gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
653901 Posts in 26137 Topics by 3721 Members - Latest Member: digitalhikes January 18, 2020, 05:49:05 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 350
1  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian Wilson 2020 Live Thread on: January 16, 2020, 08:21:28 AM
While Brian has always had music “in” him, and that has manifested itself in creating in various forms, I think Brian and most of the guys in the band over the years individually and collectively have rarely approached *recording and releasing* albums as a venture done simply for the sake of it.

Years and years after having a “hit” was simply very, very unlikely, Brian still spoke in interviews about wanting a “hit”, rather than simply saying he wanted to create and release.

A certain amount of momentum in simply continuing the “album/tour/album/tour” cycle dictated that the Beach Boys continued this trend until “Keepin’ the Summer Alive” in 1980. From that point on, studio releases were done sporadically, usually with some sort of specific impetus (e.g. record company offers a bag of cash, or one member has a specific idea, or someone commissions for a specific piece, etc.).

I’d say perhaps some of the solo releases were done more in the mode of recording and releasing music for its own inherent sake, in cases such as Al’s live album and “Postcards” studio album, sort of some of Mike’s recent solo albums (though he was approached by a label to do those; I’m guessing he wouldn’t have self-released the stuff online only on CD Baby or something), and perhaps the early post-Imagination solo Brian stuff like “Live at the Roxy”, which was self-released. But even then, I think self-releasing Brian stuff was just a stop-gap to build up momentum/interest for a solo deal from an actual label, which came within a few years.

So I think Brian still views an “album” as a project the same way he did 20, 30, 40 years ago to some degree. It’s not something he just always does. It’s something a label asks for, or commissions, or happens when he’s more into that album/tour/album/tour cycle.

What would have been cool in more recent years is for Brian to have a sort of Rick Rubin-Johnny Cash sort of situation where someone could come in and just kind of spur Brian to create however he wants to, but then mold that into an actual release. I wish someone with clout would approach Brian and basically just have him grab a bag of songs, and sit at a piano and perform for a few days/weeks, and then edit that into album. Pure Brian. Brian isn’t going to do that all on his own; he doesn’t have that sort of mentality to want to do a Colin Hay “Man at Work” sort of true solo recording.

In the alternative (or in addition), there should be a boxed set of rare solo Brian stuff. Why they just put out 30-second rare audio clips sporadically on Instagram but don’t put out a boxed set, I don’t know. Every Beach Boys archival release should be followed up with some solo Brian rarities.
2  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 16, 2020, 06:42:15 AM
I know it was a long time ago, but why did Wings break up?
The stories vary. The story most writers tell is that they broke up when Paul got busted in Japan. That's not quite true, although Denny was pretty pissed about the whole thing. But they did regroup in summer 1980 to start working on some new material. Somewhere along the way, though, Paul changed his mind about recording with the band. Laurence Juber and Steve Holley were both informed that their services were no longer needed. Paul, Denny, and Linda went to Monserrat to record Tug of War with George Martin and guest musicians. At some point, Denny walked out. I've read that he was having problems with his wife JoJo; he's also said he was getting tired of being in the studio all the time, wanted to get out and play live again. Paul had no interest in touring again after John Lennon was murdered, but it's also likely he would have had trouble touring after the bust in Japan.

Wings was on borrowed time even before McCartney reconstituted a new lineup in 1978 with Juber and Holley.

For a dead-man walking band, they did a pretty great album with "Back to the Egg" in 1979. By that time, McCartney was already back to cutting solo material ("McCartney II" recorded in mid-1979), and then he went back out for a December '79 UK tour with Wings, which was to be followed by dates in Japan and probably North America in 1980.

His Japan bust was obviously some sort of weird subconscious sabotage thing. Even Paul himself, who is not usually apt to deeply analyze his personal ulterior motives and psychology, has kind of admitted on some level he was done with Wings and stupidly getting busted was some part of that.

By early 1980, Wings was on hold, he was putting out a true "Solo" album with "McCartney II", was was beginning to network with George Martin on his next album.

McCartney did do a few group rehearsals with Wings post-Japan in 1980, but if you listen to those rehearsals, they're pretty awful. Evidence of nothing more than McCartney clearly not being into Wings anymore (and frankly, the other guys in the band showing up pretty ragged and messy-sounding themselves). Those rehearsals reek of "I'm not sure what to do, so I guess I'll just do what I was doing last year".

As the infamous story goes, George Martin agreed to produce Paul's next album, with sessions beginning in late 1980. But Martin made it clear he didn't want Wings. He wanted to do a McCartney solo album. So Juber and Holley were not invited. Paul continued to bring Denny along for the initial group of sessions (for what ended up being "Tug of War"), which certainly seemed to be a last vestige of Paul continuing to just do things they way he had done them for years. Denny had been there for a decade through multiple Wings lineups (including lineups where there were no other members), so he came along.

At some point in 1981, Juber and Holley officially "left" Wings, though it was obviously a case of leaving a party that was already over.

After initial sessions ended in Montserrat in 1981, Paul came back to the UK for additional sessions, and that was the point at which, as I understand it, it was a case of Paul (and/or his organization) letting Denny know his services were no longer needed for the foreseeable future.

I think Denny Laine would have kept recording with Paul until he was told to go away, regardless of any tour dates. Not trying to knock the guy, but his career obviously wasn't going to take off post-Wings. They scant solo items he had cut prior to Wings disbanding had had no traction, including a full album of Buddy Holly covers produced by Paul himself.

I think Paul was over Wings by 1979/80, and then George Martin not being into recording them was enough to sink the whole thing. Paul eventually wanted to move on from working with Denny at all, and any slim chance there was that Paul may have called Denny back up at some point later on was nixed when Denny (and his wife I believe?) started going to tabloids and reporting unflattering accusations about Paul and  Linda.

The story of the other Wings members isn't totally unlike that of the Beach Boys. Should the less musically contributing members feel they're lucky to even be there, or should they get more credit for schlepping along for all the years they did?

But I'd have to say, while most members of Wings were good musicians, and in a few cases they wrote some decent stuff, Wings was generally not analogous to the Beach Boys in that pretty much every member of the Beach Boys wrote some really great material for their band at one point or another, and played a more prominent role at various points than other members of Wings had.
3  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian Wilson 2020 Live Thread on: January 15, 2020, 09:32:02 AM
Nothing substantive in this brief interview, but a local news outlet did snag Brian briefly for a new interview to promote upcoming gigs:

https://www.miamiherald.com/miami-com/miami-com-news/article239092763.html
4  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Classic Or Modern Beach Boys? on: January 14, 2020, 06:24:54 AM
Oddly, the clothing in the pictures of the CBS Convention, from Dark Star magazine, on this link
https://www.45worlds.com/live/listing/the-beach-boys-ballroom-grosvenor-house-hotel-park-lane-1977
are quite different to the picture above? And yes, Mike is still hatless.

