The most relevant question that has not been asked in this thread is: WHY has Brian "needed" collaborators to finish projects since after Friends?

Brian always used collaborators, his entire career. And it makes sense. Very, very few individuals in music history - at least before the rise of infinite-track digital recording technology - did what Brian did. He was the writer, producer, arranger, *and* performer of his best work. It's just a lot, and Brian always depended on having talented people around to finish up the lyrics, contribute to the instrumental arrangements, sing some of the songs, etc. And unfortunately, "how good were the collaborators" is simply a major determinant of how fully Brian has ever been able to express his talent. I mean, Van Dyke Parks and the Wrecking Crew! Or Carl and Dennis Wilson ca. 1969! These are the kinds of collaborators you dream about! Joe Thomas... talented man in many, many respects and I'm not knocking him, especially as a co-writer, but if Brian's contributions to Imagination had been matched with a more artistically and less commercially driven sensibility, it could have been an absolutely incredible record.

The thing that stands out to me about Brian's solo work, is that he is obviously still capable of writing, arranging, producing, and even singing at a level damn close to his 1960s peak. He just can't seem to pull it all out for the same song. The arrangements and performances on the Gershwin album are stunning. Some of the songs on That Lucky Old Sun are breathtaking. But in my opinion, only on a few tracks, Melt Away, the suite at the end of That's Why God Made the Radio, have we gotten world class Brian performances on top of world class Brian songs with world class Brian arrangements and production. And for the suite, having the other Beach Boys there to share the vocals was a not-inconsiderable part of that.

But honestly, I am just so happy and feel so lucky that we have any of it! Any new Brian songs, any new Brian arrangements, any new Brian productions! They don't need to be perfect, because the inspiration and unique sensibility Brian brings to music seems to always find a way to shine through, and no matter how good or bad or involved or uninvolved the collaborators are, that is the magic ingredient, and Brian still has it in spades.

I’m referring to completion of work, not creative collaborators.

Why has Brian needed help finishing things since the late 60s? That was when he became severely mental ill and was received the first in a series of treatments that damaged his brain. No more and no less.

The concept that some nefarious outside forces are hiding or obscuring Brian’s great work is bullshit. I have been fortunate enough to know folks on his orbit — as have many here — and everyone would be thrilled if he created a bunch of masters on his own. He has the band, money, and record company interest to do so. The fact that he hasn’t — beyond the great work he’s actually done with collaborators — proves the point.

Well there’s lots more on that point, and I’m not certain the “severely mentally ill” angle is a stand-alone element.

I put “needed” in quotes because I don’t believe he needed any outside “help” to finish a project. I am not sure he was particularly interested in finishing projects after Friends, with some exceptions here and there, like “Break Away” and 15 Big Ones. He liked starting them and participating in many I’m sure.

And I don’t blame him. Carl finished Love You for whatever reason. Then Brian himself finished the next record, and it was rejected. So we got MIU instead of Adult Child? Yet you say blaming “nefarious forces” is bullshit. That’s ignoring a big part of the story IMO.

I think Dean said the song was “counter-parody”.

I’m not so sure- why would he record “Eve of Destruction” on the same album if he was so serious about “Universal Coward”? The “message” of each song seem like polar opposites.

I haven’t had Folk N Roll for awhile, but my take when I bought a copy a few years back was that both tracks sounded like parodies. No idea if Jan really believed and/of felt strongly about “Universal Coward”, but I just kind of passively assumed it was like “let’s put on a protest song, and a protest of a protest song”. I might be naive on this because I haven’t really studied Jan & Dean. The main reason I thought Jan was right wing was because Dean seems to be super right wing these days. But then I hear Dean refused to be part of “Universal Coward”, and things get murky. Of course, Dean may have been anti war in the ‘60s or just averse to making a political statement of any kind.

I think PF Sloan might have noted something about this topic in his autobiography, but I can’t recall and I don’t have it anymore. Something about Jan’s political leanings being at odds with his but they were friends? *in relation to “eve” and/or “soldier” (he was involved with the Folk N Roll record).

