I like the idea of using AI to fix or complete BB/BW songs.  With respect to fixing, the intro to The Spirit of Rock and Roll (by BW) on the Hallmark album is a top candidate for repair.  Other candidates include several songs from BW's Getting In Over My Head and the Danny Hutton duet (Hold Back Time) on the VDP/BW Orange Crate Art album. 

I'd say that 2006 Hallmark take on "The Spirit of Rock and Roll" is too limp and lethargic to salvage. It's got more problems going on than some wonky vocals.

I also think the "Orange Crate Art" material is fine as is. It was already futzed with back in 1995, and frankly the "1995 Brian voice" is a specific flavor that I think is worth preserving. Note how his '99 re-done lead on "You're Still a Mystery", for all its smoothness, lacks of the energy and quirk of the '95 vocal.

Yes, I believe "Hold Back Time" is the one that sounds wonky enough that one rumor persisted for a while that the album "accidentally" used a guide/temp set of vocals. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is then it implies a later, more polished set of vocals exist somewhere, which is the main thing I'd want to hear. If it actually exists.

I think the only way to "fix" this later-era solo stuff would be to still make it sound like latter-day Brian, just more polished. And I don't know what the efficacy would be (or possibly the point would be) of making "2004 Brian" sound more like, what?, 1998 Brian?

I think one of the issues here is the push and pull between AI creations as a technical application of software, versus being actual “art.”

We all have varying degrees of familiarity not only with AI-sourced material, but varying degrees of experience coming up upon (or against) people who create it and/or are very bullish about it (not surprisingly, those two things are usually one and the same).

However many months back (not that it has let up more recently) when people started posting visual/digital art and saying “There, see? I’m an artist now too!”, it immediately got pretty icky. There was and is a large chasm between people who feel those people are *not* artists versus those who feel they are, and also a wide gap between the people who think the art they’re executing is just awful versus those who think it’s amazing.

When it comes to AI-sourced music (meaning mainly in this case generating fake voices meant to sound like a real person, using AI trained on recordings of that person), there is a very similar gap on the *reception* side of things. Some people listen to this stuff and think it sounds amazing, others think it sounds awful. Also, within the group of people who think it sounds *accurate*, there is some level of disagreement on the choice to make the stuff, or the implementation of it.

My subjective observation has been that, especially because a lot of the AI music stuff has been admittedly done to sound like a person, trained on recordings of that person, the people *making* this stuff have generally seemed to be much less egotistical and display much less hubris about what they’re doing as opposed to, say, visual AI artists. I’ve gotten the sense in the past that, when seeking out a specific prompt (e.g. make this recording sound like *that* person from *that* year), the people making this stuff have given off a vibe less of “I’m an artiste!!!” and more like “This is a technical process that requires some level of skill.” While that doesn’t address the misgivings some have about the choice to make it in the first place, it is a lack of bullishness that I appreciate.

However, regardless of the intent or the expressed level of humility or hubris from any given person making this stuff, when it goes from a specific prompt of just filling in a vocal to sound like a specific person at a specific time, and moves to making subjective, artistic decisions about melodies, chords, arrangements, and eventually ends with wiping actual existing vocals to then replicate those *very same vocals* with AI, that’s where it gets a little more dicey. I’m not even talking about the morals/ethics and all of that. Just in terms of how I feel about the end product, that level of “fan mix” added to the “AI” thing makes the whole thing just a lot more wonky.

And then that leads to the question of how to talk about this stuff. I have no desire to sh*t on someone after they spend hours and hours working on something, whatever it is. But also, the presentation suggests wanting people to consume it and provide feedback. So there’s an uncomfortable point where it ends up being a reaction of “Uh, yeah, I’m not sure if it’s worth that much effort to produce *that*.” But clearly there is an audience for this stuff, so I don’t feel too bad saying maybe *I* think my time is better spent listening to something real and made with whatever original artistic intent it was, rather than listening to too much of these large scale AI music projects, because I don’t think my mixed feelings about it are going to hurt anybody’s feelings.

I’m not trying to be reductive, but I think that if one take the maker of these AI projects at their word, and I see no reason for them to lie about their motivations/reasoning for their decisions, then I don’t think analyzing it is too complicated. Meaning, the people on this board know their stuff, and can pretty immediately spot what’s AI and what isn’t, and also know the stuff well enough to develop an opinion about what they like and what they don’t like.

I guess, for folks that are *really* into this stuff, flow charts and detailed notes might make it all more enjoyable. For me, as someone who, setting aside the more broad implications of the use of AI on music (a most decidedly complicated topic), finds projects like this to be more a curio than anything else, I don’t need voluminous notes and charts. I can detect what’s going on more than well enough to *understand* it; I don’t need the precise reasoning behind each of the decisions. Again, this is all said with an understanding that I trust the maker of the project is being honest and that they certainly feel they had reasons for the decisions they made.

