Or Mess of Help!

I'm dying to hear this Blondie middle-eight. Aside from the fact that this guy TRULY has pipes (and balls) so many people are buzzing over it because it's Brian delegating parts like he did when at his best --- letting it all breathe and grow. Not to mention, it's SO '70s -- the switching of a lead line between members. It's true to both Brian AND Carl. (A friend of mine who was there just said quote -- "I'd trade 45 impish Fosketts pretending to be blissed out while miming 'Good Vibes' in D.C. for just 4 Blondie 'Surfer Girl' bridges.") BOOM!!!! OUCH!!!!

Having actual Beach Boys onstage with Brian becoming even more a part of this music is what makes it WILSON.
Different vibes, different colors. It's VERY Wilson.

Man, I say give Blondie "That's Not Me."

At the Glasgow gig I slipped down front with a few others for the encore. Looking across the stage front from the right hand side and clocking that front line - Billy Hinsche, Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, Blindie Chaplin… I got a taste of what it must have been like to be at an early 70s show… geez you could see the sweat rising!

I think he was putting her on. Asking her for the precise capacity of the Paladium, pretending not to know that PS inspired SP…

Commiserations Billy, I now have an image of you consoling yourself with a large Mountain Dew, with free refills!

I'll think of you whenever I have a dill pickle. And I mean that in a nice way.

What's the big deal? Trump paid his $35.99 for the meet and greet, got his copy of SiP signed, received a complimentary "Excitations" tote bag and had the obligatory photo OP with Mike.

Must admit that I was shocked initially: Mike's a tall guy and I hadn't expected Trump to be taller. Then I realised he was stood on Bruce.

Mike wins either way: he gets to keep the $35.99 (less $0.99 the tote bag cost him) and he has a keepsake photo of himself with the Republican Party's much-loved Presidential candidate before he loses the election and fades into obscurity.

Not a bad price for a fully-signed 15 Big Ones. Signatures appear to be legit.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Beach-Boys-rare-autographed-vinyl-record-/272259474748?hash=item3f63ede53c:g:fEIAAOSwd2xXP2oP

The seller's photos are terrible, but it looks like Al signed over Brian's signature or vice-versa.

The listing is a trainwreck of red flag warning signs. Seller with feedback score of "1", and seller rating of only 67% (two positives and one negative, ever), horrible pictures, few total pictures, unclear and arguably incorrect description (Brian is the only still living member? It has the signature of every member "ever existing in the band? So Blondie, Ricky, and Dave signed it too?)

It's also not a very attractive signed piece as signed pieces go. Faded, thin ballpoint pen, etc.

And one signature appears to read "Glen Cambell's soup"!

The show in Glasgow was incredible.

Lovely to hear "Wake the world" live, Al did such a great job. Pet sounds brought the house down and by the encore the place was rocking, the whole venue was a dance floor.

Performing "the monster mash" in May was a strange choice but the people loved it.

I loved Blondie's contribution, maybe the long solos weren't everybody's cup of tea but I loved it.

All in all, what a show.

Funny having Paul von Mertens sing lead too… is this a resurfacing of that Brian humour that had Jack Reilly sing lead on Day in the Life…?

Booking fees for what, Mr. Mott?

Not for "traveling expenses".  Fees for booking "from the respective venues" for the concert they couldn't attend through no fault of their own. Didn't you read it, Mr. Botwin?  And what does it have to do with the false claim "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement"?

Wonder if this differed from venue to venue? I had tickets for Leeds and my refund covered the price of the ticket AND the agency booking fee. Only thing not refunded was the postage, which was about a quid, not worth bothering about. Maybe some venues didn't return booking fees, but I was surprised when I had mine returned and at the time attributed it to Val's call, made on all our behalfs.

Thing is, some if the same folk who're shitting on BBB over here about what they're saying on there are the same ones who moaned about discussions taking place over there about over here. And now we're referring on here to what went down over there regarding discussing stuff that was happening on here? Talk about double standards!

I'm sorry if this is not totally on topic, but just in case you don't check out the Pro Shot Concert list, I just found this on youtube:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iukjCxiiFw

Brian, Al and Blondie in Toronto, Nov. 22nd 2015

Many thanks.

Geez what a corporate bash! All suits and very little appreciation! blondie on stage almost throughout though, what's not to love?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

If so, Mr. Botwin than it IS false that in the letter Val is "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".  I'm sure you join me in encouraging an apology to Val.

Having read this (yet) again, I'm with Cam: at no stage is there any threat of legal action from Val. She's just sticking up for the uk fans who were deprived of a tour through management ineptitude, and suggesting they might like to make some gesture of recompense.

Val's getting a rough ride here for no reason and I really do think that the mods ought to be doing something to heal cross board diplomatic relations.

But sadly I suspect that won't happen.

I think, btw, that fuel was thrown on the objectivity fire when someone (forget who) pointed out that you also moderate on Brian Wilson's board. When some here were accusing AGD of being on Mike's payroll … this revelation looked unfortunate in light of the fact that the board's two prime trolls, LOSD and his young familiar Snail Brian, appeared able to attack Mike with impunity…

…I have noted, at long last, an apparent reduction in their misbehaviour. If this is due to a restraining order, then you, GF, and Billy are due a note of grateful thanks!

