gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
612207 Posts in 24722 Topics by 3514 Members - Latest Member: scott70 July 21, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 164
1  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Summer of Love - 'Til I Die on: Today at 08:34:33 PM
It just dawned on me… Was the release of this song in 1992 and attempt to capitalize on the then-25th anniversary of the event of the same name?  It's sort of feels like it's not likely that's just a coincidence…
2  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: Today at 05:24:30 PM
However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.
3  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: Today at 03:52:19 PM
They come on like they're peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through their day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the narrator seems to be speaking to people who trip through their day, the narrator says to these people that they could be living better (which isn't endorsing drugs at all, the opposite in fact). Then the chorus says that you can find the answer to how to live better, but you have to do it by yourself (implying without the aid of drugs).

Imagine you see in person your lead bandmate have a nervous breakdown on a plane...this eventually leads to your bandmate quitting touring. You see him then start smoking pot/eating special brownies. You see him take LSD, amphetamines. You see his behavior change, you hear stories about him on acid screaming into a pillow crying about his mom and dad. He becomes more paranoid about things, perhaps he has told you he's been hearing voices in his head. Keeping all that in mind, I highly doubt Mike was upset more about a possible check of his own ego over keeping pro-drug references out of The Beach Boys music.

Edit: wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that all drug references were erased from the song (I even read the section of Lambert's book while typing the post above where he clearly states there are still drug references in the song...my bad). From my standpoint any reference to drugs in the song are negative and it's more of an anti drug song in its current form...which just exacerbates their square image.

That's an interesting take on things, but it doesn't quite jibe with what I hear. Call me crazy, but I've always thought the lyrics about uptight people were intended as a slightly veiled reference to squares like Mike... I certainly think Brian certainly thought that Mike was uptight at the time. To think that Brian thought otherwise doesn't seem to add up.

The other interesting thing to consider about the song's lyrics is how little they actually changed from Hang Onto Your Ego -> I Know There's An Answer. I mean, the only changes are the line about being "guilty", and the title line.

So now that I think about it when comparing the two, I don't necessarily see how changing the title suddenly makes the song *not* an LSD type song at all *whatsoever* anymore. I mean, the song doesn't (in either of its forms) have to - by necessity - be just only about taking drugs, but it could just be about dealing with/coping with difficult people in one's life.

I feel like on the final version of the song, the line "I have to find it by myself" is a reference akin to the message Brian says on I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, where the uptight people who don't want to push boundaries are determined to be thorns in the side of the protagonist of the song, and how that protagonist has to find answers/meaning/truth by themselves without anyone necessarily there amongst their buddies to really help them along the way.

I stand by my assumption that the "ego" line bugged Mike not *solely* because it conjured up images of LSD usage, but *also* because he didn't want to be indirectly called out on having a massive ego on a song, and indirectly told that he needed to get it in check. I think it's a bit reaching to think that this was completely irrelevant to why he wanted that one lyric gone, since most of the other lyrics in the song stayed put, even "drugged-out" ones like "trip through the day". I am certain that by 1966, Mike was told by some people that he had a massive ego. And for good reason; he did! He may have brushed it off and pretended he didn't care what anyone thought... but I don't think the idea of people thinking that Mike had ego problems was absolutely off Mike's radar at the time. No way.  
4  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: Today at 11:11:07 AM
In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.

And by allowing these references in the music it would possibly influence their own fans to take the same substances that were clearly changing Brian for the worse. If anything standing up to the culture that was clearly becoming popular at that time was a noble thing to do.

One thing I have to give credit Mike for is that he is normally commercial as hell and looking for profit (always following trends and rarely treading new ground) yet drug culture was clearly huge after '66 and yet Mike never pushed the band toward those profits. Hell, he basically went the opposite direction with TM. So yeah, it sucks that Monterey never worked out and The Beach Boys were regarded as squares after '66, but I can't and don't blame Mike at all for lobbying to ditch the drug references given all he had heard and possibly seen firsthand up to that point with the drugs Brian was taking.

I can understand this point of view too. And I can empathize to a point also. Yet even though the drug thing was still lingering in the background of the song (and the "trip through the day" lyric still made it through, either suggesting that Mike maybe didn't realize that line was about LSD, or that it was less an objection to the drug references, and more an objection to the idea of singing about losing one's ego), I still can't help but laugh at the irony that the song was about ego, and subtly about how people need to take check of their own ego and not get their heads too far up their own asses... and how the guy who needed to take that message to heart the most was the guy who simply had to make that song lyric go bye-bye.

