They still have not announced a winner! I'm anxiously awaiting it, as I just got served eviction papers this week

Still have 'em crossed for you Billy…

Ongoing conflicts aside, there are currently six others he could invite to be guests…

We know Foskett is on the stuff. Totten almost surely too. After that, I'd say Dave would be an easy bet…

My other two were Ricky & Blondie (though they're perhaps as likely as Brian!). Jeff and Scott, for all their superb credentials and lengthy affiliations, I don't count as core BBs. Touring BBs for sure, to me, but not recording Beach Boys.

I definitely wasn't counting Foskett or Totten as "Beach Boys." I was just running down a list of known players/singers that we have confirmed have popped into those sessions. Right now, that's pretty much just Foskett. I was then making a relatively safe leap that Totten is likely involved, as Totten has done other recent ML sessions, and I believe Totten plays on some of the decade-old Fauerso stuff as well.

As for Ricky and Blondie, yeah, I'd say that's about as likely as Brian. Though, I would imagine if Mike called Fataar up and Fataar had time in his schedule to do it, he'd probably play on Mike's stuff. Dunno if Fataar is out of Mike's budget range though (and I'm not trying to be funny). He's an in-demand dude. No offense to the other guys in those recent studio pics, some or all of which might be familiar to folks knee-deep in whatever is left of the session musician scene, but I'd guess Fataar is a more in-demand (and thus more expensive, and tougher to book) player at this stage. Whereas, I'm sure Stamos would pay to play on Mike's sessions if he needed to.

Very cool… wasn't even aware Ricky was still doing a lot but I'd say there's a reason he doesn't come cheap: he's one helluva drummer.

Hipster!

Exactly right. And that's why my multiple years of listening to Brian Wilson's music makes me a knowledgeable and experienced reviewer.

I was answering Cam's post and also getting back to what John Manning shared about his own professional experience writing and publishing product reviews, but to answer this: By your own admission you've played two out of the dozen or so solo albums that Brian has released since 1988, and even those only a few times. If your frame of reference and base of working knowledge on Brian's solo discography is formed by what you heard from Brian on 40 or 50 year old Beach Boys albums that Brian made versus what he has done in his solo career, how is that presenting experience as influencing what you're setting out to review? If listeners are buying a solo Brian record with the expectation they'll be hearing "Summer Days..." or "Today" or any others versus what Brian has done as a solo artist, they're coming from an almost unrealistic point of expectation. There are plenty of copycat bands and artists if people want to hear the 1965 "Brian sound" in 2016, but Brian is 50 years older and his solo material is simply not along those lines, rather it's what he chooses to write and how he chooses his music to sound in the present day. It would be the same if someone who has only played two previous McCartney albums a few times reviews a newer solo McCartney album using his Beatles catalog as a reference point and expects to hear another "Hey Jude" or "We Can Work It Out", or someone buying then reviewing a newer Clapton solo release expects him to play and sound like he did on Fresh Cream, having only listened to 461 Ocean Boulevard or Layla from his solo catalog.

I wonder.. would you have gone through all this trouble if my review was positive? I mean, I know the answer, but still.

Same question. Cos I did try to distinguish between a pro review that claims authority, and all that jazz, and a message board review that's informative, honest and entertaining in the ethereal sense of message board posts and written purely from the standpoint of love for the artist. And we have to bear in mind that any album from any artist should stand up to being reviewed in isolation, on it's own merits, in the context of anyone's musical taste and experience. An LP/album isn't like a "Gore-Tex" jacket that has to shape up against others, it's a standalone work of art after all.

The conversations on the first few pages of this particular thread show a "love for the artist"? Show those pages to people totally unaware of anything related to this and ask if they can feel the love being shown through all the expletives and negativity.

Seriously John? If this was a sign of love, I'd hate to see the results if such a "review" were done for an artist that was hated. And if this is informative, I must have missed those sections because I didn't see info being offered that was anything new or useful to further analyze or interpret this album as the discussion unfolded.

Well, their comments informed my listening experience but given that they were throwaway comments on a message board only adds weight to my perception of their value.

As for the "love" element, ever read Congrieve's Way of the World? He premise is that the main character loves the object of his passions for [/]her faults, not despite them, and I get a sense of that for other posters in this thread too.

Now, I also tried to distinguish between the professional reviews and those that are out there for the love. Where is that line drawn? I dunno. I've had too much of this Dalwhinnie tonight and my line is blurred. Far as I'm aware these guys spoke about NPP from their hearts (aka "stated their current opinions") for no recompense. For the sheer pleasure of speaking openly. No obligations. And I admire that, really appreciate them putting their opinions and themselves out there,; gotta leave it here cos the phone's nearly dea

Well. Blow me down. This is outstanding. I think I've seen some bits but not this much of this gig before but this time it just moves me so much. I'm posting this mid-gig (and have paused to watch the outtsnading performances on the BBC Young Musician of the Year Award; currently playing Stella by Starlight!). Great accompanying notes boost the experience. As does the Dalwhinnie.

