If Mike's leadership of the band is so terrible, then maybe Brian, Al, and the estates of Dennis and Carl should revoke his license.

IMO they definitely should. It's a tough call, and it is good that the music is being kept alive in live performance by the touring band, but the minuses outweigh the pluses, again IMO. The ongoing cheapening of the brand is sad to behold (no classic rock band worth its salt would ever tour under their original name when the other surviving original members are willing to join them for at least part of their touring itinerary, as Al and Brian probably would). The 25% of revenues that Brian receives from live shows will probably make the issue a non-starter though.

This is amazing, but it's funny how 'With a Little Help' blew his mind when he could probably write a better song than that in his sleep. Or he could've back in the 60s.

Don't underestimate the simple but timeless quality and profound musical intelligence behind that tune.

For better or worse, the days of accomplishing something by protesting BB songs appearing in commercials passed a few decades ago. They were actively involved in the enterprise back in the 80s ("Sunkist Vibrations" or however that jingle went).

I still think the biggest surprise is that it took *decades* for the 409 spray bottle cleaner to use the BB song "409" in their commercials.

"Accomplishing something"? Just saw it myself on the evening news and am fired up, those days are never over. It was more innocent in those early days also, not quite the massive corporate sleazef--k it is now. More subversive also to just have the sparkling backing track lurking in the background over super-slick, superficially innocuous visual content, rather than at least re-writing the lyric a la Sunkist Good Vibrations. Some would argue the reverse, but IMO this is ten times more disgusting.

It doesn't help matters that I used to work at Walgreen's and observed their MO up close, such as merging with British Boots and in an "inversion" trying to establish headquarters in England to cheat their US tax burden, and, when publicly called on it by Obama, rather that contritely admitting ethics-based remorse, the CEO flippantly remarking "we couldn't find a way to make it work."

Also, stubbornly and greedily refusing to take cleaning products with harmful chemical content off the shelf, even after CVS, Wal-Mart and Target had already done so.

 Perfect example of the insidious, avaricious, filthy rich (Fortune 100) modern corporation. Hands off out sacred musical treasures, and boo to whomever was responsible for licensing the track to them.

Sickening juxtaposition, it oughtta be a crime.

Agreed, the performances by the BBs are great but Mike's banter breaks any momentum.

It's simply insufferable here. I wonder if they edited out one juncture when he starts up again after one song and a fed up audience member shouts "SHUT UP!" very forcefully, which seems to rattle him, and after which he does tone it down considerably, for a while at least. A highlight, along with the music of course.

in regards to the last sentence...if they are insiders, would it still be speculation?

OK then, commenting.

Had I got this, I would have taken pains to share it with the appreciative fans. Much of BW's more esoteric material has been criminally withheld from us for years.

Alas, we bend over to the petty code so as to be 'acceptable'. Absolute pity I'd say.

It's a difficult issue when one comes into possession of a high-profile (or any) band's unreleased material. The band's desires should be respected, because, after all,  it's their creative output. The possibility of litigation is ever-present, if the parties disseminating the material can be identified and there is sufficient motivation to pursue them (which is true in the case of the makers of manufactured bootlegs at least, never heard of it being applied to traditional individual "tape trading" or download methods of distribution). I can certainly understand Klay's reluctance to share such sensitive material with other fans, except under conditions of absolute trust and discretion (and we've seen through the years how that sometimes turns out, betrayals occur and the sharers get hurt by those they thought were trustworthy) though I'm sure he'd like to. I just hope negotiations are constantly underway and pressure being applied to get the stuff archived (probably already happened) and released, because it's a real shame that it hasn't been heard by all who want to hear it.

[but they keep close tabs on loose cannons or those people that they feel are lacking sufficient genuflection]

I just don't think that Brian himself would ever say something like "I'm moving on" without some form of reinforcement from his camp. Not that they have "nefarious" motivations as such, but they keep close tabs on loose cannons or those people that they feel are lacking sufficient genuflection, which is a kid of ledger-keeping that Brian himself is not all that concerned with, by nature. I imagine that whatever went down with David Leaf being excommunicated probably falls into that category as well, without direct knowledge of the specifics.