Why, we're so damn fortunate that we have people here like you to faithfully monitor, with incessant determination, our *behavior*. You can't even spell the word let alone determine just what is or isn't misbehavior is on this board. Quit trying to be an effig cop will you? You're not a moderator. You don't make the rules and as far as I'm concerned, YOU'RE a troll, ok? Maybe it's time for you to hide behind you're favorite rock-The Hickey Script. You'll be all safe and warm there, Johnny Boy.

I think you'll find we were spelling "behaviour" that way for a few centuries before the word crossed the Atlantic for it and other elements of the language to be misshapen and transformed.

As for the Hickey Script, I don't use it. But its creation made me realise that I simply don't have to read any of your highly valued contributions to proceedings here, and my life improved there and then.

Ps: what's an "effig cop", Mr Spelling Queen?

Cousin Brian needs to remember the Love Thang. The Mike Love Sound is why we have the Beach Boys.

You keep on dreamin', boy. Fingernails on the proverbial chalkboard that could easily distinguish the candles instantly.   

You keep trying to distinguish them effig candles, Losdy!

We were about five rows in front, right of the sound desk.

Only guessed it was you as you'd mentioned your daughter, and spotted you all squeezing by to sit down.

A splendid memorable night. If this's really the last EU tour, then I'm happy that we've wrung every delectable pleasure from the last 14 years of Brit shows. Our cup hath run over.

Hell of a gig tonight.

We got Monster Mash, a burst of Proud Mary (not a very long one) and some very cool musicianship.

Blondie is the rocket up the ass that audience and band alike need. Long may he rock

Outstanding song of the night: tbc.

I managed to get one at the end. I'll get it up tomorrow as I'm at tonight's show.

Soundcheck highlight today:  Monster Mash! Brian wants tw play it tonight! They also did God, DWB, Wake, Wild (part).

that you in the radish shirt?

I would like to see a change of moderators at Smiley Smile, and here’s why:

The Smiley Smile message board is sick for two reasons. First, its content is largely focused on itself, its members, and the drama perpetuated by them. Secondly, multiple voices are missing for various reasons. Some of these are prominent ones (Ray, Andrew, and Lee, to name but three).

When the board is at its best, content is mostly on topic (relating to the music, history, and current events), and all viewpoints and all voices are made to feel welcome. It doesn’t seem likely Smiley Smile will get to that point as things stand today.

The problem I believe is due to the nature of fanatics. Their passion keeps the place alive, but they can also be divisive and stubborn. Viewpoints, and the way in which they are expressed, can become extreme to the point of being hurtful to others and unhealthy for the board. So the passion must be protected but at the same time moderated.

Moderators are so important. That is a nearly impossible balance to maintain, and the only way a person can do it is to always be on the case, and to always be impartial – both in reality and perception. I don’t believe a moderator gets the luxury of having a “moderator” hat and a “regular poster” hat. I also think that really sucks, and I have compassion for Billy and Craig for this reason (not that they asked for it).

In my opinion a moderator should never be perceived to be the one who has an axe to grind. Moderators should negotiate truces with others who are doing the grinding.

I think both Craig and Billy believe in their hearts that they have been impartial and consistent. But in my estimation after reading this thread and many others, that is not the perception of probably half of the active membership. That is not an irrefutable statistical analysis of course, it’s just the way it appears to me.

I will leave aside the controversy of how bans were executed (personally, I don’t believe in any conspiracies). My point is that even assuming nothing improper was done on a procedural level, the perception is still widespread (not unanimous of course, but significantly widespread) that the current moderators have failed in the ways I have outlined.

For those reasons I believe that new moderators should be elected/appointed. At the least, I believe Craig should be replaced as moderator. I do not believe that he has the ability to heal the board and what’s more I believe he has added to the sickness for the reasons explained above. I say this with pain, as I have long admired and been in awe of Craig as a “regular poster.”

To summarize: I believe that the board should be more heavily moderated by new people with consistency to ensure that content stays on topic and healthy, and done so in a manner where the majority of folks (at least a heck of a lot better than it is right now) perceive this to be the case.

Weak, just weak. Looks like someone wants a police state or a dictatorship here. 

It's really sweet and commendable of you to stick up for Craig in that way. But I don't think it helps, at all, given your own role in the way the board's rep took a dip. Just the opposite in fact.

I reluctantly agree with Catbirdman. I think for the good of the board, Craig ought to step down. Excellent poster, one of the best informed here and his academic knowledge of the whole scene far outstrips my own. But I and it seems others just don't have confidence in his ability to moderate fairly, and I for one cannot separate the mod from the member.

I'm deeply sorry to say that; hate to see this kind of thing on our board. But things need to move forward.

Seriously, though, I was referring to people like Scott T, John, Nelson, Darian, ect.

Can we have a go at the likes of Adrian Baker and John Stamos though?

You two may make the final decision together, but you will never convince me that when threads start to breakdown, that Craig isn't influencing the action in that particular thread.

