This is very cool! Probably repeating myself, but the footage of CCR at Woodstock has been one of my go-to YouTube videos for well over a year now, I can't get over how good they were and how and why Fogerty didn't want that to be released because he thought the performance was off. Fogerty himself had one of the absolute guitar highlights of the entire festival with his solo on "I Put A Spell On You"...an absolute jaw-dropper of a solo on his Rickenbacker. And the band was so tight. I'm excited to hear a full show live like this!

Just for CCR fans, I heard this over the summer and the first thing I thought of was how they nailed the CCR groove on this track, especially that Cosmo drum beat and sound. Marcus King, "Blood On The Tracks":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Q74anxPm4

It was great to hear a current artist paying tribute to CCR like this.

I am as Brianista as they come (even the excellent Scott Totten said once that he is a Brianista).
Said this, I think "Mike bashing" has gotten really old. It is almost as bad as repeating that Brian did drugs. The trollish one liners by OSD amuse me, it's like a common joke. But OSD does not write essays on Mike's hypocrisy. By the way, I am not so sure Mike is a hypocrite. Maybe he gets the difference between ruining oneself and indulging in some creature comforts, like a glass of wine. I smoke one cigarette a month, and love it.
I am a fan, besides of Brian, of all the Beach Boys. And that includes Mike. I can't forget that in that moment in 1993 when I heard the GV box aired in a store, and I became a rabid Beach Boys fan again, in just that moment, the first thing I noticed was Mike's awesome, unique bass voice.
The man is guilty of several things, yes, but he was a driving force in bringing much joy into the world, and is still working his a$$ out to do that. At his age, sure it's not for the money.

So fans expressing their opinions on Mike's comments and explaining specifically why they may think he's being hypocritical in his years of public comments against alcohol while currently promoting songs about alcohol and previously going on a tour sponsored by and promoting Budweiser beer on college campuses is "Mike bashing"? Where is the standard then for fans to express a negative opinion on something the man said or did and not have it be called "bashing"?

I enjoy the music Mike made with the band too, but I also think we as fans can be critical of things he says or does if we disagree with him.

The issue isn't debating whether alcohol is this or that, the issue is a guy, Mike, who has spent decades talking about how "his" band was ruined by drug and alcohol abuse, how his cousins ruined themselves through alcohol and drug abuse, and how in comparison his own study and practice of TM and meditation has kept him above all that and therefore he can live a clean and peaceful life without drugs and alcohol.

If someone preaches that way for decades, and as someone earlier suggested was so "traumatized" by what happened to his cousins via alcohol and drugs that it causes him to continuously bring it up...then sing on, perform, and endorse a song whose main theme is getting boozed up and partying with booze, that's hypocrisy, and Mike could easily have declined to participate in remaking that song with his vocals.

The message of clean living that Mike preaches, using the examples of his cousins abusing drugs and alcohol as opposed to his clean living, would ring a lot more true if Mike himself were not endorsing and singing a new song about drinking the same booze that he was so traumatized about as he watched it ruin his cousins, his family, and his band. And that's not to mention his Be True To Your Bud nonsense from the 80s when he went on a Budweiser sponsored tour and rewrote yet another Beach Boys song to promote beer and performed that crap at colleges and spring break events.

It's hypocritical.

I have NO problem with Mike talking about all issues surrounding the band's history, including drug use. The viewpoint of the members who didn't abuse drugs, and who witnessed drugs and alcohol ruin lives, is important. I don't doubt Mike truly feels drugs and alcohol have taken a horrible toll. And he's not wrong! I feel that emotional speech he gave before the CalSaga show in 2012 about this showed genuine emotion on Mike's part. I think seeing all of that would absolutely cause trauma, even for Mike.

The contradiction comes into play when Mike currently promotes and performs a song with lyrics like this:

We oughta take the country to the beach boys
Trade that red dirt in for sand
Show 'em how we Tennessee boys
Catch a Jon boat buzz on a catamaran
And get a little bit of red on my redneck
Drop a lime in the bottom of a long neck
Find a boat that floats and get shipwrecked
With some local honey, mm
Let's take the country to the beach boys
I get around, 'round, get around, I get around
We'll drink 'em down, down, drink 'em down, we'll drink 'em down
You get around, 'round, get around, you get around
We'll drink 'em down, down, drink 'em down, we'll drink 'em down
Let's trade our ball caps in for sombreros
Instead of Jack D, shoot some Cuervo
Mix up some rum with some Kokomo
Blow all our money

And this which isn't performed but was promoted as a single:

Late last night I got an S. O. S.
The fairy tale girl's in deep in distress
She says I don't know where I am
But it's near Japan
My engine's all burned out
My crew has all bailed out
I don't know where I am
But it's somewhere near Japan
And she said "thank you dear"
I think she sounded quite sincere
And when she turned to go
She said "I crave adventure don't you know"
And now she's driftin' on some Chinese junk
Her world is spinning and her hope has sunk
So I close my eyes
And somewhere near Japan
The spinning stopped and the world stood still
I broke her fall and I always will
Strung out in no man's land
Somewhere near Japan
Rescue me

So the current one is celebrating binge drinking beer and hard liquor, and the older one is about a girl strung out and trying to score dope in Asia.

Talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk? Why make money off of and promote songs and lyrics about the very things, substance abuse and addiction, that you're consistently railing against? That doesn't add up. If the trauma were that great, he might decline to sing lyrics glorifying binge drinking.

Just a year or two after the Beach Boys sessions, Brian also arranges and produces -- on his own -- a backing track for Carnie and Wendy. It's "Everything I Need," which has nothing to do with Andy Paley or Joe Thomas.

Thomas eventually overdubs the bejesus out of it, but the original circulates. It makes me wonder, frankly, if a solo album without Thomas would have included Asher material as well. It's clear that Brian didn't see Andy as an entirely essential piece of what he was putting together.

I'm glad you brought this up! The most revealing perspective on this track came from Hal Blaine, who was called to play on the original sessions. From a Steve Escobar interview with Hal:

<<<<<<<<
SE:     I recently spoke with Brian and I asked him if he ever thought of re-    uniting the Wrecking Crew for a record.  He said that he thought it was a good idea.

HB:     Well not too long ago, that we did this song, “Everything I Need,” with his two daughters, and he called me to contract, saying to “get the guys together.”  This was about two and a half, three years ago?   we did this beautiful record with Wendy and Carnie, and Brian playing piano.  We just had an incredible day recording. Then three or four days later he called me.  I got all the strings together and we did the string overdub.  I said, “Brian, I have a hunch that this could be record of the year!  And I hope it is because I’d love to have nine, instead of eight.” And we laughed about that, and Wendy and Carnie, they were just sweethearts you know, they showed a lot of love for me.  Then I get a call from this guy who’s producing him now, it was just a work call at A & M for Brian Wilson.  I thought, ok, whatever, so I go in and here’s Brian, Wendy, Carnie, and their producer.  They said, “We’re gonna play that song you that you guys just did, ‘Everything I Need’.” I said,oh, man, I loved that song!  And they played it.  and it was gorgeous, really gorgeous.  I said, “Jesus, I love that song!”  And I sincerely meant that.   The producer told me that he’d like for me to do some more drum fills and I said, “Really!”  he said “well do you feel like you want to, or could?” and I said, if it was me [doing the drum fills] I wouldn’t touch the record -I think it could go on the air just like that tomorrow and be a major hit.  The girls said “you know? we feel the same way, it’s absolutely beautiful”  I told them that their vocals were all gorgeous, but  I’m  talking about the general picture of the track, and the strings, and everybody had done such a beautiful job . . . So [the producer] says “We thought that was the way you did records with Brian.  You’d come in a week or two later and do some      more stuff . . .”  I told him that I’d be happy to do that for you, but that I didn’t think it needed anything else, but, whatever you want.   “Yeah,just play, and let’s do some fills”  All of a sudden it became a fucking drum solo, so I told them, “Look, I’ll do whatever you want.”  And I did it, you know of course, that was the end of it. And then Brian sent me the record three months later and I couldn’t believe it was the same song or the same record.  It was terrible.

SE:     Really?

HB:     It was a piece of sh*t!  This guy, whoever he was, the producer, Maybe Brian would talk about some of the wood block sounds and some of the sounds I used to do, the whole thing was covered with percussion.  It went click, boom, bang, clack, boom, bing . . .  I couldn’t believe what I was hearing!

SE:     Nowadays they tend to put the drummer up front and everything else is buried behind them.

HB:     That’s something else, but this song was so fuckin’ gorgeous.  You’d think that Barbara Streisand would be singing it.

SE:     Sometimes less is more.

HB:     Absolutely!  That’s exactly what I preach!
>>>>>>>

So there was Brian creating what was, according to Hal, a beautiful piece of music only to see it overdubbed and tinkered with to the point where Hal had that strong of a negative reaction. It's not like Brian couldn't do it, in this case another cook unfortunately was one too many cooks in the kitchen and spoiled the broth.

I guess the point could be that there was a "formula" at play here too, where what Brian originally did wasn't what the search for a commercial "hit" or whatever was dictating it should sound like. But remove the tinkering and fatuous overdubbing, and consider in the two or three years previous to this song, something good definitely could have come out of Brian's work which the Beach Boys could have used. I think the Wasserman track and the original work on this Wilsons track shows there was more that could have been tapped into.

That's what I've been saying for years, and a few of us said it earlier in this discussion: For all of the doubts or hesitation the band had with Brian, he had a literal backlog of material he had been writing that could have easily formed a new album for the Beach Boys, and he had been working on music pretty consistently since the Landy sh*t ended. During that time, just look at the list of songs he was working on, and the list of people he was working with in the studio on various projects.