Coming after so much strife and negativity on his board this brings it all back to the music, where it counts, where it belongs.

You're inviting SmileySmilers to HAVE A LAUGH?? In each other's COMPANY?? Jeez I love you!

Exactly right. And that's why my multiple years of listening to Brian Wilson's music makes me a knowledgeable and experienced reviewer.

I was answering Cam's post and also getting back to what John Manning shared about his own professional experience writing and publishing product reviews, but to answer this: By your own admission you've played two out of the dozen or so solo albums that Brian has released since 1988, and even those only a few times. If your frame of reference and base of working knowledge on Brian's solo discography is formed by what you heard from Brian on 40 or 50 year old Beach Boys albums that Brian made versus what he has done in his solo career, how is that presenting experience as influencing what you're setting out to review? If listeners are buying a solo Brian record with the expectation they'll be hearing "Summer Days..." or "Today" or any others versus what Brian has done as a solo artist, they're coming from an almost unrealistic point of expectation. There are plenty of copycat bands and artists if people want to hear the 1965 "Brian sound" in 2016, but Brian is 50 years older and his solo material is simply not along those lines, rather it's what he chooses to write and how he chooses his music to sound in the present day. It would be the same if someone who has only played two previous McCartney albums a few times reviews a newer solo McCartney album using his Beatles catalog as a reference point and expects to hear another "Hey Jude" or "We Can Work It Out", or someone buying then reviewing a newer Clapton solo release expects him to play and sound like he did on Fresh Cream, having only listened to 461 Ocean Boulevard or Layla from his solo catalog.

I wonder.. would you have gone through all this trouble if my review was positive? I mean, I know the answer, but still.

Same question. Cos I did try to distinguish between a pro review that claims authority, and all that jazz, and a message board review that's informative, honest and entertaining in the ethereal sense of message board posts and written purely from the standpoint of love for the artist. And we have to bear in mind that any album from any artist should stand up to being reviewed in isolation, on it's own merits, in the context of anyone's musical taste and experience. An LP/album isn't like a "Gore-Tex" jacket that has to shape up against others, it's a standalone work of art after all.

I also paid $40 for the Brian Wilson and Friends Blu Ray from PBS, which included a Brian Wilson autograph and a copy of the 13 track NPP. 

And I'll have to buy BW & Friends again to get the CD of the show.  So, I'll likely wind up spending between $50-$60 on the BW & Friends live release. 

Received that last week… worth it for Blondie's contributions, easy, though the band sounds, if anything, over-rehearsed and (dare I say it) bored in places… god does Wild Honey just drag on and on…   Oh for a bunch of early 70s gigs in a sweat and grime embossed box!

Sounds great, hope to catch it.

repeat rant…

That's what blogging is for in the digital age. It's also come to a perhaps more technocratic model where Twitter limits how much someone can write and filters by design whose "tweets" are followed in mass quantities based on perceived celebrity status or one's ability to be witty or insightful in a dozen words while ignoring the art of analysis and in many cases, basic grammar and the proper use of language.

I've been very clear on my own opinions of reviewers and critics. As of 2016 I have no time for them, as a general rule with few exceptions. And a lot of it has to do with how many are content to sign their name as a de facto authority on the topic they're reviewing enough to hand down those opinions as if from a place of higher knowledge or expertise when in fact they are sometimes ignorant of the basic facts or background of what they're reviewing. Maybe some consider reviewing a new album or film as equal to the "Mystery Diner" in a local paper trying out a new steak n' ale franchise in town and raving over the onion rings while saying "the salad was disappointing", but I think there has to be more to it, more responsibility perhaps to actually know more than the average reader about the work of art and artist being reviewed, especially if it is critical.

But maybe I'm spoiled too by having read my fair share of rock journalism and rock criticism from a bygone era. We can all list the obvious names, Christgau, Bangs, Paul Williams, etc. It's often bashed and rightfully so, but picking up a copy of Rolling Stone's original record reviews from their first few years, there is some terrific rock journalism mixed in with the ridiculous, including a few that were very insightful takes on Beach Boys albums from Friends to Sunflower.

In those cases, those writers and journalists were more often than not actually writing with more than a working knowledge of what they were reviewing and analyzing, not just the actual album or song but what surrounded it as well.

At the same time in history, in any number of dorms, lofts, garage hangouts, bedrooms, basements, etc...there were a few buddies passing around a bottle of muscatel, shaking out a bag of seeds and stems to hopefully get enough to pack a bowl made from tinfoil, drop the needle on the latest album they had bought, and start rapping about it. Which I'm sure in some cases was as insightful and as brilliant if not moreso than any number of "published" reviews. But in most cases, it was a bunch of guys and gals sitting around getting zonked and talking. Worthy of publication and distribution to readers, or just a few pals having a rap session?

