I'd also flip the question back again and say if that is the case, then why have there been so many mentions of Mike "carrying the torch" for the legacy or "upholding the legacy"...carrying the torch for what if in your words The Beach Boys no longer exist?

That's not up to me to answer. I don't go to those shows so I can't relate to whatever emotional response a Mike & Bruce concert evokes in people, but obviously those performances DO move audiences in some way so why begrudge them? What can be gained from doing that?

And yes, I'm well aware that Brian has gone back and forth on this but recently said that he liked the idea of Mike "keeping the name out there", etc. What does that mean? Who knows? He likes seeing the name on a marquee as he rides past it on a bus? Doesn't really matter to me. I saw the group while Carl was alive and even then I felt like I wasn't truly seeing the proper "Beach Boys" because Dennis wasn't there. We make adjustments based on what we enjoy. For some people Mike & Bruce are enough. More power to those folks. I'm not losing any sleep over what other people enjoy.    

As for non-original members touring under the name The Beach Boys...we know that's coming (although Jason Brewer has an excellent tribute band called Sail On that will be tough to beat. Might as well give them the license).  

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

Surprised to see this comment. I'm glad I didn't write it.

But I have to ask a follow up - If this is the case, in your opinion then why not retire the name and be done with it, and why is there such a shitstorm about people arguing the license and all those related issues? If it's done, it's done...right?

I've made that comment several times here and each time you respond the same way like you're surprised. Can you explain why you keep doing that?  

I'm all for retiring the name but it doesn't bother me that Mike and Bruce use it. Why would it? It didn't seem to bother Brian when he went to see The Four Freshmen and of course he knew it wasn't actually the REAL Four Freshmen but a sanctioned touring group and Bri said he just closed his eyes and pretended it was the Freshman and enjoyed it (as he wrote about in his book). I imagine fans who see Mike and Bruce do the same thing.  

I’m just going to copy/paste a response I made in another thread to someone with the same mindset:

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s just clarification of my own thoughts (mostly for my own benefit and for anyone else interested)...if anyone is tired of debate on this I totally understand: you don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” does not just mean that the music will always be there and will always hold up. Legacy is also all the baggage that is carried along with the music. Legacy includes thoughts, feelings, and memories about the entity in question...when you think about The Beach Boys do you have positive thoughts? Positive feelings? Good memories?

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

You see this when a music journalist writes about this band - they usually mention the fractious history of the band in their interviews. You can see this even on the official Beach Boys Facebook page in the comments of the DIA song post that mostly everyone hates. The public reads these articles and comments and their perception of band is altered.

As KDS mentioned yesterday, the Beatles quit after a decade - they didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t have these things so their legacy is one of the brightest stars in the sky. But therein proves my point: the actions made by The Beach Boys over the past few decades have altered how bright their star is in the sky...the disco track, the sitcom appearances, etc have all added up the tackiness that is now part of the image of this band....ie part of their legacy.

When we think of The Beatles, we also think of Yoko Ono breaking up the band. That thought will be forever cemented with their legacy. See what I’m getting at? It’s not just the great music but the events that stand out. They could be good events or bad events, but each go hand in hand with the legacy.

The music is safe, and maybe that’s all some fans care about. Others of us care about the group that Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, David, Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, belonged to at one point or another. This band is a device that created culture, created introspection, gave people dreams. The music of course is what we listen to and love, but the culture of this band goes right along with the music. And when the image of that band is tarnished time and time again, people remember that when they think of the music (like the Axl Rose example someone made above).

These embarrassing antics don’t effect our enjoyment of the past music, they effect our perception on the vessel that gave us that music. And to some of us, that part of the legacy is almost as important as the music itself.

I have to disagree with this. When all is said and done I believe the group will largely be remembered for the first 10 years of its existence. Everything else will be a footnote at best.

Is that the case with Phil Spector? Or Ted Nugent? I'm not saying that the band (fortunately) has ever done anything on the level that Phil did, but the point is that legacies can be tarnished, and there is a spectrum for this ranging from "just a little bit" ---> all the way to "severely". This band, whose music I love and cherish, is on that spectrum *somewhere*, and due to just way, way, way, way too many boneheaded decisions which continue to occur mainly at the hands of one member, the brand name unfortunately doesn't quite reside in the "just a little bit" section when it comes to tarnishment.

