They didn't make music that radio audiences wanted to buy or hear.

Then explain why many of those singles became hits overseas?

Is the older long haired guy next to Brian the songwriter Eden Abhez?  He was famous for having the hippie hair way back in the '40s.

Yes, that is Eden Abhez.

Not every celeb can be like Joan Rivers.

Thank God for that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESpLbFcL7sk

Skip to 12.35 - Elton talks about Brian's influence on his songwriting with demonstration. Saw this YEARS ago but only just found it. Short but sweet...

What Elton was referring to, Brian used that in Darlin', and he also used that in Surf's Up and I Just Wasn't Mde For These. Times as well.

The Beach Boys sold out long before a lot of you were even born and have sold out many, many times over. 

These, actually, are quite well done.

I understand VDP is only recognized on this board for Smile. But let's be serious, he's not known anywhere in the entire mainstream world for anything but Smile. The only reason that most people even know about his other work is through learning about him via Smile, not from another project. I know that's definitely the case for most of you.

I'll take it a step further. Van Dyke Parks is a relic of the 1960s. He fully immersed himself in the supposed "revolution" of the late 60s and consequently isn't relevant anymore. Because the alleged revolution was a fad. That's one reason why a project like Smile, which is a timeless piece of art, is what he is most known for.

I understand his frustrations with Smile. But I don't know why he needs to slam Brian Wilson at this point in time. Wilson basically revived VDP's career/fame by releasing Smile in two forms over the past 10 years (and offered him a co-writing job for the 2004 project). I agree that Brian Wilson was out of control during that 1966-67 time period (like many other periods). But there's no need to drudge up this kind of negative commentary now. It's old news and seems unnecessarily bitter and vicious.

A supposed revolution  that led to sweeping social and political change. Yep! The 60's  were simply a "fad" weren't they?

If you feed Brian a steady diet of steak & birthday cake served by a pretty young girl, and keep the jukebox stocked with Spector songs, he'll be anything you want for as long as you like. Fact.  

Ka-ching!  Which sums up the bulk of "pro-choicers."  Go with the flow?    I would assume its the pro-life people who've put thought into it.

The most repugnant thing I've read on this board (which is saying a lot).

Anyone else find it funny that "Beautiful Dreamer" comes from a Mike lyric?

Actually it came from Stephen Foster

Yeah, but the fact that the term is used in a Beach Boys tune (no mere coincidence) pretty much er, wait, .... should the Foster Estate sue for credit for those two words??? 

According to Mike Love logic, yes.

Love Andrew's book.

I don't agree with him on everything - the awesome Funky Pretty gets an unexpectedly negative write-up, whereas Looking Back With Love is praised to the skies (what's that about?) - but he more often than not hits the nail on the head and I love his humour. British humour really is the best in the world and Andrew does it well.

I think Andrew was grading LBWL on the curve. He's not saying it is a masterpiece or anything, but that (considering the artist's veteran-era track record) it is a record that he did not expect enjoying.

Even if this did happen, I don't think it illustrates what you fellas think it does. JMO. If you look at the whole picture, Brian is anything but fragile or indecisive. The guy just happened to agree with what Brian was already thinking, otherwise he wouldn't have asked imo.

How would you know what Brian was thinking about Little Honda? If that happened to me and I watched that song become a hit for someone else I would be thinking "I shouldn't have listened to that guy".

[Friends]

Me, I don't hear anything from Friends there. Care to share the title with us ?

"Take all the time you need
It's a lovely night
If you decide to come"

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

No, the apology would be plenty. Trying to explain how the hurt took it wrong reflects  more poorly on the person giving the apology therefore making it obvious that it is insincere. I believe that is what CD is trying to say.

One thing about David's book is that its views permeated subsequent biographies, including the Steven Gaines' book and Brian's ghosted autobiography. That may have more to do with the laziness of the subsequent authors than whatever David wrote, however.  They may have leaned on his research a bit too much and not worked hard enough to find fresh angles (particularly Brian's autobio, which is supposedly heavily plagiarized from it).