Yes, I suppose that "you are incorrect" does imply first-hand knowledge, but I just meant that I felt strongly that it was likely that the statement was not just completely spontaneous, and had been inculcated or incited to at least some degree by other interested parties, and still do. I was also in a terse, grumpy and intolerant mood that A.M., which played a role in my unusually absolutist phraseology.

but they keep close tabs on loose cannons or those people that they feel are lacking sufficient genuflection

That is a strong statement and one which could be interpreted as a pretty low blow to hit whoever is the target with - Are you suggesting that whoever "they" might be have a scale of justice for anyone who doesn't bow sufficiently enough to Brian? Or am I reading it wrong?

Clarification may be in order.

Keep in mind too - as another poster mentioned - how many shots were fired across Brian's bow via social media posts and other outlets in recent years and what effect those could have.

I don't intend to gratuitously denigrate anyone, and I don't think it's a "low blow" as such, just calling it as I've seen it over the years. Admittedly not phrased in the interests of diplomacy uber alles. You are reading it correctly. That being said, it's a delicate balance. Who knows whether Brian was "prepped" to dis VDP or not, in the end, none of us does, except insiders, who will refrain from speculating here if they want to remain insiders.

I just don't think that Brian himself would ever say something like "I'm moving on" without some form of reinforcement from his camp. Not that they have "nefarious" motivations as such, but they keep close tabs on loose cannons or those people that they feel are lacking sufficient genuflection, which is a kid of ledger-keeping that Brian himself is not all that concerned with, by nature. I imagine that whatever went down with David Leaf being excommunicated probably falls into that category as well, without direct knowledge of the specifics.

Yes, I suppose that "you are incorrect" does imply first-hand knowledge, but I just meant that I felt strongly that it was likely that the statement was not just completely spontaneous, and had been inculcated or incited to at least some degree by other interested parties, and still do. I was also in a terse, grumpy and intolerant mood that A.M., which played a role in my unusually absolutist phraseology.

Saying one is "moving on" from a collaborator may be meant to be a dig, or may be innocuous. What such a phrase *doesn't* even slightly suggest is that someone "around" Brian is instilling that sentiment.

Maybe people around him do instill sentiments or attitudes. But nothing specifically regarding saying "I'm moving on" from a collaborator has one iota of a suggestion about where such a sentiment originated, anymore than anything else Brian ever says.

I think that you are probably incorrect in your assumptions . All I'm going to say, not going to get into it further here, waste of time.  Not claiming any inside knowledge either. BTW I agree with most of what you've said here in the past and you seem like a nice guy, peace.

Stating it as "moving on" is also a little insensitive.

How is it insensitive? It's Brian's right as an artist to move on from past collaborators...artists do it all of the time. I mean, even Elton John and Bernie Taupin had a break from each other (granted, it was a huge mistake).

Insensitive in that, from him "I'm moving on" are blunt words that may reflect an adopted attitude that has been instilled, at least to some degree, by those around him, as has whatever fuel was the grounds for the ill will that seems to currently exist between the two, or, more likely, their proxies. Which is not to say that Brian is incapable of thinking for himself, just that there is still plenty of suggestibility and malleability there, if one has an agenda.

And it continues.

‏@thevandykeparks  11m11 minutes ago
Art Tatum, born Oct. 13: didn't hire a publicist to call him "genius". He simply played.  "I Got Rhythm" (solo,1940)

He is so bitter. What happened between them?

Brian has appeal beyond hipsters and music critics...Parks is jealous.

With all due respect, IMO you (and others) are being rather hard on Parks. If I remember correctly, he got upset a few years ago about not being mentioned or credited for Smile in some context or other, and there may have been some additional bad feeling between them, which I suspect Van doesn't hold against Brian personally, knowing how much he is influenced by those surrounding him, and VDP is venting about it in recent years, mostly sending a message to those others. It's true also that Parks had him do the vocals on OCA, contributed old & new lyrics to BWPS, and has always up until recently consistently expressed his gratitude to Brian for giving him opportunities way back when. Stating it as "moving on" is also a little insensitive. Yes, Parks is not handling  with consummate grace, but who of us is perfect? There may also be a touch of envy, he is after all human. Of course, as my username here indicates, I might be slightly biased, but I strive for objectivity.

The best part of Mike's book is when he discusses how he could have done a much better job with the lyrics on Pet Sounds than Tony Asher. "More commercial."
I Just Wasn't Made For These Times would have sounded great with a hot rod mention.

Mike was just a one trick pony. In the mid to late 60's Mike was at his peak writing lyrics. Come on. Good Vibrations. Nearly every song on Wild Honey. Those are great lyrics. I don't believe he could have out-done Asher, but to dismiss Mike's abilities as if everything he ever wrote about was surfing and car songs is disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best.

