"D.W. Suite" -- Lindsey Buckingham

Not to mention "Bang the Drum" from the same album, which I've always loved and thought was about Brian on top of the BB influenced music. Somehow the pauses with faint children's laughter in the background capture the essence of SMiLE for me even though the song and production doesn't sound at all like SMiLE. One of my favorite tracks by Lindsey.

Not to mention much of his work on Tusk!

No doubt! Lindsey was obviously and openly a big fan of Brian's sounds.

Consider his songs for National Lampoon's Vacation. I know, they're not as often discussed musically as his work on Tusk and other efforts solo and with the Mac, but Holiday Road's main hook which everyone knows owes a sonic and musical debt to Brian Wilson when that falsetto melody stretching the word "road" over multiple chords blasts out of the speakers. It's the same effect which Brian loved and then proceeded to use in his own melodies and songs after hearing Ronnie sing "Be My Baby" over the changing chords underneath.

Then consider the B-side, Lindsey's "Dancin Across The USA", also made famous years after the film by Family Guy. This track could have been a Love You track, just listen to the vocals and the basic synth-driven shuffle backing track. It could be a BB's or BW outtake if it weren't a solo Lindsey soundtrack tune. Heck, the first two vocal notes on "we went" sound like the late 70's Mike Love did the vocal! And Lindsey phrases the vocals in the verses using a delivery and tone very similar to Carl Wilson.

Holiday Road and Dancin Across The USA, give them a fresh listen to hear the influences:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcTLeuFni7s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KPi9KarAoM

I pride myself in being a truth seeker. Something that I realize is that the truth is not always what I want it to be. If you can't tell by my profile name, I love the Jack Rieley era! I think that that along with 65-67, were the artistic heights of the bands career, and 68-70 as well as Love You were not far behind. However, I recall a quote by Carl criticizing Jack Rieley or someone for not listening to all sides. While Carl leaned toward the artistic side, he also respected all voices in the group when he was a leader. He may have faught for Mike and Al's songs to be included on Surfs Up-Holland. Perhaps that had something to do with his fight with Dennis.  

As for the audience shouting for the hits during the newer songs, I will say that I wasn't born until 1977. I have just read things. But my guess is that increased in 1974 after Jack Rieley left and Endless Summer came out. When it went platinum,  it is obvious to me that the majority of fans wanted the hits. Personally,  I believe it was the worst thing to happen to them artistically. They were building something great. Holland showed hints of where they might go next. I feel that Pacific Ocean Blue was the next step.

Also, as a truth seeker,  I try to understand all people's perspective. Personally,  I hate the 80s and 90s Beach Boys for the most part. But let's try and look at this objectively here. In the late 70s, all 3 Wilson brothers were in a bad place. None of them were capable of leading the band at that point. I'm sure Mike worried about the future of the band. I didn't see him fighting for power in 1973 for example. He actually says good things about that era to this very day! He says he liked Blondie, Ricky and Jack Rieley.  He always has good things to say about Carl. He seemed to support Brian's leadership for a time in the mid 70s, but probably realized that Brian was slipping away again. Al voted with Mike because he saw the same thing
 Brian became less interested and sold his vote to Mike. Perhaps I wish he sold it to Carl, but he was also in a bad place at the time. Carl cleaned up and decided to do his own thing. When he returned, he was more interested in being a moderator than a leader. Think about it this way, there were wives and children depending on them. Carl was probably more concerned with the business side than artistic side at this point.

To me, it seems the Beach Boys have been cursed to being a fun in the sun oldies act. I hate this fact, but think about it. Brian was working on Smile and had a nervous breakdown. The following albums were great, but not commercially accessible. In 74 after Holland, Endless Summer came out and went Platinum. They were fighting their own fans at that point! As Carl said in the 1980 tv interview, they fought their old image for years, but realized that's what the fans wanted.

I don't agree with Mike on several things,  but I also don't think he is pure evil, or as egotistical as some might state. He has a sense of humor that some take too seriously I think. I get the sense that his 'scars' was a metaphor. I am sure that he believed that if he didn't take over the Beach Boys in 78-79, they would have collapsed.  And he is probably right! While people blame Mike for the cheesiness of that period,  I must point out that many 60s bands were cheesy in the 80s. As were many 80s bands! Lol! I think Al was embarrassed about the direction they were going and hoped Carl would come back and save it. But I think Carl was more interested in holding things together at that point. He may have
 backed up Mike as the leader, but also faught to keep Al around. Bruce probably just made a business decision to be Mike's biggest supporter in 1998 to keep his job.

What stands out is how both Endless Summer and Kokomo, the two items which brought the band their most commercial success in the 70's and the 80's respectively, were more or less flukes that connected at that specific time to wider audiences due as much to what was surrounding their releases in pop culture and good old fashioned timing. ES was Capitol deciding to mine the back catalog for "Greatest Hits vol. 3" and releasing it when the country was hungry for nostalgia, and Kokomo was placed on a soundtrack of a blockbuster Tom Cruise fluff film. Neither could have been planned out any more than the Beatles hitting American audiences not much more than a month after the JFK assassination and subsequent national shock and mourning period which left a void in the teen generation which the Beatles happened to be there to fill.

Again, consider what Dennis said in '76 about the band's touring and live shows being as much of a catalyst for their revival as the Endless Summer fluke.

What also stands out is the band's history in the 70's and beyond. I know some will refute anything that Jack Rieley said, but consider if his account of Mike declaring "I am the Beach Boys!" during an angry exchange was exactly what happened. There is the dynamic of a band member who wanted desperately to be thought of as the leader of this band entering the mix. What you'll see is several people brought in to manage or work behind the scenes in management or financial roles eventually being accused of some manner of wrongdoing or malfeasance, and being unceremoniously dumped or simply choosing to leave. When this included Mike's own brother, you see how bizarre it all must have been.

Then fast forward to when Al Jardine got fired from the band - led by Mike - it's even more surreal yet it falls into line with what appeared to be a decades-old power grab. I think Carl simply checked out after a certain point. Dennis definitely did. Brian did years earlier. The notions of a normal working band just came and went in cycles, as did the notion of keeping a manager of any kind without eventually accusing them of wrongdoing.

Look for the common threads in all of the history and they will become visible.

I think, from what I understood from Brian, he wanted a place to get away and record what he wanted to do without being overruled.

If *anyone* deserved this (total creative control/freedom from agenda-driven bandmates/politics), it's Brian. 

That he had to go through all sorts of hoops to attain that freedom bugs me and should bug everyone too. It's beyond ridiculous the crap he had to go through and egos he had to put up with. Urgh.

</rant>

(thanks again Debbie for your amazing stories and recollections).

I have to say the story about Bruce and Terry at the time was that they gave Brian $50K to record, but the money was "found out" and removed from the account. I've heard other stories since. I have no idea which is true, particularly since I can't remember who told me this. Oh, well. I do remember Terry coming over to Brian's, and he couldn't stop smiling when he saw Brian. I think he really was in awe and adored Brian at that time, by his expression. That's why I feel a bit guilty when I talk about the production on SIP, but I can't help what it sounds like to me.

This has turned into a terrific discussion, thanks to all involved and thanks Debbie and Stephen especially for the firsthand memories!

We were discussing Jack Rieley in another recent thread, and it was good to get more information and perspective on the table, especially for newer fans reading this stuff who may have only heard *one* version of events, and perhaps had opinions shaped on people like Jack based on one perspective. We need to look at and weigh all sides. Whether it's Jack, or Terry Melcher, or the way Brian had to go elsewhere to record his ideas (seriously...add me to the chorus of those wondering WTF was going on within the band to cause this).

