Uh...you know it was Dennis who took WIBNTLA off the Surf's Up album, right? CARL pissed him off, not Mike..though it seems you think Love had something o do with it (he did not)...and, it is Dennis who sings the wonderful tag line on the end of "It's OK", so he must have liked it (more than Sail On Sailer, which he bailed out of) Personally, I think WIBNTLA is mediocure (and the MIC version mercifully cuts it back from the full version).   He also was kicked out of The Beach Boys several times, so he got some distance-trouble was, Dennis was a manic drug addicted alcoholic. His disease is what took the life out of him. The one-octive croon his voice was reduced to was attributed to cociane, etc...

Uh...(God that smug modern prefix annoys me) yes I am aware that it was a dispute between he and Carl that was the main reason for Dennis's impulsive and regrettable yanking of his two superb tracks from SU. One factor in Dennis' gradual disillusionment during the '70s, however, was extreme jealousy of his brilliant offerings from Mike and Bruce, mainly (even Al, who sided with the other "clean livers" and later regretted it). He had to fight to get his material on the albums, and by the time of his last best efforts (Love Surrounds Me, Baby Blue etc.) the situation had turned around and he wanted to keep them for his solo offerings but was pressured into letting them be put onto albums that he despised wholeheartedly, such as MIU and L.A. WIBNTLA is patently NOT mediocre IMO. He hated Mike with a passion, for good reason IMO. Obviously he was drug & alcohol-dependent and an unreliable individual, but those problems were exacerbated by inter-band tensions and adversity, such as the loss of Brother Studios, his recording and music-making creative refuge and womb.

This doesn't make sense. If you acknowledge that Dennis taking his songs off SU was due to a disagreement with Carl, why do you keep pushing the idea that Dennis had to fight Mike's ideas into the mix?

I'm just quoting the late great Jack Rieley, that there was intense jealousy in the band towards Dennis around the time of the SU song withdrawal debacle, and I assume that he meant Mike was in the middle of that mix.

Uh...you know it was Dennis who took WIBNTLA off the Surf's Up album, right? CARL pissed him off, not Mike..though it seems you think Love had something o do with it (he did not)...and, it is Dennis who sings the wonderful tag line on the end of "It's OK", so he must have liked it (more than Sail On Sailer, which he bailed out of) Personally, I think WIBNTLA is mediocure (and the MIC version mercifully cuts it back from the full version).   He also was kicked out of The Beach Boys several times, so he got some distance-trouble was, Dennis was a manic drug addicted alcoholic. His disease is what took the life out of him. The one-octive croon his voice was reduced to was attributed to cociane, etc...

Uh...(God that smug modern prefix annoys me) yes I am aware that it was a dispute between he and Carl that was the main reason for Dennis's impulsive and regrettable yanking of his two superb tracks from SU. One factor in Dennis' gradual disillusionment during the '70s, however, was extreme jealousy of his brilliant offerings from Mike and Bruce, mainly (even Al, who sided with the other "clean livers" and later regretted it). He had to fight to get his material on the albums, and by the time of his last best efforts (Love Surrounds Me, Baby Blue etc.) the situation had turned around and he wanted to keep them for his solo offerings but was pressured into letting them be put onto albums that he despised wholeheartedly, such as MIU and L.A. WIBNTLA is patently NOT mediocre IMO. He hated Mike with a passion, for good reason IMO. Obviously he was drug & alcohol-dependent and an unreliable individual, but those problems were exacerbated by inter-band tensions and adversity, such as the loss of Brother Studios, his recording and music-making creative refuge and womb.

 have found myself reflecting over the last couple of years since MIC about how amazing it is that this beautiful song, one of Dennis Wilson's crowning achievements, sat in limbo for so very long, and just how incredible the end of SU would have been with its presence, in whatever sequence with the other heavyweight tracks could have ideally been hammered out by Carl & Dennis.I know it's been discussed ad infinitum already, but when I picture that album with some dross excised and DWs two tracks (4th of July was a demo and would have been more orchestrated and finished) added to the mix, I get goosebumps at the level of introspective, grandiose melancholia that would have been on display, perhaps making the album unbalanced in that direction but rendering it an absolutely transcendent piece of art. Th end of side 2 would have been a stunning tour-de-force of extraordinary magnitude (to paraphrase the Kentucky Fried Movie.)