If the Beach Boys couldn't see what was happening, if they couldn't find something worth releasing, or if they thought Brian wasn't "up to the task" of making music...that's all on them, they were clearly going on factors other than whether Brian was able to make new music that could be a viable release. And again the question since 1967 with the band was if they didn't want or like what Brian was offering them, what did they offer in return, and what could they do without him that was commercially viable? The only fluke of the whole history was Kokomo. When the band did get an international showcase on Baywatch, they performed one of the absolute worst songs in their entire catalog history.

And Brian was the one who wasn't up to the task? Unreal.


Also don't forget the track that came out on the Rob Wasserman "Trios" album, Fantasy Is Reality / Bells Of Madness, featuring Brian and Carnie with Wasserman. For fans of Brian's music, that was a pretty solid track that had key elements of Brian in there, and I remember being very, very excited at the news this track was coming out back in the day. If the band could have collected more songs in that vein, they could easily have had a solid album of new material to plug, as we've said before.

I think it's Melinda that Mike really has a problem with. But if Mike kept telling interviewers that he doesn't like Brian's wife, you guys would jump all over him for that, too.

And it would be justified too. For years the mantra "it's all about the music" has been repeated on these boards. For years we've been told Mike is carrying the torch of the Beach Boys legacy and the music to fans through his tours. If Mike were to launch a public attack on Brian's wife, or any spouse or family member for that matter, in the context of an interview promoting the music and his live shows, criticizing a spouse has absolutely nothing to do with either the music, or promoting his live shows.

Maybe you or anyone else can explain what mentioning Brian's health and previous drug use has to do with Mike promoting his live shows? Because I thought we were told it's all about the music.

One of the big mysteries is how it was reported at the time that Carl was enthusiastic about the new tracks and was working on them, then he was the one who pulled the plug. I've never seen it discussed why he made that decision after his initial enthusiasm.

I'm all in on that set! Fantastic! It was Revolver (actually the US version which was all that was available at the time I bought it), Pet Sounds, Smile, and The Monkees' Headquarters and PAC&J albums that got me obsessed with music. Revolver is simply amazing in many ways, it was great to finally get the full UK version back in the day, and now this. Great news!

It's pretty easy to stitch together the most basic situations from that time: Brian was free of Landy and actively working on new music, the Beach Boys had no label, no label interest, no new songs, a true dead-in-the-water flop of an album-of-record at the time, and were touring with dancers, giant surf boards, and fake palm trees on stage. There was a major producer working with Brian and bringing the group back together with him (baby steps, as there were still the issues between all sides), and both Brian and the legacy music had been getting a lot of attention and praise from new generations through the reissues and the box set, and also the Was documentary.

Brian expressed how he wanted to be a Beach Boy again, and work with the band again. Once it came out that the band was without a label, needed new material, and basically needed something to bring them back with renewed interest, Brian had all of these songs to choose from and a producer with enough industry clout to make it happen. They chose songs to work on, Mike and Brian started collaborating again, the media began picking up on it, and it looked like something would happen.

I don't see a stretch in saying when the band needed songs, and Brian and the band started interacting again, that those songs became Beach Boys songs intended for the band to work on and hopefully release (or at least generate label interest which was non-existant at the time). And they obviously started working on those songs, not as solo Brian songs but as Beach Boys potential releases.

I don't know where the divide is in saying these were Beach Boys songs when there were songs picked out and worked on as Beach Boys songs. Brian, Andy, and Don had dozens of songs worked up, naturally not all were going to the Beach Boys, but as soon as the band needed material there were songs specifically targeted to that purpose. And Mike and Brian worked on some beyond that. I don't know where the inaccuracy is in saying some of the Wilson-Paley-Was sessions and songs alongside whatever the Wilson-Love collaborations would be were targeted for the Beach Boys.

It was a marriage of supply and demand, the band needed material and Brian had material for them. Whatever soured the whole thing is the tragedy.

Quote:

***With all their success, Dori wondered, what’s the relationship now between Love and Brian Wilson? Do the two men talk?

“No,” Love said. “He hurt himself so badly with drugs that he’s not capable of doing much. He goes out and sometimes tours, but recently canceled all his future dates. It’s sad, but between the heroin, LSD, and cocaine – they had an effect.

“But if it was just he and I at a piano?” Love contemplated. “We love each other and experienced such great success. If it was just he and I at the piano? The DNA just kicks in, but the incursion of drugs came in, and that screwed things up quite a bit.”***


This is so ridiculous and over the top it's almost not worth a reply. Almost. The fact that we're reminded regularly of how "at peace" Mike is and has been through meditation and TM, how much he loves touring and playing live concerts for his fans, and how he feels he's carrying the torch for the Beach Boys through his activities leads this same contented, happy, wealthy man to once again make public statements as absurd as this one?