Brian had to have seen the irony in that. You can't make stuff like that up.

Yet as I said earlier, I think the final product rules, so I can praise Mike for the song getting to a very good place in the end, even though I inherently have some issues with a guy with a huge ego not wanting to sing a song about taking stock of one's ego. That is simultaneously both problematic and laughably funny to me.
5  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Dennis' Lead on \ on: Today at 11:04:27 AM
It was pretty much part of the formula for BB albums that Dennis had a lead somewhere, to the extent that when he didn't get one on Summer Days, Brian offered an explanation/apology on the liner notes. If Brian thought he was suited to In The Back of My Mind, it's probably no surprise that he also thought he might do for I Just Wasn't Made For These Times. But presumably he wasn't happy with the result, so re-did it himself.

True, but the fact that this particular song is highly, highly personal, and indicative of a very uniquely specific (very Brian) feeling - that even Tony Asher himself said that he couldn't necessarily relate to - was the song that Brian initially chose to have someone *else* sing is, to me, quite telling, or at least worthy of some pondering as to a reason, beyond the reason of simply wanting a token Denny lead on a given album.

Maybe a cigar is just a cigar, and maybe there's nothing to it other than Brian liking the sound of Denny's voice with the melody of the song. But I think it's possible that choosing Denny as the vocalist could have been a way for to deflect or not have to answer to/own those feelings in this particular song in quite the same way. This is a song that I feel someone like Mike in particular could have objected or rolled his eyes to. If an evolved guy like Tony Asher had a hard time relating to it (but still dutifully did his job writing the lyrics beautifully), Mike most certainly wouldn't "gotten" what Brian was trying to say in the song, as it came from the perspective of a genius songwriter who was being stifled by many of those around him. There's also a passive aggressive element to the lyrics, with the "no one wants to help me look for places", with the "no one" being some of Brian's bandmates; that's how I read it, anyway.

I think that Brian having someone other than Brian himself sing the lyrics could have been one further level of a passive aggressive maneuver, removing himself one further step from the song's statement, while still making the statement by releasing said song on the album.

Also, since Denny was by all accounts the only other guy in the band who REALLY, unequivocally supported Brian's exploration and experimentation for searching "where new things might be found", that could also have played into why Denny, as opposed to anyone else in the band, was given that lead at first.

I wish there was a way to forensically determine - by physically looking at the tape splices on the master - if those suspected Denny-sung words in the song are actually Denny. For example, if it was noted that Brian used a particular brand of tape when he tracked Denny's vocals, but a different brand when he sang his own vocals, wouldn't that be a way to actually physically visually determine where - and if - Denny was actually spliced in? I have no idea if forensic tape identification like this is actually a real thing, I'm just thinking out loud Smiley
6  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: Today at 10:02:02 AM
The first time I ever heard “I Know There’s An Answer” I flipped and within months I had spent so much money on albums and books about the band. In my initial post in this thread I praise for Mike for convincing Brian to change the lyrics of this. “I Know There’s An Answer” was the turning point for me and is one of their most special songs to me - without Mike’s involvement it would’ve been a tune I wouldn’t have cared too much for.
 

I think it's a bit of a mixed thing with that song.

On one hand, I think the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer are great; I have no issue with them, I think they flow well/work well, and that the final product is a superb song.

On the other hand, I think it's possible the band might have gotten a bit more cred from the circles where it might have mattered most at the time, had they released a song as Hang On to Your Ego with subtle, yet obvious LSD references. It might have been a moment where people could've thought that this band maybe wasn't just a bunch of squares; that they were dudes who weren't afraid to push boundaries and talk about drug use/mind expansion. Let's face it: the band suffered greatly for their image not evolving fast enough at that time, so they needed all the help they could get.

On the third hand, while I do agree that the lyrics to Hang On to Your Ego are a bit more clunky from a sonically flowing perspective, and that ultimately, the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer flow better... I could be ok with Mike having had objections over the song's lyrics simply for that flowing/sonic reason... but the actual truth, as we all know, is that Mike specifically had a bug up his butt regarding the band taking chances and writing about drug use in a manner like that. And ironically, of course, being as Mike is widely regarded as a guy with massive ego problems (Brian's own words, mind you); it's quite funny how a guy who couldn't/can't let go of his ego specifically objected to a song about letting go of one's ego.

