I think Andrew might have been thinking of someone who was higher up on the food chain in the fan community rather than someone “famous”. It also sounds like something that the person in question had said to Andrew in a private conversation rather than a formal interview.

But if I had to guess, my guess that the person who said that might have been someone who was close to David and Peter Reum.  Maybe Derek Bill or Bob Hanes (he hated Mike Love but was good friends with Stan… go figure).

The "too near faraway place" folks are just getting into their talking points about this surprising development--a sit-down interview with Mike Love conducted by David Leaf as part of his "Good Vibrations" class at UCLA, which seems to have occurred last week...

'As is usual for certain folk at that somewhat ironically named message board, inflammatory bon mots too tempting to pass up. Example: "If MIKE LOVE can forgive David Leaf..."
(But to be fair to that poster, the rest of the sentence reads "...so can some of you.") [/b] And of course, "lawyer girl" is in what us baseball fans like to call "mid-season form" regarding this matter, supplying some comic relief in the form of (her strange take on) David's "bias," which--as is often the case--goes off into some non-sequitur oriented tangents.

Let's hope we can see this unexpected but most welcome development soon in its entirety, which will permit everyone to draw more comprehensive conclusions concerning a momentous moment in the "insider's world" of the Beach Boys.

That was me who made that comment and I meant every single word.  David takes an unfair beating on that board and I was just reminding them that their hero doesn’t hate him as much as they do.

Thanks for your comment Robbie Mac. It was apt to note 'so can SOME of you' [my caps] because not all there are capable of reassessing their bias. AGD was unusually reticent but then he did make a contribution to David's book though I reckon even someone who hadn't attended the premiere could have described it just as well!

Well, Andrew and David have a long, mostly positive history with each other.  A lot of fans forget how anti-Love AGD had been in the pre-internet era.

Is David Leaf even aware of all the absolute sh*t and slander that was flung specifically at Melinda Wilson in the past 20 years and who was doing it?

David had other priorities in his life during that period.

The "too near faraway place" folks are just getting into their talking points about this surprising development--a sit-down interview with Mike Love conducted by David Leaf as part of his "Good Vibrations" class at UCLA, which seems to have occurred last week...

'As is usual for certain folk at that somewhat ironically named message board, inflammatory bon mots too tempting to pass up. Example: "If MIKE LOVE can forgive David Leaf..."
(But to be fair to that poster, the rest of the sentence reads "...so can some of you.") [/b] And of course, "lawyer girl" is in what us baseball fans like to call "mid-season form" regarding this matter, supplying some comic relief in the form of (her strange take on) David's "bias," which--as is often the case--goes off into some non-sequitur oriented tangents.

Let's hope we can see this unexpected but most welcome development soon in its entirety, which will permit everyone to draw more comprehensive conclusions concerning a momentous moment in the "insider's world" of the Beach Boys.

That was me who made that comment and I meant every single word.  David takes an unfair beating on that board and I was just reminding them that their hero doesn’t hate him as much as they do.

Thanks for your comment Robbie Mac. It was apt to note 'so can SOME of you' [my caps] because not all there are capable of reassessing their bias. AGD was unusually reticent but then he did make a contribution to David's book though I reckon even someone who hadn't attended the premiere could have described it just as well!

Well, Andrew and David have a long, mostly positive history with each other.  A lot of fans forget how anti-Love AGD had been in the pre-internet era.

[As is usual for certain folk at that somewhat ironically named message board, inflammatory bon mots too tempting to pass up. Example: "If MIKE LOVE can forgive David Leaf..."(But to be fair to that poster, the rest of the sentence reads "...so can some of you.")]

The "too near faraway place" folks are just getting into their talking points about this surprising development--a sit-down interview with Mike Love conducted by David Leaf as part of his "Good Vibrations" class at UCLA, which seems to have occurred last week.

Photos and commentary have surfaced at the Beach Boys Reddit feed, and we await word that the interview in its entirety--along with audience questions directed to Mike via David--was filmed and will (hopefully) get posted at You Tube (or some other accessible internet location) sooner than later.

The accounts from those who attended indicate that there were no "fireworks" on display during the interview, something that a portion of fans might expect given the "difference of opinion" between the two men that has been front and center for nearly half a century. It's likely that certain parameters were established ahead of time, and that questions were structured to minimize any potential friction.

As is usual for certain folk at that somewhat ironically named message board, inflammatory bon mots too tempting to pass up. Example: "If MIKE LOVE can forgive David Leaf..."
(But to be fair to that poster, the rest of the sentence reads "...so can some of you.")  And of course, "lawyer girl" is in what us baseball fans like to call "mid-season form" regarding this matter, supplying some comic relief in the form of (her strange take on) David's "bias," which--as is often the case--goes off into some non-sequitur oriented tangents.

Let's hope we can see this unexpected but most welcome development soon in its entirety, which will permit everyone to draw more comprehensive conclusions concerning a momentous moment in the "insider's world" of the Beach Boys.

That was me who made that comment and I meant every single word.  David takes an unfair beating on that board and I was just reminding them that their hero doesn’t hate him as much as they do.

I need to stop listening to this guy's interviews. I suppose on one end, you see who these people really are. Truth is always best, of course, but she's just grating here, and I've never heard so much unartful and unnecessary cursing. The host seemed to know more about the band and the music than she did. No offense to those of you who have known, loved, respected Carnie forever. I liked Wilson Phillips. I call them as I see them.

She readily admits she doesn’t have the encyclopedic knowledge of their history and discography. The Michelle Phillips episodes (covering the Mamas & Papas) worked so well because it was Michelle and that group’s major historian/expert jogging her memory.

This is from his social media account.

“ Brian wanted to take his friends to dinner at one of his favorite restaurants, Musso & Franks in Hollywood. Here’s Brian last week with his pals including Don Was, Cameron Crowe, Jason Fine, Brent Wilson, Jerry Schilling & George Dougherty.”

And you may want to edit your last post. In your long winded “debates” one should get the facts straight. Alan did not tour with brian playing smile in the 2004-2005 timeframe you set. Alan started in 2006 with brian. Details matter in “debates”.

This info came from your favorite poster on eh board.

Al first reappeared with Brian in 2006. He wasn't even fully touring with Brian at that stage, as he wasn't showing up at every show, and even at the shows he appeared, he wasn't playing the full show; he would come on a half dozen or so songs into the show as a "Special Guest." He did a few "Pet Sounds" gigs in late 2006 and early 2007, did two of the six Spring 2007 US "European warm up" shows, and disappeared again until 2013. I think I counted at one point, and it was something like 11 or 12 shows Al did with Brian in 06/07.  

Al appearing with Brian in 2006 probably *is* at least tangentially related to Mike's 2004/05 "Smile" lawsuit though, as buried in Mike's suit is a mention of Brian threatening to yank Mike's license and tour with Al Jardine as "The Beach Boys." It's probably not a coincidence that Al not too much later showed up and did some gigs with Brian. But all of that was just posturing.

Al joining up with Brian in 2006 was not a kumbaya sort of moment, though. I suspect they agreed to Al doing some gigs for the aforementioned internecine political reasons, and Al joined up because he had little else on his schedule and wanted to get back playing with *somebody*. Al supposedly was not even paid for those 06/07 gigs with Brian; Al supposedly paid all of his own expenses. Which probably helps to explain why it didn't last very long. But that's a whole other topic of course...

But it is true that Mike's "Smile" lawsuit was weirdly and perplexingly extra nasty in how it talked about Al Jardine, who, as correctly mentioned in a previous post, was not even a party to the lawsuit. Had it not had the protection of being verbiage in a court filing, if it had been published in a book or magazine or something, those comments I think could have easily been grounds for a libel lawsuit from Al. But again, mostly a separate topic. But I think it does speak to the weird and misplaced (and ultimately proven legally unsound) vitriol Mike had towards Brian regarding that "Smile" project at that time.

Yes I misspoke about Al "publicly touring and playing Smile with Brian", it should have been worded differently. As HeyJude said, it was the Pet Sounds live shows in 2006 where Al was publicly seen playing with Brian again.