More on that to come. But discussing Terry brought up more of the story with him in particular. Debbie, I agree 100% that Terry in particular was very influenced by and in awe of what Brian could do even as early as when they first connected. You hear Terry during the Party! sessions, where he was already cutting hit records on his own as performer and producer, including one which has gone on to be one of the most important records of the modern era, Mr. Tambourine Man...as well as cutting sides for the Raiders, who people might not realize were one of the hottest bands in the US during the mid 60's and basically had their own network TV show.

Yet here was Terry happy to hit a tambourine at Brian's Party sessions, and who would appear in the studio to hang out and watch as Brian was making Pet Sounds and beyond. Yes, Terry was a big fan, no doubt, but you hit on the aspect that doesn't get said as much: Terry admired Brian and what he could do. No doubt.

What is lost too is how Terry would devote his career to his mom Doris Day and her various musical and TV/film projects instead of continuing to cut rock and roll records. Who knows how much more he would have done in the rock world had he not made the decision to work for his mom and build her career. And, doing so at a time when Doris Day was no stranger to the scandal sheets and Hollywood gossip, some of which was blatantly racist and unfair...again, topic of other discussions.

What Terry did with SIP, I feel, is do what he was hired to do. *Terry* was the one who got the band back on the charts in the 80's with Kokomo. It was Terry who produced California Dreamin and got Roger McGuinn in on the session to add some cool 12-string guitar to the track - It gave the Boys an AC hit when they couldn't buy one. It was also Terry who called Papa John Phillips and asked if he had any songs available for the Beach Boys to record, with what was yet another drought of songwriting within the band. Papa John sent Terry demos of Kokomo and Somewhere Near Japan, and obviously we know what happened to Kokomo. Major credit to Terry, despite some attempts to undercredit him in favor of other band members' involvement in that track.

SIP - Mike's baby through and through. That's not bashing, that's what it was. Let's recapture the winning Kokomo formula, and cut an entire album with this "new" sound. It was an ill-conceived attempt. Terry produced, yes - But read the credits in full. I have to think Terry was doing exactly what he was hired and told to do. The saying goes "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t".


The story of the "remote" studio and 4-track and Terry and Bruce's involvement in other ventures really makes you wonder about how things played out up to the present, and which loyalties carried over into the band's inner politics. Much more can be added to this aspect of the discussion, but I rambled enough already.

I just thought it was great to hear some more about Terry and Brian especially in this time period, and get more details and info on the table for fans to see how everything was not as cut and dry and clean-cut as other versions of events have tried to suggest.

Not to derail away from BB's studio mishaps...but I read years ago a studio story which I now cannot find anything to back it up. I swore it was U2's "Where The Streets Have No Name". Not the famous story about Eno almost wiping the tapes in frustration, but a story about how either the studio or the studio complex had caught fire, and an engineer actually risked his life to run back in and save the tapes.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else? I may have read it in something like Mix, Musician, or Pulse in the early 90's.

author=guitarfool2002 link
The collector aspect is there too - I do not understand buying and hoarding dozens of copies of a vinyl pressing then keeping them sealed in a box...but whatever makes people happy I guess.

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:  Yes, I must admit to being one of those collectors too. I still have several sealed copies of Pet Sounds (original mono release) on the shelf.  Actually about a dozen or so BB originals are still sealed.

When I lived in California a long time ago, a friend of mine and I bought a vacuum sealing machine from a butcher that was going out of business. We modified it to seal 12 inch jackets. We would buy used LPs from thrift stores that were in decent shape, bring them home and seal them with our machine. Then take them to other used record stores and sell them for a nifty profit. Like a fifty cent LP re-sealed brought $25 for the sealed album. Most of the records we re-sealed were never opened anyway, and like you say, it made some people happy. ~swd

Haha, that's classic. I wonder how many of them are still circulating as sealed copies with origins from that butcher's sealing machine. 

I collect as well, but just things that catch my eye or which I want, like my favorite artists and albums. Or if I see a deal too good to pass up. I understand the business element as some people do it both for a business and a hobby, but it's the extreme collecting where someone would buy 2 dozen copies of Al's vinyl just to say they bought and have 2 dozen copies. A few tucked away, yes, and one to actually spin on the turntable to enjoy. But I think sometimes it gets a little extreme, like collectors who buy out exclusive items at "Record Store Day" to where people who want to actually listen can't get them.

Keep in mind I am speaking as someone who has what some would call too many copies of Mancini's "Peter Gunn" soundtrack in the collection.    But I love it, as one of the best sounding live-in-studio jazz albums of that era with some of the best players in LA, and I can hear the differences in various pressings, remasterings, etc. 

Just posted to Al's Facebook page:

http://www.aljardine.com/news.html

"A Postcard from California on Vinyl

After many requests from the fans, Al Jardine's debut studio solo release A Postcard from California will finally be released on vinyl. Look for a limited-edition 180gram audiophile record, which will also include a little surprise from Al himself, on a certain day around Thanksgiving. More info coming soon! "

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:

I never understood the reason for cutting a digital signal onto vinyl. Why not just burn the file in high-res and keep it in the digital domain?  Or is this a collector thing?  ~swd

Like HJ said in his reply, it is a fad or trend to press vinyl. Obviously as your reply states, it's not exactly what consumers think they're buying when they are hearing the process you described, in that it is not 100% analog for the majority of these releases.

I do think there are a handful of artists though who are pressing pure analog throughout the chain as a form of being purists, I believe someone like Jack White had done this in the past using analog gear from the first reels of tape on the session (I could be wrong...). But from what I understand, the cost of going full-on old-school doesn't justify most artists doing it and they go back to "normal" as in normal for 2018 where digital tech does enter the process.

The collector aspect is there too - I do not understand buying and hoarding dozens of copies of a vinyl pressing then keeping them sealed in a box...but whatever makes people happy I guess.

For Al's release, it is good because the original is out of print, so no matter what format it is good to have it available for fans to buy and listen who missed the original runs.

One of the more absurd aspects of the vinyl "trend" for me is and has been the way a lot of consumers actually play the vinyl. Granted, not everyone can afford a decent turntable. But I think about the tens of thousands of consumers who buy one of these new turntables, like the "suitcase" models or even models designed to rip to their computers or whatever...then they buy audiophile grade pressings of albums and pay at least 30 bucks a pop because of the "gram" quality of the pressing...

...and then they play it on a turntable with a lightweight plastic tone arm, a shoddy mass-produced stylus, and no control over the balancing of the arm, tracking, anti-skating, or more precise adjustments of the speed. All of those features on even the more entry-level standalone component turntables back in 1980 or so.

They are effectively playing a lot of cash for new vinyl, and effectively destroying the actual record every time they play it on these plastic turntables which sell like hotcakes.

Never made sense to me, but neither did the Pet Rock, and that sold millions.

COMMENT to  guitarfool2002:  If the listener likes what he or she hears, that is really all the matters. For me, I've got around $35,000 invested in a two-channel playback system to which my record player is connected. So with that grade of resolution in the system I need more than a "plastic tone arm" to spin records.  I've get around $3,500 invested in a turntable, another $1,500 in the arm, $700 in the pickup and $300 in the stylus. Someone gave me a $15,000 preamp for the turntable -- in exchange for a listening room design project -- so pure analog discs do sound better than modern vinyl LP's over my system. Audiophile friends of mine invest much more to get a sound they like. One friend has a $100,000 turntable that is about the best on the market (Air Force One) and that's just the turntable -- no arm. So in the audiophile world, my system is considered average. I once designed a listening room for a Doctor who spent $500,000 on the room and filled it with around $300,000 worth of gear.  And that was only a two-channel stereo system.