When that jewel of a song finally saw the light of day on MIC, I'll never forget the day the album came out, and listening to it for the first time after years pf anticipation when someone posted it on YouTube. I had an exhilarating, epiphanic reaction to it that I'll never forget, and tried to convey that passionate joy here by means of (arguable) hyperbole. That moment in time deserved intense, DW-like if you will, celebration of the news of its liberation from the vaults. Jon Stebbins clearly took quiet, understated satisfaction that the "eagle had finally had its time to soar" or words to that effect. I think unbridled, exuberant, totally non-ironic, apathetic or detached  enthusiasm is an important thing, no matter how unfashionable it is. This topic will probably elicit a couple of responses and then sink like a stone, but the main point I want to make is the magnitude of the Wilson brothers' spirituality and ambition during the early '70s (a mood matched somewhat by Mike and Al at that time, but anbandoned later, after the oldies revue formula was in full swing.) I remember the lone C50 show I saw at the Greek Theatre in Berkeley, and how the mellow mood was really starting to pick up dreamy momentum and flow after "All This Is That" and a couple of other more artistic early '70s tracks were played in sequence, only to have their slowly building, beautiful mood disrupted by "It's OK" or some other dross that ML had surely had a hand in programming into the set. I know he co-wrote ATIT, and I don't intend to gratuitously Mike-bash here, but the Wilson gift, as exemplified in WIBNTLA and the more abstract late-'60s and early '70s material, as well as Smile and some of the more obscure '60s classics (She Know Me Too Well, Spirit of America, Please Let Me Wonder, Keep An Eye On Summer, Guess I'm Dumb  etc.) sadly never ached its full fruition because of an inexorable push for conventionality, and that sadly lost potential is incalculable and worthy of grieving for.

I know different people have different things that they value and get out of the band's various types of music, many valuing their more conventional side, but what the Wilsons were reaching for and got disillusioned and worn out by battling Mr. Love et al for (and Al, who sided with Mike in the late '70s as the "clean livers" but went on the record later as regretting) was rare and special and transcendent, well worth fighting for, but unfortunately discouraged, and in Dennis' case, brutally snuffed out in the end. If he could've gotten some distance from the contentiousness and dysfunctional BB drama, then maybe, just maybe, he could have overcome his demons, seen how much he had to live for, and pulled it together. Doubtful I know. For the Love brothers to punch him in his throat (twice I think) and permanently damage his voice was unconscionable. It's fashionable not to hate on Mike and I only do so when I feel it's really justified, and in the case of his role in the more progressive element of the Wilson's musical potential, I think it's deserved. Here's to the Wilson music that was never heard or written, music which would have. like WIBN(TLA) soared into the stratosphere and been a beacon of beauty for future generations to be thrilled by.

God bless the musical dreams and visions of the Wilson brothers and lets be thankful for the degree to which they reached their full flowering.

It never seems to get mentioned but do you think it's likely that others gave a difference of opinion to Brian before the Pet Sounds/Smile era?

Wasn't there some resistance or questioning (despite Mike's cowriting credits) to the collection of ballads on Side B of Today? I though I recalled reading that. It is unfortunate that Brian wasn't especially good with handling criticism (up to a point yes, beyond a point he simply breaks), although that just makes him a very sensitive person, which is also what makes him capable of unparalleled sensitivity in his art.

I do "get" the idea that criticism and pushback is ordinarily simply "how bands work", but Brian was a special case. I do not think those criticisms were always handled with care, so to speak, and that was a problem.

Yes indeedy.

The quasi-legendary "Goat Sessions" took place after the Zoo shoot, after an impromptu inspiration that Brian had to add tinkling tin can sounds to various album tracks after holding one out for the San Diego goat to nibble on, overdubs later erased after reconsidering the sonic merits (or lack thereof) of the gimmick. The song's alternate title was also inspired by a brief conversation with Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, where he told BW about some album titles under consideration, one of which was finally used a few years later, "Goat's Head Soup".

