That could be (probably is) 100% the "house band" or studio orchestra that was there for the show. It was pretty common practice to have the show's house band get the charts for the musical guests' songs and play them live behind those performers. In some cases there may also have been musicians' union rules in place for performing "live" if a house band was there versus having the group or artist either mime the performance to their own track, do a live vocal to a pre-recorded backing track, or do it totally live with the TV show's house band. Each and every clip is different, there seriously did not seem to be a standard practice for having bands perform on TV, they're all different and could be any of the above settings.

Look at any number of 1960's Doors TV appearances and you'll see all of the above scenarios on those clips.

This clip sounds like the BB's doing their vocals on top of the house band/orchestra.

Makes sense - I think you're right in thinking this was the house band's version.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister michael (ED)ward love?

Caroline Neigh.

This is such a bizarre performance in so many ways...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-dWhYklqE

With Brian pushing in and adjusting his seat in mid-song, to the corny flags and ship painting in the background, it's just a ton of weirdness. They must have felt super awkward performing this.

What's the deal with the studio instrumental version they are singing along to? This version has strings, and I believe is unique to this show's airing. Did the BBs play on this studio recording? Did Brian arrange the strings? Or was this some house band who performed a muzak version, to which the BBs sung over? So, so strange.

Just wondering if there have ever been any people, online or otherwise, who have ardently defended Murry or Landy's actions? I'd imagine if these exist, they would be people best suited for an insane asylum... but perhaps there are actually people (non-trolls) who actually feel this way in their hearts.

And I'm not talking about people who just defend a few, select things that Murry or Landy did, but generally defend their actions and characters on the whole? Maybe is this akin to trying to find the yeti... 

[Summertime Cruisin']

It took a couple of pages discussing the semantics of 'think/know' being used in a quote before we reached the conclusion that Mike is a talentless jerk, but congrats folks we got there in the end.

Maybe you reached that conclusion about Mike. I sure didn't. Within the last month I've listened to "Spring Vacation", "Beaches In Mind" and some stuff from the Mike/Bruce Summertime Cruisin' album. I've also been pushing for Mike to man up and finally release a lot of the pretty decent solo material he has been storing up for the past few decades. So I think I'm pretty far from reaching that conclusion. In fact, it might be fair to say that I give Mike a bit more "creative" leeway than most other posters on here.

So yeah, anyways the conclusion has nothing to do with Mike. It has more to do with the fact that we have a poster on here who seems incapable of admitting he has ever done wrong. And who recently I'm pretty sure admitted that he can't think of any wrong that Dr. Love has done. The poster in question has been spreading this crap for over a decade and I think his insane observations deserve to be called out.

+1

And as is the case with Mike himself, the very, very small handful of posters who behave in that unwavering, unwilling to budge an inch, and unable to admit being wrong ever type of manner,  do not help their cause; on the contrary, they wind up hurting their case, and their point of view is not legitimized. Extremism never helped any cause, and that goes well beyond the subject were talking about here.

If Brian never said it there wouldn't be anything to comment on.

You're not answering my question. If Brian never said it, would you still feel as though that subject would be something that is worthy of debate? Yay or nay?

I'm running out of ways to say it.

She is saying what she thinks people think and even what she thinks people think other people think and she says "she thinks" (when she does) because it is to some degree speculative. Think as in have an opinion about what people think about what other people think.  No one else means it this way when they are discussing what they think other people are thinking?

You are qite good at not answering.

It's true. He's taken pinders place as he board fillibusterer

What is it you want me to answer?

Cam, you still haven't answered my question.

Would you question Brian for Brian saying that Murry hurt his feelings? Would this be subject for debate?

That would be Brian speaking about his own feelings, so no.

But if Brian had never actually spoken those words, never directly addressed his feelings an interview to say that his father had hurt his feelings deeply, and the same goes for all three Wilson brothers, then would it to you still be honestly, truly worthy of debate as to whether any of their feelings were actually hurt by Murry or not?  

Would you then legitimately question and ponder whether or not they felt hurt, and would you then actually entertain the possibility that maybe, perhaps they weren't?