The rest of what I said stands. I would only add that Mike's 2005 lawsuit specifically mentions Brian's live performances (including those of the Smile music) causing damage to Mike's touring operation, i.e. his bottom line financially.

And as the bomber crews used to say in WW2, the flak gets heaviest when you're over the target.

But, but, but you got one fact wrong, therefore your entire argument must be thrown out!!!*




*According to the Great Historian who would have made a terrific defense lawyer.

I see the subject of  "is BWPS really SMiLE?" has been tackled again.
It's always a good question.

My opinion is that it IS. BWPS is SMiLE.
Though, I always found unfortunate that "Brian Wilson Presents" was prefixed to it, as it will allow, until the end of time, to claim that the prefix shows that BWPS is NOT SMiLE. Rather absurd imho, a bit like saying that "a white rabbit is not a rabbit", but it's what it is.

Another objection, in the good times when BWPS was loved by most, used to be that Brian, in any case, had no right to say that BWPS was SMiLE. The reasoning behind this presumed loss of authorship by Brian has been never been clear, but I suspect it has something to do with Brian's mental health.

But probably the main objection was that BWPS, in any case, was not THE SMiLE, the one which was not released in 1967. Actually, this is obviously right. But then there was the conclusion that, on that ground, BWPS was some kind of travesty with no right to be called SMiLE. In other words, imperfect reality (BWPS) should never win over perfect fantasy. Again, it's what it is.

I remember well the heated discussions about the "legitimacy" of BWPS. Nostalgia, now that people often seem to talk of SMiLE like BWPS did not even exist, and the memory of the "happy end" which had grown people cry of joy in 2004 is progressively fading away.

Which is interesting since David’s book will be focusing a lot of its space on 2004.

I could get behind the idea that BWPS is not SMiLE if Van Dyke not have come back to do the significant work that he did.  It was originally just going to be a concert set list.  But Van coming back and essentially helping Brian re-write a lot of the unreleased stuff changed the nature of what was going to be presented. Was it how Brian had envisioned it in 1966? Probably not. But that doesn’t matter, nor should it. The finished
piece is what matters. And both composers say BWPS is SMiLE, so that should be good enough for everyone.

Lindsay Buckingham: "Even though he (Brian) was the mastermind, he, suddenly, did not have their full support.  And, I think, because it was his family, it made that much more difficult and, perhaps, much more demanding on his psyche.  So many artists who have very, very significant commercial success forget why they got into the business in the first place.  Why they do music.  And now, you are judging your validity through commerce more than anything else."

THIS. And not only regarding the artists, but, it seems, even more regarding "fandom". When people lambast Heroes and Villains because it was not #1
stuff... I understand being DISAPPOINTED by that, but too many BB "fans" seem to have this really maddening mindset: small commercial success = small artistic value.

So, let's dump the Boys altogether: there are far more successful "artists" in 2024, innit?

When Lindsey said that, I immediately thought of his struggle with the rest of Fleetwood Mac to make the Tusk album. If there is anyone who could understand Brian’s mindset during the SMiLE era as an artist, it’s Lindsey Buckingham.

[after explaining the damn lyrics to Jules]

Oh wow. I just found the thread that is being discussed here. My hats off to you, Dan, for getting into that discussion with all those, *giggle*, fans.

Seriously, that entire thread is the perfect example of why this forum is a calm and collected place these days (since a lot of those same people were either banned or left here). For people to claim that Brian supposedly didn't understand the words to 'Surf's Up' based on him saying "maybe they work, I don't know" after explaining the damn lyrics to Jules is mind-blowing to me. And then the same poster later gets on your case because you supposedly read too much into Brian saying "I don't know"

I mean, we're talking some pretty obvious allegorical lyrics, these aren't trigonometry formulas. Also, look at the books Brian was reading at the time; to claim he wasn't able to understand these lyrics is downright laughable. Granted, when you're of the same sect of the fandom that doesn't bat-an-eye at calling Brian 'brain damaged', you're probably going to give Brian far less intellectual credit than he deserves.

To be honest, this may very well prove Brian's point: some fans may not get the words - even the words Brian says in a conversation with Jules. To those people, I say: stick to enjoying the music, leave the history and interpretations to the professionals.

Two things really annoy me in that thread:

1) How the great VDP is treated. I won't belabor this point, and just refer to Dan Lega's posts for the details.

2) The usual game of second and third guessing everything Brian ever said, because, you know... Brian is Brian. "You can't believe him when he explains that obscure verbiage by VDP. He is parroting. You know... Brian is Brian."

They’re retconning Young Brian to be the stereotype of Old Brian.

I think that what you said is very near the crux of this matter.
As somebody may remember, I am a big fan of Mike's (and of all the Beach Boys) and am annoyed by "Mike bashing". That does not make me a Mike apologist who thinks that he can never do anything wrong.
I think that the "pushback" from the "other Beach Boys", and probably particularly by Mike, WAS one of the reasons Brian ended scrapping SMiLE.
And... know what? I don't think Mike or any other Boy should be ashamed of that. Questioning some of Brian's artistic choices was well among their rights.
In fact, Brian was right and should have perseverated and completed SMiLE anyway, but sadly he was not in a mental state to do that. But this is not a murder case: nobody murdered anything. Searching for explanations of what happened is NOT the same as searching for one or more "murderers".
And that's the problem with a sizable section of the Beach Boys fandom, historians etc.: they are so keen on acquitting Mike, and any band member EXCEPT Brian, from that bogus accuse of "murdering" SMiLE, that they go to the deep end and PILE every and all responsabilities on Brian, Van Dyke and SMiLE itself.
And they end saying worse than Mike, or anybody at the moment, probably said: i.e., the SMiLE project was deeply flawed anyway, Brian was deeply flawed himself (and in any case out of touch with the "public") and as for Van Dyke... just a self-important wannabe.

In a nutshell: there is something deeply flawed in this matter. But it's not Brian, nor Van Dyke, nor SMiLE, and no... not Mike either, nor any other Beach Boy.

I absolutely get why that part of the fandom are so quick to defend Mike. After all, writers ranging from David Leaf & Dom Priore to Steven Gaines has not be very kind to Mike. But what we have seen is a complete over correction on the SMiLE narrative that’s as distorted as they claim the Brian Good/Mike Bad narrative is.

As far as AGD suggesting that Brian in the Jules Sielgel piece was just “parroting” what Van Dyke told him about the Surf’s Up lyrics is just preposterous.  Brian was much smarter than those people are giving him credit for.

But let’s just kinda go along with what Andrew is saying. It is documented that Brian was very much influenced by the reactions of other people. If people around him are jazzed about whatever project it was, he gets excited about the project. When someone expresses doubt, Brian expresses doubt. If we take Andrew’s suggestion, wouldn’t it make sense that because VDP and the Vosse Posse were excited about SMiLE, that Brian would share in that enthusiasm? And wouldn’t it also make sense that when a certain 1st cousin starts shitting on the lyrics and direction (Mike has never given a clue that he even understood what Brian and VDP were doing, which is odd for a guy who is very articulate and who fancies himself to be good with words), then Brian would start to question what he has been doing?

What a lot of those people and Mike Love apologists don’t seem to get is that while everyone can agree that Brian and only Brian could have scrapped the album, no one seems to want to talk about what contributed to that decision. Because that would involve talking about a certain person in a way that they are uncomfortable with.

I’ve loved that album since the first time I heard it when I was a 16 year old buying his first BB records in 1990. One Banger after banger after banger after another banger. My mom, not a rock fan at all, used to put my copy on when she was doing chores around the house. She swore it was better (read:more fun) than aerobics.

Giggens does not get enough love.
 

https://youtube.com/shorts/_aAhiPJM9Xw?si=6AO7bH4XZkuPhlnu

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.

Carol is being subjected to enough character assassination in the Inclusive Board.
Let's try to be better people and not join in Carol-bashing. It's ugly.
She is a 87 old lady who managed to become a legend in a man-dominated environment. She says some questionable things now and then, so what? Just give her a break.

I said something very similar about Mike, some weeeks ago. As I am no "historian", don't apply two standards.

Some of what Carol has done is steal credits from James Jamerson who is not alive to refute her claims. It’s the BB version of Bernard Purdie claiming to have played on the Beatles records.

I think this thing has not been a ratings juggernaut and hasn't seemed to garner anywhere near the level of attention that a lot of sort of A-list Disney Plus stuff has. 

So maybe this thing will ultimately just kind of fade away relatively quickly, and I'll be a super extra optimist for no particularly good reason and hope that they let Alan Boyd do a recut of Endless Harmony in a year or 2 or 3 rather than a decade.

You mean the kids aren’t making Beach Boys videos on Tik Tok like they did when Get Back came out!

The writer of that article never stated that Mike Love was in editorial control of the film (or had any control over it), nor did he state that Marshall or Love engineered this to be propaganda (unless I missed something in the article), so I don’t know why that’s even being argued here and elsewhere. While Mike didn’t have any editorial control, he is still in control of his own mouth (unless we want to blame Frank Marshall for that, too). It being “propaganda” doesn’t mean it has to be “engineered” by the makers of the film - much like how an interviewer of a newspaper isn’t engineering propaganda by publishing Mike’s 2014 words “Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs”, the interviewer/editor is just unwittingly spreading Mike’s bullsh*t propaganda. Propaganda is just bias/misleading information that promotes a certain point of view…which apparently, according to many people (including Al Jardine), this film is full of.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there are MANY people and factors that are to blame for this film being a dud. But that fact doesn’t conflict with the Decider writer’s point that this film supposedly supports/is Mike Love’s narrative/propaganda. The fact that Al Jardine (who, in case we forgot, is an actual member of the band ‘The Beach Boys’) and many others have said the same thing makes it a hard point to argue with.

While I agree that a film (or any other work) can unintentionally serve as "propaganda", there has to be *intent* on somebody's part to invoke the term "propaganda."

The Decider article, in my opinion, is implying that either the makers of the film, and/or Mike Love had intent to push an agenda. I don't believe Disney or Frank Marshall were competent or put enough effort into this film to have that intent. Their only agenda was laziness and simplicity, and as I've said many times, that simplistic approach to the story absolutely does align at times with Mike's views/agenda. Mike Love certainly has his point of view, an "agenda", and certainly has a vested interest in pushing that in interviews.

So I'm okay with characterizing the doc as a case where the directors/filmmakers' laziness/lack of skill, etc. *allowed* some of Mike's agenda to be aired. And, from there, I think their laziness and lack of craft did most of the work, mostly due to what they *didn't* include.

I don't believe that Decider article makes that type of nuanced point, though. The article is really just sort of telling us what the end result is, and doesn't seem really that interested in trying to figure out *how* this film came out the way it does. I would argue that by inserting the mic-drop line "To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda", a lot of readers will come away with the impression that Mike Love pushed that agenda *in the making* of the documentary (even though, in fairness, the article doesn't assert or describe a scenario where Mike Love is actually involved in the making of it or the editorial process), and/or that the filmmakers were trying to push a Mike Love agenda.

The writer of the article chose to use the term "propaganda", and that has a pretty good amount of heft to it. I don't even think it's necessarily a term that can't be used in this case, but I think it requires a good amount of context that the article didn't provide.

I guess one of the things I feel after reading an article like this is that I'm not interested in praising an article simply because it's overarching point (the doc is bad) is one I agree with, when the reasons they provide are pretty different from mine (and in *some* cases not accurate in my opinion).

There are other bits in the article I don't agree with more just from a rhetorical point of view. For instance, I wouldn't call this doc a "rosy recounting" of the band's history as the article does; it does still get into drugs/Murry/Manson/lawsuits, disagreements over artistic direction).

