No question that the pendulum has occasionally been swung a tad too far by those who take a balanced view and don't regard Mike as being Satan Incarnate... but equally, no reasonable poster here could say that any defence of ML has been as rabid and infantile as the invective regularly spouted by posters here and on other social media.

Agreed. There is a rabid and infantile edge to the writings of a chunk of anti-Mike people on social media, getting well into absurd territory. And believe me - I have defended a number of things related to Mike over the years to people in conversations in person. I'm quite honestly doing my part as a fan for trying to quash one-sided thinking.

But the term absurd (a different type of absurd, obviously) can be also applied to the writings of a small chunk of people on the other side of the team. The pendulum for some has swung quite a bit more than a tad too far, don't you think? We know (and agree) that anti-Mike extremism exists. If you wouldn't quantify some Mike defenders' writings on this board as over-the-top extremism of its own kind (writings can be extremist without Hitler references), I'd like to know what exactly would constitute pro-Mike extremism.

[Also, that in hindsight we know that Mike likes to be included in the songwriting. That his participation may have eased the emotional load Brian was under to get it completed.]

I can't see why Mike could not have written lyrics to songs like Wouldn't It Be Nice, That's Not Me or even Here Today?  

Whether or not Mike could have written them (and perhaps he could have) doesn't strike me as especially relevant. Perhaps he could have. But maybe there would have been some subtle pushback in the air, not entirely dissimilar to what Brian had previously experienced on Today Side B, and he just didn't feel that it would be the optimal emotionally free vibe in the air for him to work with Mike on that project. And it would very likely have hindered songs like IJWMFTT from happening. And that just happens to be one of the best songs Brian ever wrote. Thank goodness Brian went with his instincts regarding who he should collaborate with on that entire project. It's not worth risking great material from even existing just because Mike could maybe have done a solid lyric job on some of the songs.

Working with some people can simply become draining after awhile, even if some good results can be achieved.  

Geez, I really did not know that Mike wielded that much power. Good thing Mike was OK with how things went down or Pet Sounds would never exist. Sorry my post was so irrelevant to the thread.

I didn't say your entire post was irreverent to the thread. I pointed out that one particular line in your post was, IMO, irrelevant to a conversation that implies that perhaps, maybe Mike should have been given a shot write more Pet Sounds lyrics (that's the implication I'm getting, perhaps I'm mistaken). I'm just saying that there seem to be some pretty logical reasons why that didn't happen. And regardless of how much power one yields... do you realize that someone who may have subtle resistance can affect a sensitive person in a significant way? It makes sense that Brian wanted some distance from Mike for this project; do you think that's an illogical assumption?

The remarks about Mike had to do with that not every lyric that Tony Asher wrote for Pet Sounds was "Deep". Also, that in hindsight we know that Mike likes to be included in the songwriting. That his participation may have eased the emotional load Brian was under to get it completed. I totally understand why Brian went outside the confines and used Tony as a writing partner for most of the songs.

Trying to understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you saying that there would have been less of an emotional load for Brian to carry since if Mike got to write some additional songs on Pet Sounds, that then Brian wouldn't be dealing with as much emotional awkwardness in the air from a frustrated bandmate?

I can't see why Mike could not have written lyrics to songs like Wouldn't It Be Nice, That's Not Me or even Here Today?  

Whether or not Mike could have written them (and perhaps he could have) doesn't strike me as especially relevant. Perhaps he could have. But maybe there would have been some subtle pushback in the air, not entirely dissimilar to what Brian had previously experienced on Today Side B, and he just didn't feel that it would be the optimal emotionally free vibe in the air for him to work with Mike on that project. And it would very likely have hindered songs like IJWMFTT from happening. And that just happens to be one of the best songs Brian ever wrote. Thank goodness Brian went with his instincts regarding who he should collaborate with on that entire project. It's not worth risking great material from even existing just because Mike could maybe have done a solid lyric job on some of the songs.

Working with some people can simply become draining after awhile, even if some good results can be achieved.  

Geez, I really did not know that Mike wielded that much power. Good thing Mike was OK with how things went down or Pet Sounds would never exist. Sorry my post was so irrelevant to the thread.

I didn't say your entire post was irreverent to the thread. I pointed out that one particular line in your post was, IMO, irrelevant to a conversation that implies that perhaps, maybe Mike should have been given a shot write more Pet Sounds lyrics (that's the implication I'm getting, perhaps I'm mistaken). I'm just saying that there seem to be some pretty logical reasons why that didn't happen.