I know you guys might think I’m nuts but … you know who I think was the producer who got closest to Spector?

SONNY BONO

I can’t find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and it’s not exactly an “easy” movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US … and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isn’t it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.

Yes, those are the stories I'm referring to I believe. "Boycott" is probably the wrong word- but some people seemed to hate it so much, it was semi-not released originally?

I can’t find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and it’s not exactly an “easy” movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US … and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isn’t it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

I think that while the actual results were not as good, Jan was ahead of a Brian as a producer in 1963, for instance. Thing is, Brian quickly moved along and Jan kind of stayed where he was.

RE: “Universal Coward”- presumably, Jan Berry was a right-wing kinda guy … but I would also think it could be something as simple as “wouldn’t it be clever to make a protest protest song?!?” kind of thing.

… also the ‘66 records Del Shannon did are two of my all time faves. Total Commitment and This is My Bag. Consistently cool sounding and some undiscovered gems in there, like this one:

https://youtu.be/74ruahZ66-k

Yeh I guess I’m using “artistry” in a particular way- meaning the shift beginning in 1965 to the pop musician as ARTIST. Seems like Jan & Dean were “exposed” as mere entertainers when Highway 61, Revolver, and Pet Sounds were out- but J&D were doing Popsicle and Batman.

But I do think Jan was a very creative and innovative producer, in his way. I just think his way was so of the time and place (‘60s SoCal) that it doesn’t make a lot of sense in the context of how the ‘60s are perceived by most today.

I think The Further Adventures of Charles Westover proves that Del Shannon was a serious musical force. As you say, unrecognized in this way. But he was a great songwriter and a big influence on people in a way that is maybe not realized. I don’t think it’s easy to put him into a box or a soundbite (“he was the guy to do XYZ”).

I think it’s hard to put Jan & Dean into context of the ‘60s groups, today.

They really never had true artistry. It seemed like the goal was commercialism and good times. It’s hard to juxtapose Jan Berry the creative, even groundbreaking producer w/ Jan Berry, the guy who re-used Barry McGuire’s exact backing track on his own semi-parody version of “Eve of Destruction”. In what universe would someone like Dylan, or even Del Shannon do that?

I have to say, Del Shannon is really and truly underrated. To me, he’s top 10 all time artists.

The issue w/ Jan & Dean is not one of off-key singing IMO. It's that they never really seemed to have had true artistic vision- it just seemed like guys having fun making silly records in many cases.

It's not about the singing IMO. I think many of the Jan & Dean records are really actually just great.

The 1968 Carnival of Sound sessions feature neither Jan nor Dean singing on most tracks. Yet they still sound like Jan & Dean. It's really just how Jan Berry produced records that make them what they are. Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2HLMvsRGp4

Personally, I find this 1972 track by Jan Berry (w/ him singing) to be moving and emotive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzWtjcVfr5I

In fact, I think the post-accident fragility in his voice makes this track really poignant.

IMO, it's never been about Brian's capability- it's his desire and drive to complete a project.

The most relevant question that has not been asked in this thread is: WHY has Brian "needed" collaborators to finish projects since after Friends?

The answer as far as I can tell is either Brian does not have an interest in completing projects, or the projects as he would wish to complete are thwarted by outside forces who deem his version of completed as somehow unacceptable. Adult Child, "Everything I Need", the Paley tracks. Tons of examples over the years of things that are "too weird" or too demo-like, or with "bad singing" etc. ... yet by all accounts, those are things that Brian was doing his own way.

Why was the session in which Brian got together w/ Tony Asher, Hal Blaine, and his daughters ... and ran through a track that sounded just like classic Brian Wilson, not released? Why did we get a limp piece of crap instead?

Conceptually, this does sound kind of … uneventful?

However I listened to that “God Ohly Knows” clip, and it was very nice and moody, good feelings in it. So I’m in the yes it’s BW camp. Not particularly excited about it but would be nice to listen to while sitting at a coffee shop or bookstore maybe.