The newspaper pics actually match the previous color photo I posted of a hat-less Mike on stage:





So I'm guessing that it's correct; the light shirts photo is from a rehearsal, and the shots of Mike with the sweater vest are from the actual gig, and all the pics are from the same day, which would explain the hat-less Mike in both.

5  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 14, 2020, 06:21:07 AM
Paul put out a book of his lyrics some years back called Blackbird Singing. Mull of Kintyre is credited to just McCartney, even though Laine's main contribution to the song was helping him with the lyrics on the verses - Paul already had the hook, the chorus of the song, when they started working on it.
The Tug of War Archive Edition removed Laine as co-writer of the song Rainclouds, even though all the original releases had it listed as a McCartney/Laine song.

In the case of "Mull of Kintyre", Laine's name was never actually removed from the song's publishing. He's still credited in the ASCAP database and, as far as I can tell, on all releases of the song. If his name was not on that book, it was presumably just an editorial decision. I don't know if McCartney disagrees and remembers having written all the lyrics, and unless the song had separate music and lyric credits (which I don't believe it did), then Laine's name should be included in any reprint of music or lyrics.

But in that particular case, McCartney has not actually removed Laine's name (or, technically, "Brian Hines") from the song's publishing.

As for "Rainclouds", I would assume McCartney felt the original credit was in error. I don't know if Laine has publicly said he was wrongly removed from the credits on that one.

I think McCartney has weirdly and (in the case of that Wingspan documentary) comically minimized all of the former members of Wings in numerous ways, and I have no reason to doubt that back in the day they weren't paid anywhere near what a huge band should be, especially by the time they reached 1976 levels of success. But I haven't seen vast cases of wiping Denny Laine's name off songs. While the two have never recovered a personal or professional relationship, McCartney is a little better than in the Wingspan days of including involvement from Laine and other Wings members on the "Archive Collection" sets, at least soliciting comments for the books, etc. And really, the McCartney/Laine songwriting relationship (or Laine's place in Wings in general) is not even anywhere near as robust as Wilson/Love. I'm not saying Laine wasn't talented or that he never contributed to Wings; but McCartney was always pulling the weight in that "band", and Laine's subsequent solo stuff didn't portend a whole lot.

The Mike Love situation is different in that he didn't have his name retroactively removed from songs; he was sporadically never credited in the first place. It's ironic; the fact that Mike *did* get some songwriting credits even in the early days was probably something that immensely helped his eventual case. Had he never been credited on anything in the 60s, his 90s lawsuit may have looked more like the Liberty DeVitto/Billy Joel lawsuit; a former disgruntled bandmate retroactively deciding his in-studio contributions rose to the level of co-authorship. Mike's case was a case where, again apart from the debate over WIBN, he clearly wrote substantive portions of lyrics.

Interestingly, I'd say while Mike was screwed over worse than Denny Laine originally, as of the year 2020, Laine has more overall legit reasons to be disgruntled. Denny Laine's playing clubs, and I'm guessing *doesn't* have a huge house in Nevada and isn't touring 180 shows per year and selling properties around the globe.
6  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 13, 2020, 12:04:56 PM
When it comes to the songwriting issue, I look at this way: How else can it be further rectified? Mike pursued all of the recourse he could back in 1994, and he was successful on all counts. He got his name on the songs, and got both future royalties going forward as well as a settlement lump sum.

What else could he ask for at that point? A full accounting and full back royalties for all those years? As I understand it, that's typically not awarded in these types of lawsuits (see Matthew Fisher's suit regarding "Whiter Shade of Pale"), and either way, even amidst Mike's harping on the topic to this day in interviews, he never professes to be upset about back royalties or money owed him. I guess Mike never got a huge, worldwide press conference apology from Brian on the matter, but again, I haven't really seen him much complain specifically that what's still angering him is a lack of a more epic, loud apology from Brian. Brian to this day happily discusses Mike's hand in co-writing songs.

He's still just pissed it happened in the first place; he can't let *that* go. Spectators could be forgiven for wondering why Mike went decades seemingly happily without filing suit, then filed suit and WON, and then for a number of years after that went back to seeming to feel vindicated and getting past it, and then went *back* to being intensely bitter about it all over again as he approached 80 years old while continuing to rake in money and adulation and having the entire Beach Boys setup just the way he wants. What does this guy want?

He also seems to vacillate between blaming Murry and Brian, blaming mostly Brian, or blaming mostly Murry. Sometimes, I guess when he's feeling a bit more charitable, he'll point out that Murry had Brian in a difficult spot both logistically and emotionally. Other times, Mike seems as angry with Brian as he is with Murry.  

Mike will literally say in interviews that Al is unhappy and negative, yet you haven't seen Al any time in recent years rant and rave about all of the wrongs perpetrated against him in this Beach Boys saga (and there are plenty for him to go into if he wanted).

Considering the songwriting credits issue ultimately did not bankrupt him or otherwise force him to not live his privileged lifestyle (he *literally* appeared on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" at one point!), and considering it was remedied in every legal way possible, ensuring he would always be credited on the songs in the future and collect royalties, I think Mike would be well served to go get some therapy and let go of this.
7  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Classic Or Modern Beach Boys? on: January 13, 2020, 08:00:22 AM
Mike is also hat-less for at least part of the infamous 1977 UK CBS convention gig:

8  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Classic Or Modern Beach Boys? on: January 13, 2020, 07:58:54 AM
I would argue that Mike has never done a full length concert without a hat since the 1960's. Maybe there's a handful of exceptions in the early 70's...but once he started sifting through various headdresses, before finally landing on the infamous baseball cap (with BEACH BOYS on it, to remind everyone what show they're at) I don't think he ever took it off!


Mike indeed has rarely gone hat-less post-late 60s. But here's one example from circa 1977/78-ish:



Obviously can't say for sure how much of the show he did without the hat; but it looks like he's purposely going hat-less as opposed to one having just fallen off or something.
9  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 13, 2020, 07:52:53 AM
One of the things that annoys me about McCartney, though, is how he kept complaining publicly about the Lennon-McCartney songwriting credit; how it was so unfair for John's name to be before his on Yesterday, Michelle, Penny Lane, Let it Be, etc.
Of course he had no such reservations about completely removing Denny Laine's name from some songs they wrote together.