Mike had/has lyrical talent and abilities, beyond trite hot rod type lyrics, yes. He could be deeper when he wanted to be, no doubt about it. Nobody should put down his better lyrics.

However... Mike also had/has the unfortunate flaw of being too critical of Brian, not to mention being unquestionably the most entitled and risk-averse collaborator that Brian has ever worked with, and he would often resist and question and bully his ideology into getting his way, and disrupt Brian's ideas from fully flowering. Not all the time, every time, but enough times that including him as a collaborator - ESPECIALLY on a more avant-garde project that is exploring new ground for the band - really puts Brian's art at risk from not turning out right.   Not that every single of Mike's criticisms of Brian's ideas were all wrong every time - I'm certain that Mike made some fantastic contributions which we are lucky to have gotten from him - but it just wasn't worth the baggage he'd bring after a certain point in their career when one weighs the good vs. the bad.

Need anyone be reminded of Mike's "happy" lyrics for Til I Die? (Not sure if Mike wrote them, but as I've heard, it was Mike's insistence that Brian water down any "sad" parts of the song - thank heavens Mike's dumb idea was eventually nixed on this).

Let's be honest here: If Mike had somehow pushed Tony Asher out of the picture, and Brian wanted to write a song like I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, and Mike was the lyricist on the project, how would Mike have reacted to this? Tony Asher himself has gone on record saying that this was a song that was difficult for him to relate to, because it was Brian expressing a very Brian point of view... but guess what? Tony did his job and went ahead and etched out a set of rad lyrics that were not watered down.

Does anyone really think that Mike *wouldn't* have given Brian a hard time about that song's message, and chipped away at Brian, putting doubts in Brian's mind about the song, enough to finally cause Brian to maybe just say "f*ck it" and release a more Mike-centric version of the song? That would have been a travesty. The song is PERFECT as it is. It needed NO Mike input. Mike could not have written lyrics like those, or even if he was actually capable of it, the baggage Mike would have brought to it would not have been worth it by a mile.

Why the hell does Brian now (or did he then) need that kind of aggravation and entitled guilt trip BS? Can anyone answer me that? The last thing Brian needs is to work with someone pushy, who is afraid of their contributions not being utilized; a collaborator who is writing music not just for the art of it, but with some misguided self-esteem reasons motivating their every move. Not every damn song needs to be "commercial". Mike wrote lyrics to my favorite BB song, Please Let Me Wonder, and I'll forever cherish that contribution. He CAN kick ass when he wants to. But his baggage would not have been worth it on Pet Sounds. That's a fact.

We are VERY lucky that Mike was not the primary lyricist on the Pet Sounds album. VERY. The fact that Mike doesn't get this after all this time just adds evidence to the fact that he became toxic to Brian long ago. 

Spot on.

Lot's of haters here. Wow . Mike seems pretty much at peace with himself .

Whether he is or not, what does a person being at (largely rationalized in this case IMO) peace with himself, i.e. their perspective on themselves, have to do with others' opinions of that person's words or deeds? And, if (I  emphasize IF) that person's words or deeds are subjectively objectionable and people express their sincere personal opinions about them, isn't that proportional and not merely gratuitous "hating?" Is criticism even "hatred" per se?

The truth is that "Barnyard Billy" was written by Zeppo Wilson before it was stolen by Dennis for "I Don't Know". After they fought over the song on an airport tarmac, Dennis was inspired to write "Barnyard Blues". Which was supposed to be the centerpiece of Pet Sounds.

We know this because all of those songs are tuned to A440.

"Billy" was a character inspired by a hobo that Zeppo encountered when he was riding the rails during his barely-documented beat phase (which intrigued Brian to no end), he was always pestering Zeppo for anecdotes that he could use for a sprawling "Depression" suite, to be the centerpiece of the even more ambitious "History Follies" album that he was already frenziedly planning as a triumphant follow-up to Smile. Zeppo would get so amped while recounting the wandering bum's travails and misadventures that he would forget to use the bathroom and wet himself, which always repelled Brian and, along with his drug consumption, the ongoing Capitol royalty dispute, his inability to put the pieces of Smile together (first things first), and Mike's opposition to any deviation from the formula, was the main reason for his eventually souring on the project and scrapping the idea altogether.

How about "Our Prayer"?

True. True. It's an intro. An intro to what though?

The album...?

You feeling that acid yet?

I feel great...

Next?