In any case, if you place a pet rock on top of the preamp if will definitely improve the resolution.      ~swd

Very nice! And I will be scouring the yard sales for a Pet Rock tomorrow, anything to improve the sound...  

It is true if it makes the listener happy, it's all good. I just don't know why people out there investing extra for audiophile grade vinyl pressings or spending a lot on vinyl in general wouldn't take some time to research how much a bad stylus and cheap tone arm can damage a record with repeated plays - They're investing more in higher quality pressings in some cases yet playing them on inferior equipment that is harming their investment.

Not Beach Boys-related, but still "studio disasters and screwups" related - most of the multi-track for Steely Dan's song "The Second Arrangement" was accidentally erased by an assistant engineer, forcing Becker and Fagen to use a different song in its place on the Gaucho LP. Pretty legendary story (bootlegs of the song do circulate, apparently sourced from an earlier rough mix).

I was thinking about "The Second Arrangement" too! I'd vote that as perhaps the biggest or most infamous studio blunder in rock history, with added weight because of Becker and Fagen's OCD studio meticulousness.

Perhaps second to that is the story of "Rael" from the Who Sell Out sessions. Al Kooper (as he's known for doing) told the story since he was on that session in NY. They had finished up recording and left for the night. Someone left the reel of the day's sessions out on the console, they forgot to box it and put it away safely.

A member of the studio janitorial staff came in to clean up after hours, and for some reason threw the reel in the trash can. Then, proceeded to dump ashtrays, remnants of drinks, etc on top of it. When the engineer came in the next day, he had to tell Townshend what happened because the first part of the song had been ruined. He told Pete "Sometimes these things happen..."

Pete picked up the engineer's chair, threw it through the studio glass, shattering it, and said "Don't worry, sometimes these things happen..."

Just posted to Al's Facebook page:

http://www.aljardine.com/news.html

"A Postcard from California on Vinyl

After many requests from the fans, Al Jardine's debut studio solo release A Postcard from California will finally be released on vinyl. Look for a limited-edition 180gram audiophile record, which will also include a little surprise from Al himself, on a certain day around Thanksgiving. More info coming soon! "

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:

I never understood the reason for cutting a digital signal onto vinyl. Why not just burn the file in high-res and keep it in the digital domain?  Or is this a collector thing?  ~swd

Like HJ said in his reply, it is a fad or trend to press vinyl. Obviously as your reply states, it's not exactly what consumers think they're buying when they are hearing the process you described, in that it is not 100% analog for the majority of these releases.

I do think there are a handful of artists though who are pressing pure analog throughout the chain as a form of being purists, I believe someone like Jack White had done this in the past using analog gear from the first reels of tape on the session (I could be wrong...). But from what I understand, the cost of going full-on old-school doesn't justify most artists doing it and they go back to "normal" as in normal for 2018 where digital tech does enter the process.

The collector aspect is there too - I do not understand buying and hoarding dozens of copies of a vinyl pressing then keeping them sealed in a box...but whatever makes people happy I guess.

For Al's release, it is good because the original is out of print, so no matter what format it is good to have it available for fans to buy and listen who missed the original runs.

One of the more absurd aspects of the vinyl "trend" for me is and has been the way a lot of consumers actually play the vinyl. Granted, not everyone can afford a decent turntable. But I think about the tens of thousands of consumers who buy one of these new turntables, like the "suitcase" models or even models designed to rip to their computers or whatever...then they buy audiophile grade pressings of albums and pay at least 30 bucks a pop because of the "gram" quality of the pressing...

...and then they play it on a turntable with a lightweight plastic tone arm, a shoddy mass-produced stylus, and no control over the balancing of the arm, tracking, anti-skating, or more precise adjustments of the speed. All of those features on even the more entry-level standalone component turntables back in 1980 or so.

They are effectively playing a lot of cash for new vinyl, and effectively destroying the actual record every time they play it on these plastic turntables which sell like hotcakes.

Never made sense to me, but neither did the Pet Rock, and that sold millions.

Just posted to Al's Facebook page:

http://www.aljardine.com/news.html

"A Postcard from California on Vinyl

After many requests from the fans, Al Jardine's debut studio solo release A Postcard from California will finally be released on vinyl. Look for a limited-edition 180gram audiophile record, which will also include a little surprise from Al himself, on a certain day around Thanksgiving. More info coming soon! "

Don: I agree with a lot of that. However, I'd suggest reading that 1976 Dennis interview which I posted above, where Dennis suggests it was the band's dedicated touring which built up (or rebuilt?) the band's stature rather than "Endless Summer" being the cure-all that healed the band's ills.

If Dennis' comments sound accurate, then that was Jack's influence and plans coming to fruition in terms of getting the band shaped up into a touring outfit which would play shows along the lines of rock fans' tastes in 1972 and tour in order to build up a new audience more in tune with FM radio than matching suits.

I think Jack may have seen that the appeal of both Dennis and Carl in terms of music and outlook was more in tune with the FM radio/rock concert audience.

One thing that cannot be debated, whether it's due to Dennis' reasons or not, is that Jack's plans seemed to be working as they unfolded even after he left and Guercio got involved.

The band was selling albums in the US in numbers (top 30, top 40, top 50) with Surf's Up and subsequent releases which they had not sold since 1967.

"Honeybee" by Steam Powered Giraffe. The influence doesn't come in until after 45 seconds, but you need to stick with the track to hear it.

I was introduced to this one recently. As soon as I heard it, I heard a Smiley Smile influence - In the groove, the vocals and vocal arrangement, and the moments of silence, the beat breaking down,  and room noise...I played "Little Pad" back to back with this one and it's there. Just listen to the lazy, random vocals as the track proceeds. I'd submit it's coming from musicians who know and love Smiley Smile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK4msnq17tI

Why torture yourself?

Like I said, I'll wait and see what the tour actually entails. A big part of me simply doesn't want to put any more money into Bruce Johnston's pocket after the unsolicited verbal abuse I received in Ocean City last year. However, I'd love to finally hear the Christmas tracks live, and Brian's Christmas tour isn't coming close enough.

But you've had other good interactions with Bruce, yeah? He's probably undiagnosed bipolar, but whatever. He's been more than nice to me several times, and one time he was a bit prickly. He's really the one Beach Boy you can delve into rare album tracks and session work, and he'll talk to you about it! You wanna meet these guys, that's the risk you take. He's in his mid 70s and travels around in a bus 200 days out of the year, and people are always wanting to talk to him. You'd probably be a grump sometimes, too.

Your postings in regard to the BB band on this board were really positive pre-Bruce brushing you off on his way to the tour bus after a show. Ever since that experience, you seem sour on them. I get it, but there's not enough time for that. Pretty soon, you'll be able to see NO original Beach Boys. There will be cover bands touring the country, and that's the only way you'll be able to hear this music live.

Do yourself a favor - go see Brian as many times as is feasible, go see Mike/Bruce as many times as is feasible. Once they're gone, they're gone. You'll be sad and you'll be sorry. Go make a new memory with Bruce if you can.

Why torture yourself?

 

Guitarfool - since you asked elsewhere - postings like these that are allowed is the reason I no longer am a regular contributor to this board.

I am all for meaningful discussion of The Beach Boys - and understand some will not like the Mike/Bruce band no matter how talented they are or how much they've stepped up their game since the 'Duke of Earl' days - but what's the point of allowing them to be bashed them without substance?