That said, the issue here is- no matter how it’s disguised, the letdown is it’s another release of one of The Beach Boys playing Beach Boys hits. I don’t think this is what people had in mind when wishing for a “Brian at the piano” album.

So I’m not down on it, but it’s a bit of a shrug for me. At worst, it’s strikes a little like the symphony record in that it could be perceived as a contrived angle to release a new record.

Thanks Craig for your posts on this topic. I was on the "other forum" engaging in some interesting debate, but was not getting very far considering the sort of anti-"conspiracy"/anti-Manson blinders some of the posts there seem to reveal.

To me, it seems just as bad to throw out skepticism in the spirit of "that's just some crazy conspiracy theory" as it is to see crazy conspiracy theories everywhere.

I wanted to chime in on the "maybe they were just friends" angle. I think this is something that gets thrown aside. If we think about people in the '60s in this scene, things were pretty different. We have stories like the ones from Bob Burchman, we have people like Steve Kalinich getting involved- these were guys who were unknown and the Beach Boys began working with, simply because they liked then and liked their poetry, etc. I don't see why we can't put Manson at least somewhat into this boat.

Another example I think is interesting is Mike Love's association with Craig Smith/Maitreya Kali. This guy was just about as out there as Manson, if not more so at one point. Yet Mike was hanging out with him and considered a pretty good friend. Even into 1971, there's a story that Craig was visiting Brian's house. By all accounts, Craig Smith was behaving very very strangely, and was apparently pretty unstable by this time. And this is post-Manson ... yet here's this guy hanging out at Brian's.

We should also consider the behavior of the group themselves at this time. Dennis was probably pretty out there himself, and think about those stories from Mike in the Steven Gaines book, around 1970 when he was fasting. Not to mention Brian. I think in the context of these guys who ... might have been considered pretty weird- Manson was another weird dude hanging out (up to a certain point).

As someone who is generally considered to be a weird guy myself, it doesn't seem that weird to me.

I read this last summer, and wrote this song about it:

https://youtu.be/lHnWb4B4TSA

409

Capitol did promote "409" over "Surfin' Safari" in the heartland of the US. It charted at #76, so it did similar business nationally to "Surfin'".

Oh yeh that’s true. Well it was the A-side originally I believe.

409
Farmer’s Daughter
Catch a Wave
Hawaii
Then I Kissed Her
Salt Lake City

… and: Seasons in the Sun. If the group had released this in 1970-1, I believe it would have been a huge hit, but probably not for tbe crowd they were looking toward at that time. I think it would have been a hit in the Partridge Family kind of way, not anything hip.

I think this angle only holds for the pre-1965 albums. Post-1965, you may or may not like the records (or all of the songs), but I don't think any argument can be made that there is "filler" on any of them, or that any of them are "single-backers". There are way way way more tracks left *off* albums post-Pet Sounds than on them.

Regarding the early albums, the ones that have filler are:

Surfin' Safari
Surfin' USA
Shut Down Vol 2.

That's probably it IMO. Little Deuce Coupe has filler in the sense that 4 tracks were recycled semi-hits.

I think this has come up before, and I have to agree with Craig/Guitarfool on this one. Not that I don’t see Maggie’s point … and to her point, I think it’s fair that some of us may be looking through a certain lense, whereas a 15 year old kid might think trends from 5 year ago were worlds away.

But I think if we’re talking pop culture- things like mainstream movies, music, etc … while things have indeed changed- they have changed at a significantly slower pace than previously in the past.

The best example I can think of- and I think about it a lot- is the movie American Graffiti. The movie was set 11 years prior, yet was worlds away from the era it depicted at the time of its release. This move set off a series of nostalgic trends that captured the zeitgeist of the ‘70s in many ways. I think it’s fair to say a trend of nostalgia for the year 2010 capturing the spirit of the mainstream today would be unfathomable. Even if some teenage girls might post about things from 2014 or whatever on TikTok. I have nostalgia for the year 2012-2013 in my personal life- nostalgia is always there for many people. But in terms of culture trends and markers of the era, we have been at a point of very slow change and what I would call stagnation for 20-30 years in many ways IMO.