The McCartney songwriting credit/naming order has always been largely much ado about nothing. First, it’s not even really enforceable as to what order names have to be on credits. As long as all the names are listed and proper royalties paid, it probably doesn’t matter. I recall a Beach Boys release (perhaps the “Knebworth 1980” CD?) that has all the Brian/Mike songs credited to “Love/Wilson” even though it’s usually the other way around.

McCartney obviously for many years had this naming order thing gnawing away at him. In his defense, he actually did offer an understandable and plausible explanation/scenario where the naming order caused a bit of a problem. He noted times where he has seen performers with sheet music writing out shorthand and only including the first name. So he had some story of like looking at some piano player’s sheet music for a Paul song and seeing the person had just scribbled “Lennon…” instead of “Lennon/McCartney.” This was obviously not a very common or high profile problem Paul was citing. But at least he had some sort of scenario he could paint.

That being said, nobody noticed or cared when he listed the Beatles tunes as “McCartney/Lennon” back in 1976 on “Wings Over America.” He did this *during* Lennon’s lifetime and Lennon didn’t care. All names were credited, everybody was paid appropriately. That’s also ignoring that songs were all “McCartney/Lennon” on the band’s first album.

When decades later McCartney tried flipping the credits again, it of course arbitrarily created a media ruckus and Yoko had to weigh in, etc. It appears that after that point, McCartney gave up and let it go. He clearly realized he was losing the PR battle on that one, whether he was at all justified or not.

The “it isn’t a big deal” thing works both ways. McCartney should have let it go (and eventually did; he has specifically gone on record in more recent years that he gave up raising a stink about it and is over it; a far different reaction from Mike Love’s of course), but Yoko could have thrown him a bone too. Apparently, even though he probably didn’t even need to ask, at some point McCartney specifically asked Yoko if she would agree to reverse the credits *only* for the song “Yesterday.” She said no. They were both being too stubborn I’d say, but however much McCartney was overly-obsessed with this thing at some point, it appears Yoko could have avoided ill will by exerting exactly *zero* effort and just letting him do it on that song.

Not sure what the Denny Laine reference is. I don’t believe he ever took Laine’s name off of a song he previously had credits on. Did Laine later claim to have co-written stuff he was never credited for? Probably, as many ousted band members have in many bands over the years (Billy Joel’s drummer Libery DeVitto for instance). Heck, even within the Beatles, there were many songs where others should have been credited. Harrison should have been credited on some of those Lennon/McCartney songs. Harrison should have been credited in some Ringo Beatles and solo tracks. For that matter, while Harrison was rightly disenfranchised about such things, I also think *McCartney* probably earned a co-writing credit on some of *Harrison’s* songs like “Weeps” and “Something.” John and Paul should have been throwing George more bones all those years. Yet, Harrison’s two most popular Beatles songs have *Paul* playing (and arguably writing) some of the key elements.

Unlike Mike Love, the Beatles all largely realized they were *so effing rich* off all their success, and had more accolades and credit than they could ever hope for, and so usually never sought extra credit even when they deserved it. Harrison probably wrote more of “It Don’t Come Easy” than Ringo did, yet Harrison didn’t give a f**k about getting credit for it.

I’m not saying Mike didn’t deserve to pursue credits on songs he co-wrote; I’m just saying others have gotten over it *without* the credits being rectified. Mike hasn’t gotten over it even *after* the situation being righted both in terms of credits and financially.
10  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unleash The Love - Liner Notes - Jeff Franklin- Kinda Odd on: January 13, 2020, 07:34:56 AM

Are you referring to Jeff Franklin, the creator of full house and fuller house?

If so, it is baffling that Mike and Bruce never made an appearance on the new series, which is about to reach its conclusion.

If their main connection to dropping in on the show comes via Franklin, then it's perhaps a factor that Franklin was ousted from the show last year amid some allegations:

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/jeff-franklin-full-house-allegations-1203240744/

Obviously Mike has an ongoing relationship with Stamos. I'm pretty sure Mike would kick his own kid off his tour if Stamos wanted to come on full time. So I would imagine Mike would be doing the show if Stamos had a way to do it and if scheduling allowed it.

I don't know how much the plot of the show would allow for it; I watched the first episode of the first season of the new show and was actually surprised how truly awful it was; making even the *original* run of the lightweight show seem far superior.
11  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unleash The Love - Liner Notes - Jeff Franklin- Kinda Odd on: January 13, 2020, 07:30:43 AM
Mike and his associates have apparently done a number of events/parties/gigs at this property. Here's Scott Totten several years back briefly discussing it:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19873.msg498752.html#msg498752

It's obviously up to one's own personal feeling/interpretation as to whether there's anything icky about doing events there, either in general or specifically when it comes to band members who, however involuntarily, were tied into the whole Manson saga in some fashion.
12  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Classic Or Modern Beach Boys? on: January 10, 2020, 09:18:30 AM
Yeah, I'd say even if we don't include the post-Carl/Al years of the band, I can't fathom how 1976 would be the "modern" look.

The band looked pretty awful in the late 70s and early 80s. Dennis pulled off the suave bearded look up until '78 or '79 when he often started appearing with stringy hair, sweaty, zonked, etc.

Look at those '76 pics. Carl is 29/30, Al and Brian are 34, etc. But they all look like they're in their 40s.

When Al shaved the beard in '83, he all of a sudden looked like 20 years younger.

The band has rarely looked particularly "cool"; I'd guess early era in the less dorky outfits they looked good, and the late 60s/early 70s they started to look cool once they got out of the uniforms.

But by '76 or so, they looked old, and often dressed in unflattering windbreakers and sweaters and sweatpants, matching branded jackets, etc.

In the 80s it got worse. It calmed down a bit in the later 90s I guess.

Carl veered away from some of the tackiness; sometimes opting for simple black outfits while everyone else wore loud 80s neon, etc.  

Al has looked pretty sharp on stage since rejoining with Brian, opting for simple suits instead of Hawaiian shirts and whatnot.

Other than that, it's really kind of inadvertent iconoclastic sort of poses and looks that are the only other thing that kind of came across as cool. Something like this, which is kind of accidentally pretty cool even though you also have to keep in mind he was also a total mess at the same time:

13  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 10, 2020, 09:09:27 AM
The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

...he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.