The brand sadly is a joke to far too many people (perhaps you haven't encountered this viewpoint enough in person); just because there are plenty of people who don't care and don't mind, there are ALSO plenty of people who don't take the band seriously, in part because of the neverending stream of Stamos/Love nonsense (just for starters).

It's a cumulative thing.

No, I haven't encountered that perception in ages. Generally when I speak to people about the Beach Boys they mention Brian, Pet Sounds, etc. In other words all of the usual bullet points...except they will sometimes bring up Charlie Manson.
 
Which leads me to wonder....Dennis was buddies with Charlie Manson and even THAT couldn't damage the group's legacy. They even recorded one of Manson's songs and it's ALWAYS getting written about in those "Did you know?" articles online and and yet you guys think Stamos hurts the brand?

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

I’m just going to copy/paste a response I made in another thread to someone with the same mindset:

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s just clarification of my own thoughts (mostly for my own benefit and for anyone else interested)...if anyone is tired of debate on this I totally understand: you don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” does not just mean that the music will always be there and will always hold up. Legacy is also all the baggage that is carried along with the music. Legacy includes thoughts, feelings, and memories about the entity in question...when you think about The Beach Boys do you have positive thoughts? Positive feelings? Good memories?

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

You see this when a music journalist writes about this band - they usually mention the fractious history of the band in their interviews. You can see this even on the official Beach Boys Facebook page in the comments of the DIA song post that mostly everyone hates. The public reads these articles and comments and their perception of band is altered.

As KDS mentioned yesterday, the Beatles quit after a decade - they didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t have these things so their legacy is one of the brightest stars in the sky. But therein proves my point: the actions made by The Beach Boys over the past few decades have altered how bright their star is in the sky...the disco track, the sitcom appearances, etc have all added up the tackiness that is now part of the image of this band....ie part of their legacy.

When we think of The Beatles, we also think of Yoko Ono breaking up the band. That thought will be forever cemented with their legacy. See what I’m getting at? It’s not just the great music but the events that stand out. They could be good events or bad events, but each go hand in hand with the legacy.

The music is safe, and maybe that’s all some fans care about. Others of us care about the group that Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, David, Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, belonged to at one point or another. This band is a device that created culture, created introspection, gave people dreams. The music of course is what we listen to and love, but the culture of this band goes right along with the music. And when the image of that band is tarnished time and time again, people remember that when they think of the music (like the Axl Rose example someone made above).

These embarrassing antics don’t effect our enjoyment of the past music, they effect our perception on the vessel that gave us that music. And to some of us, that part of the legacy is almost as important as the music itself.

I have to disagree with this. When all is said and done I believe the group will largely be remembered for the first 10 years of its existence. Everything else will be a footnote at best.

Love at the end how they mention there might be a 1968 package next year.  Ya-hooo!!!

Keeping my fingers, toes, and eyeballs crossed!

Excellent podcast BTW. Though I'm a little surprised Linett and Boyd didn't address the "How She Boogalooed It" controversy surrounding the switch to mono halfway through. I'm aware that the tape for the organ overdub wasn't available, but couldn't they have just included an alternate full-stereo mix of the track without the organ? I'll admit that it's not that big of a deal though, and I'm greatly looking forward to any future archival releases from the dynamic duo of Beach Boys archivists!

Holy smokes. I never even realized it did! Now I'll have to relisten

Fantastic post above, HeyJude.

Those same people claim that the legacy can’t be hurt by anything. Yet look at this advert! Same sh*t with the remake of DIA that many fans didn’t even bat an eye about because we’re so used to a constant stream of bad choices and mediocre behavior when it comes to this band. The quality control seems to be nonexistent.

Here we have John Stamos bigger than anyone in the flippin band in an advertisement. Yeah yeah, it’s most likely the venue’s advert - but aren’t The Beach Boys touring group supposed to look over all that stuff to make sure it’s kosher? And therein lies the problem: no one gives a sh*t that The Beach Boys themselves aren’t the main draw but rather a yoghurt salesperson who was once famous for his role in a 90s sitcom.

I think Stamos is enjoying a great ride, and he’s making every moment count. I have no issues with him. Same that someone said in this thread or another: I don’t blame Stamos for the forever remake, or his guest spots with The Beach Boys...I blame whoever thinks this sh*t is actually a good idea for the history of the band.