And, this is something I think about in addition to Bicyclerider's post above. David Leaf's book was kind of paradoxal. On one hand, it did help build (promote?) Brian's reputation as a genius, a continuing important artist, and a victim. At that time (1978), there were only maybe a handful of magazine articles that ever addressed Brian Wilson in that kind of detail.

At the same time, Leaf's book went places that nobody had previously gone, at least not in that depth. And, I believe it damaged the Beach Boys' reputation. The overwhelming image of harmony and good vibrations now had a documented sleazy side. And I think the group knew it, too. Do you remember that story about Mike running into David Leaf at some function and staring daggers through him. It just seemed that the band was never the same again. Not that Leaf's book was responsible entirely for that, but the proverbial cat was now out of the bag. Leaf's book was the first to air the dirty laundry, and as mentioned above, started a trend of future books which piggybacked on it.

I think, though, the dirty laundry was going to come out eventually.  There were hints of a dark side in some of the press about the BB pre-Leaf (the Rolling Stone profiles, the Nik Kent articles). There was no way they could keep that bottled up forever.

I'm guessing the 80's when Gaines put out Heroes and Villains which still would have happened if there was no David Leaf.  FWIW, even the Osmonds couldn't keep their dirty laundry private forever.

Absolutely, and I was just going to edit my above post to ask that question. If Leaf's book didn't come out in 1978, how long do you think it would've been before the sh-- eventually hit the fan?

One thing about David's book is that its views permeated subsequent biographies, including the Steven Gaines' book and Brian's ghosted autobiography. That may have more to do with the laziness of the subsequent authors than whatever David wrote, however.  They may have leaned on his research a bit too much and not worked hard enough to find fresh angles (particularly Brian's autobio, which is supposedly heavily plagiarized from it).

And, this is something I think about in addition to Bicyclerider's post above. David Leaf's book was kind of paradoxal. On one hand, it did help build (promote?) Brian's reputation as a genius, a continuing important artist, and a victim. At that time (1978), there were only maybe a handful of magazine articles that ever addressed Brian Wilson in that kind of detail.

At the same time, Leaf's book went places that nobody had previously gone, at least not in that depth. And, I believe it damaged the Beach Boys' reputation. The overwhelming image of harmony and good vibrations now had a documented sleazy side. And I think the group knew it, too. Do you remember that story about Mike running into David Leaf at some function and staring daggers through him. It just seemed that the band was never the same again. Not that Leaf's book was responsible entirely for that, but the proverbial cat was now out of the bag. Leaf's book was the first to air the dirty laundry, and as mentioned above, started a trend of future books which piggybacked on it.

I think, though, the dirty laundry was going to come out eventually.  There were hints of a dark side in some of the press about the BB pre-Leaf (the Rolling Stone profiles, the Nik Kent articles). There was no way they could keep that bottled up forever.

Oh and David wrote this about Dennis back in 1984.

http://www.danaddington.com/denny/requiem.html

And he sang on Bambu. That alone makes him cooler than you.

It must be said he has much praise for all the other Beach Boys in his twofer liner notes, especially Dennis.

Yes, indeed. And in his book as well. IIRC, it is the Pet Sounds/Smile and Brian's Back  chapters that are the most biasedin favor of Brian and that is (as someone points out) it is very easy to sympathize with Brian. But he rightfully praises the Boys for picking up the pieces on the road and in the studio during the Brother Years. People do tend to forget that.

I have noticed in my time lurking (and reading old posts) that he and his ideas aren't very popular. I don't want to get into why, but I was wondering if there are people here who feel the opposite.

Personally, I think he is unfairly maligned.

He is a very polarizing figure in the Beach Boys world. Some would also call him destructive. But in the mad rush to refute everything he has claimed, I wonder if there are people here who think that maybe Leaf got it mostly right about Brian and the band?  I know he gets very little love here but there have to be some people who appreciate the stuff he has done whether it be his book, his work on various TV specials, CD reissues, etc. It's not as if we're talking about Geoffrey Guliano! At least Leaf knew the members of the Beach Boys.