Mike for years - particularly in the wake of C50 ending - has been saying the same things. And they're as wrong now as they were in the past. He holds this image of him and Brian at a piano knocking out the hits like it was 1963 as some sort of Shangri-La, idealistic paradise he thinks can be recaptured. It borders on delusion. And maybe Mike doesn't know this, but Brian has been "clean" of those drugs for at least 40 years and actively touring and making music. It's just petty, mean-spirited talk from a guy who can't keep his mouth shut and has to belittle others to boost his own ego and profile.

In this case, would we consider what he said a lie? "Not capable of doing much" is pretty strong and very definitive...and if we look back at Brian's musical resume over the last 25 years, and his touring schedules, it pretty much shows Mike is as full of sh*t now as he was when he filed that lawsuit around 2005 saying all Brian did after 1967 was stay in bed and collect royalty checks.

There's something going on here, beyond just petty word wars. I'd think someone, maybe his wife-and-manager or some historian or writer somewhere, would tell Mike to shut the f*** up, this stuff isn't helping your image, it's not helping to put fans' asses in the seats at the venues he's playing, and overall it comes off as pathetic.

Why the guy can't just celebrate what he accomplished and all the people, tens of millions, he's made happy through the years with his music and lyrics is something I guess we'll never understand. I thought the days of Mike saying sh*t like this were over, but I guess he's still holding onto whatever hate or animosity he felt for decades.

Happy 60th, Beach Boys! 

I am a huge Brian fan but at the end of the day we have to say that he must take some of the blame. If he is unwilling to ever again take total control of the recording process, as has basically been the case since the late 70s than he will be at the mercy of the people he cedes control to. If Brian had really wanted a Wilson-Paley album to be released in the 1990s than he had to actually produce the record but it seems like he ultimately, despite being free of Landy, no longer wanted that responsibility.

I think this is way too broad of a brushstroke to paint this situation, specific to the years 1994-1996 when the material we're discussing was on the table as material for the band, not just Brian, to record and release. HeyJude already made some comments about the interpersonal and business situations at that time, which is what I was going to say too, but there could be several chapters of a book written about what was going on in that specific time period.

First and probably most prominent, you're going on the assumption that Brian had either the power to, or the full ability to, make such a judgement call and say I'm going to produce this album. And it leaves out the fact that Brian wanted at least a chunk of the material he was writing with Andy to go to The Beach Boys. That's very clear. However, the Beach Boys blew him off when he wanted to play them some new tracks for consideration and didn't show when he invited them to a listening session. There were a lot of personal issues going on specific to this time period too, as mentioned, and the band in some cases was skeptical of Brian coming back to "produce" an album, let alone function as a band member again which is what he said he wanted to do. Some members treated him almost like a child, overcompensating to try to make him feel comfortable, some didn't think he could cut it live and rejected various ideas to get him on stage, others were still burned by various aspects of the Landy years (including slander lawsuits, suspicious writing credits, demands from Landy to be a 'partner' in the process, etc.), and there just seemed to be a feeling of skepticism around Brian's return.

In some cases their actions were understandable, Landy overall was like a festering wound they couldn't get rid of. Once he was gone, it wasn't as simple as the "old Brian" coming back and being able to helm the production of a full album, and the fact they tried to connect Brian with Sean O'Hagan (which Bruce and Carl were trying to do) says there wasn't the same confidence in his abilities anyway.

Meanwhile they had tracks which Don Was had said Carl was excited about, and then all of a sudden Carl changed his mind and vetoed everything. In a related situation, Virgin's Richard Branson came calling with a record deal, each "faction" of the band wanted something out of it including Brian who wanted co-production credit and a solo album release, and the Virgin deal fell through.

So when Brian did step up to say he'd produce what he wanted to produce, he was basically told no. The next time he would actually produce for the band, it was one of the bargaining chips used to get Willie Nelson on board with the country project, and the track Brian did with Willie was not only the one he was fully involved with, but also one of the true highlights of that whole album. Why that wasn't pushed hard as a single over James House and Kathy Troccoli is still a mystery too.

I guess I'm trying to understand where the blame falling on Brian theory comes in because when he did step up and actually offer material, offer to produce and co-produce, and basically say in many ways he wanted to be a Beach Boy again after getting rid of the Landy b.s., it got shot down by other members and pieces of the machine. By the time Stars and Stripes became the focus, all of what had happened with the Paley/Was material was a dead issue and everyone had moved on.

The time to release this stuff, or at least do something with it, was when the Beach Boys started working on the Paley tracks and I have to give the opinion that I think that was what Brian wanted more than putting together a solo record at that specific time. By the time a solo album possibility was on the table, and Brian pitched it to Virgin Records as part of the Beach Boys deal, the players and the game had been changing and the window of opportunity had closed. 