I don't think it's so much the dislike of Mike Love that he finds troubling.  

But the outright, hatred towards Mike that has a tendency to derail music based threads.  Or the attacks on posters who might dare to defend Mike, write something positive about a Mike show, or say something negative about a Brian Wilson song, album, or concert.  

I know there's a lot that Mike has done to make people dislike him.  But the blind hatred to the point where some people want to completely dismiss any positive contribution to The Beach Boys makes no sense to me.  

There are far worse people who get far less crap from their fans than Mike Love.  
[/quote

I think the problem, though, is that valid criticism in response to a specific issue (e.g. a Mike interview) is lumped in with "blind hatred."

I also think Mr. Lee doesn't come to such a conversation with much credibility, as he came on the board and egged on what he knew was such a divisive issue. He *starts* a thread about why people don't like Mike Love, and then complains about there being too many posters criticizing Mike? He *literally* asked for it!

That it eventually became obvious that he simply used the board to supplement an article he was writing (rather than doing actual research and reading the board's TEN YEARS of posts to learn more than anything he would ever need to know to write such an article) made the whole thing even more troubling.

A conversation about fan negativity is one worth having. But the guy who stoked the flames, then said pretty nasty stuff about the fan community, and then continued to post here, is *not* someone with credibility to speak to such a conversation.

Lee was textbook passive-aggressive in his final comments here, "I will gladly just leave if it will make you folks happy" etc. Those types are frequently the most disingenuous and two-faced, in my experience.

Honestly, I think the problems on this board have been resolved, except for the occasional attempt to continue arguing about what the problems of the board used to be.
I also don't think that Mike's Beard is somehow free of responsibility for his own language, nor that disagreeing with someone is equivalent to not allowing them to state their opinion.

Hear, hear, +1. And nice to have you back BTW Emily, I enjoyed your back and forth with Rocky. Boy was that a thread from a morbidly fascinating version of Hell.

gee, I wish both boards could get along in all seriousness, we are all supposed to be here
to love and share our joy for this wonderful band, it's members and fellow contributors.
sometimes we all need to pull our heads in for stepping over a line, we are human at the
end of the day.  Occasionally it takes someone else to tell us 'hey', then we have to process that
and then react. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree on certain things that come along
because we can all be pretty head strong when we feel we are right.
easier said than done I know, but, if it keeps the peace, it would make everything worthwhile.

Peace is overrated. I kid. 

Summer Means New Love:

Here we are
The sun bright-ly shi-ning

We only just met
I know you

Finding love
Is almost like sur-fing

The waves
Keep on co-ming strong

Sit-ting here
The wind softly blo-wing

In the warm summer day
Our fee-lings will grow

Short time gone
I'm already kno-wing

That our love
Wi-ill ca-rry on

We can melt our cares away
With each brand new sum-mer day

And the starlight in your eyes at night
Is oh so right
Please stay-ay

Now it's dark
The moon shines up above us

We feel like we ne-ver fe-elt before

When we kiss
It's like a new beginning

And I know
that you are my own.....

this is becoming my favoritve emoji, I can use it for nearly every post and topic these days.

Well there are at least two super-annoying people (IMO) on that board (who shall remain unnamed) so in my mind it's got 2 strikes against it already. That being said, can't we all just get along (both forums I mean)?

I used to have dreams that I had located holy grail unknown pieces and sections of Smile that were mind-blowingly terrific, variations and elaborations on what is already known but taking it to another more mystical and ethereal level. I always hear it in some circumstance or other (obscure bootleg, band or insider tape etc.) but then discover that I don't quite have it in my possession and its ultimate elusiveness has remained so, tantalizingly close but just out of reach.

Just want to chime in for a moment, at my peril. A real shame that Mike felt the need to re-cut the backing vocal for the alternate Big Sur, and that may be the likely reason that it was left off MIC. That context for its release would have been ideal for any other reason than self-aggrandizement (the new chord twist on the backing vocals in the snippet of the re-done version is actually interesting, but the original was lovely and quite sufficient, although of course it is his prerogative to belatedly reconfigure a previously unreleased track no matter how much it's been booted or otherwise circulated). When Al did it with Loop De Loop, the result was solid, if a bit sterile.