There are other bits in the article that are important to point out, but incomplete. For instance, I think it *absolutely* is important to not take the ancient point of view, often put forth by Mike over the years, that Brian did drugs because he decided to be a druggie, and that that drug use is what caused all of his problems. The article does point out Brian tapped into drugs to medicate anxiety and mental illness (the article says schizophrenia, which I don't think is the correct ultimate diagnosis, but the point is important and gets across nonetheless). But the article contends Brian dropped acid "only" as a respite from anxiety and mental illness, and I'm not really sure that's the case. I think he also had an interest in it the way, as Al put it in 1998, many writers/artists did at the time.

I understand the frustration with a doc or Mike Love or anybody pushing the bogus narrative that Brian just wanted to be drug-addled, and that caused all of his (and the group's!) problems. But there's no need to overstate the case in the other direction. For years now I've lamented over and over Mike's penchant for just bringing up the Wilson brothers' drug and alcohol abuse with no empathy or understanding, especially after they've all either died or stopped using drugs. BUT, in a *good* documentary (or book, or whatever), I think there's absolutely room to discuss those things, *including* how they impacted the other band members. Because it wasn't easy I'm sure to be in a band where Brian was sometimes toasted and not able to properly communicate, and certainly it was hard at times to deal with Dennis' drinking, etc. That *is* part of the story as well.

The Decider article serves the purpose of warning people that the documentary has serious issues. It feels like an article where it's kind of "right for some of the wrong (or incomplete) reasons." I guess I just feel like my point of view/outlook/taste would lean towards either backing off the heavy, blunt "propaganda" accusation if they're only going to write a very short article like that, or do a deeper dive and give things more context about the source of said "propaganda."

You said this much better than I ever could. “He’s right, but for the wrong reasons” is the best way to process that article.

“Propaganda” is such a loaded word, though. It implies willful deception, which I don’t think fits the description of the film being slanted towards Mike. 

This was not just a bad film. It was a shockingly incompetent film all across the board. It felt like Frank Marshall did the movie because “hey,it would be fun to do a Beach Boys doc!” He knew very little about the subject and it shows in how the principal members were presented.  If it was my film, you would not have current Brian in it at all (it was painful to watch, was completely unnecessary, and it unwittingly highlighted the contrast between current Brian and current Mike).  A more seasoned interviewer with knowledge of their history (like an Alan Boyd or Howie Edelson) could ask Mike good follow up questions that might elicit answers that don’t make him look like a petty asshole.  Don’t get me wrong, Mike Love’s gonna Mike Love. But his side being over represented is the result of Marshall’s and Disney’s incompetence, not the cause of it.

Also, unless I missed something, Irving Azoff was a credited EP and Iconic was among the entitles with vanity cards at the beginning. No Beach Boys were given EP as far as I know.

I have to ask this.

An American Family was 2 parts. How is it that John Stamos can get a 2 part miniseries about the BB made yet Frank Marshall and Irving Azoff can only get a less than 2 hour doc made?

Honestly, a better idea (and maybe a less expensive one, perhaps?) would have been to revisit Endless Harmony, update the audio and the visuals for today’s standards and then do that coda at Paradise Cove to cap Endless Harmony off on a higher note than it did.

I am watching The Beach Boys film on Disney+. Is it my imagination or did they create some of those sound bites with AI? Some of the Brian sound bites sound like they were computer generated.* Ditto for some of the Bruce sound bites. The one sound bite from Paul McCartney talking about Pet Sounds (the quote was from David Leaf’s interview with McCartney for the first Pet Sounds CD) sounded particularly egregious in the AI department.

*Yes, I get why they used old interview footage of Brian.  The one clip you see of current day Brian in the film was very tough to watch.

Brian and Marilyn at tonight’s premiere.

 I think this is the first time I've posted something negative, but I am really disappointed with what I'm seeing from Mike & Bruce's group.  John Stamos and Mark McGrath just bounce around the stage like hyperactive kids.  I think John Stamos literally has to try out every microphone on stage.  They add nothing but nonsense to the show.  I also thought the vocals were quite weak.  The overall sound reminds me of a bar band that really doesn't care that much.  They know that everybody is just there to party.  I really wish the music was being given more respect.  I know Mike and Bruce aren't young anymore, but they could put together a much better show that what they are giving people.

That band took a massive hit when Totten & Cowsill left. It shows it, too.