I'm not too concerned with giving people leeway or license to make this stuff. They're going to do it and are doing it. Nobody is stopping them. I truly actually do keep an open mind about this stuff. I think the AI music stuff online went off the rails long ago (if it was ever on the rails in the first place). This particular maker of this AI Smile, and their previous work, is really an anomaly as far as time spent, knowledge of the source material, and proper labeling of the end result. I appreciate all of that. But even this maker's stuff has kind of shot past what *I* feel is a possibly useful ethos in making the stuff, and has landed in fan mix/fantasy tracklisting territory, all while using those AI tools. As I said in a previous post, it's not so much a question of "What's the point?", and more a question of "Is my time well spent listening to this stuff rather than X?".

I don't really get the ethos of sharing this stuff exclusively via youtube, which puts a hard ceiling on the audio quality/bitrate and also basically guarantees that interested copyrightholders will see it and have absolutely no trouble getting it removed.  The point of flying under the radar is you get to keep flying that way.

I think it depends on what the person posting it wants to get out of it. If they want the widest audience possible, and/or get off on the "likes" and the "views" and plaudits, then being up for a little while on YouTube before getting pulled (or pulling it themselves) gets it to far more people than going on a message board and posting a file link.

From what I can tell, that channel looks like it learned early on that stuff gets pulled, so I'm guessing they put stuff up and then pull it down before it gets a copyright strike. I don't check on this stuff on a regular basis, so I'm not sure.

I don't think it's possible for this stuff to particularly "fly under the radar" at this point.

Interestingly, this particular work actually has enough decisions that are outside of the “do these AI vocals sound accurate?” debate that it’s actually in some ways easier to debate those.

I think that version of “Surf’s Up” sounds like kind of a mess. I guess, because it’s using a weird AI-assisted vocal, it manages to sync up the “Brian vocal” to the ’66 backing track a bit better than either fan-made sync jobs or the official releases that sync Brian’s ’66 demo vocal to the ’66 backing track. But just about everything else sounds wonky to me. The weird key change at the end sounds totally off. The key change on that discovered “Wild Honey” demo of “Surf’s Up” works because of the nature of that solo piano Brian performance. But pitch-shifting the entire track on this “finished” version sounds really strange.

I obviously have my own take/ethos on this song and the material in general. Much like I think Brian/BB fans ignoring “Guess I’m Dumb” because Glen Campbell is singing it and they can’t have a Brian lead vocal is kind of missing out on a great song with a nice vocal (Glen sounds good on it, and sings it like Brian), I think there’s a point where the novelty wears off on trying to shove Brian on the lead on the first movement of “Surf’s Up” and it makes more sense to listen to what I think is the best version of the song, the 1971 version with Carl singing it. Carl sounds amazing on it, it retains the “Smile” vibe while fleshing the song out with a *very* important bass line near the end, and amazing group backing vocals, not to mention Al’s excellent part at the end. I’m not opposed to the Brian “what if” vocal as heard on the “Smile Sessions” (and that fans had done years before to varying degrees of success). But at the end of the day, in a world where I’m happy to admit when the “official” version of something is *not* the best, I can safely say the 1971 version of “Surf’s Up” released on the album of the same name is the definitive, and best version of the song. Better than the ’66 paste jobs, certainly better than the weird AI versions, and better than Brian solo versions from the 2000s.

I mean, I guess it takes some balls (it takes something anyway) to go beyond the AI generated leads for non-existent stuff and just decide to erase actual Brian/BB leads that are definitive and re-do them with weird AI, and then also start grafting on weird overdubs. I think this stuff, already questionable with the AI vocals, quickly becomes a weird mess when it’s getting futzed with on multiple levels in multiple ways. Yes, yes, I know, “it’s just for fun”, etc. I’m not saying anybody wants to delete the BB albums and put this out. But I gotta rate it and analyze it for what it is, and as much as some fans seem to really, really want this to be a mind-blowing thing (and if it does that for you, I’m of course not going to stop anyone), but to me it’s a weird melting pot of the questionable AI vocal stuff, brazen but ultimately sub-par artistic liberties, head-scratching “fan mix” decisions to move around tracks, and a weird overall goal/ethos (e.g. This seems to be a weird, truncated “Smile” that’s missing key things like “Look” and “Holidays”, etc.).

And, in the realm of the actual AI voices, there are a few here where I honestly couldn’t tell who it was trying to sound like. I think at one point it’s going for 1966/67 Dennis, but I guess the AI has less 60s Dennis vocals to learn from, so that one sounds particularly off.

Also, one more thing and I’ll take a breather: While I guess on some level it’s interesting to hear the alternate phrasing/melody for the “Do You Like Worms” verses employed, I think the 2004 iteration sounds much smoother and less clunky.

I won't belabor the point at the moment regarding how accurate or inaccurate these AI vocals sound to me, but I'm confused as to why a fantasy land "what if" Smile where the big selling point is attempting to fake how the Beach Boys would have sounded singing this stuff in 66/67 would leave out stuff like "Look/Song For Children." I think hearing that bridge between "Wonderful" and "Look" on the 2004 "Smile" was one of the biggest moments on that project, one of the most "a ha!" moments.

I also lose patience when AI vocals are clearly in place for songs that already have perfectly fine vocals. Not sure what the point is of laying a fake "Brian 1966" vocal on top of stuff like "Wonderful." I mean, I guess it allows for better stereo mixing options? But when we're going past the "What if?" stuff and I find myself just listening to someone run a vocal through AI to replicate a Brian Wilson voice that already exists, I quickly lose patience. Why am I listening to an algorithm sing "Wonderful" and "Surf's Up" when *ALL* of the constituent elements on those songs already exist? This isn't "Mike singing 2004 Smile lyrics" type stuff. It's me listening to a person and/or an AI algorithm replace the actual tracks that already *do* exist.

