When was "City Blues" first written and recorded?

During the period colorfully (and accurately) described as the 'Cocaine Sessions', same time as 'Oh Lord', 'I Feel So Fine', ect.

Note sure why Dennis wasn't credited on GIOMH as a co-writer.

I've always felt that was a truly bizarre (and certainly unfair) crediting snub. Could it be that it was not desired to remind fans of the dark times when CB was written, and a credit would have called attention to that painful era? Could be the same reason for Stevie's non-release. I can't make much sense of the credit one way or another.

Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story. Do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned incident)?

And if it wasn't for Dennis, none of the BB would've done TM in the first place. 

Ironically circular, isn't it? Though I have a hunch that they'd have discovered it through other means at some point nonetheless.

Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story, don't you? And do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned wife-boinking incident)?

Even if Denny had cleaned up and lived, does anyone think that those two could have ever patched things up to the point where there wasn't going to be frequent tension, butting of heads, and deep dissatisfaction, one way or another? If Shawn was still not going to be recognized by Mike, that issue alone would be a huge obstacle, I would think (even post breakup).

And artistically, I think that even a clean Dennis was going to be frustrated as hell at the jukebox direction that the band went down in the 80s and 90s. The way Al got frustrated? I think even a clean Dennis would have been frustrated much more, and would have been MUCH more consistently vocal about it, plus would have been more empowered to do something about it, with him being a Wilson vs a relatively less-empowered Jardine. I cannot imagine Mike would be happy about that.

Maybe Denny, even if he objected to the "artistic" benefits of the eventual addition of the cheerleaders, would have probably just had his way with them anyway, and Denny/Mike for that reason could perhaps have agreed on their inclusion, but otherwise I'm not sure where any lasting common ground would have been. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Mike would have been super frustrated and unhappy with someone else in the band who could have better aligned a power struggle against the Mike-preferred direction. Despite the fact that Denny and Mike had successfully collaborated in the 70s, I tend to doubt that many subsequent types of Mike/Denny collabs would have occurred if Denny had lived - maybe a few, but probably the exceptions and not the rule; I'd think the creative differences (not to mention personal differences, even sans drug use) would just have continued to grow. What does everyone think?

Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

Once again... You love twisting words in a misguided sarcastic attempt at proving a "point". I went out of my way to say that it isn't a person's "fault" if one person is driven to certain coping mechanisms. People are obviously responsible for what actions they themselves do. But there is still a correlation.  

Implying such extremes such as the Maharishi tour is ridiculous. That is many, many steps removed from the source. Setting up an entire tour, planning it out, coordinating schedules, trying to ride a famous figure's coattails, etc is not on par with a "quick fix" coping mechanism that could be achieved with relatively immediate results.

Saying that people who were thorns in Mike's side probably were *a* contributing factor helping to increase Mike's falling deeper and deeper into TM as a coping mechanism does not seem like an absurd statement to make - does that seem absurd to you? Do you honestly think that Mike didn't increase how often he did TM in part as a result of the chaos and chaos-causing people around him (and probably specific embarrassing onstage incidents like when Dennis grabbed and removed Mike's hat)? That in no way is a giant leap to assume.

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.

You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addition, it's an addition nonetheless.  

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases (Mike and Dennis falling further into their coping mechanisms of addictions due to their severe creative and personal clashing) most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.

Ehh..not quite the same thing. Although I'm not a TM guy myself, I have a close friend (unrelated to the BB world,  I must stress) who would disagree with you.

I'm not in any way equating doing drugs to doing TM. I'm just saying that both people fell  further into their own coping mechanisms which blocked out the outside world; coping mechanisms which helped remove the negative energy both men in part experienced due the people (each other) who were severe stressors in each others' lives (and who truthfully, after a certain point, because of such severe differences, should not have been working together at all).

Doing tons of blow is certainly a hell of lot worse than doing TM, no argument there. Doesn't invalidate my point though.

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.

You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addiction, it's an addiction nonetheless.  

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases (Mike and Dennis falling further into their coping mechanisms of addictions due to their severe creative and personal clashing) most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.