If there were posts where one contributor said "BRIAN'S OLD!" and the next contributor said "YEAH! BOO BRIAN!", you'd be pissed and probably least give them a warning.

Saying Mike Love's new album is bad because it's loaded with autotune and full of remakes is one thing (which is something I would agree with completely) but numerous postings by the two above being allowed makes this place seem like a biased community where it's OK to sh*t on Mike and Bruce just because, and I don't think that's right.

I want to address a few points made here, in the sense of both moderation and in general posting as myself.

First, as all current and previous mods and admins have tried to make clear numerous times, every decision and action made by us is first discussed and then approved or denied as a team. Despite attempts by disgruntled members in the past to say otherwise, at least since I've been on board there are no actions taken by moderators acting alone without first getting the agreement from the others. There has been nothing done by one moderator going rogue - and presently that means Billy and I. We discuss *everything* pertinent to complaints or actions on this board, we do not pull the trigger randomly or out of spite. Again, despite what others have said, that is how we handle it.

Here and in another thread this week, I've been singled out with these issues, and I'd just ask that anything moving forward be addressed to both myself and Billy according to the board rules. We will try to look at each issue in a reasonable amount of time and reply accordingly once we've discussed it. But it feels unfair to Billy and would be unfair to me (and the board system) if only one of us were singled out repeatedly when the complaints or concerns should be addressed/reported privately so we can do what we always do and put it on the discussion table as a team.


What stuck out in these replies (and this is speaking as me, Craig, as a poster and not a mod) is how you asked a poster who had negative experiences with a band member to overlook that and consider seeing the bigger picture in terms of going to enjoy the band in concert despite that negative experience. That's a valid point.

However, I'd say nearly the same reasoning could be applied to your own feelings about this forum in general. If a few posters out of several hundred members, or in this case two posts out of dozens each day, are upsetting you, I'd suggest ignoring them. The forum is an open forum, as such not everyone will agree or even like what's going on.

But to paint the entire place as well as all the people posting here with such a broad brush based on what amounts to less than 1% of the total posts and the active membership would seem like the same mindset you responded to from the poster who had a bad experience with Bruce.

If the thinking is that someone should not let a bad experience affect their opinions or decisions about the bigger picture of buying tickets to see the band live and the good that the rest of the band has to offer audiences, I'd say the same thinking shouldn't affect decisions on or opinions of the entire forum and the membership here based on a few posters you might not agree with or like.

Regarding this comment: "If there were posts where one contributor said "BRIAN'S OLD!" and the next contributor said "YEAH! BOO BRIAN!", you'd be pissed and probably least give them a warning." :

Again, it has no basis in fact unless someone can find a case in the archives were either me or Billy warned or banned anyone based on that kind of post. We simply do *not* do that, so it's a little insulting to have a situation posted that has not happened in the past. If board rules are broken, we discuss and act. If we are posting as members we can and do reply and debate as everyone else does. But this notion of moderators here bringing out the ban hammer over that kind of thing is false. When posters have been banned in the past, it is either a case of strongly crossing the line, or a history of repeatedly breaking the published rules of the board. It isn't because someone says Brian is old or anything of the sort.

This was an issue I raised here back in 2012 courtesy a small clipping in the Smile Sessions box set (CD gatefold, far left panel FYI) that mentioned a meeting at Derek Taylor's house between Paul, George, Carl, and Brian.

That discussion tracked it down to the Beatles visit to LA during their last tour in 1966.

Paul's recollection of hearing GV adds MORE info to this. It was most likely an early version of GV, either an acetate or a tape dub of what had to be the state the song was in at that time, whatever that may have been. But wow...there is some new info courtesy of Paul! Thanks Paul!

Here's the original thread from 2012 which shed more light on that meeting at Derek Taylor's: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12096.0.html

PS - Paul's comments as of this most recent interview again sheds light on how the Beach Boys, Brian, and Pet Sounds in particular were influences on what Paul and The Beatles were doing in the mid 60's.

I'm on the fence on this one. I agree that it depends on which version, whether the released, remixed stereo, or original 1966 mono pressings you listen to.

I listened to "Ebb and Flow's Soundcloud mixes, including the one where he isolated Dennis' voice on the sessions. The one just posted sounds like Brian to me. Obviously on that Soundcloud you can A/B the Brian and Dennis vocal bits and listen for the timbres of the voices.

But I will say I always heard that touch of Dennis' voice on the "old" mixes. On those last syllables especially. I could be wrong. But that was a judgement call to where some of those ending syllables sounded like Dennis.

However...when session rough mixes, dub-downs, attempts to "stack" vocals, reference mixes, and anything captured at a specific moment in the process is used as a reference, it gets REALLY cloudy. We don't know what we're hearing. It could have been a Tuesday session where Brian was laying down vocals as guides...then you'd get a Friday session where he'd have, say, Dennis come in and try some parts based on those guides...then a week later Brian would come back and re-do a vocal over Denny's because he wasn't vibing with it after listening to a rough mix at home for a few days. That's how the process works.

Now, add to it the fact that Pet Sounds pushed the limits of what was available in 1966 in terms of mixing, track availability, sub-mixing or bouncing tracks, etc...up to the limits of the equipment itself. We know there were parts flown in or punched in during what we call final mix sessions. Parts that did not exist prior to the attempt to do the full, final mixdown. Heck, that even happened as late as 1969 with George Harrison's "Something" guitar solo...the tracks were already so full, he had exactly one chance to nail it "live" as the tracks were being mixed. He of course did, but consider this was 1969 and not 1966. So it was still a valid issue when mixing tracks in the 60's. Similar to the solo on Help Me Rhonda in '65.

It just shows how one line or one part could have been present for weeks, and then wiped when the final mix was happening to be replaced by something else (or someone else). With those parameters, some tracks become nearly impossible to suss out using session tracks leading up to the final, released version.

Also worth noting, that gets forgotten yet can be heard on select excerpts, is how many single lines or phrases of vocals were "punched" in, versus having a continuously sung verse or even several lines of a section. You hear a bit of that in Ebb And Flow's Soundcloud, but of course punching in wasn't as clean as it would later become. You can often hear the "bweeeepth" (haha, I know...) sound of the punch if you listen for it.

And consider this too - If you listen to the standard, run of the mill UK mix of Revolver with the right headphones (in my case, a cheap pair of Sony discman phones that miraculously brought these frequencies out) you can hear many edits, splices, and punches flying out of the mix. It was revelatory. If you know what to listen for.

Micheal Tozzi was a class act for sure. He was not only a good friend but a real tie die in the wool Beach Boy fanatic. We had some great times together. No one could match Ed's mellifluous delivery but Toz came closer than anyone else. I got to know him while he was at 'IOQ. He religiously played a BB cut on every damn one of his shows. I remember calling him once to see what track he played when I couldn't listen. He and Dennis became quite close and, according to Micheal, when Dennis played Philly, they'd get together. Micheal was a drummer and Dennis would actually ask him how his performance was that night (sounds like Brian, huh?). Mike would not pander to him and he'd give it to him straight, good or not so good and Denny took it in stride. I'll never forget when Micheal called me about Dennis passing away. As time went on, Micheal bought a Subway franchise in Upper Darby, Pa. and I became his biggest customer with him preparing meals for my customers. After that venture, he went to WJJZ Smooth Jazz. I always ragged on him and dared him to lock the studio door and play Pet Sounds but he did have a family to feed. What a great guy indeed.

Absolutely fantastic! Wow. I'm loving hearing all of this. Too young to be there and hear these radio legends in their prime, this is awesome hearing about them.

