Going back and listening to the tons of live BB shows that have been recorded over the years, there are tons of modifications to songs that simplify, extend, or just alter a certain part here or there.

My question is, what examples can everyone think of, and who wrote these changes? Was it Carl? Denny? Brian? Live backing musicians? Or a combination of everyone? Hard to say, I'd imagine.

A couple off the top of my head:

Do it Again (ends with the standard - and pretty boring/cliche in my opinion - dun-dun-dun-dun-dun....dunnnnnn ending) - this is pretty standard rock show stuff that many, many bands do, I just get tired of it since it's so by-the-numbers, IMO.

God Only Knows - the little bridge part is completely different, I imagine this was done to make it easier to play. Rarely has the band played it like the record, unless I'm mistaken.

That was super cool to hear that version of Getcha Back. Even though Jeff admittedly sounds different, I don't think that proves anything either way, since songs will often sound different (even by the same singer) between studio and live versions.

That said, I absolutely think it's Brian on the album.

I really love how the ending part "I'll leave her and you leave him" sounds on this recording... super rad harmonies that aren't on the recorded version, plus some awesome drum build stuff around there too.

It is plain to see that these articles are being proof read and approved by the Tahoe Bunker - either that, or the editor and writer of this garbage is nothing more than the greatest fluffer Mike Love ever had.

Tahoe Bunker... LOL!

But seemingly so true.

I'm guessing nobody talks about how weird it is because Dennis - just like a certain brother of his - is beyond critism in many people's eyes.

Or because if one were to believe another BB member's side of the story, Shawn's father was not in fact that BB member, which if an accurate claim would then invalidate that aspect of the relationship from being weird, right?

It would still be weird because the paternity issue was public and well known (i.e. Mike had gone thorugh it), thus making the relationship look like a stab at Mike Love whatever the truth about Shawn's claim was.

Am I reading CD's post correctly. Mike not being Shawns father, but another group member is?

Pretty Funky: Apologies if my wording led you to that misinterpretation of my post. I was referring to Mike in all those instances.

Autotune: once someone denies paternity, publicly/privately or both, how exactly does this become a "stab" at the person who says they are not the father? That person is saying the child is not theirs. Was Denny not to take Mike at his word? Wouldn't it only be a stab if Mike acknowledged he was (or probably was) the father?

really, dude? let me put it in simple terms:

Woman: "Hey you're my dad!"
Probably the dad: "No Im not!"
Guy that has years of issues with the probable dad: "Oh you're not? Well I'm going to bang her then!"
Probably the dad:  

IMO, logic would tend to dictate that said probable dad would have to care about the mere existence of said woman for that relationship to register a blip on the getting mad scale, unless the denial was a whopper to begin with.  

I'm guessing nobody talks about how weird it is because Dennis - just like a certain brother of his - is beyond critism in many people's eyes.

Or because if one were to believe another BB member's side of the story, Shawn's father was not in fact that BB member, which if an accurate claim would then invalidate that aspect of the relationship from being weird, right?

It would still be weird because the paternity issue was public and well known (i.e. Mike had gone thorugh it), thus making the relationship look like a stab at Mike Love whatever the truth about Shawn's claim was.

Am I reading CD's post correctly. Mike not being Shawns father, but another group member is?

Pretty Funky: Apologies if my wording led you to that misinterpretation of my post. I was referring to Mike in all those instances.

Autotune: once someone denies paternity, publicly/privately or both, how exactly does this become a "stab" at the person who says they are not the father? That person is saying the child is not theirs. Was Denny not to take Mike at his word? Wouldn't it only be a stab if Mike acknowledged he was (or probably was) the father?

I'm guessing nobody talks about how weird it is because Dennis - just like a certain brother of his - is beyond critism in many people's eyes.

Or because if one were to believe another BB member's side of the story, Shawn's father was not in fact that BB member, which if an accurate claim would then invalidate that aspect of the relationship from being weird, right?

One only need to look at photos of Shawn to draw their own conclusions.

Yeah, I know, but point being... if Mike denied paternity, and Dennis was well aware the denial, I'm not sure where any line was crossed regarding them being a couple. Doesn't the alleged father's denial cancel out the weirdness factor from being pinned on Dennis? Unless he knew the denial was BS.