It's evident that it wasn't "the very next thing that pops into his mind.." There's an edit there. He was responding to a prompt or question.


The crux of these little bits seem to be to sum one's life/career up briefly (the segments are called "Brief But Spectacular"). I can't of course say with certainty how many edits are in this piece; the video cuts away and music is also interspersed at several points. I have no reason to doubt that some amount of editing took place. Whether it was literally the "very next thing" to pop into his mind is admittedly hard to determine, but it's clear it was among the main bullet points he wanted to cover. As the purpose of this segment is to be "brief", I don't think it's out of line to assume this was not a lengthy sit-down.

I can only imagine he was responding to questions or prompts; but I also tend to doubt he was specifically asked anything about the songwriting lawsuit. In many interviews, he has tended to go into that saga with no specific prompting. I tend to think it's far more likely Mike brought it up and made it a main point of the brief discussion, and far less likely an interviewer asked specifically about it or that the editor/director of this segment chose out of hours of interviews to spend half the 3 minutes covering *his life* to discuss Murry and the songwriting lawsuit.

My main point remains (and is backed up by many print and other media interviews he has given in recent years), which is that when discussing a truly remarkable, blessed, accomplished career, he regularly and *quickly* moves to discussing the songwriting issue, one that was rectified in his favor over a quarter century ago. One of his next main go-to topics is how the Wilsons did drugs.

I mean, he even goes to those topics often before talking about John Stamos and even "Kokomo", that's how rankled he still is. It's really strange, and the songwriting lawsuit is curiously something he's harped on *more extensively* in the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.

The guy was a part of so many amazing things, so many amazing experiences. He's so rich and famous and has adulation and all the enriching things both personally and professionally. Yet, he seems obsessed with harping on a legal issue that was rectified *in his favor* over 25 years ago.

I'm not sure what else he wants concerning the songwriting issue. Dig up Murry? A time machine? He won the lawsuit, nobody denies he co-wrote those songs (outside of some spectators questioning that one bit from "WIBN"), and he has collected royalties and has his name on the songs since 1994 or whenever that lawsuit finally ended. While my understanding is that he didn't collect full back royalties going back to the 60s, I believe there was a monetary settlement on top of the future credits/royalties.

Seriously, there are other bands/writers that got screwed over a million times worse than Mike, and ended up forgotten/marginalized/poor/living in poverty, etc.

It would be like if McCartney talked about Allen Klein unprompted at the front of every one of his interviews. Or if Al Jardine talked in every interview about being edged out in 1998.

I think if/when someone does a career-spanning biography and/or film covering the band's entire history, that would be an opportune and appropriate time to dredge up the songwriting thing again (and dredge everything else up for that matter). But beyond that, why is this still being brought up?

14  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits? on: January 10, 2020, 06:19:01 AM
The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

I actually *almost* feel sorry for Mike if the songwriting credit issue is *that* much of a main bullet point in his life. Above co-writing all those songs, playing all those famous gigs, and despite being insanely rich and famous to this day. When he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.

All his talent and accomplishments, and all of his luck and good fortune, and 25 years after he won a lawsuit to rectify the songwriting issue, the Murry/songwriting stuff still seems to be like the main bullet point he thinks about for his life and career. Truly, it makes me feel sorry for him.
15  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 10, 2020, 06:13:01 AM
Pretty sure she wasn’t a cheerleader when they first met. Would have to check his book.

Edit. On vacation in Hawaii with her fiancé at the time and was asked to enter a beauty pageant where Mike was a judge. (1987 and she was a registered nurse working as an immunologist).

If she met Mike, then after that the band started traveling with dancers, and then *after that* his wife joined the dancers, that would indicate she likely didn't disapprove of the band using the dancers and would be unlikely to have been a part of putting a stop to them.

And let's be real; if a spouse was concerned about stuff going on while their spouse was out on tour, getting rid of traveling dancers would not eliminate probably the most common potential source of consternation.

I'd have to imagine getting rid of the dancers was a budgetary concern above all else. By 1995/96, the band was far removed from the success of "Kokomo". They were still getting plenty of bookings, but I don't think there was anything going on by 1995 that was *increasing* the demand for tickets.

And, unless someone has an interview with Mike where he expresses that he all of a sudden decided it was a good idea to not have a tacky stage presentation, I have no reason to believe Mike decided in 1996 that having dancers was artistically/stylistically no longer desirable. Indeed, to this day he still has them on for "Be True..." at some gigs, and he still invites fans on stage to dance; Totten still does the weird bit where he puts a female fan between himself and his guitar and then plays the guitar, etc. It's not like in 1996 the band went formal and stopped playing fairs and got more serious. I think they just cut an extra expense that obviously wasn't needed.
16  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 09, 2020, 06:12:12 AM
The band had been using cheerleaders in various iterations years prior to adding them to the tour around 1989. Even before 1986, they had cheerleaders fronting the stage for gigs like the after-game gigs they did at baseball stadiums in the early 80s.

Certainly, having used cheerleaders on a song here and there would have informed their decision to start touring with dancers.

But I wonder if *this* from 1988 may have been a more specific impetus as far as having a prepared group of dancers that they could start touring with:





I'm not sure how much Mike ended up doing with this "Girls of Kokomo" group, but it looks like its original intention was to attend promotional events and whatnot. I'd be curious to know if this in any way morphed into the dancing group that toured with the band.
17  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Music Legends Magazine Documentary 1961-1967 on: January 08, 2020, 11:55:51 AM
Just noticed this and looks interesting. No new interviews but some rare footage apparently.

https://youtu.be/7x1IY76Pojw


I'm not sure, but I think it's this DVD released some years back as "Videobiography":



I think it was also released as part of this:



and this:


18  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When was the last time Bruce Johnston played bass? on: January 08, 2020, 09:45:11 AM
I remember back in 1998 when that Super Bowl thing aired thinking that it was embarrassing and depressing. And that was without having any context, not knowing that Al was on his way to being squeezed out and Carl was close to passing.

It's like, in 1998 how do you make the Beach Boys (yes, true, they didn't literally use the BB name, only because they legally couldn't) look and sound even worse and even older? Play to awful canned tracks, and add Glen Campbell and Dean Torrence to add to the proceedings of faking burping their way through oldies.

No disrespect to Glen Campbell, he maintained a good singing voice even years later (sounds great on Al's re-re-make of "California Dreamin'").