And regardless of how much power one yields... do you realize that someone who may have subtle resistance can affect a sensitive person in a significant way? Do you dispute that? It makes sense that Brian wanted some distance from Mike for this project; do you think that's an illogical assumption?

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

It strikes me that you and Cam are very similar. Different sides of the same coin.

It`s a shame that he and filledeplage are already married as you would have been made for each other.  

We are both stubborn SOBs (not an insult; I'm throwing myself in with that label too), and of course fans of this band. The big difference being that one is making futile moves to try to rewrite history, and one isn't.

I can't see why Mike could not have written lyrics to songs like Wouldn't It Be Nice, That's Not Me or even Here Today?  

Whether or not Mike could have written them (and perhaps he could have) doesn't strike me as especially relevant. Perhaps he could have. But maybe there would have been some subtle pushback in the air, not entirely dissimilar to what Brian had previously experienced on Today Side B, and he just didn't feel that it would be the optimal emotionally free vibe in the air for him to work with Mike on that project. And it would very likely have hindered songs like IJWMFTT from happening. And that just happens to be one of the best songs Brian ever wrote. Thank goodness Brian went with his instincts regarding who he should collaborate with on that entire project. It's not worth risking great material from even existing just because Mike could maybe have done a solid lyric job on some of the songs.

Working with some people can simply become draining after awhile, even if some good results can be achieved.  

I actually completely agree with that statement. However, I do wonder if the original lyrics had stuck, if that would have gained them any hip counterculture cred. In and of itself, probably not a sizable dent, but if combined with a released and finished SMiLE, attendees at Monterey Pop might have been going back to seek out Pet Sounds, and perhaps a song like Ego would've been their gateway into their discovery. Ultimately, even if the released lyrics are admittedly better, I think it would have been a positive step in shattering their cheesy image.
Do you think the Ego song lyrics were directed at anyone in particular?

Who knows? I wonder what Terry Sachen lyrical contribution was? I know this is the song Mike flat out refused to sing certain drug related lines for.

I would be highly surprised if the ego references weren't in someway directed towards both Mike and Brian himself. Brian trying to get the people in his own life, including himself, to examine how ego plays a role in how they conduct themselves. I think it was an attempt at deep personal self reflection, as well as trying to get others to have that same type of experience.

I concur. It absolutely is the pinnacle. It's simply magnificent, and Mike's contributions are fantastic. I wonder if Mike ever later admitted that he was wrong in criticizing it, the way Carl admitted he was wrong about questioning that part in Good Vibrations.

Who knows with those two? Looking at the lyrics throughout Today!, it does make me wonder why Brian felt Mike couldn't deliver introspective lyrics for the songs he had in mind on Pet Sounds? It does bug me no end when it's implied that one minute the band was singing about surfing and the next Pet Sounds appeared out of a vacuum.

Mike had a lot of talent, and he could definitely write some great lyrics about deeper material. I think anyone who questions that is certainly off base.  But I think the reasons are quite clear. Brian wanted to push further, much further. How would a song like IJWMFTT have come to be with Mike? Brian most likely simply "had it up to here" with Today Side B type questions, but had a difficulty confronting that grievance directly; Brian probably viewed his cousin as an intellectual simpleton, relative to the depths that Brian wanted to go. Bottom line was that Brian knew that people questioning his decisions, as was what apparently happened with side B of Today (despite it still very fortunately coming to fruition), would and could be a problem and impediment, particularly if he could see that the line of questioning would become more and more ardent. As it eventually did in fact become.

It never seems to get mentioned but do you think it's likely that others gave a difference of opinion to Brian before the Pet Sounds/Smile era?

Hal Blaine tells about how he saw Brian and Carl get into very serious and heated arguments regarding music. Arguments that would lead to fistfights in other cases, were they not loving brothers (BBFUN interview). So yes, he had to convince Carl sometimes; and probably Carl convinced him. Also his father, maybe Nik Venet, Usher and others offered criticism. Nothing wrong with that; it's life. There's no 100% yes men anywhere; and given Brian's condition, the things to come would not have been avoided had Mike Love kept from asking the lyrics to Ego be changed.

I think Hang on to Your Ego is a very good example of Brian sometimes benefiting from a second opinion. The words on the chorus frankly suck, I Know There's an Answer was far better and fitted the underlying themes of the Pet Sounds album.