I'm running out of ways to say it.

She is saying what she thinks people think and even what she thinks people think other people think and she says "she thinks" (when she does) because it is to some degree speculative. Think as in have an opinion about what people think about what other people think.  No one else means it this way when they are discussing what they think other people are thinking?

You are qite good at not answering.

It's true. He's taken pinders place as he board fillibusterer

What is it you want me to answer?

Cam, you still haven't answered my question.

Would you question Brian for Brian saying that Murry hurt his feelings? Would this be subject for debate?

<< But then again, look at what the Jersey Boys film and Broadway show have done for the Four Seasons. So while one woulda thought ten years ago that their story was all over, wrapped up, now Frankie and company have a new lease on life.>>

The difference here is that the Four Seasons catalog is A.) not as large and B.) not as exploited over the years.  The Four Seasons have come back primarily because they've been out of the public eye for a while, in terms of attention (though still on the road).

The Beach Boys have never really gone away. 

That's because surfers rule. Four Seasons, you better believe it.

So, you're still saying that what you "think" is worth more than what she "thinks".

Marilyn said "think" instead of "know", not me.

Soooooooo are you saying that Marilyn is mistaken?  

The first half she says as a fact.

I am saying that in the last half when she says * she thought they * or * she thought that he thought that they thought * that she means it the way I presume most of us do. It is informed but to some extent a perception, or presumption, or opinion, or guess which might be true or untrue or a mix of both.

Cam - Would you question Brian for Brian saying that Murry hurt his feelings? Would this be subject for debate?

I'd like to know what reasoning would make you either question or not question such a statement that I'm sure Brian's made over the years. I'm trying to understand where and why the line is drawn.

So, you're still saying that what you "think" is worth more than what she "thinks".

Marilyn said "think" instead of "know", not me.

You didn't answer though. Are you saying that what you "think" about this topic is worth more than what she thinks? Because you spoke once or twice with people she probably had numerous conversations with? Or because you've read books about people she saw day-in, day-out for around a decade and a half?

Do you take at face value everything people associated with the BB organization say? Why should C Mott?

If Brian says that Murry hurt his feelings, do we really "know" this? Or is it ok to accept what he says in that specific circumstance, but not others?

The Beach Boys were respected critically (and commercially) during the late 60s and early 70s in the UK far more than in the US. In retrospect, would it have been wise for the band to temporarily relocate their base of operations to the UK during these years? They could have continued US touring. But the close proximity to other progressive UK bands may have helped them cultivate an "aura of hip" during this period. Of course, other things like matching shirts would have to be ditched. But could this move have done anything to help them?

I realize the big problem with Brian and his illness/drug use during this time would have likely prevented such a thing on its own. But hey, this is theoretical. Debate away.

I do think this could have been a good idea, as long as the band refrained from making any UK novelty songs referencing cities, UK foods, etc. And pre-Jack Rieley, I'm not sure that would have been a resistible temptation by some member(s). Seriously!

So, you're still saying that what you "think" is worth more than what she "thinks".

Marilyn said "think" instead of "know", not me.

At what point can anything be considered "known"? If there was high-definition video of every single BB member's daily actions from 1961-present, would that constitute that certain events are "known", and in the absence of that, everything else is just interpretation with no person's statements more valuable than others?

We're getting into Flat Earth Society territory here.

If Marilyn said "know" and didn't say "think", you'd say she'd still be mistaken, right?  

Ok, my point was that if I held grudges for my genius cousin, and if I wanted to keep him from portraying me in a film, I would probably try and block the use of music I sang on for said film; I would try and keep my name from being mentioned it; and heck, I would try and block the movie. But a soundtrack release?