I would be surprised if Mike was other than relieved when American Graffiti and the subsequent release of Endless Summer gave him the opportunity to continue playing those songs from the early/mid 60s. 

This.

Man, the guy just can't win with you can he?

Not a matter of winning or losing.  I think that Mike had some great talent, some genuinely artistic and forward – thinking impulses, but that his long-standing urge to return to the old ways was always lurking being the surface.

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

Disagree there. If you read contemporary interviews, he was very critical of the fans chanting for the oldies, pre-Endless Summer of course. The thing about him trying to get the band back to the old sound (before Endless Summer came out) is revisionist history (and he's perpetrated that myth too)

Just because he was critical of people being rude at concerts, doesn't mean he didn't still at heart desire for the band to regress in terms of going back to the old sound, with him being much more of the primary focus of the live shows. I think the truth falls somewhere near the middle. Even if his ultimate desire was to play more and more and more oldies, he was savvy enough to know (at that point) that the band still *needed* to keep up ancontemporary appearance for their popularity and street cred to keep climbing. And while I applaud him and any band member for hushing rude audience members, I don't think that says a ton about his complete and ultimate motivations at the time.

And the mere thought that anyone would have kicked Michael out of the band at any point in the group's history is laughable to say the very least.

Would have? Yes, laughable.
Wanted to? No, not quite laughable. More like quite probable.

I know there's some overlap between songs on the unreleased "Sweet Insanity" and "Gettin' In Over My Head." I'm curious if there was enough material from the "GIOMH" sessions to not have borrowed from the "Insanity" tracks, and if anyone has ever put together their own version of "GIOMH" that only includes songs that were *not* part of the original "Insanity" tracklist.

As long as Smart Girls is part of the equation, anything (including world peace, levitation, teleportation, and limb regeneration) is possible.

Another tune where Al has traditionally played a dominant guitar part onstage: "Don't Worry Baby" (the middle break). It might be pushing it to call this a "solo", but it's definitely a "break", where the lead guitar is turned up to play those loud rhythmic stabs. Al can be seen taking this part at the 1981 Long Beach show, and in 1995 I was about ten feet from the band when they did this song, and witnessed Al taking that part while Carl continued strumming the basic rhythm part on his guitar.

Side question: am I imagining this, or do I recall reading that David Marks plays this part on record and that Brian asked him back into the studio to play this part even after he'd otherwise parted ways with the live band?

If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.

You can bet that if Mike had at any point during the band's history been attempted to be kicked out of the band, that whether via legal, personal, or other means, he would have put up a hell of a fight, and that it would likely have gotten unimaginably nasty.

Yeah I'd go for Surf's Up over the 2 of Dennis' songs brilliant though they are.  It would be hard to imagine Surf's Up never being finished.  20 years later it wouldn't be the same.

Funny how we're now discussing this considering the thread title!

What would've happened if Mike did a early 1990s – style cover of Surf's Up (song) on SIP? I do think that could've caused the apocalypse or something.

Obsessed much?

Seems Sail on Sailor and Wild Honey were the deep cuts played at this short show.

Actually you're right. I was wrong to sarcastically imply anything negative by bringing Mike up. In fact, perhaps we could take this moment to thank Mike for politely showing Al the door, because if not for that action, Al's BBFF band wouldn't have even been created or existed whatsoever. People who are fans of BBFF actually owe Mike a debt of gratitude.

What a shame Mike couldn't have attended as a show of support. 

Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.

'We all know' well, that's another assumption, isn't it?  But even if we do all know to whom Andrew is referring, what proof does he have that if Mike had not been in the band they would have wanted to hate someone else?  And of course if they were just nasty people, where is it written that they may only hate one person?

Of course, I could ask 'had there not been a band called The Beatles or a person called Mick Jagger, or several other persons named in Mike's R&R Hall of Fame speech, who else would he have had a go at?'

There is, in my estimation, not a single person on this board (including any "usual suspects") who, in the absence of Mike Love's existence in the band, would somehow start finding some sort of smoke and mirrors issue to hammer another bandmate about. It ain't so. I can see how the original post was said completely in jest, off the cuff... but it's everyone's fault (including my own) for actually responding seriously to such an obviously facetious remark.