I know he's done TNWSY, that's why I mentioned it specifically in the opening comment. The whole album would be too much IMO as well. Perhaps Honking Down the Highway, Solar System, I'll Bet He's Nice, the aforementioned Night, Airplane or even I Wanna Pick You Up, a couple of which interspersed judiciously throughout the set. Foskett seemed to be a major obstacle in the past, and mainstream audience response might be befuddled and indifferent at first but I think they'd get into it eventually. I say do these idiosyncratic ditties before it's too late!

I was just listening to "Airplane" last night and imagining how wonderful it would be to hear it played live alongside the other eras, very open and freeing. I'm sure other factors than Jeff Foskett's ambivalence to it were factors in Love You material never being played, but can't remember what they were, other than the emotional nakedness of the songs and their possible "inappropriateness" to some with input over song selection. How does Brian feel about it (besides The Night Was So Young)? Of course there may not be any more tours so it might be moot.

Pretty disjointed affair overall, but Brian's lower register is so rich, his voice is such a unique treasure even after everything it's been through. He's singing strongly these days. It looked a little claustrophobic in there as well.

Target donates huge sums of $ to exclusively right-wing political campaigns, which is the main thing that makes them awful IMO (your results may vary).

Hello good people, just got word that Blondie Chaplin and Brian will be on the Jimmy Kimmel Show next Thursday night, April 2nd. No further details known at this time, that is all.

One question that I would really like to ask and have answered (never gonna happen) is "what was the original piano part on "I'm Waiting For the Day" that the session musician made the "really great mistake" on to change Brian's mind and go with it instead? He would have to really be thinking clearly to come up with an answer on that one, or else, who knows, he might just rattle it off like it was fresh in his memory. The circumstances would have to be just so though.

A very sad day indeed.

Sounds utterly plausible to me. Many here may want to deny certain of the very human foibles and weaknesses of the band members while admitting others, but IMO this is one of the realest-sounding, most unguarded behind-the-scenes BB moments that has ever been documented.

Thank you for gracing us with your presence, Mr. Wilson! Your music and beautiful, soulful voice have provided irreplaceable spiritual sustenance for me in difficult times and I thank you profusely, from the bottom of my heart.

What was the original sequence of notes that you intended for  the intro to "I'm Waiting For the Day", that were replaced by the "really great mistake" by the session musician?

Shannon, hands down.

Meh. It's just Sandy/Sherry rewritten (again), in a much more clumsy and clod-hopping arrangement than the original...

Sometimes, I really wish Brian had just FINISHED Sandy/Sherry/Tricia/whatever in 1965. It would be a great song with a beautiful 1965 vocal and a fantastic twist on the chord progression at the end. Instead, we have all of these rewrites, none of which quite deliver on the promise of the original. That includes Brian's multiple attempts, in my opinion, by the way. I'm glad the 1975 Sherry finally got an official release on MiC last year, but even though it's closest in time to the original, I still think the track re-record lacks the lightness of touch of the unfinished 1965 recording. Oh, and of course, it appears to have a mortally wounded, chain-smoking walrus bellowing on it instead of Brian Wilson...

Nailed it (except for the last bit, which is overly harsh IMO). "Sandy" gets my vote for most unfortunate song to remain unfinished, tantalizing glimpse of what might have been. There's something uniquely transportive about the tune, and a crystalline, perfectly realized '65 rendition would have been unbelievably great.

As Shane mentioned...the backing musical track is truly well done if not a stark contrast to the other tracks on the album...just like the orchestral work on their Christmas album is obviously a different slant on things. musically speaking.

No...my problem is with the vocals.  I have no idea how many takes Dennis put in on this one but...even if it was only one...I'm saying Brian took the wrong one for inclusion on 'Today'.

I prefer several versions of Help Me Rhonda/Ronda to the one on the album...and it ain't bad at all as is.  So if Brian could fix that....why not in the back of my vacuous noggin?  One [and a half/Party bein' the 1/2] albums later he had NO problem switching vocals in and out...including dumping some of his own.  I'm going to GUESS that time/touring restraints perhaps kept that from happening with the song sitting under our collective microscope. 

I think Brian directed Dennis to sing the lead in that ragged, hangdog, beseeching way, to better express the emotional confusion that he (Brian) was feeling at the time. The single version of Ronda/Rhonda was an attempt to record the material in a more perky arrangement so it would be more commercial, and it succeeds artistically as well.

There is a different set of lyrics, can't remember if Queen actually performs on it. IMO it would be extremely interesting to hear, even if it's not necessarily "better". Any top-drawer talent's interpretation of this fantastic DW track is essential listening. Wasn't this the original set of Dennis Jakobsen lyrics?

I have to admit that I just couldn't stand 'In The Back of My Mind' when I bought 'Today' back in 1965.  And now here we are almost 50 years later and I still have NO idea why that song was included on the album.  To these ears it just wasn't ready for prime time whatsoever.  The vocals were weak, poorly done and, at times, just too out of tune.  Why the heck was that allowed to pass through the 'fire-wall'?  A re-record would have been the right thing to do.  It is one of the reasons why I rank 'Today' lower than it otherwise would have deserved to be placed.

Interesting viewpoint, I don't recall reading anything like that before about the song. And it comes from an old-timer! Thanks for telling it like it is, Add Some! And welcome to the board!

It IS interesting to hear different takes on this (to many fans) hallowed track. The mood is mournful and dirge-like, with Dennis singing very plaintively, less polished-sounding than most and very nearly off-key. The vocal style and dissonant chord at the end stand in contrast to the perfection of the rest of side 2, though the tone is somewhat similar, esp. to She Knows Me Too Well, an undeniable classic. The song has been cited as early evidence of Brian's impending disturbed state of mind, and it may well be. The production is first-rate though, and there is an alternate take on YouTube featuring Dennis' single-tracked vocal which is very revealing. Not as muddy as the album version and quite excellent IMO.

The C50 events were astonishing... as - sadly - was the torrent of complete nonsense, twaddle & bilge that followed in the wake thereof from all points of the compass and all camps.

...........including this board. I'm burnt out on it. Time to move forward, boys and girls!!  

Obviously many people aren't. Why don't you stop trying to dictate what topics others should discuss, just don't participate in the relevant threads if the subject doesn't interest you. It's annoying.

This thread has been excellent and cathartic and has remained civil for the most part, great job everyone. @Mikie: it's not old hat, it's an ongoing state of affairs and deserves whatever fresh insight and creative thought we care to devote to it. I thought of another point. If, and I mean IF, the original band members have truly irreconcilable personal differences that cause them inordinate stress when they are in close proximity to each other, such as Pink Floyd seem to, that should also excuse any ethical or propriety-based obligation to perform under the original group name as a unit. I don't think that's the case with the "Boys".

In such situations, the perpetuation of the music itself takes precedence IMO, although some modification of the basic name might be in order. Fleetwood Mac is another example that I didn't mention before, fortunately after much turmoil through the years they have apparently come to a very good place with each other, and I'm sure no one faction within their group would dream of touring under the name unless the others just didn't want to be a part of it any more, as was the case with Christine McVie for the last 15 years, and when she decided to return for a full tour and album after a few 2012 outings went well she was naturally welcomed back with open arms. They are an example of a band that has handled these issues with class, the opposite of the post-C50 BBs.

The fact that we are discussing these issues with such passion is, to me, indicative and a wonderful affirmation of the fervid idealism that this group, its identity and its music inspire in those to whom it resonates with. Either that or we all need to get lives. IMO we have them already (most of us, anyway), and are extremely fortunate that this music is a part of them.

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

Please excuse the stream-of-consciousness below:

I don't know. On the one hand one can say that the majority of casual fans only know about the early hits and don't know if who they are seeing on stage are the original Beach Boys or not. On the other hand, though, The Beach Boys have always been a much bigger draw when Brian Wilson is part of the band.