WJJZ? Wow, haha. I remember that station. I was riding home from the Philly airport late one night and the driver had it on and was grooving to it...a "smooth" version of Take Five. I was speechless 

The Pet Sounds dare - classic! He should have done it!

Reminds me of a truly great Philly radio moment. Courtesy Ed Sciaky on a Sunday night on WYSP. I know it happened because I taped it and still have the full cassette.

Ed previewed his show earlier by saying he would be playing music from the legendary "lost" Beach Boys "Smile" album on his show. Holy sh*t, I couldn't believe it. I didn't have to work or do anything that night, and made sure I had a blank cassette and my FM antenna set up just right on my receiver. Made sure I was home that night.

Sure enough, Ed briefly talked it up on the show, and he didn't just play a few tracks. Ed played almost an hour of Smile music. No commercials. No commentary. No station ID's or bumpers. Just track after track of Brian's Smile music, uninterrupted.

I remember laying in front of the speakers completely amazed. Blown away. The whole bit.

Ed came on after the last track ended. He read from Derek Taylor's famous press release..."every meticulously crafted note...has been scrapped." It was exactly, perfectly, well-done. It was sad, and Ed's voice nailed the emotion perfectly. The best music in the fucking universe that never got released. This was when the idea of a finished Smile, no less with Brian playing it on stage on tour, was pure fantasy and thought to be impossible.

That was how good Ed's show was even in his later shows on 'YSP. Never forgot that...played that cassette to death and copied it for anyone interested.

WYSP also played Pet Sounds, Live In London in full...front to back, no interruptions or commercials. Imagine that...classic rock radio doing that. I know they did it because I still have those tapes too. It was the first time I heard the Live In London album, and as soon as Aren't You Glad came on, I was hooked. No, I was obsessed.

That's how good it was, Philly radio from MMR to IOQ to YSP. They respected the Beach Boys. That's why reading more stories about all of this is such a fun trip. This is the good stuff, and the memories are worth more than any amount of money.

Thanks again 

As far as Lee’s and OSD’s recollections of the shows from the period vs. the recollections of Custom Machine and others, isn’t it possible that the Boys’ then-current music went over better in markets where there was exposure for their recent music? If 8 remember an older OSD post, I seem to recall him telling a great story about being at the comeback show at Carnegie Hall. Remember that Pete Fornatale was a champion of The Beach Boys who continued to play their music on FM radio. Maybe the NYC audience had a better idea of what to expect from the 1971 Beach Boys than audiences in other towns where they didn’t get FM airplay.

Exactly, PB. Surf's Up and, yes, Sunflower had decent exposure on FM progressive radio. WMMR in Philly loved them. The jocks were music junkies and understood the importance of the band, especially Ed Sciaky (rip). Ed was a friend who made sure I got to see the boys (among other groups) whenever they were in town and actually got to even party with them a few times. Man, what a great time to be alive. The 1971 Carnegie appearance was otherworldly in it's appreciation of the band. Very few, if any catcalls, thunderous applause for the new material as well as the old. With the combination of the FM stations up and down the east coast playing their newer material and their well rehearsed shows, they could do no wrong with the exception of letting Jack eventually slip away.

Wow! Thank you for that post. Ed Sciaky...made my night reading this. Seriously, thank you. I'm smiling ear to ear and also digging out some pretty amazing audio from the dusty ol' collection.

I'll just say what OSD writes about WMMR and Philly radio, and Ed Sciaky...It's the good stuff. The really good stuff.

Some of what shapes my opinions on the Rieley era and the music/shows and what spoiled me on how good radio can be was growing up listening to Philly radio.

Without derailing too much, I'll say I grew up a little too late for Ed's original runs on powerhouse FM stations 'MMR and 'IOQ...but my formative music listening years when I really dove in headfirst included Ed's run on 94 WYSP. Ed's show "The Sunday Night Alternative". Free-form, intelligent, solid radio on Sunday nights.

For those who don't know, Ed is one of those DJ's responsible for breaking Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen among others nationwide. Ed loved their earliest releases and would play them, talk them up, and promote them - Ed had the clout as a top FM host to where others would listen to him and his recommendations. This is why Philly is still one of Billy Joel's hottest areas to play in terms of fans. Ed was spinning Captain Jack, and that song is still bigger here than in most markets.

Look up the famous photo of Bowie and Springsteen...Bowie was a Sigma Sound and wanted to play his version of one of Bruce's tunes...anyway, read it online, it's a famous photo from '74 before Bruce really broke out nationwide with Born To Run. He was still playing college gigs.


Back to the music...I know, because I have it in my files (and it's available elsewhere) some tapes of WMMR playing "Take A Load Off Your Feet" when the SU album was new. They played the Big Sur live version of WIBN just before that. Other broadcasts of WMMR feature deep cuts like "Cool Cool Water"...Yes, Virginia, those songs were played on FM radio and fans in Philly were into that period of the Beach Boys. It wasn't all shouting for oldies and heckling the band.

For fans of the bootlegs, dig out the April 1980 KTSA show at The Spectrum taped off the air from Philly's WIOQ...the conversation near the end is Ed Sciaky and Michael Tozzi. So fans have heard Ed if they've heard that boot.

Random memory...Unless my memory is that bad, I was listening to Ed Sciaky's WYSP show on my Sony Walkman on a Sunday night when the word came in that Freddie Mercury had passed away. Naturally the rest of the show was Queen...and it was heartbreaking and beautiful, and the perfect show and station to be listening to when that happened.

I wish I had experienced Ed and WMMR back in the day...only thing to do is listen to whatever tapes exist and get to taste a piece of just how fucking good it was.

Thanks again for an awesome memory. The Beach Boys did indeed have a very loyal and respectful audience in Philly, and a lot was thanks to legendary DJ's and hosts like Sciaky, Tearson, Dye, etc.

Me right now listening to old WMMR tapes... 

I personally don’t take Jacks word as gospel . Just because he said Mike said something doesn’t mean it happened that way . Jack always had a penchant for exaggerating beginning with his resume. Jack did a lot of good things for the BB but as a manager he exaggerated the divisions too making them worse .  Bruce and Jack never got along and Jack makes Bruce out to be way more involved in leading the band because it fits his narrative . He isn’t quite on the level of sainthood . He was writing those posts 23 years after leaving the band even the best memories fail after that long especially for specifics .

Would it be "bashing" if I or others similarly said we don't take Mike's word as gospel, because Mike had a similar penchant for exaggerating things to suit his own narrative or needs?

It's good to get all perspectives. In this case, Jack Rieley was there and reported what he saw and did. If exaggerating things is a standard to use to dismiss or diminish what he said, I'd say such a standard could and should be applied to things Mike has said as well.

Revisiting the earlier comments about the Wilsons being pushed more to the fore during the Rieley era, and questions if that were the case, just look at the writing credits on Surf's Up-Carl And The Passions-Holland. Mike is listed as co-writer on 7 tracks across those three albums. One of those was a lyrical rewrite of Leiber and Stoller. They were spreading out the writing duties and it shows just by reading the credits and noting who was writing the tunes during this time.


What I'm also seeing is that under Jack's plans and management, in the US market the band managed to score a top 30 album (SU), a top 40 album (Holland) and a top 50 album (CATP) in succession. Higher charting performances in the UK. This was a band who didn't hit the charts that high with an album since 1967. Jack also got them back on the radio. Not major #1 hits, but again better than they had done for several years. The live shows were rebuilding an audience and building new ones for the band. Read Dennis' comments, in 1976 they back up what Jack said about the touring building the foundation in his 90's posts to the mailing list.

In other words what Jack was doing was working, or it worked. You can't rebuild something overnight. But they were working hard at it and actually making the plans work.