Indeed, we do know how much Mike contributed. The main issue, in my mind, is whether or not Mike deserved a writing credit for his contribution. To have a writing credit on WIBN means he co-wrote the song. Does adding 2 lines to the fade out of a song that's entire 'construction', from the melody to the lyrics to the instrumentation, had been done entirely by two other people, count as co-writing it? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve credit, just that it is a dilemma that really boils down to a matter of opinion.

But in the case of Deirdre, we don't know how much Brian contributed. He could have done all of the backing track, or absolutely nothing. Someone should ask Bruce.

His name on the credits means nothing other than that he contributed to the song's released composition and nothing more. It is not a sentence saying "Mike Love sat down and participated in writing this song with Brian Wilson and Tony Asher. It simply means he contributed. Which we know he did.

So lets add every Beach Boy, every Wrecking Crew member and anybody whose feedback Brian sought out to the authorship list for every song they ever did. Hey, they all contributed, right?

That is how songwriting credits are given these days, which is why you will see several people sharing writing credits on current hits.

Another one of those threads that goes endlessly round in circles while going nowhere.

Can we create a permanent "I just plain out dislike Mike" thread where such conversations could eventually sink to the bottom of?

This is not about liking or disliking Mike and you know it.

No, I don't know it. And the only motivation I can fathom for keeping such a debate going is because that's what it boils down to.

If you think Craig is pointing out all of this stuff simply because of some deep-seated hated of  Mr. love, then I don't know I what to tell you. I personally think he is being incredibly even-handed (and going way out of the way to do so) in this matter, but  I guess anything that is not enough for the Mike crowd.

Another one of those threads that goes endlessly round in circles while going nowhere.

Can we create a permanent "I just plain out dislike Mike" thread where such conversations could eventually sink to the bottom of?

This is not about liking or disliking Mike and you know it.

Do you know the story of Leon Russell and "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)"? You don't see it often, I first heard it from an interview with Cher who witnessed it as she would often be there at Spector's sessions with Sonny Bono.

The song is credited to Barry-Greenwich-Spector, and as on most of Spector's 60's Wall Of Sound sessions, Jack Nitschke was the arranger who put all the instruments together.

So the song is rolling along, and for the ending fade as we all know Darlene Love is ad-libbing phrases on "baby please come home!", Hal Blaine is going crazy on drum fills, the whole thing is erupting in that wall of sound...

And in the middle of all that chaos, Leon Russell starts ad-libbing a piano part, classically-tinged yet sounding like he's banging the hell out of that piano and playing beautiful melodies, again, off-the-cuff.

According to Cher, Phil Spector was so moved by what he heard Leon play, when that take was done he pulled out his checkbook and wrote Leon a check for $100 on the spot. That piano part which wasn't in the score became a perfect close to a monumental record, as mentioned it brought the whole thing together at the end, and was a crucial part.

It's exactly the concept Tony Asher mentions with arrangers and musicians perhaps getting some type of royalty for this kind of contribution, since it is an original composition within a song that becomes an essential element of the performance on record.

And that song, as it's in dozens of movies and gets played constantly every Christmas season and has been a perennial Christmas favorite for decades, is a real money-maker in terms of royalties and publishing.

Beyond Spector paying Leon 100 dollars out of his own pocket, according to the logic around WIBN, then Leon Russell could file and win a claim for songwriting credit on that song, since without his mini-concerto on the piano the record would not have been the same.

Unfortunately in the record biz, that's not how it works. Leon got paid his union scale for playing the session, Spector out of character gave him a 100 dollar bonus, and that's where it ends.

Unfortunately we're not discussing that case. We are discussing WIBN.

It's a relevant comparison whether you like it or not.

For edification, this is what Craig is referring to when he talks about Tony Asher, Mike,  and WIBN. This is from the interview that Mike Wheeler and the members of the first cabinessence.com message board conducted with Mr. Asher back in April of 1996.