So I can partially praise Mike for intervening since we probably got a better flowing song out of it, but it came from some of the wrong reasons IMO. It's not like Mike said that he was ok with a song about letting go of one's ego, but that he thought the lyrics needed to be tweaked to flow better. That did not happen. Had that happened, I could respect it totally.  Sort of like how I can be very happy that we have Time to Get Alone as a BBs song, and I'm grateful it's available with Carl's vocal and BB harmonies for us to enjoy, but I can't at all respect the ugly circumstances of how it came to be in its final form (Brian bullied into giving it back to The BBs).
7  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: Today at 08:22:34 AM
I loved when Mike stepped back and became a relatively less integral part of the band in the early 70s. That was great. Mike is always best utilized when he contributes a bit, but is largely used as a vocal instrument in the manner of choosing of the Wilsons, and is largely politically neutered from a power position. It's a lovely thing indeed when that happens. That's something to love about Mike, right? Or at least a scenario in their actual history where I love his contributions and am mostly not put off by his actions.
8  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: Today at 08:07:34 AM
Glad to see Ray return with a great post! Cool

+1

Brian really has been put through so, so much unnecessary turmoil and heartache due to being blood related to a couple of narcissistic egomaniacs. The way that it can f*** with a person to have people show them actual love... then sh*t on them... then show them love again... then sh*t on them again... repeat, repeat, repeat... is unquantifiable.

Those who coddle, nurture, and enable narcissists' behavior should be ashamed of themselves.
9  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A little love for Mr. Love on: July 20, 2017, 03:31:06 PM
Please Let Me Wonder turned out to be possibly the best song in the entire catalog, IMHO. I cannot say one single thing about it that didn't turn out to be absolute perfection.
10  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Dennis' Lead on \ on: July 20, 2017, 02:25:59 PM
I wonder if it's possible that Brian initially chose someone other than himself to sing the lead because he was perhaps a bit embarrassed, or self-concious about such an intensely personal lyric? As though it cut just a bit too close to the bone. Maybe that in his mind took the heat off himself just a tad?

I've always kinda had the same question about Brian choosing Denny for My Diane.
11  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 20, 2017, 09:41:25 AM
I'd like to add a few thoughts about divisiveness versus positivity. We discuss all the time things like this DIA release that seem to alienate the more invested fans and generate negative public responses.

Just consider which two events of, say, the past 15 years or so have been those which have brought both fans and general public together in celebration of this band and the music.

Without blinking an eye or thinking too hard, I'd cite both C50 and Brian's Smile tour, even more specifically the premiere run of live performances at RFH.

Fans were united in feeling good about all of that. The TWGMTR "reunion" album sold enough to go top 5 on the album charts. Brian's Smile premiere just made the Rolling Stone list of top 50 concerts of all time. Fans loved what was happening during C50, I remember personally and specifically hanging close to my computer the night of the RFH premiere Smile show to hear details coming in from fans who were there reporting back.

It felt like a community, a community sharing positive experiences.

Now consider that Mike has talked down about both of those events. He cited the Smile live shows in his 2005 lawsuit as grounds that Brian was harming the brand and the low quality of the performances was a factor. Mike talked down both C50 and the album, and we learn in the book that he almost left the tour over personal squabbles. It didn't suit his expectations, or needs, or whatever the case. The album lacked a single, it wasn't commercial enough...yet it still went top 5 and got the band back in the public eye with an air of good vibes and a welcome return to making new albums.

The contradictions in all that, of Mike's feelings and criticisms versus the positive response of the public and the hardcore fans, should be blatantly obvious. Maybe that's the issue underlying all of this.

Mike does not want to see Brian succeed musically and critically in a big way without him. I mean, seriously. It must eat away at Mike to see Brian getting accolades for solo work, or for the vast majority of Smile/Pet Sounds material that didn't involve Mike in a cowriting capacity. Because it just feeds his insecurity. And hence, he overreacts and overcompensates in extremely toxic ways. It is very, very, very sad.

Mike's never given any kind of proper (not underhanded) compliment towards Brian's solo work, as far as I know. Ever.