I actually completely agree with that statement. However, I do wonder if the original lyrics had stuck, if that would have gained them any hip counterculture cred. In and of itself, probably not a sizable dent, but if combined with a released and finished SMiLE, attendees at Monterey Pop might have been going back to seek out Pet Sounds, and perhaps a song like Ego would've been their gateway into their discovery. Ultimately, even if the released lyrics are admittedly better, I think it would have been a positive step in shattering their cheesy image.
Do you think the Ego song lyrics were directed at anyone in particular?

"Let's Go to Heaven in My Car" is on that short list of weird 80's BB-related songs that have epically embarrassing 80's guitar solos, along with "East Meets West" and to a slightly lesser degree, "Chasin' the Sky."

At least the Gary Moore stuff on "Maybe I Don't Know" was more bluesy and whatnot.

What I want to know is,  during the 1980s, did Carl or Al ever attempt to do that type of guitar sound with they themselves  playing? Either in the studio or live?  It always struck me as weird that a band with two guitar players did not feature them on studio guitar parts during this time.  Was it because they didn't have enough time or were feeling lazy about trying to learn how to play this new vaguely hair metal esque soloing style?

It never seems to get mentioned but do you think it's likely that others gave a difference of opinion to Brian before the Pet Sounds/Smile era?

Wasn't there some resistance or questioning (despite Mike's cowriting credits) to the collection of ballads on Side B of Today? I though I recalled reading that. It is unfortunate that Brian wasn't especially good with handling criticism (up to a point yes, beyond a point he simply breaks), although that just makes him a very sensitive person, which is also what makes him capable of unparalleled sensitivity in his art.

I do "get" the idea that criticism and pushback is ordinarily simply "how bands work", but Brian was a special case. I do not think those criticisms were always handled with care, so to speak, and that was a problem.

I wonder what Mike's problem with it was - maybe he thought a whole side of ballads wouldn't work.  BTW, the second side of Today! for me is the pinnacle of Brian and Mike working together.

I concur. It absolutely is the pinnacle. It's simply magnificent, and Mike's contributions are fantastic. I wonder if Mike ever later admitted that he was wrong in criticizing it, the way Carl admitted he was wrong about questioning that part in Good Vibrations.

I believe the wrecking crew often questioned Brian on some of his arrangements as well. I'm curious about what songs Carl faught with Brian about.  It seems in an interview that Brian said that Carl usually had good ideas.  But he usually sites Mike as being the most vocal about Pet Sounds and Smile.  Yet Mike is usually positive about the music, it's mostly the lyrics he had issues with. I'm not even convinced Mike had issues with the drugs in 1966. 

I believe Brian has said Carl had issues with Good Vibrations.

Interesting.  I never heard that.  I new Carl had issues with a fuzz tone bass in an earlier song that he said sounded like sh*t. But later, Carl admitted it worked. The wrecking crew did a lot of the same.  But sometimes Brian would listen to others and agree that their ideas were better,  so he would change what he originally came up with. I don't have any way to prove this, but I truly feel that Mike was hurt by the fact that after he was pushed aside for other collaborators. I know others were used before,  but up until Summer Days, his credits increased. Maybe he wasn't willing to progress lyrically until he wrote the Good Vibrations lyrics. I don't know, but I completely understand being hurt by that.

I'm sure it hurt his feelings. Every logical piece of evidence points to that, and I can empathize too. And we know that there are reprocessions when he gets his feelings hurt in this specific area, such as what happened after pushed aside decades later from the same cowriting position.  Mike must feel like he's living in the film Groundhog Day.

It never seems to get mentioned but do you think it's likely that others gave a difference of opinion to Brian before the Pet Sounds/Smile era?

Wasn't there some resistance or questioning (despite Mike's cowriting credits) to the collection of ballads on Side B of Today? I though I recalled reading that. It is unfortunate that Brian wasn't especially good with handling criticism (up to a point yes, beyond a point he simply breaks), although that just makes him a very sensitive person, which is also what makes him capable of unparalleled sensitivity in his art.

I do "get" the idea that criticism and pushback is ordinarily simply "how bands work", but Brian was a special case. I do not think those criticisms were always handled with care, so to speak, and that was a problem.

I'd say quite the opposite, the other guys in the band were Brian's biggest fans but they weren't fanboys, giving constructive criticism is not a bad thing.

I agree that constructive criticism is not a bad thing, in theory. But somewhere along the way, some (not all, but some) of their constructive criticism became destructive criticism. I think the negatives of that criticism eventually outweighed the positives.

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

It'd be tough to quibble with his track record at that point. Mispelled Daro was right!

+1. If the Caroline, No BW single had charted bigger,  you can bet Brian's confidence would have been in a different place, and who knows what fruits that might have yielded. A more self confident Brian in 1966 at the height of his powers? That's a good thing in my book. Mind you, I love, love, love The other Boys and don't discount what they brought to the recordings (and I love/cherish their material from the wilderness years), but I think Brian needed his artistic circle to be "yes men" around this time, more than he needed artistic opposition and cocky phone calls demanding lyrics to be explained.

Wrinkles (original version) + 9 remixes of Wrinkles.

 Gives one a rough idea what the song would have sounded like if it had been written and recorded for the Friends LP.

I think he meant Bruce's The Nearest Faraway Place.

Oh - got it.

I have answered your questions like this all the time, but your right I'm going to stop.

Its' you're right two do so if you feel its' necessary.

Interesting, he *claims* he answered all the questions, but still never had the stones to either admit that either the "Macarena" is four times better than "Kokomo" due to it selling four times the copies or that his equation that "sales equals quality" when it comes to what is labeled as "pop music."

I think it would literally cause a conniption for certain people to admit any flaw in their premise. Or maybe this is equivelant to what would happen if a mother puts headphones (with an endless 9-month-long loop of "wheeeen") on her tummy on an infant in utero.  

Great info, thanks c-man. Just want to get clarification on something you wrote.

Who plays on the strings on the Surfer Moon?

Don't know the players, but the arranger was Jan Berry.

Bob Norberg thought up the string arrangement and Jan Berry transcribed it for him. Bob told Jan exactly how the part was supposed to go, including the plucking of the strings, and Jan wrote the parts out for the musicians.

I believe this would make Bob Norberg the arranger, no?

It would.

Yes, I would probably credit the arrangement to "Bob Norberg, with Jan Berry" or "Bob Norberg, as transcribed by Jan Berry". Kinda like Paul humming a string part to George Martin, who wrote out the charts. And that's how the string parts on 20/20 worked, as well...Bruce and Dennis hummed or sang those parts into Van McCoy's ear, and he wrote them out.

What was the extent of Bruce's contributions to Be With Me, c-man? Was he simply the intermediary between Denny and Van, or did he help out more than that?

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

All three really. I love Brian Wilson 88 and despite being inferior, find Sweet Insanity to be a natural progression to it. I really like In My Car too. I like the way the synths drove his songs back in that period.

I'm down with numerous elements of all of the aforementioned Brian eras, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. The 80s synths are rad though. Better driving synthy production on IMC when compared to BW88 or Sweet Insanity, IMO. Sweet Insanity while highly flawed, is still underrated IMO. After reading reviews, I expected an album that was unlistenable, and much of it is far from that. Then again, I will also defend MIU, and to a lesser degree, SIP, in that they both have their moments.

Not sure if this qualifies. At the Ventura show last year, after David Marks finished his lead vocal (can't remember if it was Getcha Back or Do You Wanna Dance), Bruce enthusiastically called David "almost an original Beach Boy". David seemed to realize the ridiculous nature of this statement and seemed to blow it off and move on. I want to think that Bruce didn't mean anything by it, but I can't be sure. Some young guy behind me who had been screaming obnoxiously throughout the show screamed "he IS an original!"

Must have been a tad awkward to witness

Or maybe just an exciting preview of this summer's spectacular Landy arguments.

I wonder with the upcoming film, and Landy posthumously returning to the "spotlight", if any news outlet or publication will attempt to score an interview with Alexandra Morgan, Landy's son or assistants, or any of those folk. If any insiders like them will come out of the woodwork to defend Landy in some way, since he will surely get slaughtered. Will be interesting to see how that plays out...

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Weird. I respectfully must completely disagree. There are a good number of Brian solo tunes which I feel that way about to varying degrees, but IMC just kinda rules the school for me. I think there are some neat production touches on that specific recording which aren't found on most of Brian's other songs from that era, and the songwriting is top notch for Brian at the time, IMO - kind of like Being With the One You Love, another highly underrated song from its era. I also buy into IMC's energy and blast the song when driving sometimes. I just don't go out of my way to think about Landy or the circumstances surrounding its creation, and just rock out to the melodies. They are top notch Brian melodies too.