There is obviously far worse stuff on YouTube as far as AI vocals, and I appreciate things being labeled as "AI" (I guess we'll see how much this stuff proliferates via repostings that aren't properly labeled), but, well, I'll hold off on larger piece/critique until I can elaborate more. I will say that I guess I kind of understand why some fans might have, or *want to* have a "holy s**t!" moment hearing this, but to me the whole thing is far more murky and complicated on multiple levels and, if I forego the complications and take the reductive approach in condensing this all down into a simple point, I'm just left wondering not so much "what's the point?", but more "should I burn much time listening to fake voices when the real voices exist?"

With “Pet Sounds”, Brian created music that he knew he would be seeking “the other guys” to come in and fill out vocally. And, it was created with no desire to break away from them.

Unfortunately for all involved (except music fans) I think Pet Sounds was created with this desire, albeit an unexpressed or unacknowledged desire. A wish on the part of Brian that he seems to know can never be fulfilled. "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" is pretty straightforward about Brian's state of mind - "I wish I could find other people to work with, so I can make music of the kind that you are now listening to on this album." It's also a wish for a different kind of audience, a different culture, in which his kind of music can be accepted. 

Brian’s attitude towards the rest of the band, and his place within the band, and the band’s place in the world, is obviously a fascinating topic. I don’t feel like Brian ever wanted to actually *not* be with the band. I think he wanted them as a tool, albeit a very important tool, probably *the most* important tool, to actually get down on tape what he wanted to do. Yes, he stacked his own voice sometimes, and yes sometimes it was just Bruce and Brian, or Terry, or whomever. But he wanted and needed those voices, so I don’t think he would have been happy without them. He wasn’t always happy with them either, which is obviously a big crux of what was going on with the band at the time.

Also, Brian, certainly up until Landy-Mark-II, coveted and valued being a Beach Boy. Same with Dennis. There’s obviously some potentially deep psychology to wade through there. But even in 1966/1967, Brian wanted to be a Beach Boy, and wanted the band to exist. He wanted them to exist both as a vehicle for what he wrote, and also to be successful and famous and bring money in.

While Brian was obviously in a different place on many levels by the early 80s, I’ve always felt one of the most poignant things I’ve heard from someone regarding Brian’s feelings about being a Beach Boy was that Jerry Schilling interview in, I think, the A&E Biography from the late 90s. Schilling is discussing the ruse/plan of “firing” Brian in late 1982 in order to get him into detox. Schilling describes giving Brian the letter literally saying that he’s being fired and is no longer a Beach Boy, and Brian’s heart just breaks, and he asks “I’m not a Beach Boy anymore?”

I think, even without as severe of a mental health or substance abuse issue hanging over Brian in 1966, when he was most independent and agile and would have been most able to actually go out on his own, he absolutely on some level wanted and needed to be a Beach Boy. Even before he *literally* needed them to actually finish stuff and release stuff, and even going farther back before he also literally needed them to do public appearances.

I have to respectfully disagree with the premise here, and how it relates to Brian Wilson's problems.  The basic disagreement is on the idea that the Beatles' solo music is, in substance indistinguishable from Beatles' group music.  To me, there is a difference.  Perhaps in terms of songwriting technique and method, the solo stuff is the same - I can't comment on that sort of thing. But those albums - All Things Must Pass, Ram, Plastic Ono Band - could never have existed if the Beatles had stayed together. Of course, if the Beatles stay together, there can never be All Things Must Pass, because George never had that kind of standing in the group. Paul McCartney could never take over an entire album and fill it with his sensibility and kind of music, and basically just take over the whole record-making process, if he had stayed in the Beatles. This was a problem weighing on the group in the late 1960s; obviously it's there in the recent movie. With Ram, and others, Paul is now free to be himself - lots of good stuff, and also mush like "Another Day" about which you wonder if the the other Beatles would allow him to get away with. And as far as John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band simply cannot exist if John remains in a Beatle-situation. You could go so far as to say that this album encapsulates, more than any other single work, why the Beatles had to break up.  The leader of the Beatles (yes, he was) explaining why his life as a Beatle, and as a person, had become intolerable. And this leads us back to Brian Wilson. 

Yeah, I think this is just a misunderstanding of my premise. By saying “X is Beatles”, e.g. “The Back Seat of My Car is Beatles”, I’m not speaking to whether a given track would have been released, or would have sounded the same, had the Beatles stayed together. If that’s how one chooses to define “Beatles”, then the definition is easy. Same with using what’s on the label to set that definition. Little if any of the stuff released on their solo albums would have sounded the same had the Beatles stayed together, and certainly some of it would not have come out at all unless the Beatles started releasing 3 or 4 albums per year every year. 