Has anyone asked Mike or Bruce what they think about the fellator epithet. Do we know they would frown upon it?

What happens on the M&B tour, stays on the tour.

I don't know why some people drop loads of time trying to see the negatives in a beautiful act of selflessly helping out. That's not very keeping with the positivity angle.

[It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it;]

I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?

So, if fellatio is to be thought of in a good way, then why did you use "sucks" in a negative way?

 I could replace "sucks" with "blows"… But then I might be in the same quandary. How about I replace "sucks" with "is preferable not to".

I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?

Wouldn't this apply anyway?

"If we want to talk about bullying, people being made to feel like they've been attacked personally especially in repeat situations, if it was asked that it stop and those requests not respected, then it's time to step in. Maybe this isn't in line with what everyone might agree with, or what has happened in the past, but it's what is happening now. This personal sniping taken beyond a certain point, to where board members feel like they've been singled out and attacked, has to end. It's not welcome, it won't be welcome, and it will be dealt with."

I'm sure the infamous Fellator-gate scandal of 2015 will be dealt with soon enough. Hopefully there's a deep-throat character on SS who can expose this great atrocity once and for all.

I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?

You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

The only actual tag-teaming that ever happened with Mike's beard is the day a few stray crumbs of naan bread got stuck amongst (tag-teamed with static electricity) his bountiful red, bushy facepube bristles one spring day in the spring on '68; the Fab Four bore witness.

When's the last time that a proper BB live show was played with Al and Carl as the only guitar players present onstage?

Hmm… There were lip syncing performances with only Carl and Al, but for an actual LIVE CONCERT, I'd have to say 1966. With Al playing rhythm guitar, Carl playing lead guitar, and Bruce playing bass guitar.

The mid 90s?

I guess my question should have been worded more along the lines, of when was the last time that a proper BB live show was played with Al and Carl as the only guitar players present onstage, before anybody additional was regularly added to supplement on guitar?

For most of the set in '95 and '96, Carl and Al were the only guitarists. They only moved Ed to lead guitar, or brought out the roadie, for one or two songs. It was probably that way in '94 and the second half of '93 (after Adrian left), too. In '97 they had Phil Bardowell as backup. Check out the July 4th '95 Philly show, which is on Youtube. Carl and Al were also the only guitarists for most of the set in '79 (first time I saw 'em) and the second half of 1980 (e.g., the July Fourth show that year). And '74, '75, '76 and '77 (in '78 Eddie mostly played guitar 'cause Bri was on bass).

Interesting info, thanks c-man! Your research is much appreciated for the entire fan community. I guess Al/Carl being the only guitar players happened for quite a bit longer than I realized, though it was still sporadic.

A few odd questions that I doubt anyone has a definite answer to, but it would be interesting to get viewpoints nonetheless...

- When-ish was the first BB show was where a bandmate was toked up on anything stronger than alcohol onstage? Weed and beyond...

- When-ish was the first BB show was where audience member(s) toked on weed while watching the show?

- Does anyone think there's been a single BB show post, say 1970, that not a single person in attendance toked on a weed stick? Maybe a corporate event or two, I'd think. That's likely about it!

- After Denny's passing, were there any shows were any official members of the band were on anything stronger than alcohol onstage? (not talking about Landy-prescribed drugs here). I know Brian smoked some occasional weed during the Landy era, not sure if that ever happened in a live setting, or if anyone else in the band ever touched a substance onstage beyond alcohol post 1983.

- Did Bruce really never touch a substance besides alcohol? True or myth?

- Onstage or not, has Mike or Al ever touched a substance beyond weed?

I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 

That would make a better thread. Do you toke or ingest?

A little bit of both... And sometimes at BB/BW shows even!

Speaking of weed, I would love to get Mike toked up and tell him that many people, even people who think he acts like a butthole often, still have some genuine love for Dr. Love (contrary to what he might think), and would love to talk a bit of sense into him (fat chance, I know - maybe would take LSD for what I had in mind). I, for one, still truly believe that there's more "good person" stuff buried deep down in there, that's just buried by extreme defensiveness and enabling surroundings.