Everything that happens with this band is a part of their history, be it Mike’s wonderful contributions to the C50 or his years of writing classic lyrics, be it Brian’s love for harmony and the timeless songs he created. Or be it the bad, tacky, ridiculous crap that keeps happening with this band in its latter years. It’s all part of the history of the group now.

The Beach Boys as an actual group could’ve ridden out their final years doing some amazing concerts, recording some amazing albums...but Mike couldn’t get into a room with Brian? is that the flimsy excuse for why the c50 ended? (Yes we know there’s more to it than that yet this ridiculous excuse is what Mike touts when he’s asked about it). What could’ve been and instead we get robotuned DIA ‘17 and the biggest draw for a Beach Boys concert these days is apparently John Stamos. Yeah, that legacy sure is on a high note right now

Nonsense. The Beach Boys were putting out videos like "Problem Child" and appearing on Full House which were much MUCH higher profile than some random ad for a gig and yet were undergoing a critical renaissance at the EXACT same time. More recently, there was so much talk of the legacy being in tatters after Mike posing with Trump that you would think not a single soul would've bought Sunshine Tomorrow and yet....they did, and with impressive sales figures for an archival release like that AND glowing reviews.
The music recorded by the group in the 60's and 70's is all that matters and THAT is the legacy.

Haven't listened to it yet. Just passing the info along:

www.stitcher.com/podcast/peter-ferioli/rock-n-roll-archaeology-project/e/50711599

Based on anecdotal evidence (unreliable I know) but I think they were written off as something like a nostalgia act as early as the fall of 1967. I've been told by many who were in their teens and 20's at that time that the Beach Boys were viewed as an AM radio group like the Four Seasons and not part of any Beatles/Stones rock hierarchey. Some saw them as a safe alternative to the "serious" hippie scene (which leads me to believe these same people didn't bother to buy any of their current albums).

As one friend said about the release of "Do It Again"..."Finally, they put out something that sounded like them and stopped imitating the Beatles!" (don't ask me what that means).

The Beach Boys have a ginormous following of people like that...

One would think that with all the positive press from the "rock press" of the early 70's, jamming with the Grateful Dead, and even the Beach Boys themselves pretending not to like their early material and dissing it onstage to appear "cool" would've worked in their favor (and maybe it did for a little while) but as Ian Rusten and Jon Stebbins' book points out, that "play the hits" fan base was still there, louder than ever and growing.

*On a side note, those disses that the boys made on stage "Hey, if you want to hear surfing music, go see Jan and Dean", etc....God, I find that more embarrassing than even the flimsiest filler track on any of their classic early albums. Add that to the cringeworthy thread.

Some first impressions here:

Wild Honey has always been one of my favorite albums and now this stereo release vaulted it into the Top Five. I'm generally a purist with music but not so with these Beach Boys stereo mixes. They actually improve the album (Pet Sounds included).

No big reevaluation for me but as Howie points out in the liner notes, this is the last full-on Brian and Mike collaboration in a big album sense. Considering this was 50 years ago, a sobering thought.

Man, they did the right thing in canning ``Lei,d``....its appalling compared to how great the band sound on the Thanksgiving Tour.

I always had a soft spot for the Hawaii material. I first heard all of it maybe over a decade ago, and I listened many, many times. I used to fall asleep to those concerts on headphones hoping to pick out some detail, and I tried to research and write a lot about it that unfortunately never got finished (apart from some long forgotten online postings) due to some life events interrupting. But I think it stands in a very unique and special place in the band's history as the truly, undoubtedly final time that original lineup of musicians who practiced in Hawthorne with rented instruments before recording Surfin actually played as that same unit on the live stage.

We got a few teases on the two-fers, box sets, etc. Yes there are some ragged spots, but such is the nature of live performance with any band who doesn't mime or play to prerecorded tracks on stage. Perfection is not human when it's live music in front of a crowd. It's the experience. Hawaii was an experience and unfortunately the definite end of a special era.

That's what hit me listening last night. Surfer Girl came on, the full mix and the vocals-only. I had tears in my eyes. Stunning, emotional, etc. That was the Beach Boys, for the last time on stage playing together that way. I say "was" deliberately. That specific blend was never heard the same way again. How fortunate it was recorded.

Add in the quirkiness of the Baldwin organ, the looseness, the stripped down element, the setlist...I always thought those shows were a ton of fun to hear and absorb.

The tracks presented on this set from Hawaii...I'm just curious, Ghosty - which of them made you form the opinion you posted? I think the tracks presented each have their own strength, from the Boys revisiting their garage roots on Surfin, to the mid period You're So Good To Me, up to Heroes (which was only a month old when they did it 100% live and in full...), and then going back to pre-Beach Boys Hawthorne with the Freshmen cover, and the gorgeous timeless Surfer Girl...

I will say that one of the great, mythical "unbooted" tracks from days of old, "Hawthorne Blvd" didn't quite take off...in fact it stalled at the starting line...but it is a curio that fans can actually hear now officially.  Maybe reworking Thee Midniters wasn't the best choice to open a show...

I will say the actual Hawaii live recordings (what little we get on this) are way WAY above the Lei'd performances that were to be dubbed over later. I can appreciate the historic nature of the recordings (well, the whole package is like that , really) and while the approach (sort of) works on some of the ballad material ("God Only Knows"), reducing dynamic songs like "California Girls", "Sloop John B", etc to a faint whisper does them a terrible disservice IMO. Good concept, wrong selections. I have to admit, though, I've never cared for the dribs and drabs we started getting from this session beginning with the box set. Maybe if they had waited and done it later the following year with Friends lp material like "Little Bird", "Meant for You" it would've worked better.

Some first impressions here:

Wild Honey has always been one of my favorite albums and now this stereo release vaulted it into the Top Five. I'm generally a purist with music but not so with these Beach Boys stereo mixes. They actually improve the album (Pet Sounds included).

No big reevaluation for me but as Howie points out in the liner notes, this is the last full-on Brian and Mike collaboration in a big album sense. Considering this was 50 years ago, a sobering thought.

Man, they did the right thing in canning ``Lei,d``....its appalling compared to how great the band sound on the Thanksgiving Tour.

One of the key points in all this has been and will always be that Mike thinks he should be thought of as the "leader" of the band and all tangential issues around the band. So it's not only the formula, but trying to elevate one's self to a level where the so-called "formula" can be both defined and dictated in terms of following it or not fucking with it. Murry became the same way after the records really started to sell nationally, it was going overboard trying to project a facade of leadership rather than actually leading.

What cracks me up, and relates to this "formula" stuff, is a story Hal Blaine told about working with Lawrence Welk. Murry was apparently always on Brian's ass about how he should cut cleaner sounding records, like Welk. And in the meantime, Lawrence Welk himself according to Blaine who played sessions for him, was trying to get those newer sounds that Brian was recording and producing and selling by the truckload, mostly at Western.

It's too bad Brian had to deal with multiple "leaders" whose egos far outweighed their actual leadership qualities.

As I look at it, a lot of this conflict is less about Mike "wanting to be the leader" and more about Brian absolutely not wanting to be the leader of "Beach Boys Proper" as years went on.  In that sense, if you were Mike, how would you behave?  You would probably think that you were a very good choice to fill whatever vacuum that Brian started leaving as the 60s went on.  (which is obviously very arguable)

Also, I always viewed "the formula" as being less about specific notions like writing surf/girl hits, and more as an abstract concept of how Mike viewed their band "organically" and how they always went about their business throughout the early and mid-60s. 

I wish they would have just given Brian the space to be a solo artist in the late 60s while throwing the BBs some songs for their albums each year, and let Mike and whoever horse around with the name and a touring band in the same manner that he does nowadays.  Then again I also wish they would have spun off a part-time power trio called Wilson. 

I agree with some of this. I DO think Mike viewed himself (and probably still does) as something like the co-captain of The Beach Boys along with Brian: a kind of rock and roll George and Ira Gershwin. Obviously Brian did not see it that way...and I have to wonder if Brian felt too intimidated to just come right out and say that to Mike. I don't mean intimidated just by Mike but by the rest of his family, the band, etc. (you've got that whole Love family vs Wilson family competitiveness going on in the background. It would have made family gatherings unbearably awkward that's for sure).
I think some pretense was kept up that Mike was Brian's main collaborator when that was clearly no longer the case, possibly as a way to placate Mike and/or placate the family. In a way, that continued into the 70's by which time Brian and Mike were almost like entirely different people and could never recapture what they had in the early 60's. When they tried to duplicate past victories, it never came close. Pleasant but never the same. 

And I also would've liked the Wilsons to have formed a power trio or at least have seen Dennis have a stint in another band where he could've flexed his songwriting muscle a little more.
 
   

KHJ's History of Rock and Roll series is one of those things that shows up once in a while on the internet. All of the episodes were online a few years ago and I listened to about half of them. Keep in mind, however, that sometimes they couldn't actually interview a performer and would hire an actor to read quotes, hence the poor fella who did an abysmal Elvis Presley imitation in their Elvis episode.

Part 2 aired today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BHvIG2YlMY

I've never heard a story really of Brian being an a-hole or being mean to anyone.

Consider the source but Steve Jones (Sex Pistols) in new memoir "Lonely Boy" (which I'm reading now) claims that Brian was the rudest celebrity guest he ever had on his radio show. Jones says that he's aware of Brian's psychological issues but says it was "no excuse for being an a**hole" but he doesn't really elaborate on exactly what happened.

That's the only example I've ever read about where Brian is specifically called out for being rude. God knows the pairing of Steve Jones and Brian Wilson is a bad idea anyway. 

In my not-so-perfect but practical world....

Brian Wilson: Let It Shine 1988-2015

1. Let It Shine
2. Melt Away (1988)
3. Water Builds Up (Sweet Insanity)
4. On The Wings Of A Dove (mainly because it's the only track I can think of that can bridge the synth sound of the previous two cuts with mid-90's onwards)
5. Orange Crate Art
6. Slightly American Music (Paley Sessions)
7. She Says She Needs Me
8. Your Imagination
9. Saturday Morning In The City
10. Wonderful/Song For Children/Child Is The Father Of The Man
11. The Bare Necessities
12. Live Let Live
13. Nothing But Love
14. Sail Away
15. Whatever Happened
16. Love and Mercy (IJWMFTT version)

Messed around a bit with the chronology for the sake of flow.

EDIT: Added a track from TLOS. Doh! 

I also went to the NJPAC show this past Friday night. I'll echo what others have said:

The band was great. I haven't seen a Brian show since 2004 and I found this particular lineup to be a much looser configuration with less emphasis on replicating the records. That was a strength, actually. I was so glad to hear so much Al Jardine! For me, time stands still when Al sings.

I had no idea how Blondie would fit in with this band and he wound up stealing the show. 

Brian was great throughout the first half of the show. He was in good voice, belted songs out with a lot of gusto and SANG.  It was the complete opposite when it came to the Pet Sounds portion. I agree with what others have said. He seems bored with doing these songs in the same sequence. He spoke/sang kind of like William Shatner. It wasn't a travesty or anything because the band carried him through but hearing Brian speak/sing "Hey, don't talk..put that head on my shoulder" like a finger popping lounge lizard when I was expecting a more gentle treatment was a little confusing.

..and all the more confusing because he went right back to singing great when it came time for the encore. Clearly, something is going on here with the Pet Sounds set. Maybe he's doing the Bob Dylan approach by altering the phrasing to make an old song seem new to the singer. You have to wonder though, why doesn't he feel the same way about "California Girls"?. He's sung that many more times than the Pet Sounds stuff.   

I thought this was a very interesting chat.  I like the fact that the guy admits he's not so fond of some of the sections like 'Barnyard' etc.

Personally 'Barnyard' is one of my favourite sections in Smile - an eerie little masterpiece.

I'm looking forward to part 2.   I wonder if you will discuss the fact that there are a lot of missing lead vocals/melodies..?

That was me, thanks. I loved those section years ago, but they just don't do it for me nowadays.

In the event that Brian does stop touring, or tour less, I'd love to see this band transition to being Al's band (or Al's and Blondie's band), a kind of new "Friends and Family" band. I don't know how financially viable that would be--it's an awfully big band to support, and without the big guy's name on there, that would lose appeal for some people--but they're so good...

In the event that Brian retires within the next year or two, I'd like to think that Al could continue (at least for a few years) with Brian's band as "The Brian Wilson Band featuring Al Jardine". Of course, the venues would be smaller and the income wouldn't be what it is with Brian front and center, but I think Al would find a much more receptive audience these days compared to his first go-round of touring on his own.

Of course, and to bounce off what Hey Jude mentioned, that's assuming he would even want to shoulder the responsibility of such a thing at this point and that doesn't appear to be the case. 

...and prior to teaming up with Brian these past few years, I had always wished Al could join up with Ringo's All-Starr Band because he fits the original concept of that band: an artist/member of a 60's band with some recognizable hits he could perform with the All-Starrs (usually about three per show)...but alas it never happened.