What I’m talking about is what the music gives you, what it does for you. From the listener’s point of view, the fan point of view, the “receiver” of the music. What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of “solo Beatles” stuff (not all of it obviously), especially in the 70s, that *is* Beatles in that it does the same thing for you. For me, anyway. And many others. It’s of that same quality, and has that same magic that Beatles stuff did. This is really just a parlance, a frame of mind, that one either gets or doesn’t get. But what I’ll say is that myself, others, and, for instance, the guys on the Fabcast podcast, all arrived at that sort of terminology completely independent of each other.

And what I was specifically referring to in bringing this up was the bewildering phenomenon of “Beatles fans”, whose lives are deeply entrenched in Beatles fandom, who have ZERO time for like “All Things Must Pass” or “Ram” or “Imagine”, etc. And I’m here to tell folks, by ANY measure I can think of, “Isn’t it a Pity” or “The Back Seat of My Car” or “Gimme Some Truth” will do more for you than “Yes It Is (Take 7 – False Start)” or ten minutes of guitar tuning and drink ordering on a “Get Back” session reel. It will do more for you specifically as it relates to what the Beatles do for you. In my opinion of course. I was speaking out regarding some fans who take *such* an analytical approach to this stuff that it becomes like robot data processing, or just collecting items. The fans who shut off the moment it didn’t say “Beatles” on the label.

Basically, I was talking about the part of the “definition” of the Beatles that comes from external sources, rather than the specific intent involved in a given recording or album, etc. 

And this carries over to the Beach Boys as well, although perhaps a better analogy would be that Solo Beatles is to Beatles as 1970s Beach Boys is to 1960s Beach Boys. This is obviously an imperfect analogy, and Wirestone is right that it’s somewhat folly to deeply compare or contrast the two bands. But there are some points of comparison and reference that can be used. Some “fans” have a very narrow, somewhat conservative view of what they feel is “legitimate”, and what they choose to listen to or regard.

Plastic Ono Band was John Lennon's Pet Sounds. It doesn't sound like it, but it was - in the sense that it was the album that couldn't have been made in a band situation.  It's also the album on which John is expressing his humanity - "I am a human being" which is what Brian is doing on Pet Sounds.  John can only do it after the Beatles "cease to exist."  Brian is trying to do the same thing long before Lennon did it, but Brian is trying to do this  while remaining a Beach Boy.  Brian is making a solo album in form and substance, but unlike John Lennon, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Not going to work, not in the Beach Boys, or most groups.  (Pete Townshend sort of got away with doing this when he steered his group into Tommy, but he allotted important roles for the other members, and also the weirdness of Tommy couldn't be seen as threatening an accrued commercial success; the Who had nothing to lose, basically)

Plastic Ono Band is an interesting comparison to Pet Sounds. I’m not sure I agree they are so deeply alike in reference to their respective creators/groups. I’d argue in some ways they are kind of an inverse of each other. “Plastic Ono Band” is sparse not only because John chose to go sparse, but because the guys (and mainly Paul) that filled his stuff in were not there. Paul McCartney was the de facto producer of the band by the last few years, and he was often filling out all three of the other guys’ stuff. With “Pet Sounds”, Brian created music that he knew he would be seeking “the other guys” to come in and fill out vocally. And, it was created with no desire to break away from them. But removed from the context of the group vs. solo dynamic, there are certainly some thematic/stylistic points of comparison. 

By the way-I’d say McCartney is a similar one for me and a segment of people I meet. Obviously those of us who listen to the great Fabcast know that Howie is a major fan-but I’d argue Paul’s solo career divides Beatles fans. Most of them feel that he rarely made a misstep as a Beatle but that his twee side hinted at in the Fab Four really came out in the 70s. So I meet lots of Beatles fans who only own one or two Macca albums but have everything by the Beatles ever put out!

This, weirdly, is true for a certain subset of "Beatles fans." This has been discussed as well on Fabcast.

I really find it supremely odd, especially when we're talking about the first few years after the break-up. And it's even weirder that it extends to today. There are fans who collect every burp and cough from the "Get Back" sessions, every mono matrix pressing variation of every Beatles album, who have no time for "All Things Must Pass" or "Ram" or "Band on the Run" or "Imagine" or "Plastic Ono Band." It's like, you have more Beatles albums there! Wtf?

Having known people who lived through that era, those who *got it*, absolutely understood that "Back Seat of My Car" was Beatles, that "Crackerbox Palace" was Beatles, etc.

Yes, it eventually deteriorated to varying degrees. I haven't even bought the last 3 or 4 Ringo albums. I still get the McCartney stuff, but it's a struggle.

But like, just like I'd find it very strange to buy the Beach Boys '85 album but have no time for the Brian Wilson '88 album, Beatles fans had TONS of music after the Beatles broke up that was still that thing. Sure, it often reinforced that they were better together, how Paul could fill in gaps on John's songs, how John could add his acerbic nature or downbeat thing to Paul's stuff, how despite George's at least partially understandable animus, Paul was a *key* component to many of George's best songs, and so on.

And really, a similar thing happens with the Beach Boys. Imagine Al and Carl singing on BW '88. Imagine the best stuff on "No Pier Pressure", and the Paley stuff, FILLED with Beach Boys vocals.

But individually, to varying degrees at various points in time, they still were the thing they had been when they were together.