And also important to note is that the Beach Boys could not beg, borrow, or steal a record label deal at this time and had no label deal on the books at all with anything resembling a big player in the business. After Summer In Paradise was rejected, Capitol ended their deal and was done with them as a vehicle for new original, focusing on reissues. When Brian came back into the fold, there was interest again, and Brian even said he wanted to help them score a new deal to release new music. Without Brian they were without a deal or interest. It's not like he didn't try.

I don't know why they couldn't just keep it going, but honestly the novelty wore off and the programming could be a bit dodgy at times. Chalk it up to laziness or lack of care?

It struck me over the past few days, after seeing some of the "highlights" and musical performances from the VMA Awards (supposedly a showcase of the best, hottest, biggest selling, most trendy music of our present time...) how absurd it is to worry about whether a ten year old Beach Boys album should have an asterisk next to it for chart position, or how reaching #3 on that Billboard chart is upsetting to some. Considering the supposed "talent" on display, and the songs heard on that awards show...holy sh*t that's what should be causing grief and debate instead of asterisks and chart positions. And that's the kind of music and the artists we're being programmed to hear and, what else, respect? Sad commentary on modern pop music.

I'd also point to one of the lesser discussed "elements" of The Elements, and that's the group chants recorded in the Fall of '66 while the Boys were away on tour. It's obvious to anyone who has listened to the full reel that there are 3 of the 4 "elements" being used as the basis of the chant themes which Brian gave the guys to improvise on. He had them chant about vegetables, he had them chant about water, and he had them do an "air" type of breathing improvisation...the only one missing was a "fire" chant, and at that point in the timeline he would already have had the "fire" music.

So yes, these are just group improvisations happening around an open microphone in the studio, but surely no coincidence that 3 of the 4 elements are given as themes for the chants. He even said he'll have to try it with the guys when they got back.

I do think, at least during this point in time, that Brian had intended this type of vocal chanting to be a part of whatever elements project he had in mind. And I do think what we hear on those tapes was like a demo to see how it would work and how it would sound. Also worth noting is how Brian added reverb and tape delay effects to the "Underwater" part of the chant, asking the question why would he do that unless he had something in mind and wanted to see how it would sound with added "underwater" effects, similar to what fans would eventually hear and know as the "Water Chant".

It didn't happen in a vacuum or for no reason, and I think a snapshot of Brian's plans and considerations for his Elements was captured on that 50 minutes worth or whatever of studio tape where he's leading group improvisations partially based on elemental themes with Vosse, Anderle, Parks, and Gordan, trying out some ideas before the guys returned to LA.

I'd also add that Weird Al Yankovic had the number one album on Billboard two years after TWGMTR, landing the top spot in 2014 and becoming the first comedy album since 1963 to achieve that position. I remember talking about that here when it happened. And when he was on a talk show just after it happened, the host presented him with a framed copy of the Billboard chart page, which made Al emotional and he actually teared up on the show. And that accomplishment of him having the #1 album made headlines all over the media.

So if we're putting asterisks on "legacy" artists scoring a number one, or top-10 or whatever album in the last 10-15 years, give one to Weird Al too. But I don't think he'll give a sh*t.

I'll repeat again what's been said numerous times, I just don't understand why such an accomplishment has to be parsed or given an asterisk or diminished in some way, especially if it seems to be based on who the artist is and how old they are rather than the merits of reaching that high on the charts.

Why didn't "Unleash The Love" go top-5 if it were a case of the calculations behind the album charts and the diehard fans coming out the first week to binge on buying the album? Obviously more than the diehard fan base bought TWGMTR, otherwise it would have hit the charts around 78 or something instead of number 3.

Mike Love solo doesn't have the same diehard fanbase as the Beach Boys with Brian Wilson.

The latest album by the Who opened at number 2 on the US Billboard 200 chart. McCartney III similarly opened at number 2. Rough and Rowdy Ways, by Bob Dylan, opened at number 2. Blue & Lonesome, an album of blues covers by the Rolling Stones, made it to number 4.

So all we're saying is that, when one hears "the album was in the top 5", it needs an asterisk where people are reminded that it doesn't mean the album resonated with the record-buying public, had commercial success or had songs that got into the public consciousness. It just means that the fanbase bought it, which in this day and age is enough to get a top-5 showing for one week if you're an old, established Sixties band.
 

I'll ask what kind of people would be happy if there were such an asterisk or disclaimer placed on the accomplishment of landing a top-5 album? It feels like an attempt to diminish the accomplishment itself, and I just don't understand the need to do that for some artists but not others. So in your opinion, only "legacy" artists or those who have been making music for 50 years or more should get the asterisk? Should one be applied to modern artists, or rap artists, or should the Beiber/Beyonce/Kanye/Post Malone "big earners" get one too considering that their fanbases also drive bigger sales in the first several weeks after a new release drops?