Some of the revisionism comes in where Endless Summer is concerned, so far as where that concept started and who started it, thus who takes credit for it. Ultimately the band's old label wanted to do Greatest Hits part 3 to sell records, and couldn't even be bothered to find the right masters to press the albums. But it worked, like a fluke. People bought music from the previous decade because they liked it and it sounded fucking great to their ears. And the country was on a nostalgia kick, thanks also in part to George Lucas who prominently used several BB's classics which turned up on Endless Summer in his blockbuster American Graffitti.

As was said, 15BO sort of ended the deal as we know it. "Brian's Back" and eventually Landy and the Loves were key players in the game. But anyone trying to diminish Rieley's efforts or successes when his plans were taking hold and actually working...I'd suggest rereading some of the history and facts and seeing how and where Jack did positive, successful things for a band who was running on fumes and couldn't buy respect or sales in the US just prior to Jack coming on board.

Jack changed the direction of the band and built up what the band would comfortably ride on for the next few years, for that he deserves credit.

Rieley, to all intents and purposes, quit as manager when he moved to the Netherlands. Trying to run the band long distance from Amsterdam was always an untenable proposition.

Carl functionally quit as the band's producer. After 'Holland', he -- apparently willingly -- left the producing duties in the hands of Brian, Al, or Bruce. In the 2 years between 'Surf's Up' and 'Holland' Carl wrote one song, and there would be another 6 years after that before another Carl song appeared on record. Carl, post-Holland, could have maintained creative leadership of the band (at least in Brian's absence), but for some reason he shied away from the responsibility.

Dennis was Dennis. A talented though erratic screw-up.

None of these situations were because of Mike's ego, or because Mike was making a power play.

When you say "Carl wrote one song" during a time period, how do you know this? How do we know there weren't more songs he wrote but didn't release, due to any number of reasons which *could* include wanting to avoid band politics? (Not saying I know this for sure either, but I don't believe you have any sort of info to back up your theory which seems to be stated as fact).

With regards to implying that Mike's ego/power play caused nobody to throw in the towel or reduce their goals creatively: it cannot be properly quantified how much a band member who is potentially doing all sorts of ego-driven passive aggressive stuff could potentially cause their bandmates/manager to quash creative goals/desires in order to avoid conflict, especially if those bandmates were children of abuse (who perhaps didn't know how to communicate in the most direct of ways).  Logic would point to a yes answer, with some nuance and certainly lots of unknowns. To assume the answer is "obviously" and outright "no" would probably be a statement that no person would make who had ever themselves been in a band with a narcissistic bandmate who would stop at nothing to attain their eventual goal of full control of the band.

Anybody who says "I am The Beach Boys" - especially at that point in time where other members were creatively flowering in the band, and contributing greatly - is clearly coming from a narcissistic and toxic mindset, and I'd like to know how that was a perfectly benign statement for Mike to have made? That seems to be your implication.

Someone who'd have made such a statement at such a point in time would not exactly have caused people who disagreed (like Rieley) to *want* to stick around, nor would bandmates want to continuously deal with conflict with such a man-child, because they'd have been in for a fight, either a longterm passive aggressive campaign (Mike from the mid '70s to today), or some direct confrontational sh*t (tarmac incident).

Good post and thoughts, CD. As you said, if you have a band member who wrote in his book how much of a "team player" he was thanks to his days running track in high school, and building up teammates instead of knocking them down, then you hear of that same "teammate" declaring "I AM the Beach Boys" in 1971...that's a setup for conflict and confrontation. And look at how history played out.


Addressing the issue of Carl's lack or writing and production duties after Rieley left...Jack addressed this in this reply:

>>>>Subject: RE: thoughts on what Jack R. said....
From: Jack Rieley
To: Beach Boys list (pet-sounds@lists.primenet.com)
Date: Oct 6 1996 - 4:44pm

okay, on to your comments/questions...

you wish someone would do today what i did and change things for
them. kewl. i haven't a clue what they are currently doing on stage.
i dropped the string-o-hits bullshit in favor of a 2-hour concert
that included the then-current songs, stretched-out lesser-known
jewels, etc. in that period i had them save the surfing schtick for
the encores.

You ask...

> I'm curious - I don't know much about your involvement with the
> BB's (except that you were, what, a manager, for them in the early
> 70'?), but I know that some of their most-respected work
> (Sunflower, Surf's Up, Holland) were created while you were
> around.... Have they asked you, ever, to come back...? Why did you
> leave, or were you asked to leave? (Okay, all, now I'm showing my
> ignorance...).

My only involvement with Sunflower was as a consumer. Pleased you
like Surf's Up and Holland. I tried to leave the group when Holland
was finished, because I chose not to return to the U.S. -- wanted
instead to live in The Netherlands. They insisted I should run things
from Amsterdam, a ridiculous pseudo-solution because of the distance
involved and the day-to-day need for up-close interaction with BW, CW
and DW. When Carl ran into domestic tumult and I wasn't around, he
felt let down. I did return on several quick occasions at the request
of Brian, Carl and Dennis. Also came back to help the family upon
Murry's death (wow, that was a weird week). Eventually it became
clear to them that I had lost interest in being zookeeper.

You asked as well why I have gave interviews for the books about the
group. It was partly because of an overdose of confidentiality I felt
toward them for a long, long time. Living in Europe, as I did until 2
years ago, also gave me a healthy dose of disdain for the
breathless-supermarket-style of writing that passes as research and
journalism here. From what I have been told, the true story of Brian,
Carl and Dennis Wilson and those other guys has certainly not been
written yet.

- Jack<<<<



It seems Carl was having issues, in Jack's term "domestic tumult", which may have been an issue in why he didn't get his songs out there - Not saying he didn't write altogether. The Wilsons asked Jack to come back, which he did a few times. Fill in the spaces on what was going on in those cases, apart from when Murry died, and factor whatever those issues were into the mix. But they wouldn't have called Jack to return if it wasn't something bigger than a normal problem popping up.

Beyond that into speculation...Jack encouraged Carl to write. He wanted Carl to pursue what Jack thought was an untapped talent and resource for the band. Jack had Carl's back in that regard, and perhaps as an "outsider" Jack's encouragement was enough to inspire Carl and give him confidence to express himself in original music.

Keep in mind...Brian Wilson needed and fed off of that exact same encouragement. He needed people to react to what he was writing, he loved getting smiles and good feedback in return, and it inspired him to push and write more. That's fact...all eras of BW composition, he fed off of positive reactions and encouragement.

Dennis did as well. He liked to get reactions to his music, and especially when it made people happy.

What I'm suggesting is perhaps without Jack, Carl's encouragement wasn't there and he was stuck in the period when other factors (some concerning the name Love) came into the power structure, and in a few years after Rieley's departure all attention turned to trying to get *Brian* to write again, in sufficient enough numbers of songs for the band's albums. Maybe Carl felt he lost his biggest supporter and collaborator, and with Mike and his brothers in the mix, plus attention on "Brian's Back", Carl said screw it...I'll go back to taking care of the live stuff. Let them write for the band.

[I also think there were regional sensibilities at play, where perhaps some areas the band played had more receptive and respectful crowds overall than others.]

As far as Lee’s and OSD’s recollections of the shows from the period vs. the recollections of Custom Machine and others, isn’t it possible that the Boys’ then-current music went over better in markets where there was exposure for their recent music? If 8 remember an older OSD post, I seem to recall him telling a great story about being at the comeback show at Carnegie Hall. Remember that Pete Fornatale was a champion of The Beach Boys who continued to play their music on FM radio. Maybe the NYC audience had a better idea of what to expect from the 1971 Beach Boys than audiences in other towns where they didn’t get FM airplay.