Many elements and sides to this. If it's up to me, I'll listen and judge for myself, because I think the blogging and podcasting and tweeting and all else has watered down the art of rock journalism so it's almost on par with reviewing a Happy Meal at McDonalds...with few exceptions. Anyone can blog if they set up an account, there are millions to choose from. I worry that the actual quality of the writing and analysis plays much less of a role in reaching an audience and saying something meaningful and knowledgeable than other variables.

Brace yourself for this, Craig, but this is one area where in which I agree with an awful lot of what you're saying here!

Having earned a substantial portion of my income in the last decade from reviewing outdoor (read "hiking", my specialist field to this day) equipment, it was galling to see the amount of credibility the public at large and the industry in particular placed in blog reviews, some of which were written by genuine enthusiasts with experience to offer, but others were written by new kids inspired not by sharing any knowledge (because they had none to offer) but by the lure of free kit from companies wanting online exposure and the kudos of seeing the number of page "visits" rack up. Some gear companies became more interested in online exposure than genuine critiques of their products in respected journals.

As a professional journalist (qualified, almost decade on newspapers, 15 years on magazines and seven years freelancing…) it was dispiriting to see all that experience, and that of so many colleagues and peers, being devalued overnight by a bunch of Johnny-come-latelys who barged in and pulled the rug from under us – and they did that with some ease, as they didn't have to waste time doing tedious things like training, research, gaining experience, going through a process of sub-editing, layout and design, etc etc etc.

A blogger could have a five-star review online with an hour of receiving a product, before a pro had even had chance to give it the usual minimum two weeks (sometimes more, sometimes less) testing in the field. A blogger might review a single "waterproof Gore-Tex" jacket within hours, even in the midst of a drought and even though it was lined with Sympatex; I'd stare out of the door praying for a fortnight of rain so I could do a comparative report of, say, 12 different jackets. The research often took even longer than the product testing. I'm generalising but I think you'll get the drift.

I liked to think that my own reviews were, at times, entertaining as well as insightful – fun even – while the blogger might regard his task as primarily entertainment, with a splash of ego boost thrown in, and a dash of ass-licking to ensure the flow of free gear didn't suddenly dry up.  I'm ranting, and I'm not as bitter as I sound, but the drift in that direction is insidious and invidious, and infuriating if I sit and think about it for long enough…

My only area of difference is that of the difference between an authoritative review (ie, in a published magazine), or one claiming some integrity (perhaps, for example, at the BBC's website) and on a message board such as this. Message board reviews, to me, don't carry the same obligation for in-depth research and knowledge, beyond, perhaps, a love of the subject matter and a working knowledge of (in the case this thread has become about) a subject the poster loves. Message boards seem more of a here-today-gone-tomorrow medium (okay, some of the threads and posts on this board are academic in the extreme, which is a bonus), a place for knocking ideas to-and-fro, throwing things up for debate, a place where even a lack of spell-checking might be forgiven (by some!). A printed review, on the other hand, or one on a subscription/curated/archived site, ought to be – well – more authoritative, a source of reference for the future even.

I'm not making myself very clear, I fear, but yes I bemoan the lack of authority in widely circulated and respected review media but don't begrudge opinions on social media (including message boards), so along as they're not trying to sell themselves as something other than what they are.

I'm still not making myself very clear, I fear, but hope I'm getting the essence across!

Apologies also for any derailment…

I do think the all the guest stars are a big problem with this record. The numerous voices and their inevitable influence on the songs make the album as a whole less cohesive. Not to mention the fact that almost half of the lead vocals on Brian's solo album are taken up by people that are not Brian. He has to be a bit of an outlier in that regard, right? You don't pick up a Bowie, Dylan, McCartney, Nilsson, etc. album and expect to hear several different people taking the lead.

Also, I haven't actually heard too much of Brian's solo output myself. I've listened to BW88 a couple times (and it's decent--"MELT AWAY" IS THE BEST THING EVER), and TLOS once or twice, but that's pretty much the extent of it. So, when it comes to my thoughts on No Pier Pressure, they're not informed by the experience of listening to most of Brian's other solo outings.

Agree that the various influences of various personalities on style can be distracting though GYHTBT and SNOHB are arguably two of the strongest, likeable tracks on NPP. I don't, however, have an issue with the multifarious lead vocals on the album; Brian worked that way for almost the first half of his career after all!

Cripes. This grief Bubs and Judd are getting for having opinions that evolve over time is (again) why I never bothered to post much about my own opinions of NPP at the time of its release. It really is a very mixed album - something like four extended, overlapping mini albums in one. Individually, some of the tracks are outstanding; others are excruciating compared to Brian's overall output. Runaway Dancer and Don't Worry are skipped every time. Guess You Had To Be There, and This Beautiful Day, are each outstanding in their own ways by have nothing else in common, something that makes for a disjointed album (unlike, say, TLOS, BWPS or, even, Pet Sounds and Surfer Girl).

At the first listen I was much more sold on the album as a whole - it's very varied and even adventurous in places - but in the following weeks my opinions fermented and over the last year have only solidified along the lines described above.

I think it's a real shame that those prepared to post opinions - in an honest, humorous way - get jumped on for not towing a line, for having perhaps even adopted a different view in the ensuing year. Especially when the talk should be of the music, as the thread started out, and not personal jibes along the lines of "clone" and digging up old posts as if we should all have to stick rigidly to  opinions cited more than a year ago.

Clone #4873218792, report to the workshop for reprogramming; diverse, evolving opinions are unacceptable. Mike has spoken.

Ongoing conflicts aside, there are currently six others he could invite to be guests…

We know Foskett is on the stuff. Totten almost surely too. After that, I'd say Dave would be an easy bet…

My other two were Ricky & Blondie (though they're perhaps as likely as Brian!). Jeff and Scott, for all their superb credentials and lengthy affiliations, I don't count as core BBs. Touring BBs for sure, to me, but not recording Beach Boys.

I'd be interested to see whether any other BBs appear on Mike's album, as happened on both Al's and Brian's most recent solo efforts. Ongoing conflicts aside, there are currently six others he could invite to be guests. In which case anyone might read even more into his answers. Probably mistakenly, but not without foundation.

I'm looking forward to it, whatever.

Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

"Victim"?

In fairness, Adrian Baker remained in the band for some time after Carl returned in 1982. Baker was also rehired in 1990 for around a year to replace Foskett. Carl seemed to speak kindly of Baker during an interview circa 1991 for a TV special (I believe a European 30th Anniversary special).

Here's a shot of a 1982 show with Carl, Foskett, and Baker. I'm guessing, with Baker moving to more keyboards after Foskett joined the band, Billy Hinsche ended up filling Baker's role when he (Hinsche) returned in later 1982.

Nice pic… Al looks like a very sedentary version of that bloke from AC/DC!

This has been at Amazon UK as a download in recent weeks but is now also being advertised as a CD release:

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01EX0PXZY/

I'm sure this was released as a bootleg very recently and that it's been circulated among collectors for a good while. I wonder why there seems to be no official attempt to stifle these grey area releases?

I'd gathered from the latest Rules and Guidelines update that Lowbacca is no longer a moderator. However, I haven't seen an indication that they are seeking a new one.

Haven't seen anything official either but the workload for Billy and Craig to handle between them must be pretty heavy, and I don't think it's fair to expect two guys to be able to keep track on everything that goes on / goes down here. While things seem to be on something of a better footing (the two trolls seem a lot quieter at the moment) it's still a heavy burden to bear on top of what reL life throws at you too. An additional moderator must be "a good thing", I'd've thought.

Shouldn't the appointment of a fresh mod be a democratic one? Mods co-opted don't seem to last too long (not all of them… but…)

But then should candidates be proposed, or apply? Either way, it would be a good idea to have them submit a statement - how they'd do the moderating, what their prejudices might be, perhaps religious beliefs, health issues, IQ level, criminal convictions etc - so that the SS members could form an informed opinion before they cast their vote. To avoid any of the daftness that made the recent Labour Party leader contest so interesting here in the UK, only SS members of two years standing or more would be allowed to vote.

I'm intrigued!

It's not a super surprise Brian wasn't considered, even beyond the likely scheduling conflicts. At least some of those acts, especially McCartney and the Stones, book arenas and stadiums. Brian plays mostly indoor theaters and some outdoor amphitheaters. Same with Mike's band.

Not trying to be a d**k about it, but the *only* shot any BB-related band would have had at being considered for such a bill would have been the full reunion lineup.

Agreed. And while I'm reluctant to admit that OSD might have a point, in terms of a gig of this scale the brand might well have been too diluted by the casino, private party and county fair gigs for even the C50 line-up to have the same significance and allure as the other big hitters here.

On the bright side, it kinda means the BBs' ticket prices will never be in the same league either, so even OSD can afford to go see The Beach Boys featuring Mike and Bruce with John Stamos.

Many thanks for moving the thread Billy, I believe this thread belongs here in the Sandbox, if anywhere.

What was so cool about this was that someone's real feel for the album was able to be expressed without an immediate fierce response from certain folks who are extremely protective of all things Brian.....you guys obviously love Brian enough to care deeply about what comes down the pike. Keep up the yuks, so refreshing....

Well spoketh!

5… 4… 3… 2…