I'm guessing nobody talks about how weird it is because Dennis - just like a certain brother of his - is beyond critism in many people's eyes.

Or because if one were to believe another BB member's side of the story, Shawn's father was not in fact that BB member, which if an accurate claim would then invalidate that aspect of the relationship from being weird, right?

After Dennis' passing, did Shawn ever talk about her time with Dennis? Did anyone ever interview her? Must have been such a tragic time, with a newborn child also in the equation, plus her being so young and a widow to boot, so I wouldn't be surprised if she never talked to the media at all.

I know I've seen photos of Shawn and Gage (posted on this site) attending a BBs show and hanging out backstage, sometime in the late '80s, so I suppose there was some further family interaction years later.

Something I saw firsthand tells me it flopped because fans simply didn't like it and/or didn't buy it, if it were the indie thing then it would more likely have been a case of lesser availability due to smaller distribution networks and smaller manufacturing numbers affecting actually getting it into stores. But that wasn't the case. I lived about a half-block away from a Tower Records when this album was new and in the few years after it. I checked the Beach Boys rack almost every time I went in, which could be daily some weeks. There was never a shortage of copies in the bins, it was always there in numbers. Eventually the cut-out bins got what looked like all of those unsold copies because those cut-out discount bins were stuffed for a long time full of Summer In Paradise. It was almost like a running joke.

And I know also there was no shortage of "push" coming from Mike on the concert stage as late as July 4th 1995 when they featured the title song and played it for what felt like an eternity on that Philly stage, even though it seemed most of the crowd didn't know what they were hearing. This is, what, just about 3 years after the initial release? And it never generated interest or increased demand even after being played and featured - check the setlist archives for details - at a string of live shows for years if I recall. Fans just didn't dig it.

That's the thing with Baywatch too - They tried to reintroduce "Summer Of Love" as the new Beach Boys single complete with video and TV tie-in on what was one of the hotter shows of the moment, and it was D.O.A., flopped, sunk without a trace - no one was into it.

Brian just looks so out of place and uncomfortable in that video. Was that right around the time he and Melinda were married? And also right around the Paley sessions and Soul Searchin'/ You're Still a Mystery?

I'm guessing Brian's appearance was less about loving/endorsing SOL, and more about just trying to be a team player since the band seemed to be trying to repair relationships and come together as much as possible circa 1995.

That said, what's the story again with Dave being inexplicably present in the Baywatch live concert footage from the episode itself? The whole Baywatch thing is so odd, with Dave being there sometimes, and the band promoting a 3-year old stillborn (both times) wannabe single...

It wasn't just Brian, as the sessions progressed Al was eventually out of the process too and therefore didn't participate at all on certain parts of the record. There was still the issue lingering of Mike having tried to shut him out of the group entirely in the years just before this album was started.

How did the Al exclusions happen? Was this during breaks from touring? Did Al simply not get told about recording sessions? I'm just wondering since I wasn't aware of any concurrent banishment from the live BB stage that Al had to endure at the time.

Bruce used to be a full, voting member of BRI, but relinquished his vote in the 70s. However, he's still officially a BB for all other purposes.

When did Bruce get full, voting member of BRI-status, and when did Al get such status?

Off the top of my head, I think Al was made a voting member in 1967, but I'm not totally positive.

I've heard that date, and also 1973... can't recall which was the more accurate.

I seem to recall hearing 1973, which strikes me as odd considering that would mean that Bruce became a voting member prior to Al, who was in the band longer.
Does that scenario seem to make much sense? (Not that anything makes much sense in BB world)...

Bruce used to be a full, voting member of BRI, but relinquished his vote in the 70s. However, he's still officially a BB for all other purposes.

When did Bruce get full, voting member of BRI-status, and when did Al get such status?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

GF - as I suspected and was verified by wiki (a good place to start, but reliability must be re-verified)..."All surviving original band members except Brian Wilson(who was in legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy) contributed to this project." It was released on Brother Records.  It may have done better in sales a few years earlier with the Kokomo era, but Still Cruisin' was released then.  Maybe a missed window of opportunity.

There may have been some "designee" in the event Brian was "unavailable" which the L&M movie clarifies, in the time line of the band, and the interloping self-dealing actions of the "doctor." If Brian was being distracted to work to advance Landy's business goals, he would be "unavailable" for the band. (The real band)

Actually, it was released by Brother Entertainment, not Brother Records.

"Oh Brother Entertainment" might have been more appropriate 

I'd probably put Kokomo in their top 25 songs or so.  It's a very good song in my opinion.  I've never understood why people don't like it.

Because it was a hit and Brian Wilson had absolutely nothing to do with it.

A simple way to prove the point...Wipe off all existing credits of the song and insert "written by B. Wilson" or "produced by B. Wilson". Same song, different credit. Do you think the people who vilify the song would then feel differently about it? I can see comments like "he's still got it" and terms like "genius".

Firstly, I like Kokomo and think it's a cool tune. One of Mike's better lead vocals, and Carl is super on it. I don't think it's anywhere near their '60s peak, but I dig it quite a bit. I do not understand the hate for the song. I rock out to it. I do not get sick of hearing the tune.  I would like the song to be thought of as a solid tune that was an unexpected big hit, and for it to not be dogged on mercilessly.  

That said, I think you are right to a point, that if Brian had involvement, that it would be thought of more highly, because people are more forgiving of Brian Wilson for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a survivor who's been to hell and back, and he also has the attractive underdog quality of modesty.

I think that because Mike Love over-hypes this song to an absurd degree in interview after interview, going well beyond someone having "pride" in their work, that such continued self-praise makes lots of people feel more negatively about the song (the song being overplayed in the '80s doesn't help, either). Just remember the look on Carl's face when Mike comes off as very smug circa 1990 in a Japanese (I think?) sit down interview when he brags about Kokomo. Carl looks embarrassed by Mike's ridiculous self-praise! And pssst... here's a secret: it ain't just Carl that feels/felt that way!

It's simply not a song that's in the same league as their prime material, but Mike (and only Mike) continues to attempt to elevate it well above where it probably should rank in terms of great/very good songs in their catalog. That specific, repeated action rubs people the wrong way, because whether or not Mike intends for it to come off as such, when he makes as big a deal as he does about Kokomo, for decade after decade, it gives the impression that he is bragging about writing a song without Brian's involvement (with that in and of itself being the main bragging point, even if indirectly). Whether or not that rubs you the wrong way personally, you should be aware of how that is a turnoff to many, many people.

If instead of it being a John Phillips-penned song, if Kokomo was a Van Dyke Parks-penned song that Mike happened to write a few extra lyrics for, and it went to #1, would Mike continue to praise and praise and praise it in 10,000 interviews? Somehow I'm not so sure, because I don't think Mike wants to see VDP critically elevated anymore in BB history than he already has. Why wasn't Mike going on in interview after interview about how great John Phillips' work was on the song, which as far as I know was largely Phillips' baby?  It's just a giant ego trip for him, which most people do not want to see, and which makes both the song and him come off as less praiseworthy than if there was more modesty about it. And if TWGMTR had gone to #1 (which it almost did!), we'd also not see the same level of Endless Gushing for that album as we do with Kokomo.

What if Wipeout was a #1 hit, and Mike had written a few new lyrics for it (and had sang on it, without just a wall of Brians)? Would that song deserve to be continually brought up in the same sentence as Good Vibrations by Mike? At a certain point, there should be a line drawn where having pride in one's work can be differentiated from overhype to a degree where most people think the level of self-praise is comical.

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

Could MIU have happened without Dennis. Could it have been released had My Diane been left off? Or the L.A. (Light Album), could have happened without SHortenin' Bread on it? They had to have had a different recording arrangement than what they have since Carl passed away.

Right... I imagine it was a different corporate arrangement/structure compared to now, which is why I posed the question.

In 2015, everyone (including me) seems dead-certain that no "BB" album could be released sans Brian's involvement, but I am wondering what the "sign-off rules" were in 1992. For that matter, it's an interesting question that you pose regarding how BB albums like MIU + LA were in fact made with virtually no (but not technically zero) involvement from Brian and/or Dennis, but I think that every single BB album released pre-12/28/1983 had all the then-current corporate BRI shareholders present in some recorded capacity on the albums, no?  (The murky waters of David Marks' departure excepted).

Legally speaking, could there theoretically have been a new "BB" album every single year from 1986-1998 released with zero Brian involvement? Or with zero Mike involvement?

I almost wonder if including the "Surfin" remake was some sort of obligatory legal thing to make Brian in some tiny way be credited on SIP.

Regarding Fuller House... I will be surprised if The BBs aren't at the very least:

- mentioned on the show

- actually on the show in a walk-on cameo capacity

- shown in a clip from a live performance/appearance from the original Full House era

- or Mike will likely at least float the idea to Stamos (whether it gets shot down or not by the Netflix decision-makers is another situation entirely)

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

I can't imagine how the sandbox could still exist.  Wouldn't it have been removed/disassembled when Brian moved out?

Probably discarded unceremoniously. A shame too, considering there's no photographs of it either...

Setting aside all potential holy grail BB media finds (like more Smile tapes and the full Leonard Bernstein video footage), what types of non-media related holy grail BB artifacts might possibly still exist, and how much might they be worth if they ever came to market (with authenticated proof)?

A few that come to mind:

Actual Smile fire helmets
The actual mythical sandbox
Brian's Pet Sounds LP cover jacket/coat thing
Mike's first onstage-worn hat
Murry's glass eye
Party promo potato chips

Now you can concentrate on seeing the real deal-Brian Wilson's incredible band with three real actual Beach Boys, not one and a half Beach Boys.   

I would love to hear your reasoning for Blondie being considered a full member (I assume) and Bruce only count as half.

Also, as much as I enjoyed Blondie when I saw him live earlier this month with BW, his 30 minutes total on stage grossly underutilized him.

Fair question. Bruce was called in to be Brian's stand in or replacement for shows. Blondie and Ricky were made permanent members until, of course, they left. They were not "yes" men like Bruce which is one of the reasons he's still around. Plus it's easy money playing the same songs, clapping, and myKe adjusting night after night.

If Anna Lee had ventured into chiropractic work, would she herself have been considered a Myke-adjuster?

Another potential problem I am guessing is that he seemed to have many friends who too had drug issues, so he'd probably have had to ditch a significant swath of his social circle. Outside of his dysfunctional family, did he have much of a sober (or at least relatively sober) group of folks to fall back on for emotional support?

I suppose the same problem must have plagued Brian...

Did that song come about in part as a way to dispel the notion that the band was sexist, or sang too much about women as sex objects?

Especially at the time, with the band remaking their image, I wonder if this was a concerted effort to make the band seem more grown-up and, and specifically feminist in some fashion.

I suppose WGGT and Smart Girls must both be the most feminist type songs the band ever recorded. Even though, somehow, Hey Little Tomboy got recorded in between

If Brian gives an interview where he says something like “I love Mike, we grew up together. He’s going through some decades of having some ego issues, which has been painful for me to witness”, and starts mentioning over and over in countless interviews the “Smile” lawsuit that got laughed out of court in Brian’s favor, then maybe we can start equating what these guys say.  
 

Exactly. Have any BB bandmembers publicly ever talked/complained/referenced Mike's ego issues? The closest I could think of is Denny passive-aggressively stating that the band was just Brian's messengers (if indeed that was a partial attempt to put Mike in his "place", as I think it may have partly been), but as far as any direct statement of such, I don't think there's ever been one. Mike must think that behavioral patterns of people are only to be pointed out if he can directly link those behaviors to substances (or in the rare exception case of sober Al, a "bad attitude").  

With the exception of Mike, I think BB bandmates have respect enough to not keep harping about another bandmember's behavioral issues (however destructive they may be) in public, out of common decency, even though you can be certain that all BB members (maybe not Bruce, who at least on the surface seems to just accept and not ever be put off by Mike whatsoever) have more than likely had many private conversations about Mike's ego issues with friends/loved ones, complete with many eye rolls.

I think anyone would be *crazy* to doubt that.

I really don't think they don't repeatedly speak about Mike's ego issues out of somehow not thinking he has ego issues (as perhaps some Kokomoists would like to pretend is the case). For Al, Brian, Carl, etc doing that would only come off as being divisive within one's own band (or one's own former band). Mike should take that lead, too. Nobody is going to not take drugs because Mike over and over again points out that Brian did lots of drugs, especially because Brian himself is a living survivor who openly talks with regret, in effect warning others about drugs himself.  

It seems to me that the reason some are unwilling to believe Brian means such comments is because they don't want them to be true.

I've been a BB fan/researcher/historian/eminence grise/overall smartass for over 40 years now, and one of the constant non-musical joys is Brian's consistent inconsistency. Wait long enough and he'll say exactly the opposite, and that's not in any way a criticism: it's just Brian being Brian, either coping with a tedious interview or having a giggle. That's all.

I think that inconsistent praising and spreading his "favorites" out amongst different people/bandmates/songs/albums, etc from one interview to the next is ultimately partly out of Brian trying to please everybody by spreading the love/praise. I think that's ingrained in his nature.

[Goin' Private]

Hey, perhaps I'm dreaming this, but post-reunion didn't somebody on here find what we all thought was the 2012 version of "She Believes in Love Again"? It was like played in the middle of a Bruce interview or something or other. However, the interview ended up being from like 2009 or something. But regardless, it was definitely a different version. With like just Bruce and an electric piano or something. I figure with some extensive digging, we could find it again. At the moment I don't feel like digging through this board to find it. But maybe later.

Anybody else remember that?

Perplexing. Totally perplexing. Anything is possible, but it's hard to believe that a 2012 version of "She Believes In Love Again" could be an improvement after removing/substituting Carl Wilson's lead vocal, especially when Carl was singing as spectacularly as he was on The Beach Boys 1985, one of Carl's best albums vocally. And, it's also hard to believe that Bruce Johnston didn't have one single new(er) song to offer for consideration for TWGMTR, other than a re-recorded one.

I have to say that I also agree that it's doubtful that a 2012 version of "She Believes in Love Again" would be better without Carl. Especially if indeed Jeff was doing that lead instead. Yuck. However, I would happily purchase it if it ever popped up somewhere. Then again, I'm the same person who actually owns a copy of Bruce's Hot Doggers album and has listened to "The Original Surfer Stomp" like five times in past month. So perhaps I'm not the best person to ask.

Also though, I do have the second how freakin' odd it is that with a studio at his disposal and the opportunity to record whatever he wanted to submit for a new Beach Boys album, he picked a song that the group had already released 17 years ago. Now in Bruce's defense, the song was nowhere near a hit despite being a single, and I'd say I'm pretty sure that whatever reason he had for wanting to re-do it was artistic. I mean, it's not like it's Mike Love covering "Kokomo" for a Dodge dealership.

But it does bug me because it seems like Bruce must have said something around the early '90s where he was gonna record a new album called Goin' Private or something. And record it all in his own studio. Now I'm also pretty sure I remember that he said on the Hoffman board that nothing ever came of that for whatever reason. But then you have him probably in the early 2000s also saying that he was planning on writing some material for movies or other artists or something and blah blah blah. But it seems this hasn't come to pass either.

Now I'm not gonna say that this keeps me up at night or anything, but it's a shame that the guy has stopped doing anything artistically worthwhile. Now I know there'll be some goof on here saying, "well, he doesn't need to do anything! He goes on the road all the time singing super rad Beach Boys tunes and gets to see girls all the time and he's so rich and blah blah blah." But from reading up on him through the years, he does seem to be a creative guy. And he's a Beach Boy. And a Beach Boy that's written a few really nice fuckin' songs. And even if a new song or new album was as big a pile of dogshit as Goin' Public, it would at least be interesting. So it's a shame hehas  apparently ignored a major skill of his for at least two decades.

When I met the Bruce-ster a couple times in 2012, I reminded him of his songwriting chops with Don't Run Away.  I told him it is perhaps the most underrated and criminally unknown BB-related tracks ever, to which he sung a line for me. Dude has massive talent when he wants to show it. Dare I say, that song (along with maybe Be With Me and All This is That) must be the non-BW songs written by other BBs which have the BW-sounding magic fairy dust all over em the most. I wish Bruce didn't underutilize his talent for songwriting though. I wonder if Mike were allowed to record under the BB name (scary thought though it may be), would he and Bruce have teamed up to write some more songs together?