gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 10:43:26 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81
76  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: new article with some interesting tidbits on: March 05, 2016, 11:05:45 AM
I wonder what the talks with Al have been about. (Warning: total speculation follows.) I'd guess just joining the group for some Beach Boys Pet Sounds shows. I shouldn't say "just" about that, as it would be cool, but some new recordings are always what I'm most interested in (even though new Beach Boys + Al songs are less interesting sans BW, as the nostalgia level is bound to be off the charts). Still, if that were the case, it would be interesting that Al did full Pet Sounds performances with two different groups in the same year.

I can't see that happening -- if nothing else, Al is pretty much booked solid with Brian's band until mid-October. They've got 74 shows booked, which is almost as many as the 2012 tour already -- in fact I think this year Brian, Al, and Blondie have far more shows booked so far than MIke & Bruce have. I don't know when he'd fit in the shows -- unless of course Mike's planning to poach him from Brian's band and add him permanently to the touring band. Which is *extremely* unlikely (though if he is, and he's reading this -- could you leave it until June, so I get to see Al at the two Pet Sounds shows I've got tickets for?)
My guess, assuming they weren't just chatting, is that they might be discussing doing something together next year, since Brian's talked about this being a farewell tour.
77  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys? on: March 05, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
Smiley I will post The WHEATIES Picture next week...BUT ONLY FOT THE NON BELIEVERS...known as "the angry 13" Smiley Smiley

Does this mean the BELIEVERS mustn't look ar it ? Or maybe... maybe... they WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT !!!!!!

The horror... the horror...

Rocky is wearing the Emperor's New Clothes in the Wheaties photo, and in those Playgirl pics...
78  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Why do you hate Mike Love? on: March 05, 2016, 06:54:57 AM
I met Mike Love after the Beach Boys concert in Brooklyn last month. I never thought in my wildest dream that I would be face to face with him and talking to him. I was glad I waited on a cold night considering I had to travel back to the Bronx and go to work the next day. It was the moment I will treasure.

It's refreshing to hear a positive story about Mike Love. 

Mike seemed like a cool guy when I met him. At almost 75, he seemed very spunky. And he wore lots of rings on his fingers like Sammy Davis, Jr.


Sammy Davis, Jr?

The guy oozes Liberace!

Mike's said in the past that his rings are to do with his religion -- they're something to do with Vedic astrology.
79  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Track Talk: Lady Lynda/Liberty on: March 04, 2016, 02:08:59 PM
A very good song, nice melody, but remember, the composer was Johann Sebastian Bach.

Not really. It's clearly inspired by Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, but only the intro is actually Bach's music. The bulk of the song's music is by Ron Altbach, and while it follows the basic harmonies of (a very small part of) the Bach piece, it's not the same piece of music. You might as well say that Chuck Berry was the composer of Fun Fun Fun.
80  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What were the Beach Boys doing the day you were born? on: March 04, 2016, 02:12:46 AM
Nothing on the particular day I was born -- it was between sessions for LA.
81  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Bruce as a session player on: March 03, 2016, 09:48:58 AM
This is only slightly O/T...

It's the lineup (allegedly) on the original version of "Moon Dawg". I found it five years ago at an unnamed site:

MOON DAWG! - The Gamblers [2:15] (Derry Weaver)
DERRY WEAVER: lead guitar
ELLIOT INGBER [later of The Mothers/Magic Band]: rhythm guitar
BRUCE JOHNSTON [later of...]: piano
LARRY TAYLOR [later of Canned Heat]: bass
ROD SCHAFFER: drums
NIK VENET: dog howls
Produced by NIK VENET
World Pacific single #815 (1960).

Another source credits Sandy Nelson as drummer on #815; and that Leon Russell played piano----as well as Bruce, apparently----which is possible judging from the full, almost Spectorian sound.