But this 1998 Super Bowl thing is one of the main candidates for the nadir of the saga, right up there and in some ways more embarrassing than even the Queen Mary '81 gig. At least they played live at that one and FIVE Beach Boys rolled their carcasses out of bed and showed up for that one.
19  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian Wilson 2020 Live Thread on: January 08, 2020, 09:35:24 AM
I received an email this afternoon "announcing" that Brian Wilson tickets were now on sale for the concert at the MGM National Harbor Casino. I see the prices have been lowered since they first went on sale months ago and only about 25% of the tickets have actually been sold to a show that's two weeks away. I was concerned about the size of this venue when it was announced. If they wanted to do a Greatest Hits show somewhere in the area, why not go back to the theatre district of DC...between the Lincoln, Hamilton, and Warner...they could've played to a packed house somewhere there.

I bought tickets to this when they went on sale, so am kind of annoyed that the prices have been dropped.  It is shocking to see how few tickets have been sold, though I'm told that it's a nightmare to get to this venue (I've never been before) so maybe that has something to do with it.  I agree that it would have been far preferable to do a show at a smaller theater. 

What usually happens in cases where tickets aren't selling well?  Does the show go on, or do they cancel and rebook for a later date at another venue? 

Sometimes when tickets aren't selling they cancel, or they rebook into a smaller venue. Considering this show is only two weeks away, I'd lean towards the show going on as planned.

I would try contacting the venue to see if they can help give you a refund on the price difference on your tickets now that prices have been lowered. They *might* be willing to do something.
20  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 08, 2020, 08:30:40 AM
More curios with the dancers. Here's a 1993 Sweden clip that features Mike's wife when she was a dancer:

https://youtu.be/CsWm-JLMsUQ?t=26

Here is a later example, from 1994, from that weird short bit of a St. Louis show released on DVD years ago:

https://youtu.be/Dn905_69mKk?t=160

Carl-less Spain tour from 1990:

https://youtu.be/pC5yLO33qPE?t=1562
21  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 08, 2020, 08:22:28 AM

Interesting in the 1995 gig you linked to  theres only 2 cheerleaders. If you look at this show from 1988 in mesa AZ theres i dunno, 6 or 7? (around 52 minutes in)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIFY0M6qn0

Another good question is when did they start? They were from 1988 -1995? Originally with 6 or 8 and then paired down to 2 by 1995 then 0 by 1996?

If they did start in 1988 i wonder if they figured they were flush with cash from Kokomo and thats why the added them?

also, another question, did they tour with them? Or did they just hire local girls for every show? It'd obviously be a lot cheaper to hire them in every city instead of paying for hotels, etc. My gf plays violin profesionally and most of the time she plays with a big band in town (josh groban, micahel buble, etc) they just hire local people like her since its a lot cheaper and they just read the music and no one even knows theyre local

I don't think that Mesa, AZ 1988 show features the touring contingent of cheerleaders/dancers. That '88 show appears to be something they were doing years prior and still doing to this day, which was to have a local cheerleading group come out to dance to "Be True to Your School."

I think it was by 1989 that they started touring with a group of cheerleaders. Here's an '89 show from the "Endless Summer" TV show:

https://youtu.be/JmYGkglcpNQ?t=113

I believe they did travel with the cheerleaders once they started using them regularly. There are some stories about them in Mike's autobiography and other books.

Not sure precisely when they were added, but just after "Kokomo" becoming a hit sounds about right. Not only would they theoretically have a bit more touring revenue to spread around, but "Kokomo" was one of only a hand full of songs during the show that actually used the dancers, so that may have been an impetus to travel with them.

Which brings me to one of the puzzling aspects of traveling with dancers. Really, how many songs featured them? The show opener "California Girls", the "Dance Dance Dance/Do You Wanna Dance" medley, "Be True To Your School", and "Kokomo." What else?
22  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 08, 2020, 08:18:18 AM
Funny, it had been so long since I watched most of those mid 90s concert videos that I had forgotten that they indeed appeared to slash the cheerleader budget prior to removing them, paring it down to two by 1995.

There's the Philadelphia 4th of July 1995 video from a TV airing, and it does indeed appear they only had two cheerleaders at that gig.

Don't know when it was pared back. Here's a show from Europe in 1993 where it appears to be the larger contingent of cheerleaders:

https://youtu.be/Szg9j1fLDc8?t=1111

Here's St. Louis from July 4, 1994, and it still seems to be the full group of dancers:

https://youtu.be/Dn905_69mKk?t=160
23  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: When Did the Beach Boys' Cheerleaders End? on: January 07, 2020, 01:26:40 PM
My best guess based on extant video/pics is that the cheerleaders were dropped in 1995 or 96.

Here’s a 1995 summer gig where the cheerleaders are still there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjpRHgAu_64

They only appeared on select songs; one was "Kokomo", and while there isn't much footage of "regular" shows from 1996 or 97 (meaning not TV shows or the Nashville Fan Fair gig, etc.), here's a late 1997 show, November (after Carl left the road, with Al and Dave both still in the band), and there aren't any cheerleaders during "Kokomo":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddS3mFpoMFY

As for why they were dropped, I don’t think there’s any firm indication. I would assume it was a cost-saving measure more than anything else (as opposed to Mike all of a sudden realizing it was tacky).
24  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Bassist Carol Kaye Slams \ on: January 07, 2020, 06:49:12 AM
Van Dyke Parks, for example, was very angry at the way he was portrayed in the Love/Stamos "American Family" miniseries, and he succeeded, I believe, in getting ABC to make some edits.  I can't recall VDP's specific objections, but he has long complained about and disputed accusations that he ever supplied drugs to BW. 

Here's the 2000 Bill Holdship article where Parks goes into the 2000 TV movie. Sounds like he mainly got them to slap a disclaimer on the second part of the film, and even that was due to him calling in a favor. Elsewhere in an old thread on this board, Alan Boyd mentioned that Parks also didn't allow any of his lyrics to be used in the film. While nobody can blame Parks for being pissed about the film and pulling any cooperation he possibly could, it also ended up rendering the already-questionable film as having an even *more* inaccurate depiction of the "Smile" project by not being able to juxtapose the crazy stuff going on at that time with the *amazing* music. By having to delete any of the amazing music Parks co-wrote, they ended up having to add the knock-off music that made the whole thing come across as 60s hippie nonsense.