Mike recently sued Brian for writing credit to around 30 songs among which was "Wouldn't It Be Nice". What role did Mike have in writing that song?
None, whatsoever. As most people know, the Beach Boys were on tour during the writing of that song. During the trial, Mike's attorney asked me how I could be so sure Mike hadn't influenced the writing of that song. "After all, " he speculated, "wasn't Mr. Wilson out of your sight from time to time? Didn't he go to the bathroom, or leave the room periodically for one reason or another? And couldn't he have been taking a phone call from Mr. Love during one of those absences?" These guys get paid big bucks for this kind of absurdity. At any rate, I answered that, while it was true Mr. Love could have called Mr. Wilson on one of those occasions, it was doubtful it had any influence, since "Wouldn't It Be Nice" was one of the few songs I wrote the entire lyric to by myself at home. "Mr. Love did not then," I explained, "and I pray does not now, have my home phone number."
So where does Mike's claim come from? Is he just making this stuff up out of some kind of jealousy or rage toward Brian or does he really believe he wrote some of the lyrics to that song?

I think he would say that it is based upon things that were added at sessions that could be characterized, I suppose, in the loosest sense of the word, as lyrics. I'm talking about background vocals like the typical "doo-wha's" and "dum-diddies" that occur in many songs, not only from the Beach Boys. Lyrics of that type have always been considered part of the "arrangement" of songs and those supplying them, such as vocal arrangers, have never been given part of the songwriting royalties for such contributions, although I suppose an argument could be made that they should. Actually, I believe that a far stronger argument can be made for giving arrangers royalties so at least part of their compensation would be based upon the success of a record since their arrangement, like the producer's production, is -- in my opinion -- often a real factor in the commercial-ness of the record. But I wouldn't favor giving everyone who ever wrote a "ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong" part of the songwriting credits.

George didn't actually buy his Rickenbacker - it was a freebie given to him by the company the Beatles were in New York for the Ed Sullivan Show ( Rickenbacker sought them out after seeing pictures of John with his black solid body Rickenbacker guitar).

Murry was absolutely a factor, no doubt. But you think Murry is the sole, 100% reason, black and white, end of story? Murry may have had a hand (or a huge hand) in making the situation happen, but I can't imagine that Murry had much of anything to do with the situation not getting corrected for so long. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that Brian had mental/drug problems and that rectifying this wouldn't have been a top priority.  

Having tried to follow every post, but not remembering every bit just now, I'd postulate:    Murry had a huge part in this. He obviuosly would have felt it was HIS son that sho9uld get most of the benefits, and I'm just as certain there was the backhanding approach because Mike's father seemd more succesful than Murry himself. So he'es a way he could throw it back at him. 
  as to the Brian is the main blame:  sure It could be BRian knew about every song credit. It seems to me it's just as likely that Murry would put a stack of papers in front of Brian and say >>These all need to be signed by you, I've taken care of evereything<<  and Brian being super on the go ( most of the time) and alos not wanting to be bothered by his dad, would just sign on the line without checking.  It was JUST the Publishing, after all! Not the creative sides which got his juice flowing.
  And, as ya'll have mentiond time and again:  None of us are privy to how the payments were made for anything. It's entirely possible that Brian( if he had any oversight in the matter) allotted more $$ to Mike from incoming $$ to compensate him for his non-credits.
I'd bet that  even Brian and Mike  don't know exactly how the $$ was handled in the day. They just knew it was coming in and there was plenty; Of course Mike  needed more( and more) to cover his increaing ex-harem. And Brian had Dad watching out for him, no matter the acrimony between them, it was still HIS son.   

Exactly.  People are forgetting that Murry, in the context of his own immediate family was considered "poor relations" while Emily was worshipped because she married "up". That Milt Love was far more successful than Murry had to be a huge sticking point that may have subconsciously been an influence that in how Murry treated Milt's and Emily's oldest son.