Yeah, it's one of those records that everyone claims to have been involved in in one way or another -- so there were claims that Russell played on it, that Kim Fowley is on there, that Sandy Nelson was on there, that the piano player was actually Howard Hirsch (who played on the Gamblers' later singles), that Derry Weaver was a pseudonym for various other famous guitarists... it's one of the ones where if you believe everything that was claimed about it, half of LA was in the studio.
But I looked into it a few years ago, and came to the conclusion (though I couldn't now tell you *why*) that the lineup you list is the correct one. Certainly Bruce is in the harmonies on that track, and it sounds to me like his playing, too.
82  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Tracks that feature a \ on: March 03, 2016, 05:00:30 AM
I don't have proof but it always sounded to me like Brian was doing most of the work at the end of "Getcha Back". 

I've just listened to the tag half a dozen times in headphones, and I *think* it's made up of
High falsetto ooh -- Brian
Backing ooh -- Brian, possibly sequenced on Fairlight rather than necessarily sung, but could be anyone at all it's so processed.
Backing "wah-ooh" -- Brian with *maybe* Bruce and Al (the "wah" sounds quite Bruceish)
"Getcha back" -- either two Brians, two Carls, or (my best guess) Brian and Carl doubled
(Second "Getcha back" in later repeats -- Carl plus at least one other. This sounds to me like it's snipped from the "Getcha back baby"s from earlier choruses)
"Gonna getcha back now" -- Carl
"I leave her and you leave him" -- Brian
"Can we baby get it back again?" -- Brian, doubled very low in the mix by Mike
I'm pretty sure the "I leave her and you leave him/Can we baby get it back again?" part is the only new element in the tag, with everything just copy-pasted from earlier parts of the song and looped.

There's so much processing, and so much doubling, that it's hard to tell for sure, but it sounds like most of it is Brian, but there's definitely some Carl and Mike in there.
83  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Bruce on: March 02, 2016, 07:08:18 AM
Speaking of Bruce, does he ever play bass anymore?

Both of The Beach Boys bass players from the 1960s find themselves behind a keyboard most of the time - Brian and Bruce. 

He hasn't played bass live since the 60s, as far as I know. He's occasionally *held* a guitar on stage, when playing private shows at venues with small stages that don't have room for an extra keyboard, but it's never been plugged in.
(Of course, there was a third bass player in the 60s -- Al. He played bass in the studio on most of the 63-65 material, and live during the brief period when the touring band was Mike/Carl/Dennis/Al/David.)
84  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike and Bruce Tour 2016 on: February 28, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
Just curious.

Does anyone know why Foskett doesn't join Mike, Bruce, Scott, and Ike on Their Hearts Were Full of Spring?

Because it's a song with only four harmony parts. Foskett sang on it for the year or so he was in the band before Eichenberger joined, but it makes sense for Eichenberger to sing the part given his Four Freshmen background.
85  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 11:05:36 AM

For the most part, I don't disagree with this, but I think the idea of Brian profiting should be qualified: I don't think he necessarily did until after Murry Wilson died. The unsent '65 letter from Murry to Brian indicates that Murry had been withholding Sea of Tunes funds from Brian under a guise of 'protecting' him.

That's a very good point.
86  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 08:32:12 AM
Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

That took ten seconds on Google.

Quote
I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

Many, many songwriters in those days were ripped off in that way or similar ways, and didn't take legal recourse til decades later. Chuck Berry's publisher added names like Alan Freed, who had nothing to do with the songwriting, to the credits of his records in order to pay off people who were helpful, but at the same time Berry's piano player, Johnny Johnson, who co-wrote most of the music, didn't get any credit at all. The songwriting credits on Buddy Holly's songs usually had little to do with who actually wrote them. Same for anyone who worked with Morris Levy. It was very, very normal in the early days of rock and roll for songwriting credits to go to people other than the writers, and for the writers not to realise there was anything wrong with this until years later.