What's fascinating is when we consider Be True To Your School was released as the single, the A-side, with "In My Room" as the B-side. And many DJ's started to flip the record over and play In My Room as the lead song. And the B-side in this case also became a hit, in some regional markets it went top-5. In decades to come, the B-side became one of the most beloved songs of the band's catalog, one of Brian's most praised songs, while the A-side exists as kind of a novelty.

So there was the contradictory nature of the band's music on full display as this single existed in 1963 into 1964: You had the rather old-school throwback (with some pretty cool production, I'd say) school spirit song with cheerleaders featured juxtaposed against one of the most introspective and personal songs the band would ever record, a direct glimpse into Brian's personal life and childhood wrapped into a gorgeous and musically sophisticated ballad.

Isn't that contradiction and coexistence in musical styles and lyrical themes one of the key subjects in discussing the band's musical output? There it was on display in an early single.

And as far as introspection and putting yourself into the song and into the listening public's ears, Brian had this going on with In My Room in late 1963. The Beatles wouldn't do this kind of introspective writing until a year later.

I'd say "There's A Place", recorded in early 1963 and likely written in late 1962, is pretty similar thematically to "In My Room."

In general, the Beatles were just more mature across the board. They wore suits, they smoked, they drank, all in interviews and on film. They seemed far more like adults far earlier on than the BBs. They were always very open about how they did write a lot of love songs with first and second person pronouns, but while obviously "Love Me Do" is not an introspective song, but their songwriting across the board never got as juvenile and goofy as the worst filler on the early BB albums.

"In My Room" is an amazing miracle, a song to this day, while obviously widely loved, probably still doesn't get enough attention and credit. I take nothing away from it. A great universal lyrical moment for the band thanks to Brian and Gary Usher; mature and introspective but also relatable to young people as well.

To the more general issue of when the BBs were writing lyrics that were a "put on", or a satire. I think Wirestone made some great points on this up above.

Now, my gut tells me the things we might try to dismiss as "satire" were probably not written as full-on satire. I've gone on record in the past that just about every time the BBs tried to funny, they kind of weren't so much. (I won't dive into humor vis-a-vis Jan & Dean here much; I've gone on record as finding Jan's stuff, well, not very high brow or substantive; that's another conversation of course).

With the BBs, this element of satire extended to the particularly bizarre and (to me) supremely unfunny "humor" exercises Brian was doing in the Smile-ish era. I find all that stuff *very* interesting as an insight into Brian and his work and frame of mind. But not actually funny. I'm not saying they didn't have senses of humor, and I'm not saying Brian was incapable of being satirical. I think he could be very, very clever and subtle at particular moments. Mike not so much maybe; a guy who in interviews has to announce that he's capable of writing in "iambic heptameter"; I think he had to take on writing lyrics as either very literal, or with very specific, calculated intent. I think Mike could write some clever wordplay clearly. But it didn't quite just pour out of him; it was a skill he honed for awhile (and then kind of let that atrophy).

I'm rambling and digressing, but discussing the topical nature of the band's early lyrics is very interesting. But it has a lot of pitfalls, which at times over the years has drawn in the politics and socioeconomic viewpoints of fans and listeners. The band was often pretty socially/culturally conservative, and thus some of their fans are too.

It's funny, I've had people who know I'm a BB fan make some *very odd* assumptions. Well, maybe not totally unfair assumptions. Some people assume I'm into summer, beaches, cars, surfing, etc. And well, no, I'm not. But I'm also not a stuffy fans who doesn't like anything before 1966 or whatever. I love the early stuff. "Girls on the Beach" could be about a staph infection and I'd still love it. But yes, some of the lyrics, especially but not only pre-1966, are not always topically my jam. I love the BBs summer vibe and music and all of that. But I'm not a big fan of summer. It's f***ing hot outside; I don't like that. I've never been into going to the beach. I couldn't and wouldn't want to surf if my life depended on it. Beaches would have been the last place I would have ever gone to meet girls. I'm in the Bay Area, and every time I went to Santa Cruz, I always went on the rides and stayed away from the gross, hot, sweaty beach. As a kid, I probably related more to "Chug A Lug" than "Surfin' Safari."

The Beatles, as one comparison, rarely got so specific topically and thus their stuff was and is always going to be more universal. Very rarely do I listen to Beatles lyrics and think "man, that's dumb." And in many cases, the times where that happens a bit are on songs they wisely shelved, like "If You've Got Trouble."

By that logic, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" would have had the same effect on The Beatles, who, as The Beach Boys did with "Be True to Your School" after about a year, completely abandoned it concertwise. (And yeah, they brought it back, but only after they became a mostly-oldies act.)

Eh, I don't think "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is anywhere near "Be True to Your School" in the dorkiness sweepstakes. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is sweet and charming and innocent. Not embarrassing at all in my opinion. On the other hand,  "Be True to Your School" just speaks for itself.

Something I do find interesting is that however Brian felt about it later on (and lets note, he has never included in his solo act as far as I can tell) he felt strongly enough in '63 to record not just one, but two versions. So this wasn't just some toss-off tune.

Yeah, I don't think "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is in any substantive way comparable to BTTYS. I mean, if we're trying to paint a theoretical picture of an "oldie" holding back an artist trying to progress, then we can use dozens of examples from either band.