The brilliant SMiLE, in Mike's recent Billboard interview for DIA '17, is disparagingly referred to as merely some sort of "tangent"...and even Pet Sounds has now become the victim of Mike's revisionist wet dreams where he has stated recently that he should have been a cowriter to make it more commercial, because of course it was clearly missing something.

And none of the sycophants around him apparently care enough to try and get Mike to gain any kind of emotionally healthy perspective on this. Just like 45's sycophants, nobody wants to be cut out of what they're betting on getting. The sad truth.
12  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 20, 2017, 09:36:51 AM

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  



Melinda is probably one of the few people to actually call Mike out on his own BS. Let's face it: how many people in The BBs' circle have ever stood up to Mike? I mean really firmly stood up to him, in a manner that made it so that he could not simply just "get his way"? Even Brian when writing PS + Smile was pressured into saying "okay Mike, next album you can be the main cowriter". Nobody likes being told what to do, or being told that they are acting in an egotistical, inappropriate way, let alone a 70+ year old man; I get that. So Mike hates her, most likely. But I don't think there's really much more to it than that.
13  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 01:42:59 PM

3.  Digitally remove the images of past Beach Boys from the pictures and videos on screen

Mike JUST did that in the DIA '17 video! He took video images from 1980 of THE ACTUAL BEACH BOYS performing, and digitally cut around the actual other Beach Boys, leaving only himself. And then cut to images of the adoring fans who were there in 1980 to see the whole band.

Whether or not he did that because he HAD to in order to keep things legally kosher, or whether that was his actual desire, bottom line is that a video that you have just described has been pushed hard by Mike to the screens of many people around the world. He then paid a PR person clearly to get Billboard to write an article about DIA '17 to make sure to get this content onto computer screens all over the place.

He didn't digitally remove them, but used a digital zoom for a disable music video. 

When, The Beach Boys tour, and there are no images of Al, Brian, Carl, or Dennis in the tour book are on the video board they use, then I'd consider that doing serious harm. 

I think we could both agree that even if Mike stooped to doing that, there would still be many rabid defenders who would STILL defend that, even if you wouldn't be one of them.
14  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 01:37:29 PM

3.  Digitally remove the images of past Beach Boys from the pictures and videos on screen

Mike JUST did that in the DIA '17 video! He took video images from 1980 of THE ACTUAL BEACH BOYS performing, and digitally cut around the actual other Beach Boys, leaving only himself. And then cut to images of the adoring fans who were there in 1980 to see the whole band.

Whether or not he did that because he HAD to in order to keep things legally kosher, or whether that was his actual desire, bottom line is that a video that you have just described has been pushed hard by Mike to the screens of many people around the world. He clearly paid a PR person to get Billboard to write an article about DIA '17. He wants content out there in the world, seen by as many people as possible that has digitally removed images of past Beach Boys.

And before we get into the discussion of Brian doing the same in the Pet Sounds tour program, or whatever it was that excluded Mike, let's just keep in mind that Brian is touring as Brian, and not using the BBs brand name these days, whereas Mike deliberately whores out the brand name to promote his "solo" product.
15  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Something I think we need to realize vis-à-vis Mike and the band's name... on: July 19, 2017, 01:32:18 PM
Don't know if this is true, but about 15 years ago an insider on the Pet Sounds Mailing List claimed that Brian felt pressured to give the license to Mike, because he still owed him some of the money that Mike won in the lawsuit.

Would not surprise me one bit.
16  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Something I think we need to realize vis-à-vis Mike and the band's name... on: July 19, 2017, 01:15:29 PM

Yeah, but what real legal recourse did Mike have in 1998? Not much, I'm sure.  


I'm not so sure that's true. I think he would have done EVERYTHING possible to drag things on legally for a long time, especially if Brian didn't agree, and it were a 50/50 split between BRI members agreeing and not agreeing to have Mike get the license.

Plus, keep in mind... Brian was surely in a very difficult place emotionally right after losing his brother and his mother in the span of months. It makes no sense to think he would then start what would be an ugly battle against one of his last blood family members at that moment in time.