Solomon Linda, the writer of the South African song Mbube, which with English lyrics became The Lion Sleeps Tonight, didn't get writing credit until 2006. The actual writers of Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Herman Santiago and Jimmy Merchant, didn't get the correct credit until 1992 (and that was later reverted on appeal as the statute of limitations had passed).

So while you can't imagine that anyone would be that stupid, a *lot* of people were (if you want to call it stupidity, rather than receiving bad advice).

Quote
As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.
It doesn't change my opinion of him either. But it's not unreasonable to think that other people might have different tastes in lyrics from yours or mine, and think better of him for writing them.
87  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 06:38:00 AM

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.
It took approximately two minutes to walk over to my vinyl albums, pull a few out, and look at the labels and see Mike's name not on them.

Quote
 However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Possibly he didn't think it a particularly big deal at the time, and only realised later how important an issue it was to him.

Quote
Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian has said himself that Mike wrote the lyrics for that song and others for which he wasn't credited. David Marks has spoken about seeing Mike write lyrics for songs for which he wasn't credited. Dean Torrence has claimed to have co-written the lyrics to Surf City and not got credit. Tony Asher has spoken about Brian taking credit for lyrics that Asher wrote on his own.
There may be individual songs in Mike's claim that are overreaching or where he didn't contribute, and that was what I was referring to when I talked about accepting the list as accurate. But the broad thrust of his claims is correct.

Quote
Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.
I suspect actually that financially he still lost out, because Brian was still being paid the songwriting royalties for those songs for thirty years, even though the publishing had been sold.

Quote
Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.

It might well not have. But it's not a completely ridiculous position to say that *some* of the success of songs like California Girls or Help Me Rhonda came from their lyrics, and thus Mike would have been thought of somewhat more highly when those songs were hits had he been credited for them. How much that is actually the case, of course, we'll never know.
88  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 04:14:57 AM
As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Personally I think the only one of Brian's collaborators who had anything like the same level of talent as him is Van Dyke Parks, and that everyone else Brian's worked with has tended to do their best work when working with him. I think it's fairly obvious that had Brian written God Only Knows on his own it would have been a different song, but I don't think it would necessarily have been a worse one. That doesn't mean Asher, or Usher, Christian, Paley, Thomas, Love, whoever, doesn't deserve credit for their contribution though.  

I think there's a lot of falling into binary assumptions that goes on in this issue of how important the songwriting credits are. On one side there's "Brian could have done everything on his own anyway, and was vastly more important than his collaborators, so it doesn't matter that they were credited", and on the other there's "Mike (or whoever) was a part of the writing process so exactly as important as Brian". I don't think either is really accurate. Brian *could* have done it all on his own, or with any random collaborator, but he didn't, and the people he did work with deserved proper credit.

(I see it really as the same issue as wanting to see Carl, Al, and Dennis properly credited for their playing on many of the records that people think were the Wrecking Crew. Yes, Brian *could* have made those records with Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, and Hal Blaine playing instead of Carl, Al, and Dennis, and they would probably have sounded as good or even better. But Carl, Al, and Dennis still *did* actually play on those records.)
89  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 02:30:42 AM
Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.

Some. By the credits on the albums before Pet Sounds, Mike would have been the fourth most prominent lyricist for the band, after Brian, Gary Usher, and Roger Christian. In fact, assuming the revised credits are true, he wrote more than any of them.

Quote
 As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.

Not just some. The vast majority. I listed earlier in this thread all the songs for which Mike was credited up to Pet Sounds. I think there were sixteen in total (can't be bothered to go back and check, but it was something like that). There were thirty-four songs in the lawsuit, and Mike's also claimed he wrote most of the lyrics to Surfin' USA (which presumably wasn't in the lawsuit because Chuck Berry won sole credit for the song because it was plagiarised from Sweet Little Sixteen).

(And Mike talks about Good Vibrations a lot, which he *was* credited for, as an example where he didn't get proper credit -- I'm not sure what's going on there...)