"I Want to Hold Your Hand" was a #1 single, and immediately became ingrained as the *first* hit the Beatles had in their biggest market, the US.

While I'm sure you can find some cynic that will s**t on anything, I don't think many folks, certainly not Beatles fans, ever thought "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was dorky. Obviously, things progressed and there was not always a moment in like 1968 to play "I Want to Hold Your Hand" alongside a more contemporary, topical track.

But far more hardcore BB fans find a sliver of their stuff dorky than Beatles fans.

But BTTYS is more specific than just seeming generally antiquated. There's a bunch of early BB stuff that has a late 50s sensibility, which makes sense. As has been stated many times, Brian was a child of the 50s, and the BBs for a variety of reasons stayed more entrenched in like childish and high school topics when the Beatles, even while still doing "love songs", were more adult in the themes and style of their lyrics. As folks have pointed out, in 1965 the Beatles weren't still writing lyrics like "when you came up to stay with my gran'"

But with BTTYS, there's an extra layer of the sort of cloying thing Mike is doing with the lyrics, as Wirestone mentioned previously. It's sincere, which on one level is admirable. But it also is alienating to some listeners. Maybe "alienating" is too strong a word. Basically, it's going to make some even big fans of the band kind of go "pfffft, I've got something you can be true to...."

One of the things with “Be True To Your School” is that one didn’t/doesn’t have to be even the most cynical, misanthropic, contrarian person to not have had such strong feelings about their high school. Plenty of people don’t identify with the glorification of high school jocks and cheerleaders. I wasn’t like some goth person in high school or anything (I was *listening* to the Beach Boys among other bands at the time!), but yeah, I certainly was not friends with any jocks or cheerleaders.

Maybe I always viewed “Be True to Your School” not with any particular animosity or cynicism, but just so out of the realm of *my* experiences (both in terms of the topical nature of it and the era), that it might as well be “Blade Runner” or “Lord of the Rings”, it’s like fantasy/fiction.

So yeah, it’s definitely one of the band’s most popular dork songs. It didn’t help that the studio recordings, especially the “hit single” version, is even more of a “novelty” record with the cheerleaders added, etc.

The song musically is fine enough. I always felt the song played better on something like the 1980 concerts where it was just streamlined into a regular rock/pop song with regular drums and bass, and electric guitars. Yes, lyrically it still had whatever issues it had. But musically it sounded punchy and fine enough. Eventually, live versions got bloated and embarrassing as well, with a slowed-down tempo, Mike’s dumb “wheeeeeeeeen” bit, Mike’s equally dumb “elderly guy who needs help up” bit, and often with the added dumb John Stamos drum intro bit. I would have been fine with the song being dropped in the 80s.

It's part of the history, and I don’t hate it. But yeah, it’s a level of novelty and dork and corniness that some of their contemporaries never needed to do.

Also, when Mike did that NYE 2021 gig, it resulted in one of my favorite article/photo combos of all time that I think underlines the absurdity of this stuff Mike was choosing to associate himself with:

I presume Dean Torrence has a longer history of being involved with both Mike and Trump. There are a bunch of pics of a gig they did at "Mar a Lago" back in 1997:

As with any musical artist and the "non-musical" stuff, there are a myriad of layers to what is more or less germane.

I think there is a scholarly level of fascination with as much as detail as possible. I suppose some folks feel that that fascination is too lurid, but I'd offer than the alternative of refusing to acknowledge the "dark" stuff is kind of infantile and a level of ignorance to the band's history that, while certainly not disqualifying one from enjoying the music, might tend to negate one's ability to actually converse about the scholarly side of things.

Dennis's prison fantasies in the Gaines book are probably not a needed detail to understand the inner workings of the band. But, understanding something like the 1977 "tarmac incident" or the 1978 Australian tour debacle, which the Gaines book was first to report in detail and is still the main source for details pertaining to that tour, is *absolutely* integral to understanding the band's history.

Those "dark" events of 1977 and 78 absolutely impacted the music you heard (and didn't hear) on subsequent albums, both thematically, and literally logistically in terms of what did or didn't get made or released after that point.

No, I don't need to think about all of Mike's ex-wives every time I listen to "Sunflower", and I don't need to think of Dennis's final days of 1983 when I listen to "Pacific Ocean Blue." But there are times when those things are appropriate to learn about and discuss.

There's not much of any actual tabloid-level interest in anything to do with the Beach Boys anymore. Nobody in the general public cares. All that's left are the hardcore fans, and those are the people who are most able to understand, say, the Manson stuff in relation to Dennis and the band, while not making it about *just* that.

I just could never in good conscience say that the non-musical stuff is unimportant. Look at something like Lewisohn's "Tune In". EVERY detail in that book is fascinating, and a lot of it doesn't reflect so well on certain people at certain times.

At the risk of sounding a bit pedantic, I think if one is able to realize that all of these people were/are human and have human failings (sometimes very small, sometimes huge), it's easier to absorb all of the good and bad.

I'd offer the book as a recommendation depending on what the person in question wants. Do you want a guide to "appreciating the music?" You probably don't need the Gaines book. (You don't need any book for that of course).

Do you want access to a bunch of first-hand, primary source information integral to understanding the history of the band? Then yes, the Gaines book is something I'd recommend.