Not only does that seem possible, but very plausible.

I understand and respect what you're saying Jon, as you literally wrote the book on the subject - and I'm not trying to counter or minimize what you say either. It was just surprising to hear what other fans who attended these shows at this time had to say about their own experiences, and recollections about the crowd behaviors which were not as blatant as I think some have suggested. I also think there were regional sensibilities at play, where perhaps some areas the band played had more receptive and respectful crowds overall than others. But the recollections do add a wider perspective to the topic, as in people relating that what they experienced was not what others experienced.

Yes - That is what I also said and suggested in my reply to Jon's post. In bold. Suggesting that there were regional sensibilities at play in the level of crowd reactions. The popularity of bands, singles, and music in general could change dramatically based on the region and market, and this was a factor in rock music from the 50's until perhaps the late 80's or so. The Beach Boys had top 5 hits in certain markets while in others the records basically stalled or didn't make a dent on the charts. Sometimes history records those records as failures because of national chart performance, while in some markets a certain station or DJ/personality would spin the same record into a top 5 hit.

Same with concerts.

I'm just saying this for the record, again addressing the "unfortunate" tag my earlier posts received where clearly my posts were not read or something. Anyway, back to the discussion.

Oh great, you quoted me to immortalize my typo. Thanks a lot. 

 

I fixed it. 

I want to add to that last post how I didn't deliberately leave out James Guercio, in terms of the 70's history of the BB's. It was more to cover than I had time at the moment.

But I will say there is a revealing interview with Dennis from 1976 available here: http://justbackdated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-beach-boys-dennis-wilson-interview.html

...where Dennis talks about the band's heavy touring *before* Endless Summer contributing to what would be a resurgence of sorts. It was, I'd suggest, Jack's plan playing out where the band would play really solid shows and build (or rebuild) an audience as a result. And at least according to Dennis in '76, that's what played out. The live shows were drawing more and more people, they were playing damn fine live shows, and the buzz kept building.

I just wanted to mention Guercio because he did for a time take over in whatever capacity we want to call it, and it did help the band's status and success. I did not mean to leave that out purposely. However, the power struggles were still going on and the Love family had quite a large stake in the game.

Some key points in Jack's comments are how he wanted to get Carl writing more, and in general get more material flowing from Carl and Dennis. It basically reads between the lines that Brian was obviously not 100% into it and his contributions would be what they were, I don't think there was an expectation that Brian would be writing like it was 1965 again, or anything close. But that element of getting Carl and Dennis contributing more was the element which Jack wanted to push even more, getting original material flowing from the Wilson brothers. He saw there was something there with Carl that wasn't being tapped into, obviously people heard what Dennis could do but maybe the thought was let's get more from him, and if Brian got the inspiration or wanted to lay down some ideas to start something, let's tap into that.

I hate to agree with gf2002 again--I've got a reputation to uphold (kidding!)--but this is spot on. I don't think you could fault Rieley for not upping Brian's participation because everyone, before and after him wanted to up Brian's participation. But Brian was going to offer what he could or would, and that's all.

As for the volume of Carl's and Dennis's input, it's not just the number of songs but maybe their prominence. Carl suddenly wasn't just one of four named co-writers, but the sole Beach Boy (with Rieley on lyrics) for prominent, different kinds of music, songs that I'd imagine were seen as centerpieces of sorts at the time, even if not singles. Dennis, well, yes, he wasn't represented on Surf's Up, but that's not on Rieley, it's on Dennis.

The "siding with Wilsons" strategy wasn't just about song counts, but about image, vibe, general direction. At least that's how I read it (and hear it).

It's a shame that Al was seen as so firmly in the Love camp in those days, because I think musically he fit right in with what the Wilsons were doing at times. His folk music especially fit in, and his quirky sense of humor I think also worked with Brian, which is why things like Feet and Loop de Loop might not have floated Rieley's boat, but Brian seems to have dug them. (Obviously musically he was also just essential, vocally speaking, I mean.) I understand that if he was sober, being around the Wilsons in the early 70s wouldn't have been an appealing situation. But if only he would have gotten through that (or maybe if they'd have held their sh*t together a bit more, which would have been a healthy thing regardless), the real core of the band could theoretically have withstood any kind of Love or Johnston (before he left) pressures.

Focusing on the drugs in terms of both "sides" may be a factor, but it's one and perhaps a smaller one out of several. Yes, it was a factor with Al. But at the same time, there was a big power grab underlying everything with this band from the music, to finance, to management. That power struggle played out perhaps most obviously in the 1970's, but I'd go as far as to suggest it was the main issue hung like an albatross around the collective band's neck for the next decades to come, up to the present.

I'm just speculating that Al could have felt caught in the middle. If his objections to the Wilson brothers' lifestyles were strong enough, that could be a factor. But Al had to make a choice on where to place his vote or loyalty, so to speak, and he put it with Mike. Was he 100% behind what Mike was doing in terms of the organization in the Rieley era? Who knows. But he chose sides.

What is staring all of us in the face is how the rest of the 70's played out after Rieley's departure. Look who ended up taking over control of the band, in terms of business, management, etc. Mike Love's brothers. Look who was assigned to get Brian healthy before Landy part 1 - Mike's brothers and Rocky. Look who was making the decisions, especially with marketing the band - Mike's brothers. "Brian's Back" - Mike's brother's plan.

There is a pattern here if you look through the facts. You have Mike telling Rieley "I am the Beach Boys". Take that as a main idea of this. Then look at the way managers and bandmates were handled throughout the 70's. Nick Grillo was fired and accused of wrongdoing. Rieley was shown the door and accused of wrongdoing. Mike's own brother was fired and brought up on charges of wrongdoing. To the best of my knowledge, none of these charges which were fuel to get rid of these people were ever proven. In the case of Mike's brother, the charges were dismissed by a court and he was exonerated of the charges. Rieley said he brought legal action against NME for a report they published about him, and according to Jack, that was retracted with a penalty.

Then there is Al - Look what happened to him in the late 80's, early 90's. Al was vocally opposing Mike's direction for the stage act among other things, and Mike essentially shitcanned him. Dennis at one point in the 70's was shown the door. At one of the band's lowest points, Carl went off to do his own solo project and play shows.

Look for the common thread in so much of this, and yes up to even C50, and you'll see there has been a power play if not outright power grab going on for decades in terms of who is in control of the band. It felt in the 70's that when Mike felt his status diminishing a bit in terms of power, in the corporate sense, he got his brothers installed as the leadership of the band. That's pure corporate power-grab, right there.

The reason why Rieley irks people who are more in Mike's camp to this day is that Rieley got the Wilsons together and got them, specifically Carl, the clout within the organization to say "no" to Mike. And they did. Which according to Jack is how Bruce exited. The vote was then 3 (Wilsons) versus 2 (Love-Jardine). The Wilsons had more say in the direction of the band, ostensibly.

But as soon as Mike's brothers were put in place, there was the power pendulum swinging again in Mike's direction. Let no one be misled that there was a reason for bringing in Landy that wasn't involving getting Brian "healthy" enough to contribute songs to the band. And to be in place for label and financial reasons, no matter his interest or actual involvement. It turned into a truly bizarre situation where there was a hired goon standing behind Brian at his piano holding a baseball bat to "inspire" Brian to churn out new songs. Where did this come from? Just look at what was on the table.

So Al chose sides, and the side he chose ended up getting him fired from his own band 20 years or so later.