Quote
 I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.

He wasn't credited on those songs on the albums either.

Quote
 However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

He was credited for about a third of what he did, so he got about a third of the recognition he was due -- and the other two thirds, along with the money, went wrongly to Brian.
It's likely he would still be regarded -- entirely correctly -- as a much lesser talent to Brian had he received the credit he was due. But it's also likely he would be held in higher regard than he currently is.

Quote
 A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud

And Brian profiting from it -- and, if his behaviour towards Tony Asher is any guide (Asher talks about Brian claiming to have co-written lyrics which Asher wrote in full, and claiming to have written all the music on songs where Asher contributed musical ideas), colluding in it. All the songwriting royalties which were rightfully Mike's went to Brian instead.
90  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What if The Beach Boys Love You was scrapped? on: February 27, 2016, 01:50:23 AM
I do indeed share at least one other of your tastes in music. But I also argue that many who share it with us probably share it for the aforementioned reason.

But this is just the same kind of thing you're *accusing* the other people who like Beefheart of. "Oh, *I* just happen to like Beefheart. It's those other people, they don't get him like I do. They're just *pretending* to like his music, so they can be cool like me. They probably really like Adele or something. Posers."

I agree with Theydon Bois on this one -- and in fact it was the experience of reading all those "everyone's just *pretending* to like Trout Mask Replica, no-one could really like it" articles that made me so annoyed by this argument as well. (And really? *Trout Mask Replica* is unlistenably strange and weird? It's just what you get when you're playing Chess-style blues but also listen to a few Ornette Coleman records... One interesting thing for me was when a friend, who's mostly into fairly soft pop music, listened to Safe As Milk for the first time -- his response was "It sounds like the Monkees". And he's right, it does...)

I keep seeing this claim, that people pretend to like music they don't really like, in order to impress other people. What I've never seen is an example of anyone who's actually impressed by that -- at least, anyone out of their teens. I've seen a hell of a lot of people who mock and scorn people they claim are doing that, though.

I've said, lots of times to lots of people "I like Trout Mask Replica" or "I like The Beach Boys Love You", and not once has anyone found it impressive. Why would someone keep doing something like that to impress people, if no-one's impressed by it? Occam's razor says they're not, and that even people you find annoying can be honest about their musical tastes.
91  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's 1982 Bankruptcy on: February 26, 2016, 01:06:29 PM
I know that around that time, according to The Lost Beach Boy, royalties on the early recordings pretty much dried up. I don't have the book to hand, but as I recall Marks talks about how he'd been living off his royalty cheques from Capitol, then one time there was no payment (or a tiny payment, a few dollars or something) because around 1980 the oldies just stopped selling for a while.
Given that at the time the touring money had to be split between more people, and tours weren't then bringing in the money they do now (back then live shows were more or less promos for the recordings -- now it's the other way round), if the flow of money from recordings dried up relatively quickly, I can see how it could cause problems.
92  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 26, 2016, 10:58:44 AM
I’m surprised that a huge fan (and Smile researcher) such as yourself has only seen Beautiful Dreamer once in a dozen years; if nothing else, watching Brian taking the stage and receiving a standing ovation performing the music is an emotional sight to behold. It’s well worth rewatching, unless someone has some inherent bias to not like it for some reason.  

You don't need an inherent bias to not watch Beautiful Dreamer much. I've watched it more than Cam has -- maybe four or five times, around the time it came out -- but wouldn't guarantee that I'd seen it in a decade. Not because of any particular bias one way or another, just because I haven't had any particular urge to do so.

(I probably should watch it again. I remember it being pretty good.)

Quote
Quotes from Brian Douglas Wilson himself, 2004, on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SriaRRcA6w

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

Those are NOT my “opinions”. Those are NOT Brian’s “opinions”. Those are Brian’s words, from the horses’ mouth.  His feelings aren't "wrong". Nobody has a right to go spouting some "opinion" verbage here.  It's similarly NOT Mike's "opinion" that he got screwed out of Cali Girls crediting either, or that it hurt him.

To be entirely accurate, the second is not an opinion. The first is, though -- it's Brian's opinion of what Mike thought.

Quote
Only Brian can truly say why the project was scrapped, and what the contributing factors were. Neither myself nor you, nor Mike Love gets to say that. According to Brian, it was a combination of paranoia, self-doubt, Mike’s apparent dislike or hostility, and fearing people not “getting” what he was trying to do. It was a combination of factors. No one thing. Mike is NOT the “culprit” who to assign complete blame to. But he is not a negligible contributing factor. Again: NOT my opinion. Brian’s on camera words. Brian had no reason to make that up out of thin air.

A major reason this issue gets discussed ad nauseam for decades is largely due to Mike’s outright denial as a statement of “fact”, which does him no favors at all. That is sh*tting on Brian’s feelings and words. Just as Brian would have no right to publicly state that Mike did not get emotionally wounded due to the California Girls crediting issue.  

People seem to overlook that the two years between when California Girls came out (and Mike didn’t get credit) until 1967 (when Mike started meditating) would naturally be a time when Mike would have lots of anger and hostility seething in him. I can understand that. I can empathize with that. I don’t in any way think Mike deserved to not get credited. He got screwed over unfairly and had every right to be mad.

Put two and two together: a guy with SELF-ADMITTED anger management issues, who stated that an infamous, widely-viewed-as-inappropriate public outburst was due to lack of meditating, spent the two years directly after receiving the biggest professional and personal screwjob of his life NOT meditating (because he hadn’t discovered it yet).

These Smile events where his behavior was in question happened during this pre-TM time period, right at a time when it would make sense that he'd be very resentful. To think that Mike's actions, words, and body language wouldn’t have been amplified by this resentment is quite unrelaistic. To think that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in that era would have just brushed Mike's opposition off is absurd. Just because Mike sang on the songs, doesn't mean he didn't have a toxic attitude that made a difference. Mike behaved like he did in 1988 on camera. I cannot think that he would have been *more* restrained in private with Brian 21-22 years earlier.  Just because Mike had a right to not dig everything Brian did in the studio, it did not give him carte blanche to act any way he pleased with Brian and VDP.

Indeed. One thing I found very interesting in the original article that started all this was Mike saying "Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? "

Now, it reads to me like Mike is disclaiming *responsibility* for the end of Smile, but is -- I think for the very first time -- accepting that his actions played a part in that. Mike thinks that his actions during "moments of true frustration or anger" were "misconstrued", and that Brian was "ultrasensitive", but that the blame is "maybe deserving".

I think that's as close to an admission that Mike had a significant part in Smile's ending as we're going to get, and it pretty much backs up your thesis here. Mike was generally frustrated and not happy with at least some aspects of the Smile material -- willing to go along with it but making his feelings clear, possibly at times aggressively. Brian got more upset by Mike's attitude than Mike perhaps intended.

If one looks at it reasonably charitably, there's no fault or blame there, or very little. But to say Mike's actions played no part -- however inadvertantly -- in Smile ending is to say Van Dyke, Brian, and now apparently Mike himself are all lying or mistaken.
93  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What if The Beach Boys Love You was scrapped? on: February 26, 2016, 08:23:56 AM
The odds of someone actually preferring only unpopular or obscure items are nil;
No, they're not. I know *many* people who prefer only unpopular and obscure music -- often far less popular and far more obscure than anything I'd listen to myself.
Popular music tends to share quite a lot of commonalities, in terms of song structure, arrangement, vocal styles, types of recording, and so forth. If, for example, someone disliked the sound of the electric guitar or the snare drum, then pretty much all music that was popular between, say, 1958 and 1980, would not be to their taste.
More generally, if someone has a genuine taste for the novel over the formulaic, for the dissonant over the consonant, for the abrasive over the comforting, that person will in general only like music that isn't popular.
Some people will only like the most popular music. The vast majority will like a range of music, some more popular than others. And some will only like the least popular music. That's exactly what one would expect if people's tastes ranged normally around a central mean.

Quote
the odds of them faking (or even lying to themselves and so somehow believing in) their taste to promote their own superiority are good.
They're really not, given that the near-universal reaction to anyone whose tastes are even slightly out of the mainstream is to dismiss them as a "hipster", claim that they're lying about their tastes to impress people, and then ridicule them.

Given the choice between "these people I know who are, in other respects, perfectly reasonable and intelligent people, but who discuss listening to old C90s of someone hitting a metal bucket and shouting, are doing so because they actually think it impresses people, even though nobody has ever been impressed by it and a lot of people mock them for it" and "these people are getting something different from the music they listen to than I get -- so different that they actually enjoy listening to an old C90 of someone hitting a metal bucket and shouting", the second is far more believable to me -- and also doesn't require assuming anyone is a liar.
94  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What if The Beach Boys Love You was scrapped? on: February 26, 2016, 07:18:23 AM
I kinda recall an exchange about Paul McCartney where the person mentioned he loved the McCartney II album because it was no New Wave and sounded nothing like The Beatles. 

And? If you like things that sound new wave, and don't like things that sound like the Beatles, that's a perfectly reasonable reason to like that album. If someone said that to me, I'd accept that those were their reasons, rather than assuming they were lying.

Quote
I'm not sure why you'd read a general statement I've made and think its about you, unless I possibly touched a nerve. 

The point is that you made a general statement about a group including me -- and including a lot of other people on this board -- and then used weasel words to get out of having to justify it in any particular instance. You're making unfalsifiable statements, because when asked about any particular person you can just say "oh I didn't mean *them*", while continuing to insist on it as a general pattern. Unless you actually point to specific people you're talking about, *anyone* who has expressed a love for the album is being pointed to as at least a potential liar.

I have only very rarely in my life come across anyone who pretended to like an album in order to impress someone -- and pretty much never with anyone over the age of about nineteen. I have *often*, however, come across people who claim that other people are doing that as a way to dismiss the opinions of anyone they disagree with, and I find the latter behaviour *far* more annoying.

And no, despite your insinuations, you didn't "touch a nerve". I just think it's very, very, rude to presume dishonesty when people say they like something you don't, and especially so to do so in a way that means you never have to defend that presumption.
95  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What if The Beach Boys Love You was scrapped? on: February 26, 2016, 05:59:28 AM
If you legitimate love the Love You record, I'm OK with that.  But, I truly believe that there's a small percentage of fans who'll cite this at a favorite for the sole purpose of going against the grain. 

I don't. If nothing else, it's not "against the grain" to defend Love You -- it's one both Al and Brian have mentioned in interviews as a favourite, it's one that always gets brought up as a favourite in fan discussions, it has critical respect... why would a contrarian want to defend that? They'd be more likely to be arguing the merits of Stars & Stripes or Summer In Paradise or something.

For another, what you're doing here is dismissing a group while leaving a certain amount of deniability in place. "Oh, *YOU'RE* OK, it's those *OTHER* Xs that are the bad ones" -- but never saying exactly which Xs you mean. This is a very unpleasant tactic used by far too many people. If you think specific people are doing that, why not name those specific people?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this board ever lie about what Beach Boys music they enjoy. I *do* think, however, that accusations of bad faith like that go a long way toward causing the bad atmosphere we see on this board.

My three favourite Beach Boys albums are Smiley Smile, Love You, and Carl & The Passions. I don't know that Pet Sounds would be in my top ten, and Sunflower *certainly* wouldn't be in my top twenty. Am I one of your contrarians, lying about my taste? Or am I just someone who happens to have different tastes? I know what *I* think, but when you go around saying things like that, I can't assume that you'll presume good faith.

If this is a real thing, you should be able to name the people you think are doing it.
96  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Hoffman Board - Thread about Hite Morgan Sessions Kickstarter - Deleted! on: February 26, 2016, 02:26:00 AM
I don't know what kind of threats Brad Elliott has been making to the board admins, but would point out that if they're to do with libel then the plaintiff in a libel case must have a good name that can be damaged. I don't think that's the case for Elliott any more, and hasn't been for over a decade.
I would also point out to anyone who wants to make sure they don't get sued for libel when talking about him that mere vulgar abuse is not libel...
97  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Interview - Broward Palm Beach New Times 2/25/16 on: February 25, 2016, 02:24:20 PM
Mike's contributions to Good Vibrations are the chorus/hook (which he understandably sees as a big deal), yet when Cali Girls comes up, he wrote "all" of it, omitting Brian's contribution of that song's chorus/hook, which quantity-wise in relation to the song is the exact same portion of GV that Mike says was such an important part of that song.

Stealing away Brian's lyrical contribution to Cali Girls is not a way to correct a past wrong in anybody's book.

Mike wrote the whole lyric to Good Vibrations except the "good, good, good, good vibrations" vocal part (and presumably some of the bops and oohs).
98  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Now on Spotify... on: February 25, 2016, 02:18:22 PM
Orange Crate Art - most splendid !
Um, Orange Crate Art has been on Spotify for at least couple years already.

Yeah, I Spotified it a few years ago.  Absolutely hated it, but revisited it today, because with all the love for it here, I figured I must be missing something.  Couldn't even get through the entire album.  Maybe I'll fall in love with it after a few years.  Which makes me wonder- what makes a good album?  One that hooks you on first listen?  One that, like No Pier Pressure, I come to love after a few weeks?  How good is an album that takes *years* for you to fall in love with?

What am I missing about OCA that has y'all so enthralled?

If you don't like it, then maybe try VDP's Moonlighting: Live at the Ash Grove album. It wasn't until I heard Van Dyke do the songs live (at the Royal Festival Hall in 1999) that I really got the album, and only then did the versions with Brian's vocals start working for me. Now it's probably my favourite Van Dyke Parks album (I don't consider it a Brian album, as he was only a vocalist -- if I *did*, I'd put it above all his solo stuff except Smile and *maybe* That Lucky Old Sun).
99  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: 70s Hanna Barbara Beach Boys cartoon concept art IS THIS REAL? on: February 25, 2016, 11:47:55 AM
http://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/animation-anecdotes-103/

According to this article, Hanna Barbera announced plans for a Beach Boys cartoon in 1965 but it never happened.  Clearly the character designs in those pictures were from much later on.  Maybe it's possible they were still trying to develop the same show a decade later.

Hanna-Barbera were certainly interested in doing a cartoon about a band in 1965 -- they planned a series called The Bats, which was to be about a fictional band in the Monkees style (though this was of course pre-Monkees). Danny Hutton recorded and released a single "by" The Bats, and they actually approached -- of all people -- Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band to be a live version of The Bats for touring purposes, but the deal fell through.

Whether the Beach Boys discussions were around that same time, or whether someone has conflated the 1976 deal ( reported in Billboard Dec 25 1976 -- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xCQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=PT37&dq=beach+boys+hanna-barbera&source=bl&ots=YzGE04SebO&sig=IgwZD2DDwtFq70NnAkVedxoUfgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwispbT2yZPLAhWMExoKHTV_CfEQ6AEIKDAF ) with the 1965 plans for a band cartoon, I don't know.
100  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: 70s Hanna Barbara Beach Boys cartoon concept art IS THIS REAL? on: February 25, 2016, 11:04:16 AM
The Beach Boys did sign a deal with Hanna-Barbera in 1976, but that doesn't look to me like Hanna-Barbera art, at all...
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.611 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!