyn 8-27-66”, carved within a heart and clearly written with two different handwritings. So I finally ended up buying this from her after deliberating with myself for a day (she wanted 1K, I offered 500 cash). But in my excitement to get it into the trunk of my car with her construction worker, I lifted the damn thing up with him and felt something rip…suffice to say that my back went out for about two years. We schlepped the “slab”, as we came to call it, halfway across the country, with me in a back brace and in utter agony (ruining my honeymoon, as you can imagine...). But here it sits in my house, a rarity among rarities, with a little sandbox piano on top of it, 50 years on...

What a great story and thanks for sharing it!  Your poor back.  You have a real chunk (literally) of BB history!

http://www.albumlinernotes.com/Marilyn_Wilson_Comments.html  (Hope it copies!)

Thanks again!