Anyway, here's the article (the article is also instructive in general with how "real life" things are depicted in these dramatizations):

from The Los Angeles New Times 4/6/2000

Heroes and Villains

Brian Wilson's back, recording a live album at the Roxy this week and preparing for a summer tour with symphony orchestras throughout the U.S. So isn't it time to address the lies and half-truths depicted on ABC's recent Beach Boys miniseries?

By Bill Holdship

They say that history belongs to the victors. In the case of the Beach Boys' always strange Southern California saga,  the term boils down to two survivors -- namely, Mike Love, the group's cocky lead singer, and Brian Wilson, the group's musical architect and resident genius -- and their often distorted memories.

Brian Wilson, as you're apt to have read somewhere by now, has been on a solo tour for the past year, which has taken him through the U.S., as well as in front of hysterical, ecstatic Japanese fans, and to a showstopping performance at Neil Young's annual Bridge Concert in San Francisco late last year. On Friday and Saturday nights of this week, he'll be recording a live album at the Roxy, which will be released via his Web site (BrianWilson.com) later this year.

"I'm thoroughly convinced that nothing in the world makes him happier than being around a group of people performing vocal harmonies," says Darian Sahanaja, co-leader, singer, and keyboardist of the Wondermints, who make up the core of Wilson's backing band. "I think it's a very spiritual thing. It's his very favorite thing -- that and food!" He laughs.

"Going into this, we already knew Brian Wilson is not Bruce Springsteen," Sahanaja continues. "He's never been a performer, so it's never really been about that. It's always been about his vision, creativity, his songs, his arrangements, and his sensibility. So the shows have basically been to showcase the legacy of the music with the man himself -- the actual composer -- present."

"I'm a pretty happy guy," Wilson says during a brief interview between rehearsals for the shows. "In fact, I'm as happy as hell!"

Nevertheless, even current information continues to get distorted in this musical saga, sometimes coming from the main surviving source himself. It's little wonder, then, that historical facts get blurred. For instance, Brian claims: "I haven't been able to write anything new in over a year, but I have been playing a lot of piano. I've been at the piano every day, two or three times a day -- trying to keep alive, keep my voice alive. But I haven't been able to get any new melodies going. I've had writer's block, I guess." Yet, Sahanaja reveals that in addition to a new version of Wilson's gorgeous "Till I Die," the Roxy shows will be augmented by two brand-new Wilson originals, including a tune titled "This Isn't Love."

Of course, this type of distortion is basically minute detail, based on Wilson's whim of the moment, and ultimately harmless. When it comes to Beach Boy Mike Love's selective memories, however, things get a little more complicated and a lot more damaging. In fact, perversion may be a preferable word to distortion when it comes to Love's version of the truth.

During the last several months, there have been several television specials examining the Beach Boys phenomenon. In the last three weeks alone, Court TV ran a special documenting the various Beach Boys lawsuits involving Brian (and usually his cousin Mike Love) over the last decade, while American Movie Classics just hosted a Saturday night Beach Boys marathon, The Beach Boys: Then & Now, which included a rebroadcast of Endless Harmony, a documentary originally made for VH1 and recently released commercially on VHS and DVD by Capitol Records. Not coincidentally, when Mike Love offers a sound bite in the documentary, presenting himself as the "bright, positive" counterpart to Brian's "dark" side, history has a way of suddenly being rewritten. For instance, in a new scene added to the DVD version, Love suddenly takes credit for suggesting that Paul McCartney write a Beach Boys-like song about Ukraine girls, which, of course, became "Back in the USSR" -- and which is news to any rock historian who's followed the story throughout the years.

The worst example of Love's revisionism, however, was the ABC-TV miniseries, The Beach Boys: An American Family, which ran two nights in late February as part of sweeps month. Produced by actor John Stamos (who frequently drummed for the Love-fronted nostalgia unit calling itself the Beach Boys in the years following Dennis Wilson's death), the film could have listed a credit for Minister of Propaganda to Love. As an angry review on a Beach Boys-related Web site explained: "[The film was] a monstrously vile, twisted perversion of the truth...It's Mike's version of what happened, told with a huge smirk at all the so-called 'Brian freaks' he so deeply disdains."

The ironic thing is that when Wouldn't It Be Nice, the Brian Wilson autobiography written with Todd Gold (and, many argue, Dr. Eugene Landy, Wilson's controversial psychotherapist), was published in the mid-'90s, the ever-litigious Love was part of a libel suit against Wilson, Gold, and the publishers over objectionable material in that book. Shortly after that suit (and after Landy was out of the picture), Love was awarded $5 million from Wilson following a suit he filed over cosongwriting credits he claimed he never received; Love is currently suing former Beach Boy Al Jardine over the name "The Beach Boys' Family & Friends," which Jardine has been using to bill his current touring group, which includes Brian's daughters, Carnie and Wendy. It's almost as though Love has tried to claim his legacy via the American judicial system. And when that wasn't enough, he created a miniseries to claim his glory, presenting himself as the true vision behind the  Beach Boys. The sad fact, though, is that the TV movie now exists forever as a strong public record -- in other words, to be believed as history by those who don't know any better.

"I didn't like the second part," Brian hesitantly says of the miniseries. "It wasn't really true to the way things were. I'd like to see another movie if it was done right. But I just sort of turned my back to this one, or my other cheek, or whatever you wanna call it. It was best just to ignore it because it really wasn't true to life."

Sahanaja remembers a rehearsal last summer when Wilson's wife and comanager, Melinda, was on the phone with a copy of the script in front of her, yelling at one of Love's representatives over certain questionable content. Brian was so upset that he asked for the keys to the car and sat in the parking lot until the incident was over. "It was so sad," says Sahanaja, "because Brian's happier now, trying to move on -- and yet this stuff from the past keeps popping up to haunt him. My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

In fact, the miniseries begins by portraying Dennis (who reportedly despised Love; legend has it that   the two were once involved in a fistfight onstage at the Greek Theatre in the '70s) and Love surfing together as best friends -- the two studs on the beach -- even though every Beach Boys history to date claims Dennis was the band's only surfer. The film then depicts it being Love's idea to form the band, and as the miniseries progresses, Mike comes up with nearly every brilliant idea -- from creating the titles Pet Sounds and Endless Summer to "jamming with John and Paul" in India -- as Brian rapidly becomes a slobbering, drug-crazed idiot. It's almost comical. Accordingly, a German-based Web site devoted to the work of Wilson collaborator Van Dyke Parks (www.vandykeparks.com) is currently hosting a "Best Mike Love Joke" contest. One of the funniest is a short story in which Love takes credit for writing songs with Bruce Springsteen, creating Live Aid, reuniting the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, directing Schindler's List, and creating Windows 95 ("Bill Gates didn't give me credit!"), among other things.