Now CD, I think you are one of the very best posters on this forum, but undoubtably I think there is the instinct in many of us to true to make it so Brian is above any criticism, even if that means infantilizing him to an extent. I feel like, yes, in early 1998 things were rough for Brian, having just lost two main family members. But he did have Melinda by this point, so it's not as if he were rudderless. And still I don't see how it would be an ugly battle. As far a I know (and obviously I know nothing of the legalities), there wouldn't have been any big deal to shutting down the touring operation except for the loss of income to the shareholders (Brian, Al, Mike, Carl's estate). If anything, it was Mike himself breaking up the band, by kicking out the other regular touring founder, one Mr. Alan Jardine. If you read Jon Stebbins' book on David Marks, it basically becomes clear that when Mike returned, sans Al and Carl in 1998 that he basically started a brand new band, just one with the name "The Beach Boys."

Well thanks, sweetdudejim, I appreciate that and think the same of your posts.

I think it's ultimately a combination of factors that caused the situation to manifest in 1998. Kind of like discussing how SMiLE collapsed, it cannot easily be fingered as being any ONE factor. Lots of things were at play.

-Brian just lost 2 of his immediate family members and probably had no desire to battle another family member
-Brian may not have been "bugged" at that point that Mike was gonna keep the brand name alive and going, purely as a live entity (the lack of Mike getting a recording license for the brand name is telling)
-Brian seemingly had zero desire to be part of the band "The BBs" anymore at that point
-The specter of legal threats, of who knows how/what way that Mike's team could have spun things to drag on for years and years and years, costing millions of dollars
-Brian not wanting to deprive Carl's estate of money if they wanted to keep the money rolling in (see how complicated this family stuff is!)
-Brian and Melinda wanting a check coming in
-Brian not wanting to start any arguments and just wishing to smooth things over and not deal with things

And maybe more factors too. I don't think any of these points above were non-issues. I think they were considered and discussed at some point. Maybe one or two factors were much bigger factors than others, but I think all of them are logical factors as to why Mike got the license in '98.
17  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 12:48:01 PM

I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.

So, DIA 17 is the breaking point, and that's why a reunion can never happen?  Alright.  

The music business, and that's just what it is, a business, is a funny thing.  If bands like Motley Crue, Poison, and Guns N Roses can still go out and tour, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that another BB reunion can happen.  

Is it likely?  Probably not, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked.  

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Did I say that DIA 17 is the reason why a reunion can't happen? No. No, I didn't.

It's a cumulative thing, as has been stated before... one key reason is just the amount of crap that Mike keeps talking about Brian in interviews, but most importantly, the hurdle that any possible reunion from this point on would have to tackle would be the fact that a reunion in 2012 ALREADY HAPPENED, and ended disastrously.

And Mike won't own up to the fact that he simply wants his way, and that's it, period. How on earth would that hurdle be overcome at this point? Mike feels that things are OWED to him, that promises of cowriting are going to be broken. And he's right - they probably would be broken, because they should be broken, because Mike has NO INHERENT "RIGHT" TO WRITE SONGS WITH BRIAN.  And he doesn't get that, and now the cat's more than out of the bag. There's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Mike showed his true colors, what he wanted out of a reunion. He wants more control than anyone feels comfortable giving him. It sadly ain't EVER happenin' again. I feel mighty sure of that.
18  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Something I think we need to realize vis-à-vis Mike and the band's name... on: July 19, 2017, 12:34:26 PM

Yeah, but what real legal recourse did Mike have in 1998? Not much, I'm sure.  


I'm not so sure that's true. I think he would have done EVERYTHING possible to drag things on legally for a long time, especially if Brian didn't agree, and it were a 50/50 split between BRI members agreeing and not agreeing to have Mike get the license.

Plus, keep in mind... Brian was surely in a very difficult place emotionally right after losing his brother and his mother in the span of months. It makes no sense to think he would then start what would be an ugly battle against one of his last blood family members at that moment in time.
19  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Something I think we need to realize vis-à-vis Mike and the band's name... on: July 19, 2017, 12:08:14 PM
I understand your point, but the thing is that Brian is both: a guy who avoids confrontation/tough emotional stuff, and a guy who doesn’t want to get tied up in a lawsuit with a guy who is VERY litigious. Mike’s prior lawsuits and business dealings have very much an effect that says “don’t f*ck with me”. He wants people to know that if they try to challenge him in ANY way, that he’ll make things a living hell and tie things up in lawsuits until everyone involved has passed away.