We can talk about the music, but consider the corporate power struggle and power grabs that were happening behind the scenes as everything else was happening publicly, and it helps give a perspective on what was really going on. For any of Jack Rieley's flaws and foibles, the guy didn't stand a chance as soon as he tried to move the Wilsons into a position of greater power and control within the organization. What happened in subsequent years bears that out.

I would say that Rieley was onto something big. For one, getting the Wilsons in the forefront of the band's original music was *huge* and needed. There was so much they could offer, but as seen in Rieley's comments, there was also some resistance from within the band.

Brian seems anything but in the forefront of the band's music during the Rieley era. I don't blame Jack. I'm sure he would have liked Brian to contribute more, but all Brian really contributed to the cause was ADITLOAT, Funky Pretty, and Mt Vernon (which ironically would have included oldies if Brian had completed his vision). I just find it a little weird when I read about Jack and his support of the Wilsons (which I don't doubt) and then listen to the records and hear less Brian and Dennis.

If you read through Jack's posts at the link above, he addresses some of this specifically. See what he said about Student Demonstration Time making it onto the album and how Carl wanted to sequence it.

Okay, I reread Jack's posts. My position hasn't changed. Jack's recollection of SDT is that of Mike buying in. He also talks of Bruce asking him to write lyrics for 'Disney Girls'. We also know that Al and Mike contributed 'Don't Go Near The Water' (which I didn't notice Jack mention) and that Al's 'Lookin' At Tomorrow' (while pre-dating Jack) aligned with Jack's vision for the group. It sounds like everyone is putting in the effort to cooperate. The only outlier is 'Feet' which I wouldn't be surprised if Brian also wanted released. The fact that they apparently weren't all fans of each others songs is of little importance. What matters is what made it to record and what was performed live. So, I'm more interested in 'Burlesque'. According to Jack's posts that's the only song Mike killed. The only remarks on sequencing I noticed were that Jack and Carl were considering putting "all" of the Wilsons songs on one side but ultimately decided against it. This must have been after Dennis' songs were pulled though, because how could they all have fit? I doubt Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Jack were all in agreement when that went down, which is otherwise how Jack's recollections are framed. It wasn't weird to you how he talked about 'San Miguel'? How Brian, Carl, and Jack "supported" Dennis' decision to can it. Jack seems quite dismissive of the Sunflower-era tunes. Anyway, I still don't hear the Wilsons thrusted into the forefront during the Rieley years. I hear more Carl, less Brian and Dennis, and about the same amount of Mike, Al, and Bruce (until he leaves/is fired). The Wilsons weren't exactly no-shows on prior records. To me, Jack's major influences on the group were on subject matter and live performance.

Some key points in Jack's comments are how he wanted to get Carl writing more, and in general get more material flowing from Carl and Dennis. It basically reads between the lines that Brian was obviously not 100% into it and his contributions would be what they were, I don't think there was an expectation that Brian would be writing like it was 1965 again, or anything close. But that element of getting Carl and Dennis contributing more was the element which Jack wanted to push even more, getting original material flowing from the Wilson brothers. He saw there was something there with Carl that wasn't being tapped into, obviously people heard what Dennis could do but maybe the thought was let's get more from him, and if Brian got the inspiration or wanted to lay down some ideas to start something, let's tap into that.

It's also telling to hear what material and ideas the Mike-Al-Bruce side were offering, and how those tunes were not what Jack acting in his capacity thought would be moving the band forward into the kind of band he and obviously several Wilsons thought the band could be.

The politics and infighting are another aspect which did affect the process, how could it not? One of Jack's better moves was to get Carl some more "official" leadership status for the group, particularly the live band, even though he had been acting as leader on stage for years. That was big, as was trying to get Carl's writing to develop. But again based on comments, when you had Mike-Bruce-Al talking sh*t about their bandmates and having what I'm sure were some pretty heated meetings, some of this potential was being squashed instead of encouraged. I think that's why both Carl and Dennis were happy to have someone on their side like Jack.

And Carl, musically acting as "leader"? It's a no-brainer. He was already doing it - Because I'd say he was the most qualified and already had experience. But maybe he needed support from a manager type like Jack in light of Mike's comments to Jack that *he* was the Beach Boys.

All of that inner politics BS has implications on everything. When you have Mike declaring he is the Beach Boys, you can see where the bad vibes would come in. It was good Jack got Carl, Dennis, and Brian to have more of a voice in the process, specifically Carl and Dennis to get writing more for the group.

But it takes time to get the plan rolling, again as mentioned it didn't (and doesn't) happen overnight and some of us think the lost potential when the whole thing got cut short was one of the sad parts of the story.

I'd go a step further and ask what to make of Jack Rieley saying Mike was critical of a handful of songs that most fans consider among the best Beach Boys songs of all time, while I just read something earlier about how supportive Mike was of the new material from that time. Explain that one? It's a direct contradiction, unless Mike is parsing words and considering something like Student Demonstration Time as "new material" he supported. I guess Mike forgot those discussions with Rieley? Jack didn't forget.

Because I believe Rieley 100% when he described how Mike was critical of those tunes he listed, and the reasons why as well. It's much the same criticism as Mike had thrown at other songs through the years where he wasn't involved in the writing process and wouldn't get money from them. In other words, par for the course.

Craig! I said your comments were unfortunate because from an historical standpoint they totally minimized the difficulties the BBs in concert frequently experienced during the late sixties and early seventies. You have read David Leaf’s book and Ian and John’s BBs in Concert Book, right? Fortunately c-man and Jon came on board and set the record straight. Jon even added, "I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant."

And rereading this thread I now realize what the issue seems to be for you and a few others - Mike said something in his book along the lines of having scars from promoting new music and/or fending off requests for oldies, and that statement just had to be refuted because Mike can do nothing worthwhile, right? All his lead vocals? They suck, right? The lyrics to The Warmth of the Sun, Please Let Me Wonder, Kiss Me Baby, Good Vibrations, etc, etc? Pure crap, right? OK, I know you’ve never said anything of that nature, but it seems like Mr. Love’s "scars” statement had to be refuted simply because it came from Mike Love.

And for once please don’t take any of this personally, OK? It’s just part of the discussion we’re having here. No need to get bent out of shape when someone offers a different opinion than one you have put forth.

No, the issue was discussing Jack Rieley. The issue of the concerts and fan reactions was raised by other posters, who were there too, and did NOT see the level of reactions that others did. I said it was good to get different perspectives on these issues from people who also were there and had different experiences.

I questioned Mike's "scar" thing from the book and asked specifically that someone post the relevant quotes from the book for discussion, so Mike's exact words were listed as we discussed that part of it. I'd like to know what exactly this "scarring" was that Mike reported.

And as I also listed and described other acts over the past 50+ years of rock history getting similar shouts of requests from fans, including the hit record Rick Nelson had which was a reaction to being booed at Madison Square Garden for much the same reasons, I suggested that it was far from exclusive to the Beach Boys...and if you actually read the posts, Jon agreed among others who saw it even further as a non issue but perhaps more relevant to the Beach Boys, again according to some of the replies above.

Dude, if I didn't see what you're doing or trying to do here so often in the past, I'd be bent out of shape. As of right now, I'll stick to what I said and what was said by others including Rieley, whether his criticisms of Mike sit well or not. And continue discussing Rieley, the concerts, and all of the stuff that's actually on topic.

As far as the rest of your comments about Mike's triumphs, I don't know how that has anything to do with what is on the table, but have at it. It's an open forum after all.

If you meet the band backstage, ask Mike if he still thinks he's the Beach Boys 47 years or so after telling that to Rieley.