I wouldn't hand it someone who just heard like one BB song they liked and want to hear more. The book is for people who are adults and can discern and weigh sources accordingly.

I  am a Brianista, and not even a conservative, but simply can't stand anymore this endless anti-Mike campaign. It's a new kind of bigotry.

bigotry
bĭg′ə-trē
noun
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
The character or mode of thought of a bigot; obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.
Synonyms Credulity, Fanaticism, etc. (see superstition), narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

So, I'm outta here.

It's not a campaign; it's a REACTION to something Mike has been saying at his shows.

And frankly, if you read/hear what Mike has been saying/doing in this bit at his shows, and you think the *fan response* to that is "bigotry", then yeah, you're probably not cut out for a conversation about these issues.

Claiming bigotry in a thread where people are making reasoned, *GOOD FAITH* arguments and discussions, sometimes in the face of "he's just tellin' bad jokes" which I think sometimes veers into a bad faith argument, is, well, far more offensive than anything being said in this thread.

[“When he first started playing the chord progressions,” Love remembers, “I was standing there, thinking, ‘Wow, that’s cool, that’s a certain type of Brian Wilson chord change.’ I thought, ‘sh*t – he’s got all his talents intact.’ ”]

I'm not trying to dogpile on everything Mike does on stage, but he has often (perhaps not always) not been great about telling Brian "stories" on stage at his own shows, and/or speaking of Brian in general. Meaning, *many* folks I've talked to who have seen Mike's shows have come away feeling like Mike talks about Brian as if Brian's dead, and has been dead for awhile.

It always seems nice at first when you hear Mike talk about Brian, especially in the last 25-40 years when they've usually been somewhat estranged. But there is almost always a weird kind of hedge to it; there's always a tone of "this is how he was; he isn't like that anymore", a lot of speaking about him in the past tense. The best you often get is stuff like that 1998 "Endless Harmony" interview where Mike says something about how "Brian had a great gift for arranging vocals", and then adds "still does", as if he's surprised and for once actually thinking about Brian *in the present tense* instead of just thinking about how "Brian was great back when *I* was part of his life."

Mike *very briefly* got partially out of the mode during the 2012 reunion. He had a similar "surprised" tone to reacting to Brian presenting the group with "Think About the Days" in 2011:

“When he first started playing the chord progressions,” Love remembers, “I was standing there, thinking, ‘Wow, that’s cool, that’s a certain type of Brian Wilson chord change.’ I thought, ‘sh*t – he’s got all his talents intact.’ ”

Sadly, *that* is the type of talk about Brian from Mike that makes us feel the most warm and fuzzy. "Holy sh*t, he's not complete toast!"

There's also the issue of stepping on the performance of a classic song like Surfer Girl with this nonsense. Like, Mike is the ambassador of the Beach Boys brand in 2023... he really is. He could preface Surfer Girl with a story about him and Brian writing and arranging the song, memories of their early days of fame... really anything at all with emotional resonance for the fans. Instead he chooses... this.

Oh yes, absolutely. Separate from the specific topical nature of the comments, it's just bad showmanship and unprofessional and distracts from the music. It's strange, because Mike always prides himself on being like *the* frontman.

An easy test: Imagine a reunion tour where Brian does a long, protracted bit about how insipid and banal and dorky "Full House" and John Stamos is, like as an intro to some random song. Can you imagine Mike being okay with that? Or what if Al Jardine did a drawn-out bit about how awful Donald Trump is, right before performing "Help Me Rhonda." Would Mike be okay with that?

I only draw the contrast/comparison as it relates to the unprofessionalism and hackery that's involved in unsolicited and unprompted diatribes.

I'm not comparing razzing John Stamos (a privileged contemporary/friend of the band) to Mike's literal punching down in his "Surfer Girl" bit, which I find morally far, far more repugnant. The latter is far worse in every way. But both would be a dumb distraction to a show, and Mike I think absolutely would selectively put up with the latter but not the former.

[Mike Love Not War]

Ironically, that circa 2004 Mike solo stuff is probably, at least some of it, his best solo stuff. I'll take "Cool Head" over "This Too Shall Pass" anyway.

Interestingly, while I'm not a huge fan of Christian Love's voice (I don't dislike it, I'm kind of ambivalent about it), the couple of a songs he sings on that 2004 collection (especially "Too Cruel") are better than the re-re-re-recorded versions Mike did on "Unleash the Love" later on.

I still think it would have worked well to have Al sing "Too Cruel" back in 2012 for the reunion album.

No offense to anybody who likes it (and I think its alright), but to me something like "Too Cruel" (at least in it's Mike Love Not War / Unleash The Love guise) sounds like something a dweeb in cargo shorts and flip flips would write while sitting under a tree on his acoustic while his buddies play frisbee. Even if Al did the lead, it still woulda been meh.

I think the use of "Daybreak Over The Ocean" was the correct choice, though I admit "Cool Head, Warm Heart" would've probably worked as well.

"Too Cruel" is not A+ material, and if the Beach Boys with Al had cut it, I would have preferred a re-record, or vast remix that undoes a lot of the dorky, immediately dated production elements on that 2004 track. The 1978 version of "Too Cruel" is a goofy arrangement too, ironically.