Getting back to The Beach Boys- the distance between Smiley Smile and Summer in Paradise is the same distance as Stars and Stripes and today. Yet the production values of Stars & Stripes are not much different than a record made today.

I feel like this thread got way off on a tangent and it was partly/mainly my fault, getting into the weeds of the value of academic study of popular music, and we haven't really been discussing Joshilyn's premise.

I think the issue I have with the idea is twofold:

1> It was presented as a "return" to certain kinds of song form or orchestration but actually it's always seemed to me that those elements were vestigial survivals in Brian's art rather than something he "added in" as he matured: just listen to how the strings are arranged on "The Surfer Moon," it's pure Lawrence Welk, and that's where Brian's arranging started from (although I know he had help on those pieces). When Brian became more "authentic" about expressing his individuality in orchestrations, that lineage is much less apparent, except when he's doing style pastiche like the bossa arrangement of "Busy Doin' Nothin'". And indeed, although pieces like "Summer Means New Love" and "In the Back of My Mind" use more or less conventional section arrangements (albeit interesting ones), the strings after 1965 are used much more idiosyncratically, less as a "section." Even Pet Sounds reserves string section arrangements for isolated episodes that sound influenced by Max Steiner more than they do anything from jazz/pop per se, even though there are lots of string parts throughout. This increases with Smile and Brian doesn't really get back into using strings as a "section" until things like "Our Sweet Love."

Similar things could probably be said about the use of horns.

2> The vestigial survival of what we might call the "Welkian" arranging elements in Brian's early orchestrations are very specific and personal to his background, and I don't think Jan Berry's background or Spector's background or Jack Nitzsche's background were comparable. Spector and Berry were both mainly concerned with "functional" orchestration, i.e. with generating sonic effects on the radio. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course, like the Latin elements Spector liked to use.) Brian learned how to do that from both of them, but his use of orchestration for style purposes (rather than functional purposes) was based on his own personal context, i.e. his dad.

Thank you for this -- I'd much rather talk about the idea than the merits of academics.

I think you've hit upon a good point, that in and of itself might be worth exploring, and one could look narrowly at just Brian, or more broadly: A dynamic tension, perhaps, between the stock influences you mentioned, and the genuinely original-leaning impulses of the arranger/producer.  Indeed, the "less apparent lineage" is the one that is interesting to me, and sort of what I'm talking about when I'm talking about developing a vocabulary; you know, where did some of that stuff come from?  And what brought it out?  Clearly, as you say, Brian never really was without that Welkian/Murry Wilsonian impulse, and in some ways never did fully move past it.  But when he transcended that, where was that coming from?

Part of my working answer to that at the moment is that the studio musicians brought it out of him, and that is really a big part of the full premise behind the direction I would take something like a full study.  In fact, I see my project's protagonist as the studio musicians, and Brian as a sort of featured auxiliary character.  Come to think of it, your point about Nitzsche and Berry is useful because I think I need those people in the narrative to provide a certain amount of context.  Nitzsche took arranging classes, and Jan Berry came by his arranging skills in a fairly formal way, even if he was semi-self taught.  My inclusion of those two and their ilk in this conversation links them with Brian in a specific way, viz. I think that when they were arranging their music, they considered themselves to be doing a certain kind of music, writing a chart that was not Jazz, was not Classical, but distinctly "pop" whatever that meant to them at the time.  But Brian was effectively musically illiterate, so he didn't write charts (as such).  I wonder if some of his innovations were borne out of the translation effort from his singing parts at musicians to their perception of it and their attempts to get what he wanted.  So what started as a Welkian thing in Brian's mind ends up getting morphed into something a little more murky, lineage-wise, after essential playing musical telephone games.  But yeah, I do wonder where something so unique as, say, the duet between the pizzicato contrabass and the Fender bass on the verses of Here Today comes from.  Totally unique.