I totally disagree with the notion that any asterisk or disclaimer should be applied. If any artist is set to release a new album, their fanbase will naturally buy the album when it's released and the sales/chart numbers will reflect that. It shouldn't matter if the artist is in their 70's or in their 20's, in fact if an artist in their 70's has a loyal enough fanbase to generate a top-5 chart placement on a new album, it should be celebrated that they're able to appear on the charts next to the "young" artists.

I was going to suggest the whole idea smacks of ageism but I won't go further on that. A top-5 album is a top-5 album whether the artist is 75 or 20.

I just wanted to point out how much in agreement I am with both Rab and Jim V and what they posted above. I just cannot understand why fans of a band, any band, would try to diminish the accomplishment of that band scoring a top-5 album. Yes I understand the in's and out's of chart placement and the data that goes into those charts, but damn at some point you have to see the perspective as Jim did and ask if it were so easy to score a top-5 or even top-50 album according to the reasoning being listed above, then why haven't all "legacy" bands and artists scored a top-5 album?Why didn't "Unleash The Love" go top-5 if it were a case of the calculations behind the album charts and the diehard fans coming out the first week to binge on buying the album? Obviously more than the diehard fan base bought TWGMTR, otherwise it would have hit the charts around 78 or something instead of number 3.

I don't understand why there can't just be a pat on the back moment, a collective high-five, saying how cool it was for them to score a top-5 album instead of the parsing and explaining away what most artists would consider a great achievement, especially one that basically caps off their long career. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the sandwich instead of finding things to complain about. And as Jim suggested, if the Love solo album had hit number 3, there would be champagne corks flying everywhere. But not for TWGMTR? I don't get it.

And as far as trying to state almost as fact that no one would buy or stream or download any release...do you guys have a crystal ball to predict such things? If the "new" music business of the past 15-20 years has shown us anything, it's that social media is perhaps a more powerful vehicle to sell music than any DJ in the golden era would have been. Just ask Fleetwood Mac. Some random dude posts a reaction video to a Fleetwood Mac song, it goes viral, and the band has a hit with a song from the 70's out of nowhere.

Now labels are probably trying to replicate that, and probably finding that it doesn't work because they missed the killer app of the original viral video that reignited interest in the song and Fleetwood Mac overall: the authenticity of the guy who posted it.

Tell me that anyone in the record business can predict things like that happening. I'm sure they'd love to with all their focus-groups and research, but truth is they can't, and therefore to just totally rule out this happening to a group like the Beach Boys instead of Journey, or Fleetwood Mac, or Kate Bush, or any others seems a little misplaced. 

[and no young person will be caught dead playing/streaming music from old geezers.]

Just some perspective to consider: We're having this discussion about who would listen to "old" music in a year when Kate Bush and Metallica have had songs hit either the top or near the top of the most downloaded or streamed songs, and it's not people over 50 streaming those songs. It's mostly teenagers who watch Stranger Things. The Beach Boys' own California Dreamin climbed up the sales totals charts thanks to that show too, at this point it's among the most popular songs in the band's catalog, again thanks to that show.

More to the time before and shortly after TWGMTR, The Ink Spots of all groups saw a resurgence in sales thanks to the Fallout and Bioshock game franchises which used their music prominently. Again the main audience buying these songs from the 1940's was...teenagers and people in their early 20's.

In 2007, Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" was used in the Soprano's final episode, and immediately rose to the top of the download charts. Now the song is pretty much ubiquitous at weddings and events (and karaoke nights) whereas before it had been relegated mostly to pre-programmed classic rock radio playlists. And kids, yes kids, know all the lyrics.

Kids this year were buying and listening to "Danger Zone" by Kenny Loggins because of the Top Gun reboot.

Generally whenever you see a song start spiking in sales or when you hear teenagers talking about an old song that seemingly reappeared out of nowhere, it was either in a viral TikTok meme or featured somewhere like a video game or a TV show.

In the past year there have also been many reports in the media about "old" songs and albums outselling new music. The same classic albums that were stalwarts on the charts are still outselling a lot of new releases, especially in the vinyl market, as younger listeners buy the same albums for their collections as their parents and grandparents had done.

I just think the notions expressed about "old" music not being listened to by the kids should be reconsidered, not specifically in terms of the TWGMTR album but in general. If a song gets placed in a key TV show or video game (or movie), and the song isn't pure crap, chances are it too will go viral and younger listeners will add it to their playlist or even buy the vinyl if available.

Just food for thought. The music business shifted radically as we're all aware over the last 20 years, but the way in which it shifted (and how it affects the so-called 'charts' of old) still seems to be a mystery to those who used to control the music business. And trying to determine what "kids" listen to by suggesting they don't listen to old music is an opinion that could be reconsidered.

Not to mention the way various numbers posted by "modern" music could possibly be manipulated and controlled by various algorithms the same way Twitter numbers and stats were manipulated to show more followers and engagement for various accounts than actually existed. Or how YouTube created algorithms to manipulate viewer engagement and visibility for some accounts while burying others, which also led to artificial tallies of views and engagement numbers.

Yes, but those are all examples of old songs, of old hits, getting another 15 minutes in the spotlight through their use in a popular TV show on on some TikTok kid's channel. There are no recent examples that I can think of a NEW song by an old artist having any kind of commercial impact.

I was replying to your comment in bold:

Even if they’d released something as good as Wouldn’t it Be Nice or California Girls, there’s no way what you’re describing could have happened. Radio won’t play music from 70-year-old musicians, boomers themselves are not interested in new music from old Sixties stars, and no young person will be caught dead playing/streaming music from old geezers.

That's far from the case at least in my experiences.

Just some perspective to consider: We're having this discussion about who would listen to "old" music in a year when Kate Bush and Metallica have had songs hit either the top or near the top of the most downloaded or streamed songs, and it's not people over 50 streaming those songs. It's mostly teenagers who watch Stranger Things. The Beach Boys' own California Dreamin climbed up the sales totals charts thanks to that show too, at this point it's among the most popular songs in the band's catalog, again thanks to that show.

More to the time before and shortly after TWGMTR, The Ink Spots of all groups saw a resurgence in sales thanks to the Fallout and Bioshock game franchises which used their music prominently. Again the main audience buying these songs from the 1940's was...teenagers and people in their early 20's.

In 2007, Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" was used in the Soprano's final episode, and immediately rose to the top of the download charts. Now the song is pretty much ubiquitous at weddings and events (and karaoke nights) whereas before it had been relegated mostly to pre-programmed classic rock radio playlists. And kids, yes kids, know all the lyrics.

Kids this year were buying and listening to "Danger Zone" by Kenny Loggins because of the Top Gun reboot.

Generally whenever you see a song start spiking in sales or when you hear teenagers talking about an old song that seemingly reappeared out of nowhere, it was either in a viral TikTok meme or featured somewhere like a video game or a TV show.

In the past year there have also been many reports in the media about "old" songs and albums outselling new music. The same classic albums that were stalwarts on the charts are still outselling a lot of new releases, especially in the vinyl market, as younger listeners buy the same albums for their collections as their parents and grandparents had done.

I just think the notions expressed about "old" music not being listened to by the kids should be reconsidered, not specifically in terms of the TWGMTR album but in general. If a song gets placed in a key TV show or video game (or movie), and the song isn't pure crap, chances are it too will go viral and younger listeners will add it to their playlist or even buy the vinyl if available.

Just food for thought. The music business shifted radically as we're all aware over the last 20 years, but the way in which it shifted (and how it affects the so-called 'charts' of old) still seems to be a mystery to those who used to control the music business. And trying to determine what "kids" listen to by suggesting they don't listen to old music is an opinion that could be reconsidered.

Not to mention the way various numbers posted by "modern" music could possibly be manipulated and controlled by various algorithms the same way Twitter numbers and stats were manipulated to show more followers and engagement for various accounts than actually existed. Or how YouTube created algorithms to manipulate viewer engagement and visibility for some accounts while burying others, which also led to artificial tallies of views and engagement numbers.

Guitarfool, interesting post as always, but you seem to be talking about Brian Wilson/Mike Love collaborations whereas this post is more about the Wilson/Paley collaborations. Indeed they are from the same time period, but can they be considered one and the same for this discussion's purpose?

I was considering these things as part of the same time period, however Don Was had been acting as something of a go-between and I'm sure his resume and name added some weight to getting all factions together in the name of making new music that would ostensibly sell records. If you read through various articles and interviews done at that time, there isn't much separation between, say, what The Boys were doing and what Brian was doing, and there was always a goal to get Brian and the Boys recording and releasing new material. That's specifically what Brian wanted, and what he expressed immediately after he was free of Landy: He wanted to make music with the band again. And I think Don Was was in the right position to facilitate that. And at least he tried.

So yes, I do see all of this material as part of the same discussion, because most of what was reported from that time almost suggested it was, and the end result hopefully being new Beach Boys music. It just so happened that Brian had a stockpile of dozens of song demos and ideas, Mike was enthusiastic about contributing and collaborating again (as was Brian), and they had a top level producer willing to work with them. We can go through and parse each track and say well this one was for Andy and Brian, this one was for the band, this one may have had Mike's contributions, etc. But add them all up and it feels to me like Brian was looking to place a lot these songs with the band, where they could pick ones that would fit what they needed and continue work on them.

That makes the fact that they blew him off on one of his invitations to gather and listen to the material even more sad.

And it makes the fact that Carl vetoed the ideas even more sad too, because as others have mentioned, they could easily have made a solid "comeback" album with Brian's involvement using the better examples of those dozens of songs. And they would have great PR behind the project from the media and the fans, as excitement had already built based on the fact they were even working together with Brian, and that Brian and Mike were working together again. That would have been a great angle to promote any new release, and fans would have bought it in some cases on that aspect alone.

Consider too that nearly the same scenario played out with the 50th reunion and the TWGMTR album: They needed new songs after the notion of remaking tracks like Do It Again was nixed, and Brian having been working with a collaborator on original songs had a backlog of material to present. In that case, they all agreed to go forward and proceeded to work on and release an album that was well-received and cracked the top-5 on the album charts. I can see where that could easily have happened with the material in the mid-90's had it not been scuppered by Carl.

Somebody has called them "the greatest album that never was". The definition once reserved to SMiLE.
In any case, I think they deserve a treatment like the 2011 SMiLE Sessions, completed with a "reconstructed" album.
What do you think?

Considering what we got on that Long Promised Road soundtrack from that era, then the claims of greatness over most of these tracks are definitively false.  Sure, they represent a revival of some sorts in terms of Brian's creativity and there are a few good songs to come of it, but most of that material is kind of bland and forgettable.  And none of it warrants going into any kind of deep inspection. 

The subjective take on the material is the quality of that material: I happen to agree, that some of it isn't as good as its reputation, however there are some very good songs that could have been worked into some kind of a new release for the band. And that's where the objective take on the material comes into play: This was new material for a band who literally had little or nothing to offer in terms of new songs for a potential "next album". They had that issue going back to 1988 and the fluke of the Cocktail movie and soundtrack driving Kokomo and Bobby McFerrin up the charts that year. Their old label had renewed interest in new Beach Boys songs, they had a new contract for new material, and the band gave them essentially nothing to capture the interest after Kokomo. What they did offer was Summer In Paradise, and that eventually had to come out on another lesser label because it wasn't up to par.

I think perspective based on opinions at that time these sessions were being reported on in the press is important. Brian was back with the band and writing new material for them, Mike was working and writing with Brian again and excited to be doing so, and there were reports that some of that new collaborative work would be appearing on the show Baywatch, which at that time was one of the most popular TV shows in the world. If they had pulled even a half dozen of the best songs from those sessions and padded the rest with the lesser tracks, it would still be *new Beach Boys music*. Not covers, not tributes, not rehashed oldies, but genuinely new music specifically from Brian and Mike with those two actively collaborating for the first time in years.

This was exciting news for fans. It could have gone somewhere, it could have tanked, but before it got off the ground, Carl put the kibosh on it.

I think that's where the mystique around these tracks comes from, the fact that a band who was literally starved for new material since 1989 and who released a dud of an album that basically featured Mike Love, a beta version of ProTools recording software and various bad 90's synth sounds, and barely any worthwhile contributions from the other band members, finally had their former chief songwriter and producer back on board with a collection of new material to pick from, and nothing happened. To rub salt into the wound, when the band finally DID appear on Baywatch, they featured songs from Summer In Paradise which was several years old at that time having already flopped in all regards, the music already sounded dated, and beyond that they performed one of the worst travesties of a song the band ever released.

And the question of "what could have been" became even more amplified when fans went back to those interviews from several years ago reporting they had at least three dozen (and more) genuinely new songs to choose from, and instead they again had nothing new to offer as The Beach Boys except songs from an album that tanked and barely featured any material from the full band apart from Mike.

Looking back, hindsight is 20/20 of course, it was a moment in time where Brian wanted to come back and had a large collection of new songs to work on, Mike was excited to be working with him again, and no matter what the quality was in some of those demos, they had something substantial to work with which they would never have again. The moment passed them by, and a lot of it came from Carl's vetoes. I'd ask what did Carl have to offer in return during that era. 

There was a lot more to this than what's on the surface, especially family issues that got hinted at in a published article from the time. But one incident stands out: Brian had invited the band to meet and listen to new songs he had been working on, and the band literally blew off the invitation and didn't show up. That, from a basic perspective of friends and family interacting with each other, was inexcusable. And I can totally see where Brian at some point - after other incidents too, some mentioned above - would just say "f**k these guys". And piecing together other info from various sources, the relationship between Brian and Carl at this exact time was strained to say the least. But like other episodes that get close to the core in the band's history, the depth of these matters will probably never be revealed, and we're left to piece together bits of info and reports that have come out.

 

Are there more existent photos of Brian in a hat or Mike not in a hat? The yin and yang of those two 

Yes.

And going back a few pages to an earlier topis (or topics), I'd specifically point to this quote referring to November '66 after the band returned from that '66 European tour:



There are several key factors mentioned in those paragraphs that are worth noting and considering in terms of the previous discussions here. One of them being the band's concerns about playing Brian's new Smile material live.