If it were actually desired to do so, going to such lengths of outright blocking a portrayal in a film would be so blatantly obvious to the public, and then the film's story would have to awkwardly somehow sidestep the existence of a founding bandmember, whose positive and not so positive contributions to the story are well documented. That would lead to a C50-implosion level of endless sh*tstorm flak in movie blogs, going all the way throughout media in general, wouldn't it? That would just be super embarrassing to deal with, much moreso than whatever embarrassment might be felt from the actual portrayal (which by most accounts is quite tame anyway). Every article would talk about the undeniably pivotal Mike Love being completely missing from the film. Whereas IF the soundtrack is in fact being blocked, it would be a more subtle gesture that could fly under the radar of finger pointing, and a gesture that is also probably much more easily achievable.

I'm not a party to these contracts, of course.  There's a difference between having a legal right to black something and choosing to block something.  This may be a simple case of not having an issue with music license for a film - but having an issue with releasing BB content on a soundtrack album.

That makes the most sense. I just wonder how far the bad blood will actually go. One almost gets the impression that Mike listens to a tape loop of Cassius Love vs. Sonny Wilson on repeat for hours on end, the way Brian did with Be My Baby.   

<<Using the same set of legal finagling, if (and it remains an if) Mike is responsible for holding up the soundtrack, could Mike have also held up No Pier Pressure because of his co-writing credit on "In the Back of My Mind" if he'd wanted to? Or maybe because that was just a bonus track on a more obscure retailer-only release, it wouldn't legally count, and his hands would be tied?>>

I would think the issue would center, specifically, on actual Beach Boys recordings incorporated into the score, not solo cover versions.

Right - but my question is, would the same legal maneuvers that could disallow actual Beach Boys recordings on a score actually  give anyone any legal right to block a solo cover version (with that person's writing credit listed)? It's a no-brainer why the soundtrack would be more "offensive" or "inappropriate" by comparison of the two unrelated projects, I'm just wondering if it would even be legally possible if he had wanted to take things to that level. I'd imagine soundtrack legalities and ordinary album legalities are different beasts entirely...

<<Ok then. In this legal context, it makes no sense to hold back a soundtrack while voting in favor of making the film.>>

Actually, it makes perfect sense.  Licensing for use in a film is a relatively simple cash deal.  Soundtrack LP, on the other hand, involves the potential release of a Brian Wilson/Beach Boys ALBUM, or at least a sound track containing same, and possible with a license deal to another label (unless Capitol is involved).  That's much more complex.  And a certain member of BRI, whoever that might be, might not believe it's the right context, presentation and/or commercial vehicle for a new album with Beach Boys content.

Not saying it's right... just throwing out some issues that might be at play.

Using the same set of legal finagling, if (and it remains an if) Mike is responsible for holding up the soundtrack, could Mike have also held up No Pier Pressure because of his co-writing credit on "In the Back of My Mind" if he'd wanted to? Or maybe because that was just a bonus track on a more obscure retailer-only release, it wouldn't legally count, and his hands would be tied?

If the current-day blood is as bad as we (including me) are possibly assuming, it would be surprising if Mike wouldn't have said no to that track being released too. Maybe that would indicate it's more about making a statement specifically against the L&M film, rather than holding up any other release. I dunno.

That Jardine interview blurb where he seems to be kind of desperately trying to get Mike to talk it over doesn’t strike me as a case where they all came to a mutual agreement to have a meeting, only for it to somehow tragically never come to pass.

That scenario came across to me as a case where one guy was fine just going back to the way it was without any further discussion (by both his words and actions, e.g. booking shows for his own band while the reunion tour was still ongoing), and another guy who sadly not only wanted the reunion to continue, but sort of comically and tragically seemed to actually think he could talk the other guy into reconsidering.

It reads like someone asking the other person to reconsider a decision that had already been made, NOT an attempt to have a discussion about future band decisions that were still up in the air. The thing was pretty much over and a fork stuck in it by the time they were doing that Grammy Museum thing. I guess we can perhaps criticize Al for being naïve enough to believe it could still work out, but we can’t shame him or Brian for it ending.  

Except Mike says in that quote that he is agreeable to discussion and he also predicted during C50 that they would get together post C50 and decide what to do with the offers. They all are to blame in the same, they presumed instead of following through.