Ultimately, that was a bit of a ramble.  But again I appreciate your engagement, maggie.

My opinion (which might be over simplistic and/or controversial) on what separated Brian Wilson from the sort of “stock” arrangements or production values of the time are:

1. Spirituality. This might not be something easy to study in an academic sense, but it is hard to deny this was a major driving force in his work 1965-67. Loosely related would be the sort of mysticism that would mark a lot of the work of the era immediately following.

2. Full integration of strings from a production standpoint. Even more that Spector, Brian did not add “string arrangements” on top of whatever the underlying bed was. The strings were fully and completely integrated into the song, arrangement, and most of all the production. There are almost no other examples of this from the period. It’s Brian’s version of the wall of sound, but even Spector used strings as icing floating over the track, and Brian never did. They were the meat and potatoes. Contemporary reviews of Pet Sounds would say things like “out of tune prettiness” or sickly etc.

3. Artistry. Brian Wilson was an absolute artist. His art was completed sound. His peers were Jan Berry and Phil Spector, neither of whom were artists in this way IMO.

Curt Boettcher is a good call out. I think he’s probably the closest to Brian, but I think that’s probably more of a Brian influence kind of situation.

I think the style  you’re referring to continued on in TV show soundtracks and certain kinds of movies until around 1971. One element that will probably go unnoticed is: that style could not continue beyond the 8-track era, from a technical standpoint IMO.

That’s a pretty odd choice to promote the set ... a 15 Big Ones-era live track w the horns, etc? Not ‘69-‘71 era, and not really one of their better live performances or periods for live shows either IMO.

A very odd choice indeed. As a hard-core fan I can certainly appreciate it, but it's just a strange choice on every level, I don't think this choice of a teaser single will get one additional person to purchase the box. I'm not dissing it though, it's a good performance and I've always liked this song, although I'm sure it's not one of the best tracks on the entire box, and perhaps they're just really trying to keep the best stuff under wraps for now.

My guess would be the powers that be were really trying to be diplomatic about giving a spotlight to each of the band members and their own songs. That may well have been some contractual thing. Or maybe it's just some sort of a directive from marketing to showcase each member and this song was chosen because somebody working on this it happens to like it. But my guess is that Al gave it a thumbs up and then he probably still has an affection for his own song.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea of the ‘69-‘71 set including live performances of songs from the era but performed in other eras. I don’t get that ... I’d rather hear, say- “Country Air” as it was performed in 1970 ... just seems to me that the continuity and vision for the set would be better served with that than a 1989 performance of “This Whole World” ending the original Sunflower LP. One man’s opinion. Possibly a cost-saving measure to include dupes of the same songs, in terms publishing $$$.

That’s a pretty odd choice to promote the set ... a 15 Big Ones-era live track w the horns, etc? Not ‘69-‘71 era, and not really one of their better live performances or periods for live shows either IMO.

I'm guessing none of you ever saw this group. Only one original member - Paul Revere - even though the other guys were all in the band for 20+ years - some right up to Paul's death in 2014.
I constantly see complaining on facebook about "that's not the original group". The funny thing about that is, the people who they think of as the original Raiders were not, they just happened to be the guys who were in the band when they made it big in the mid 60's. The original guys were from Caldwell, Idaho, and started in 1958. Paul was drafted in 1961, the group broke up, then he put together a new band in 1962.
Aw, but who cares about details like that, it's more fun just to complain a lot on social media.

Well you said it though- it’s about who the public knows. That group did not include the guy who sang the hits.

Reminds me of the Grass Roots ... the original “band” was basically PF Sloan, then they hired an SF group to be the band, then fired them and hired a new group of guys- who became famous. I think there have been like 50 guys in that “band” since, and somehow “they’re” still touring- with no one who has any affiliation to anyone resembling an original member or original recording.

In 1993, when I was 14- I sent all of the Beach Boys fan letters, and Carl was the only one to respond. He sent me this: