Or as my father used to call it, lying. 

We don't do "poetic license" here. We do facts. You loose.

AGD GRAMMAR MISTAKE ALERT "You LOOSE"  Methinks maybe he should have used LOSE.

Rather than a grammar mistake it's an orthography mistake actually, but that, of course, is too hard to spell for you.

For interested residents of Germany: In the ZDF videotext there's 7 pages about Mike for his birthday today. A couple of wrong dates, but defensively and with tongue in cheek referring to the Brian/Mike antagonism with mentioning of the upcoming autobiographies. NPP is also mentioned.

Brian only got 6 pages for his 70th birthday!

No lap my prick = … well, y'know who.

No, I don't, I'm really bad with anagrams.

December 21, 1962

Singing Happy Birthday to Carl on his 16th birthday.

While thinking up songs to put on Surfin´ U.S.A.



You've got a great birthday!  Know who shares mine? ... ... ... Mickey Mouse.

Me too... which year were you born?

In case you're able to see German TV, the German version of that episode airs this Monday night, 7. März, at 20:15 hours. My recorder will be set.

And BTW, totally OT: I read a great joke yesterday. How many Germans does it take to change a light bulb? One, we're efficient and we don't have a sense of humor!

Ah a new interview.

I'd like to invoke gripes 3, 76, 32(a) and 45(a, ii)…

… and round off with joke 465 - that always gets a laugh!

  That's how to do it John.   

No, no, no, no, no, it should be gripes 4, 39(b) and 54 of course! And joke 284 would fit much better here. Why does it always have to be joke 465??? John, you're just dead wrong.

I know I shouldn't respond to your posts but are you saying there are actually people who, based on just ideology that rare taste is superior, deliberately pick up the most unpopular choices even if they don't really like those choices? I don't see how it works.

They don't really lie to you, they rather lie to themselves.

Just listened back to back Vigotone bootleg (track 24) and this "acetate".
Sounds same, at least to me! Maybe I have wrong ears!  

I agree with Nile, sounds the same to me.

Great bootleg though, some bits on there have never appeared elsewhere. Like the Good Vibrations rough mix with some scatters of the vocals from the final version.

I listened to Vigotone bootleg track 24 now, and the Hawaiian chant is indeed the same as on the alleged acetate om vimeo. It still doesn't sound like any of the boys to me, but as I said, I may be wrong.

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down. I missed all shows of this theme week, but I saw it all here.

The upside of the internet, information, communication and exchange, gets out of view sometimes, but gladly, there's still a few threads here like that as well. Look for the shorter ones.

I've been following this thread only very loosely, because it kind of takes the fun out of being a Beach Boys fan. This thread is way too depressing to me to participate. Finally some wise words were spoken this last day, up to then, of the random selection of the few posts I actually read, this was the only one I enjoyed:

How many Beach Boys fans does it take to change a light bulb?

Two.

One to change the light bulb.

One to blame Mike Love for the old light bulb burning out. 

 

I'm so sick of all these people at each other's throats.

Nope Tom, this one! Listen how when it gets to the Hawaiian part it becomes Double Tracked, never heard that before.

https://vimeo.com/153445491

I might be wrong of course, but when I first heard that "double tracking" my first thought was the guy who posted this had overdubbed his own voice onto it. Or anybody else, but to me it doesn't sound like one of the boys' voices.

I have to get back to this once more as I have been accused of being disrespectful and having "issues" which isn't true. I had been thinking of taking it to PMs but decided against that because if I'm on the wrong track maybe some of the other posters on this thread will be kind enough to tell me so. Some posters have confided me their sympathy with my points over the weekend, but other third party views are welcome.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here..

So, who's been talking about board moderation? Only you brought that up. I didn't. I was reflecting my perceptions oft your conduct in parts of this thread to you, but you don't consider them or explain to me what you really meant as I obviously got it wrong.

If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Some of your actions here are unwelcome to me, too. There's several instances where I found you to be not respectful at all. In what world is it respectful to just claim something and when asked for the source just go "Look for it, take more effort" - that's not what I would call camaraderie, that's condescending. And that is something I do have an issue with. Or do you find this respectful:

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.

Oh, so you choose to use sarcasm to discredit Cam? Is that quote not a "complaint", what you accused me of? GF, it's really too bad that you keep getting back to this style of discussion when people disagree with you, because you are very knowledgable and should not take disagreeing as a personal insult. That's how it seems sometimes to me. Maybe I'm just too sensitive and not tough enough to deal with this kind of behavior. It seems you have cooled down a bit in the last few days and I appreciate that. Still, I'll drop out of this discussion - the one about the situation of the band in summer 1967 and what led to the installation of the home studio - because I'm kind of emotionally drained right now.

Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

Et tu, Micha?  And I thought we were internet friends....