Good to see some of the new/rare cuts survive from the first show.

It looks like the shows are a little shorter now, at least in terms of number of songs. Though that may be in part due to "Feel Flows" being on the longer side.

Kind of a bummer, though, that Al is relegated pretty much to one song in the first set. Not that his turn on the car songs was ever my first pick for tracks for Al to do, but Al seems to be playing vocally an even more minimal part in the shows. His car songs are gone, his vocal turn on "Sail Away" is gone, and instead of getting, say *two* songs in the pre-Blondie part of the set (e.g. "Then I Kissed Her" and "Cotton Fields"), he just gets the one. So he's kinda just getting Cal Saga, Rhonda, and then his parts on the PS songs. Assuming he hasn't been given any leads that Brian previously sang.

At this stage, Matt and Blondie are arguably getting more lead vocal turns than Al. I'd almost assume Al has a cold or something and they're cutting his songs, but the two setlists we've seen so far are identical and nine days apart.

The new additions to the setlist are very cool, but I'm perplexed why Al is being given fewer and fewer leads.

Al's minimal participation has long been vexing.

I have to wonder though, has Al's profile risen considerably since he's been touring with Brian that he could possibly strike out on his own again? Al's first "family and friends" tours were coming off the back of the Beach Boys, but solo Brian appeals to a different kind of crowd that might have passed him over years ago.

ESQ's David Beard joined me for the first part of a multi-part discussion about SMiLE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxTqJ7X__BY

Good interview. Thanks for sharing. Can't wait for part 2!

Thanks so much! 

ESQ's David Beard joined me for the first part of a multi-part discussion about SMiLE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxTqJ7X__BY

"Nothing But Love" and "Just Like Me and You" can stand alongside anything Brian  has had a hand in from the 60's onwards.

I just think it's odd for several members of the band to throw their hands up in the air and call it a day after recording "Soul Searchin'" when they were only a few years removed from having done this:

It's certainly odd to us but not unexpected when, as you mention, the Beckley-Lamm-Wilson project is more where Carl's head was at musically. I could've seen Carl pulling a late-period Peter Cetera, signing with a label like River North and duetting with Az Yet. Of course, to be fair, he would've sounded great doing it.   

The Beach Boys segment only makes up about a minute of this interview, but Gene Sculatti was one of a handful of rock critics who were defending the Beach Boys at a time when Jan Wenner and Ralph J. Gleason were seeking to discredit Brian's genius tag and bury the group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESToSVp3fWQ

It tells quite a different story than "Revolution". I do believe Mike is saying "don't be a martyr". The Boys, and many of their audience, weren't really counterculture figures at all.

Right. And I guess I get that sentiment and can't exactly completely argue with it, but it's oddly the exact same sentiment I would expect being propagated from both law enforcement and this administration, just wrapped up in the context of a pop song.

Actually it's a near identical sentiment to "Revolution" which, at the time, was viewed as an anti-protest song. The Beatles caught a lot of flak for that and the counterculture embraced more committed material like "Street Fighting Man".

I always thought of the lyrics to SDT as a rip off of "Revolution" myself.

John wrote letters to underground papers denying that Revolution was pro- Establishment. He was in favor of the movement, but didn't know whether he was in favor of non-violent or violent protest (as noted by the constant change in the lyrics "when you talk about destruction don't you know that you can count me out, in").  The line about carrying pictures about Chairman Mao was a warning that that would actually harm and undermine the actual movement. This is all documented in Ian MacDonald's REVOLUTION IN THE HEAD and Jon Wiener's books about Lennon. Mike's lyrics say "stay home. Getting your head busted in is not worth it".

Lennon knew very quickly which side of the argument he was going to be on. His fleeting indecision was captured on tape but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. Lennon advocated non-violent protest.
Mike's lyrics reference the Kent State shooting but note that the guards came "battle-dressed" to a peace rally, essentially faulting them for the shooting. Mike is aligning himself with the counter-culture in the song. As these demonstrations continued to escalate into violence and in the climate of the times with cops looking to start riots, telling kids to stay away wasn't a bad idea. It was turning into a set-up. "The police will make sure there's a riot for them to contain,etc".

That said, I wish they had just covered "Riot..." instead. This song always sounds like bandwagon jumping to me.