I was just thinking that, say, at a Stones show, most people would probably notice if Keith wasn't there. And at a Who show, most people would probably notice if Pete wasn't there. When the Beatles did that one brief part of the 1964 tour without Ringo, people definitely took notice. These are bands that cultivated interest in not only the songs but the people. So I'm wondering - maybe the Beach Boys haven't done that? But then I think, of course they have. At least to an extent. If they hadn't, the Brian is Back campaign would have never been the kind of success that it was.

Of course, the fact is, there are plenty of people you can find who say that they like music, that they even like "old music" but they still wouldn't be able to give you the full names of all four Beatles. I don't know what the point is there, but something tells me it's relevant.

It's very relevant in that the musical content and catalogues of the top tier, most revered and iconic groups in rock and roll history, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin and yes, Beach Boys arguably transcend the significance of the band lineups, which is the heart of the "carrying the torch", "keeping the spirit of the music alive" etc. argument. This argument has validity in any case where the music is so uniquely evocative and has the power to positively affect people so strongly.

But it is trumped IMO by the other argument. In the cases of the Stones & Who, they know what's right & proper and all surviving members will d--n well be onstage at any concert that bears their bands' legendary name (McCartney & Ringo are a unique case and should be given a pass).

Brian Wilson began giving live solo shows in the late '90s, slowly recovered and re-habituated himself courageously to being onstage, and understandably didn't want to have anything to do with his cousin until the C50 opportunity arose, whereupon he rejoined the reunited BBs and enjoyed it so much that he was eager to extend the tour open-endedly, which as Howie said would have been thoroughly doable regardless of ML's protestations to the contrary, even if it would have gone against his standard operating procedure re: changing terms with promoters etc., but his cousin refused, prioritizing his own convenience and autonomy.

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

ML's refusal to allow it and his insistence on returning to the diluted status quo on his own terms constitutes a sad cheapening of the legendary group's name, image and brand, no ifs, ands or buts, but admittedly by a somewhat narrow margin over the "keeping the music alive" rationale, as I said before. One could argue that by working so hard and touring constantly for so many years he has earned the right to define the brand, but that is invalidated by the fact that, despite his undoubtedly sincere love for the music, he has also been amply remunerated in innumerable ways and therefore
had/has a vested interest in making the "sacrifice" of his hard work.

Pink Floyd is the closest parallel to the BB scenario but at least both Gilmour and Waters were legitimate co-visionaries who both carried on Syd Barrett's legacy and expanded it in two grand, totally legitimate directions.

I know this sounds dogmatic and very black & white, but assuming that there is/was a will on Brian's side to continue doing concerts with Mike & Bruce (Al as well, which is definite, and David would probably like to participate to some degree as is evdenced by M&B inviting him to join them for some shows now), anything less than allowing him/them to play whatever shows they want to with the "Beach Boys" continues the ongoing undermining of their legacy and cannot be adequately justified.

If they pay any attention to this board I hope they see this thread.   all of them and their wives and managers.  I f this bunch is passing on this conjunction of shows, they are LOSING their primary hard core fans and supporters.  Absolutely no reason why Brian, Al and David can't join in on the Beach Boys show for a predetermined number of dates per tour.  Sure, BW doesn't want to tour much, just do it when he does do it with THE BEACH BOYS!  WTF would be wrong with that???

Well, this is what I was saying right after C50, when all of the "Well, Brian doesn't tour as much as Mike does, etc, etc…" excuses were being bandied about.

There is a way for everyone to get what they want. Reserve the Beach Boys name for the full group, including Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce and David. Run this group like C50 and book the bigger venues that were offered, but do fewer shows a year. License out the "Beach Boys Touring Band" as a smaller outfit that Mike and Bruce can take to the State Fairs and do the fun in the sun shows.  Make sure the booking information indicates that there are two distinct configurations of the same band, hire a manager to handle scheduling and contracts for both groups. It's bound to be less confusing than what we have now,  everyone gets to be Beach Boys their way, and instead of all of this bickering, they can finish with dignity and style.

Sadly, I don't think dignity and style are a priority for at least some band members.