But honestly, there's a ton of dork/dweeb music from the band in the 80s and 90s (and 2000s), mostly coming from Mike's corner. I mean, cargo shorts and frisbees and flip flops pretty much describes the Mike Love-Terry Melcher aesthetic of the mid-80s through to the early-mid 90s, and subsequently a lot of Mike's later solo stuff as well).

"Too Cruel" has some catchy chords, a decent melody, and sounds like something that would have been in Al's vocal range. My thought of using it for TWGMTR was more about the logistical/utilitarian aspect of working some Mike track into the album for the sake of group/corporate politics.

"Cool Head" would have been a good one for the band to do as well (again, the Christian Love backing vocals on that one are right in Al's range), but that one had already been released (which is why "Waves of Love", another one that would have undoubtedly sounded good with the full band, was also kind of a non-starter).

And yes - you can make jokes about anything you want.  Nobody is above a little mockery.  Whether the jokes are in good taste or not is entirely subjective. 

I would imagine Mike Love thinks this way too, which is why he so often ends up saying something that ends with many fans of the band (I'd say the vast majority in fact) disappointed and face-palming for the thousandth time.

I'm not going to bring up the million obvious examples, but is really *anything* okay to make fun of and attack? I'm not talking a legal right to free speech. Like, at what point would it veer into hate speech that you would denounce? What if he makes fun of people in the audience with disabilities? What if he makes fun of some specific ethnicity?

I think the point is that of course Mike or anybody can say anything they want, and consequently he'll have to deal with the reaction. Fans that think Mike's "just tellin' some groaners" are going to have to deal with the reaction. And frankly, the incredulous "I don't see the problem here" stuff about Mike's predictable continued series of face-planting comments and affiliations only grows more tiresome.

Thankfully, as referenced a few posts ago, I think most of that stuff went away when filledeplage and a few others were no longer posting here. 

I think fans who realize Mike says this stuff, and feels it's unfortunate, have largely stayed pretty relaxed about it after all these years. Especially long-time fans who know the history well. Folks who are familiar with Mike "screw the UN, they don't buy Beach Boys tickets" Love defending playing Sun City (though the other guys in the band went along with it as well, well aside from Carl who was out of the band at the time), and Mike "I'd like to see the dead John Lennon match our touring schedule" Love cementing his reputation at the '88 Rock Hall induction. And the list goes on.

Even after all of this, I still celebrate Mike and his talent and place in the band's history. I've learned over the years to just divorce the good stuff about Mike Love from the continued disappointing moments. But it doesn't mean we have to just ignore it or dismiss it. I'm fine just talking about it, noting it, and moving on.

If they're going to do something other than just sing songs on stage, can they at least just go back to Bruce plugging Mike's Club KoKoMo canned cocktails?

I posted this on the other board in response to a poster, who rather in good faith or not, insisted that Mike takes being cancelled and/or arrested by the FBI "seriously," because parents and teachers have been arrested for giving their opinions at school board meetings, etc. politely.

Oh god, let me guess it was filleplage?

Absolutely serious question: how on Earth did you guess that!? Haha!

I won't answer for anybody else, but there is a very specific gaslighting method that filledeplage had on this board of doing the most gymnastics possible to defend Mike Love against even the most mild of criticisms. Round and round and round trying to justify the stuff he has said or done over the years.

I think we've all, at least the folks that have been here awhile, we've all kind of learned to just ignore most of Mike's stuff. The days of calling Mike out in 1998 for being a "Fake Beach Boys" are long gone. It's usually easy to just let him be whatever he's going to be.

But still from time to time, new controversial comments come up. And they are discussed here, because it's on-topic and that's what we do.

I have no problem listening to Mike's work and giving him the huge credit he deserves. But I also have no problem, *when the subject comes up*, of dispensing with the bulls**t and getting down to brass tacks about the things he says. A few fans from time to time think Mike is being attacked. But *every time* these threads come up, it's because of a NEW interview, or report, or something he's said or done.

The only notable time things got stirred up without any triggering event was however many years ago when that British comedian came on and tried to stir up a bunch of stuff by fake-innocuously posting "Why does everyone hate Mike Love so much?." He did it to then harvest "anti-Mike" comments for a pro-Mike article he ended up writing (that hardly anybody saw because it was behind a paywall).

As far as I can tell, Totten has not said anything about his departure beyond the fact that it occurred.

Cowsill has said he was "let go."

They both played their last show on the same night.

I don't think it's far fetched to think it's pretty darn likely Totten also did not choose to retire from the band.

As for the reasons, I've talked to a few folks and heard some possible reasons. The stuff I've seen elsewhere (e.g. Bruce had them fired for not being Republican enough, and other goofy stuff to that effect) is not accurate. I absolutely believe John Stamos has more sway on Mike Love's personnel decisions than Bruce Johnston, so I highly doubt Bruce would ever be the brainchild of someone's firing.

If what I've heard is accurate, there's no big crazy, particularly dramatic reason for their departure. It's just more of the part and parcel for how the backing band thing has gone for decades and decades. It wasn't like literally for *no reason* obviously. But nothing extraordinary in my opinion.