I have heard from someone who was there at the Grammy Museum, employed in a behind-the-scenes capacity, that the backstage mood/vibe that he detected between the BB bandmembers was quite awkward/tense. Are all the parties involved to blame in some capacity for a lack of proper communication? Perhaps. Should any one party be singled out as being more to blame? Perhaps also. Mike and Bruce’s no-show at the wrap party/dinner event speaks volumes to me, that there was probably avoidance type tactics from that side earlier in C50 as well. I don't know why Brian is always singled out as the king of avoidance within this band.

I think Al and Brian were quite naive in thinking that Mike, just because he can do something, wouldn't absolutely just go ahead and do it anyway. Don't Fight the C50 - unless you're Mike - in which case, fight away.

Second, she seems to not know or have forgotten that Derek Taylor took credit for the "genius" campaign as their press agent. Presumably the whole group signed off on that campaign and paid for it.

Regardless if the whole group initially signed off on Taylor being the PR guy, do you really think they had any say in when the genius comment began bring propagated?  If anybody had any objections to that, and I'm not saying that anyone initially did, what were they going to say? "Stop the presses, that's too extreme a statement?"

Resentment usually builds up and leaks out in much more subtle ways than that.

As pertains to the “Summer in Paradise” era where Al was “suspended”; my guess is that he probably wasn’t suspended in any official sense. They were doing the SIP sessions all in-house on their own dime, and I would guess they just suggested or told Al not to come to the sessions. The sessions seemed to be very much a Love/Melcher production anyway, so I sense some of the other BB’s like Carl weren’t always there either.

If Al had been “suspended” from the group itself, he would have missed some vast run of shows during that time period, and there’s no evidence he missed any large run of shows.

That “Goldmine” interview Mike gave at that time is one of the only information sources on this time period that we have. I’ve always been amused at that interview though. At one point, he talks about how they did some group therapy sessions to air some of their grievances. Sounds like a fair enough idea. But I remember thinking it was weird that Mike used one of his own friends as the therapist. If I had been Al (or Carl), I might have been off-put by the potential for a lack of objectivity.

While I think it would be an excellent idea for these guys to have attended proper therapy sessions together, that's ridiculous if the therapist was a friend and not objective. There's an old episode of the TV show Dallas, where JR Ewing does a similar thing for a marriage therapist that he and his wife attend; JR is paying off the therapist to manipulate his advice. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the BB therapy sessions. Too bad we don't have a movie about the sessions, like Metallica's Some Kind of Monster.

Maybe Mike would be motivated to hold his vote hostage that would grant soundtrack permission, if he feels there's something he could get out of the leverage. He still talks about being open to future BB collabs, if conditions are met. Having not yet seen the film, I suspect that he would be unhappy with his portrayal. I would think he'd only be happy with a portrayal that he himself had input with and signs off on, regardless of how much the filmmakers might have walked on eggshells to make it fair and balanced (and not inflammatory against Mike).

Makes me wonder how on Earth that the world got The Smile Sessions released in 2011. We are very lucky that happened at all. I suspect perhaps there was similar trades of leverage and very specific rules that went into TSS, all the carefully-worded-by-the-participants promo videos for TSS, and C50 in general. No way I can believe that all the TSS interview footage simply happened without rules about what could/could not be talked about. And maybe Mike felt reneged on what was promised to him in return, whatever that may have been (maybe that was "the room"). Of course, I think it's ridiculous for TSS and/or this soundtrack to possibly only be allowed to be released with the permission of someone who could hold up the vote out of leverage and/or grudges (assuming that's what happened). Wasn't the Pet Sounds Sessions set held up for a year due to similar circumstances?

Again, you're assuming that it's Person A holding a soundtrack to ransom. Why not Persons B, C, Q or X ?  May be the case, but it pays to consider the other options.

That's the option that seems to make the most logical sense to me. But I am certainly open to the possibility of being completely, 100% incorrect.

Century, you mentioned Mike wanting to collaborate with Brian again, and it being a vague proviso to any further BB work with Brian. He’s been telling that to me, and every other writer, for well over a decade. During the entire C50, has there been ONE witness seeing Mike Love take an active interest in making that happen? From the sessions at Ocean Way through the 75 dates across the globe, where there was always SOME time and a keyboard SOMEWHERE — did Mike Love ever try to make that happen? For the first time in decades, he saw Brian every day. It’s a great thought and an even better soundbyte, but I personally don’t believe it’s true.

I think a few things. I think that Love And Mercy COULD have portrayed Mike Love in a far harsher light. I think it was fair to him and that made me happy. Because, let’s face facts, George Harrison wasn’t crazy about Sgt. Pepper -- he has a right as a partner to have his say and not have it define him. Fair is fair. And across the board, Mike did outstanding work during that era (he kills on “Cabinessence.”) If the powers that be wanted to settle a score, they could’ve used Love And Mercy to do so. The powers that be did not. If anything, the film is sympathetic to Mike and the situation in regards to the ’66, ’67 output. My point is that, there is so much Brian in Brian's story that Mike is just one of the many planets orbiting his sun. I don't think the same is vice versa. I think Brian -- and, more specifically, Brian's long shadow and talent -- is a central part of Mike's life. That's a tough shadow to live in. Al Jardine seems to now live in it with love and admiration -- Mike Love seems to not.

I hope that Mike’s ghostwritten memoir isn’t used as a tool to do damage to perceived foes. I fear that there are elements in place to “reshade” if not outright rewrite history in regards to certain instances in the book. I hope I'm proven wrong. I really do. I hope we hear about Mike's long and interesting journey and not a long defense against what he feels was robbed from him by Brian and the people in Brian's life -- past and present.

From what I gather, from all those who have seen the film (including yourself), Mike will be treated fairly. I hope that's good enough for him (if Mike sees the film, which he probably will), though I don't know that it will be good enough. What good enough would be is another mystery. I hope Mike's book won't be overly defensive too. I want these guys to get along, or if they can't get along creatively, at least not try to prevent releases of material out of spite - that crosses a line in my eyes, if that's what's happening here. If they could only just get along... 

Maybe Mike would be motivated to hold his vote hostage that would grant soundtrack permission, if he feels there's something he could get out of the leverage. He still talks about being open to future BB collabs, if conditions are met. Having not yet seen the film, I suspect that he would be unhappy with his portrayal. I would think he'd only be happy with a portrayal that he himself had input with and signs off on, regardless of how much the filmmakers might have walked on eggshells to make it fair and balanced (and not inflammatory against Mike).

Makes me wonder how on Earth that the world got The Smile Sessions released in 2011. We are very lucky that happened at all. I suspect perhaps there was similar trades of leverage and very specific rules that went into TSS, all the carefully-worded-by-the-participants promo videos for TSS, and C50 in general. No way I can believe that all the TSS interview footage simply happened without rules about what could/could not be talked about. And maybe Mike felt reneged on what was promised to him in return, whatever that may have been (maybe that was "the room"). Of course, I think it's ridiculous for TSS and/or this soundtrack to possibly only be allowed to be released with the permission of someone who could hold up the vote out of leverage and/or grudges (assuming that's what happened). Wasn't the Pet Sounds Sessions set held up for a year due to similar circumstances?

I'm not terribly familiar with J&D's material on the whole, but does anyone know why it seems that they were such good buddies with The BBs, and why it never seemed to turn into a real competition between the two bands (as was more the case with The BBs/The Beatles)?

I mean, obviously the BBs trump J&D in terms of quality/sales, and there was/is no "real" competition... but since a number of early J&D tunes sound very, very much like early BB tunes, one would almost tend to think that the two bands would have felt that somebody was ripping somebody off in terms of musical sound. I know bands are influenced by each other, and often ape each others' sounds, but still, it's interesting how that never seemed to be any kind of issue between the two bands, considering how close the material sometimes sounds to my ears.

        How come that isn't your avatar??!

because Friends is way better


so if the Beach Boys were Star Wars characters who would they be?

Brian = Luke
Dennis = Han
Carl = Chewbacca
Al = Yoda
Mike = C3PO
Bruce = R2D2
Blondie = Lando

Murry = Darth Vader

Who's Jar Jar?