Literally, Mike would have his lawyers do all sorts of maneuvers to drain all the money possible from Brian's bank account in order for Brian to have to continually pay Brian's own lawyers as this would drag on and on and on, and it would just be gutwrenching to the max to have this crap lingering on in the background for a non-confrontational guy like Brian.

The alternative is to just not rock the boat. Yes, Brian and Melinda probably love getting checks for nothing; but if they were bugged enough to want to make a move, wouldn’t the specter of what Mike might do legal-wise (which would also cost them TONS of dollars in legal fees) be enough of a deterrent?

I'm sure this is the case.

I cannot for one moment think that Melinda and Brian haven't had a discussion, at least informally, about the possibility of doing such a maneuver... and speaking about what that could entail probably would've ended the discussion right then and there. Not *just* talking about the checks not coming anymore (I'm sure that's a valid consideration), but dealing with what hellish legal crap Mike might do in retaliation. That CAN'T be a non-issue in their mind. No way. If you think about it, that has to at least be *part* of why things have remained the same. Mike and his team of lawyer bullies.

All that aside, I think Brian - who is way too forgiving for his own good - honestly does want Mike to just be happy and perhaps thinks Mike deserves to tour as The BBs. Or at least that thought may have crossed Brian's mind in 1998. Not sure about in late 2012...
20  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 11:54:56 AM

I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.
21  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 11:49:52 AM


I thought TWGMTR was a great album, easily their best since Holland.   But, I think there were more factors than just Mike Love to the ending of the reunion.   But, that's a whole other topic. 

Well if Mike had his way, we wouldn't even have Summer's Gone in its current form; in fact, probably most of the best material from that album such as the Life Suite might have been nixed if Mike had his way.

That said, I love Mike being part of that album, but he needed to be used as a voice, as Brian saw fit to use him.
22  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 11:47:10 AM


Once again, it's a stupid single.  If you look at the posts on Pet Sounds Forum, I don't think anyone is defending the single.  At best, they're laughing at the absurdity of it.  Yet, here, the Brian Wilson Forum, and social media, it's turned into the usual predictable Mike Love Hate-Fest.  "It's killing the legacy!!"  "Take the license away from him!!"  Blah blah blah.  It's bunk. 

Once again, I ask you to name something that Mike Love could release, could do, that could get you onboard with legitimately thinking that he's harming the legacy and that he should stop. Something you'd honestly get riled up about. If not this, then what? A serious question.
23  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm on: July 19, 2017, 11:37:23 AM

Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless.  

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with.  

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion.  

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members, Mike-style), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made; the incredibly influential art that both bands created is clouded by all sorts of embarassing crap where the brand name has been whored out to the extreme, to the point where you cannot just mention the name of the band to a stranger or music fan without a decent chance that the first thing that person is gonna think about is what an assh*le frontman the band has, and how their music output has turned to utter garbage for a very long time.

This is a very sad, unfortunate side effect of whoring out a brand name for a very long time, in a manner completely inconsistent with the good music they once created (also completely inconsistent with the lesser, medicore, but still listenable music they once created). I'm talking about lard, pure lard that gets sh*t out under a once-prestigious brand name, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over  again.

It makes a difference, man. Even if you don't think it does, many people notice after awhile. That's the fault of the perpetrator in the band, and while Mike is not the sole BB to release crap, he is far and away the most egregious one who ties in the BRAND NAME with such massive amounts of lard. It sucks. Saying it doesn't suck to you personally doesn't mean that it doesn't suck as a whole for the brand. I hate that I can't just talk about how great the band's music is without a disclaimer.
24  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A music video....... on: July 18, 2017, 11:59:31 AM
The saving grace is there is not one mention of "The Beach Boys" anywhere. And Bruce must have been laying out his white shorts and white Keds sneakers for the show tonight.

Not sure if it counts as a "mention", but I caught a glimpse of Al Jardine in some of the vintage footage.

I watch this 2012 version, then realize that Mike would rather work with Stamos + McGrath, and it just makes me sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKqMrMmj7I
25  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: A music video....... on: July 18, 2017, 11:41:43 AM
a few notes:

a. "Comments are disabled for this video"

b.  Is it kosher for Mike to be using a bunch of Beach Boys footage live footage in his solo music video?

c. The only genuine thing about it is that Stamos and McGrath seem to be legitimately enjoying themselves.

d. Couldn't they find something more interesting than a white background? 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 164
gfx gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!