As regards his alleged contribution of seed $ to the labeling effort, it is consistent with his conservative politics, but somewhat craven (surprise!) That John Denver was to his left on the issue is quite amusing, as was the post citing his banal and piggish lyrics about "doing it" etc. which is equally as boorish as "backing that ass up" IMO. And "Fille", not to be unduly "confrontative", but if a person needs a label to anticipate that a hip-hop song is more likely to contain lyrics potentially corruptive to young ears than a mainstream pop tune (the aforememtioned ML example notwithstanding), then perhaps they shouldn't be entrusted with the care of children. Which is not to say that labeling is all bad, but censorship is IMO.

One excerpt that I find irritating is that Dennis had "lasting guilt" over his Manson association, a somewhat spurious re-phrasing and a dead horse which Mike seems determined to beat ad nauseum along with so many others. How about a more charitable view (what a concept) such as that Dennis's open heart, childhood emotional damage  and subsequent need for sensation resulted in some unfortunate, misguided choices which sadly ultimately led to an untimely end, but some forgiveness for his cousin rather than seemingly endless snarkiness and judgmentalism from the perspective of his more upper-class, Murry-less upbringing vantage point. Not forthcoming any time soon, methinks. I strive for objectivity and am not a gratuitous Mike-basher by any means BTW, and I think see the totality of his various crosses to bear, both internally and externally created, as completely anyone who is not him.

All good points. Well put.

The specious guess or assertion that Dennis's death had directly much to do with the Manson saga reads more like what a novice biographer would say. Dennis died, and it was in that sort of "not a suicide, but could have been sorta a bit like that" fashion, and Dennis had a Manson connection, therefore a line is connected between the two.

I'm curious to read what Jon Stebbins might have to say about the theory that Dennis's death had any strong, significant tie to guilt related to the Manson case.

I think it's been well established that he felt fundamentally ruined and destroyed by the experiences, which began a spiral of self-destructiveness exacerbated by his already free-wheeling and adventurous personality   Maybe not guilty per se, but possibly that as well, which doesn't mean that Mike should characterize it that way in the absence of his having gone on record as saying so.

Just want to chime in for a moment, at my peril. A real shame that Mike felt the need to re-cut the backing vocal for the alternate Big Sur, and that may be the likely reason that it was left off MIC. That context for its release would have been ideal for any other reason than self-aggrandizement (the new chord twist on the backing vocals in the snippet of the re-done version is actually interesting, but the original was lovely and quite sufficient, although of course it is his prerogative to belatedly reconfigure a previously unreleased track no matter how much it's been booted or otherwise circulated). When Al did it with Loop De Loop, the result was solid, if a bit sterile.

As regards his alleged contribution of seed $ to the labeling effort, it is consistent with his conservative politics, but somewhat craven (surprise!) That John Denver was to his left on the issue is quite amusing, as was the post citing his banal and piggish lyrics about "doing it" etc. which is equally as boorish as "backing that ass up" IMO. And "Fille", not to be unduly "confrontative", but if a person needs a label to anticipate that a hip-hop song is more likely to contain lyrics potentially corruptive to young ears than a mainstream pop tune (the aforememtioned ML example notwithstanding), then perhaps they shouldn't be entrusted with the care of children. Which is not to say that labeling is all bad, but censorship is IMO.

One comment that I find irritating is that Dennis had "lasting guilt" over his Manson association, a somewhat uncharitable and self-serving re-phrasing and a dead horse which Mike seems determined to beat ad nauseum along with so many others. How about a more charitable view (what a concept) such as that Dennis's open heart, childhood emotional damage  and subsequent need for sensation resulted in some unfortunate, misguided choices which sadly ultimately led to an untimely end, but some forgiveness for his cousin rather than seemingly endless snarkiness and judgmentalism from the perspective of his more upper-class, Murry-less upbringing vantage point. Not forthcoming any time soon, methinks. I strive for objectivity and am not a gratuitous Mike-basher by any means BTW, appreciate his vocal, lyrical (when not in unbearable live self-parodying ultra-nasal mode) and yes, stage contributions (as far as keeping their music alive and in the public eye through the years) contributions very much, and I think see the totality of his various crosses to bear, both internally and externally created, as much as possible by anyone who is not himself him, he, hoo- hah!

sadly it appears we have a book by the only Mike there is:

not a man interested in any type of meaningful self-reflection, apologizing for any wrongdoing, or displaying any degree of humility whatsoever.

just the same guy proclaiming his immense contributions to the band's success, extolling his superior lifestyle choices, and bitterly calling out those he feels ripped off or slighted by.

what a loathsome, ungrateful, and utterly self-centered human. y'all enjoy the book

I for one won't be purchasing a copy.