"There are two sides to every story," concludes Sahanaja, "and I'm sure some of what Mike claims is legit. But I'm also a believer in it's all about how you present yourself. I think he could get his due, but I don't think people are willing to give it to him just because of the way Mike is."

It's perhaps fitting that the Love joke page should be found on a Van Dyke Parks Web site, since -- next to the three Wilson brothers themselves -- Parks was the historical figure most maligned by the ABC miniseries. Parks, Brian Wilson's musical collaborator on the ill-fated and ultimately aborted Smile LP (the planned follow-up to Pet Sounds),  was depicted as a drug-addled hippie, only several steps removed from Charles Manson, and a key figure in Brian's eventual breakdown and decline.

Of course, the movie makes no mention of Parks' subsequent substantial career -- he's worked with everyone from the Byrds, Paul Revere & the Raiders, and his friend Harry Nilsson to, more recently, Fiona Apple, U2, Sam Phillips, and Rufus Wainwright, the latter whose debut LP he coproduced. The telepic also makes no note of his movie or TV soundtracks, nor seems to consider his collaboration with Brian Wilson several years ago on the wonderful Orange Crate Art album. But in a gallant move that totally counterbalances Parks' portrayal in Love's film, Brian and Melinda recently asked Parks to do the orchestration for a proposed tour this summer that will have him and the Wondermints performing Pet Sounds in its entirety, with symphonies, throughout the country. (The show is scheduled to play the Hollywood Bowl on September 24th.)

"As I understand it, Pet Sounds wasn't done with an orchestra for the record," says a concerned Parks. "So the point here wouldn't be to get a whole bunch of people together to play Brian's music simply for the bravado of it. It's not about what can be added to the music, but what can be done to confirm what's already on the record. I wouldn't want to intrude too much, but I would work very hard to layer [the orchestration] correctly. So I'm hoping that I can do it. But the fact that I'm being considered to work on Brian's summer tour is a positive confirmation of the real value he places on me and the value I place on him."

Nevertheless, Parks -- ever the Southern gentleman -- remains flabbergasted by his portrayal in the movie, as he sits in the quiet Hancock Park home he shares with his wife, Sally. The composer claims that he's asked the ABC legal department to delete the eight mentions of his name before they "exploit" the film again, although "the jury's still out and the damage has already been done."

He also claims that it was his phone call to old friend Lucy Fisher, cochairperson of Sony Entertainment, that got the network to run a disclaimer about the show often being "a work of fiction with much dramatic license." Parks claims the Sony executive called him seven minutes before the telecast to let him know what she'd been able to do. "She's a very decent person," says Parks. "I'd phoned her to express the Wilsons' dismay at the tenor of the show, and when she called me back she said it was the least she could do for all the pleasure she'd received over the years from Brian Wilson's music. She didn't say the Beach Boys. She may have meant the Beach Boys, but she said Brian Wilson."

He reflects a moment. "What's amazing to me -- and in a way, it's a compliment -- is that Mike Love has borne -- and I'm sure it cost him some great effort -- such an animosity toward me for so many years."

It's especially ironic in light of the fact that Wilson's other lyrical collaborators -- Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Gary Usher -- were never even mentioned in the film. After all these years, Parks -- and his "acid alliteration," as Love once termed it -- obviously still pose some sort of threat to Love. "It astonished me," says Parks. "Likewise, seven of Mike Love's wives were not named in his autobiographical television project. I thought that was a big slight. I was actually embarrassed by the time Mike Love devoted on his anger toward me.

"I finally needed to investigate, in my own mind, the basis of Mike Love's adolescent animosity because, quite simply, I was blindsided by it. What exactly did I do? Well, many years ago, I suggested to Brian Wilson that he put a cello on 'Good Vibrations.' He did, and it became a signature sound of that song. I also suggested the triplet fundamentals in the music. I did that. And I admit that Brian then offered me the lyrics to that song because he was embarrassed with the 'excitation' part Mike Love had insisted on adding. But I told Brian that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole and that nobody'd be listening to the lyrics anyway once they heard that music. Besides, why should I make an enemy of Mike Love?

"So I turned down Brian's kind offer to cowrite 'Good Vibrations.' I was more interested in a long-term relationship with Brian. And it was one of the few times I've actually been smart in my career because it ensured I'd work with Brian again in other ways. And when I later found out that the lyrics that I was writing for Brian Wilson were a matter of great concern amongst the other Beach Boys, particularly Mike, I walked away from the opportunity. And I did so because I thought it might ease Brian's anxieties. I hoped it might make his life better.

"That wasn't depicted in the film. Nor was the question: 'Who was Van Dyke Parks to the Beach Boys?' Well, for one thing, I co-wrote the song that brought Brian to Carnegie Hall when Leonard  Bernstein called 'Surf's Up' one of the great songs of the 20th century. I did that by relieving Brian of the lyrical juvenilia of fast cars and faster women. That image was very much perplexing Brian at that time. He wanted a more poetic vision in his music. Now, it wasn't necessary, but it was his individual right. So I helped him explore that. And happily so! And then I left that world for a career as an executive at Warner Bros. Records.

"The Beach Boys were at a very low point in their career. They'd left Capitol Records, but they ended up at Warner Bros. because I personally begged [then Warner chief] Mo Ostin to sign them. And they were considered a problem at that time. They were an industry albatross, simply because there were so many egos involved. Everyone at the label just wanted Brian Wilson to come over and write some songs. Well, the Beach Boys were in Holland and had recorded what the label called 'an unreleasable album.' I still had a demo tape of 'Sail On, Sailor.' I came up with that lyric when I was working with Brian, as well as the [musical] pitches those words reside on. I did nothing with that tape until I saw the Beach Boys crisis at the company where I was working, earning $350 a week.

"Well, they recorded the song, and it was a hit. And I'm glad that everyone then came out of their little rooms to claim cowriting credit on that song. But I never questioned it, just as I never questioned the various claims on the residuals. You could say I did the Beach Boys a nice turn there. It was just a nice thing to do.