Why do you guys (you know who you are) keep pickin' on me by name?  (doe eyes)

I don't call you guys out by name over your half-assed theories and conspiracies that nobody else is buying. (granite jaw set)

Cam, I'm sorry if I did hurt your feelings with that, I don't know if I did, as you added that blinking smiley, but if so I apologize - I was just pointing out that while some of your opinions on this thread have not convinced a lot of people a certain poster got really upset as if everybody was readily agreeing. Probably I've been wording it badly, my excuse is of course that English is not my first language. Though I don't agree with some of your opinions I do respect them and appreciate your calm discussion style that doesn't take to emotional accusations when people disagree with you.

Not this time around, but Brian was praised in the introductory clip in which Mike and Bruce heavily praise Pet Sounds.

Mike and Bruce were there. Anyone care to give a overview of Mikes speech? The translation drowns him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2uckN9U6Vo

After repeated listens (recorded the show myself) I think I got most of it. The interpreter makes actually quite a few mistakes, claiming Carl was the lyricist of GOK which Mike didn't say of course.

At first Mike tells something I didn't know yet, that the German translation of "In My Room" into "Ganz allein" was done by a female piano teacher from Germany living "up the road", can't hear whether in Hawthorne or Inglewood. Then he ties in with what was said in the introductory clip, that GOK was Paul McC's favorite song. "The person who sang the lead on GOK is with us every night on stage, even though he passed away in 1998, this day (night?) 18 years ago, so this is for Carl Wilson", thus dedicating the award to Carl. The show was on Feb 6.

His voice though is in really bad shape. I think in the musical segment there even was autotune (or a similar product) on Mike's voice. It wasn't two months ago on the night of the proms show, though it didn't really sound better then.

No need.  If you're not a fan of the record, no need to listen to it again to point out the specific vocal moments you weren't happy with.  I was just curious.

But so I did. It helps that I find the vinyl more bearable, in part due to a better song sequencing.

Right on the first song, Brian's voice gets very thin on the line "if we could hold onto this feeling", also on "One kind of Love", especially on the line "I couldn't hear my heart calling out to you". He does a solid lead on "Runaway Dancer", though. I then put on TLOS, and in comparison those vocals seem strong, confident, full, phrased with expression and emotion in his voice, while on NPP Brian's voice seems thin, fragile, insecure, and having to put so much effort in the pitch control he doesn't manage to put much emotion into it. At least that seems so to me. Good he used so many guest lead vocalists.

I've once lain around in Austria too.

Oops.  Fixed the typo.

Thanks

But now my post is absolutely pointless! 

What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.

This is exactly what I said:

But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam

"if you choose". Make sure you read my words correctly before accusing me of something.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here.

If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Line drawn.

Now we can get back to talking about the Smile issues people want to read and discuss.

I see our perceptions of each other's words differ strongly.

I've once lain around in Austria too.

Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics.

It seems significant to me that we have SMiLE era lead vocals only for those songs that were reworked for Smiley: H&V, Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Wonderful. Obviously there was no problem with those lyrics. The unused tracks - CE, SU, DYLW - all have no 1966 lead vocals, maybe because those were the questioned lyrics.

Brian said, both at the time and many times later, that he junked SMiLE because of concerns about it 'not being right for the Beach Boys' or 'not being commercial enough'.

Well, that's just making excuses, or trying to deliver an official version of things to cloud what was going on behind the scenes. The point is that in the Smiley recording mode the other boys were working WITH Brian rather than FOR Brian.

What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.

Or maybe they'd leave it up if you give the file a misleading name? I'd love to hear it with strings, that song yearns for strings. I'm unhappy with the 1971 cobbled together version, they just should have overdubbed strings.

I think Brian sang very well on TLOS and was particularly stellar on "Midnight's Another Day". A great vocal indeed. On TWGMTR he was okay except for some places, on NPP I wasn't that happy with his performances.

I'm not trying to try or condemn your opinion.  But can you elaborate on your disappointment in Brian's vocals on NPP?  Personally, I think the vox are on the same level of TLOS or TWGMTR, and maybe even better in places. 

Thanks for not condemning my opinion. It's just when I first listened to it I thought at various spots "This vocal performance doesn't sound good, he tries something here he was able to in years past but cannot do anymore in a way that sounds good." I'm aware this is an opinion, that's why I worded it "I wasn't happy with the singing" rather than "his singing was not very good". And it worked! If you want to know which places those were in particular, I'd have to listen to it again which I rarely ever do.

I think Brian sang very well on TLOS and was particularly stellar on "Midnight's Another Day". A great vocal indeed. On TWGMTR he was okay except for some places, on NPP I wasn't that happy with his performances.

Well-see my above quotes-it's clear that there were discussions about direction, commercial appeal, etc.  It's also clear that at some point it was decided that future records would be "Produced by the Beach Boys" and that had to be a conversation.....or maybe not. One gets the feeling that this band didn't communicate well-things were often left unspoken.

It took me a long time to type what I typed, I didn't read your post before I submitted mine, but I am happy to see it consistant with what you posted.