"Many years later, when [producer] Terry Melcher wanted to take the song 'Kokomo' to the tropical islands, he called me and wanted to use my Rolodex, so to speak. So, I brought some great   musician friends -- people who'd played with Sinatra, Fitzgerald, Cecil Taylor -- to play with me on that session. I was paid well for my work, although it was a nonunion session -- no hospitalization, no dental, nothing extra if it went   commercial. The Beach Boys, after all, were Republicans -- unions weren't something to mention to them. We weren't dealing with Studs Terkel. We were dealing with Bruce Johnston and Mike Love, who'd become the entity known as the Beach Boys. Of course, the song went to number one, and Mike Love always made a very big deal out of the fact that it was made without Brian Wilson. And that was always very alarming to me because beyond the Beach Boys' beautiful music, my allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he'd give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn't that the sign of a marvelous person?"

Parks recalls he saw Love one final time when Melcher called him to Monterey to play synthesizer on the Beach Boys' final album, recorded without Brian, 1992's dreadful Summer in Paradise. A neighbor offered to fly the musician to Monterey in his one-engine plane if Parks agreed to cover gas and other expenses. When he got there, Love was meditating in Melcher's living room. "For the first time in 30 years, he was able to ask me directly, once again, 'What do those lyrics -- Over and over the crow flies, uncover the cornfield -- mean?'" Parks said about that meeting in '95. "And I was  able to tell him, once again, 'I don't know.' I have no idea what those words mean. I was perhaps thinking of Van Gogh's wheat field or an idealized agrarian environment. Maybe I meant nothing, but I was trying to follow Brian Wilson's vision at that time." Parks says Love asked if he could fly back to L.A. in the plane with him. "We had a nice chat and he insisted that he wanted to split the cost of the flight with me, so he gave me a card with his number on it. The next morning, I called to discover it was a disconnected number. And that was the last time I saw Mike Love."

As for the druggy way Parks was portrayed in the film, "I'd already told my young children years before that unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale. Unlike Mike Love, I did inhale. But unlike George W. Bush, I also grew up in the '60s, which were a time for renewal and revelation. It's not theoretical. The night I was out in Hollywood with Phil Ochs and we got beat up by policeman because we were part of a group pressuring Lyndon Johnson not to run again, well, that was the night Johnson decided not to run. So the '60s were not theoretical. I associated with people who had courage back then and people who were beautiful. I saw the beautiful people -- and, believe me, Brian was one of them. I'm very sorry about the way that show portrayed him and -- let me be very emphatic here -- that was not the Brian Wilson I knew.

"I never took a joint to Brian's house, just as I'd never offer drugs to any employer. It's just not prudent! One thing that was true was I never went into [Brian's living room] sandbox, but that's only because there was dog sh*t in it. It wasn't because I was too good or arrogant to do it. But I never went into that [marijuana] tepee, because I didn't want to be smoking a joint when Mike Love walked into the room. I was working for the most powerful man in the American music business at the time. I was very aware of that fact and had no desire to spoil it.

"The lyrics ultimately just got out of my hands. I was not a Dadaist. I didn't sit in on the [Smile] 'Fire' sessions [the night Brian reportedly went insane]. By then, he was surrounded by so many people that I knew my opportunity to do this little American quilt work with him called Smile was over and done with.Mike ultimately put a stop to it. And yet the movie brought into question a certain amount of work I did for Brian many years ago, most of which was never commercially released, due in large part to Mike Love's objections. I'm very proud of the music I made with Brian Wilson. But I'm also proud that I walked away from a great opportunity at the time to maintain peace."

Parks wasn't pleased how the other Wilson brothers were portrayed in the film, either. Carl Wilson -- often credited with keeping the band together after Brian's breakdown -- hardly existed in the flick. "I thought a great deal of Carl Wilson," says Parks. "He was a really nice guy. I didn't do a lot with him, but he was always very nice to me and extended himself to me in very subtle ways. He was a very gifted man. The last time I saw Carl, I played 'Ave Maria' at his mother's funeral, and he embraced me afterwards. To be with him and Brian at Audrey's funeral was a very big deal to me, personally."

As for Dennis, Parks offers one telling anecdote. "That movie showed Dennis Wilson cowering in front of Charles Manson!" says Parks. "Well, I'll tell you what really happened. One day, Charles Manson brought a bullet out and showed it to Dennis, who asked, 'What's this?' And Manson replied, 'It's a bullet. Every time you look at it, I want you to think how nice it is your kids are still safe.' Well, Dennis grabbed Manson by the head and threw him to the ground and began pummeling him until Charlie said, 'Ouch!' He beat the living sh*t out of him. 'How dare you!' was Dennis' reaction. Charlie Manson was weeping openly in front of a lot of hip people. I heard about it, but I wasn't there. The point is, though, Dennis Wilson wasn't afraid of anybody! Dennis was a total alpha male -- something Mike Love wants to be but isn't ."

Parks understands that An American Family will stand as a legacy for Beach Boys fans who don't know the history, but he's hoping that the music will ultimately stand as the stronger legacy. "What I saw on that show about Brian Wilson was false, and   that's all I really need to say," he concludes. "I guarantee you it was a pack of lies. And I'll tell you something -- I'll give you one final clean piece of evidence. The audience was led to believe by that movie that John Lennon wanted to jam with Mike Love. Well, I was with John Lennon one time, and he told me that he and Paul thought that Mike Love was -- and these are the words John Lennon used -- 'a jerk.' The Beatles thought Mike Love was a jerk. So there are obviously two different impressions of that meeting. Mike Love has one and John Lennon had another. So, I'm submitting John Lennon's recollection to you since he's no longer here to do it himself."

It's nice to know that history can sometimes be redeemed by the survivors on the sidelines.

Brian Wilson and the Wondermints play the Roxy, 9009 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, on Friday and Saturday, April 7 and 8. Both shows are sold out.
25  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Bassist Carol Kaye Slams \ on: January 07, 2020, 06:40:51 AM
Without knowing the actual production stories involved in this TV show, I can only guess there's certainly a reason they've altered the name to "Carol Keen." They clearly want to reference a real life person as an inspiration for the character, but then also want license to deviate as much as they need to. Sounds more like they mostly created a new character, and then referenced Kaye in some very key specific ways.

I have to wonder if the makers of the show are familiar with Kaye and her reputation as far as her cantankerous, argumentative personality. I wonder if maybe they aren't (or weren't), as I could have told them the smart thing to do would be to create a new character in every conceivable way they could. Whatever; give them jet black hair, no glasses, etc.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 350
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.233 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!