Then you *really* don't know the first thing about me, if you think I'm that easily influenced. If that were true, you'd have been gone a long time ago. Just an fyi.

To be honest Billy, I don't know a thing about you! Like you, I converse behind a computer and we really know nothing else about each other.  I should have left along with the mass migration at AGD's banning. I think Rab finally opened my eyes to who I am dealing with here, especially with Craig. Quite the wake up call for me, Billy. While I don't think you are that way (who really knows, huh?), I don't want to deal with the people in here whose fandom is that radical. So, like all the others who saw the writing on the wall, it is now my turn to take leave of this place. To my friends in here, good luck and I am sure we will see each other on the Net and converse through email. What was it that Brian & Mike wrote? "I gotta find a new place where the kids are hip." Adios!

Damn…

One of the things that deters me from joining in some threads is this habit of posting unfeasibly long responses to points made in debates.

A few here have mentioned these lengthy responses to posts, and here's a perfect two-part example, that came, by chance (?) immediately after two other consecutive posts of yours, Craig.

I get to the stage where I just don't have enough hours left in my life to wade through these dissertations; this is, after all, an online message board, not a short story competition.

Okay, I'm perhaps being rude here maybe, but I interpret such lengthy posts as rude in themselves - they don't stifle debate so much as suffocate it. I mentioned it before, in a post (was it last year?) referring to "5,000 word responses" (or similar) and you reacted negatively and at the time I thought I'd been put on a naughty list – knowing you we're a mod, and given the prevailing atmosphere on the board, I feared you'd use that status to, well, get your own back, sooner or later.

Though that has never happened, rightly or wrongly that was my instinctive fear. I've never felt that way about any other mods (though I don't recall any others getting into the 5,000-word realm either!). It goes back to that "perception" thing that someone (was it Emily?) mentioned above.

Now, others here are also suggesting that these long-winded responses are irksome and I realise I'm not alone.

I know here's no rule about talking the hind legs off a donkey but – and I offer this as a constructive criticism – can I suggest that your posts are more concise, less verbose, so that it's easier for some of us to stay with a debate than nod off? At times I wonder whether its easier for you to suffocate an unwanted debate with inordinately long contributions, in the hope that it'll go away!

I hope this will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended; this thread seems like the place for airing issues, and the long posts thing is something that makes me feel uncomfortable on a board I regard as a second home - like the religious guy on the door who won't go away.

I have willingly stepped up and offered answers to the questions being asked, addressed issues being raised by offering my own opinions, and in general made myself available to have dialogues with board members who are posting in this thread, despite the fact that some are more personal in nature than having anything to do with the issues at hand.

If my answers and opinions are not agreed with, that's fine. If they're not liked, that's fine. It is an open forum and anyone is free to agree or disagree and post as such.

But making the way I post and the way I write into an issue as it has been done here is out of line. I'm not saying that as a mod, I'm saying that as my own self in case that needs to be clarified.

I've been posting to several related forums for well over a decade, under the same screen name. If something comes up that I'm passionate about, or something important enough to me that I want to offer more than a 20 word Twitter response, I write how I want to write.

To have this aspect of what I do now called out is out of line. I will not change the way I write, and whether intentional or not, to have to read the suggestion that the issue has now become the way I write versus the actual content or opinion I'm expressing is out of line.

Fair enough. Like I say, it was intended in the spirit on constructive criticism and I'd hoped it would be taken in that way but you've every right to defend yourself and reject the idea of taking the point on board.

You mentioned I was "out of order" three times in your reply; I'm going to have to assume that was poster GF talking and not moderator GF, and that the post won't be held against me in any future fracas on some kind of accumulator basis.

Nevertheless I'll be more restrained in future posts because that's my instinctive reaction.

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

Quote From: John Manning

Quote from: Custom Machine on April 30, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on April 29, 2016, 03:21:20 AM

... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...

Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?

I'd normally question the wisdom of this archive having been made available but in the light of recent events am intrigued by its contents; it could lay a lot of ghosts (lowercase) to rest and further diffuse this unfortunate situation, a direction towards which this cathartic thread is, it seems to me, a good start along the road.

… or is it archived but not really available?

heres yer answer:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg576506.html#msg576506

It's in the mod forum which is only visible to mods, but it is archived. If it had come to it, we'd could have posted the screenshots of the discussions,  but it's past that point now

Saw that at the time but it didn't really address the point other than to point out that it's NOT available to the proletariat. Which isn't what was implied. Screenshots? Really?

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

Quote From: John Manning

Quote from: Custom Machine on April 30, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on April 29, 2016, 03:21:20 AM

... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...

Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?

I'd normally question the wisdom of this archive having been made available but in the light of recent events am intrigued by its contents; it could lay a lot of ghosts (lowercase) to rest and further diffuse this unfortunate situation, a direction towards which this cathartic thread is, it seems to me, a good start along the road.

… or is it archived but not really available?

Never write one word when 200 will do. Seriously, this has nothing to do with my message you quoted. I, too, had to put up with a pm from someone best described as a d*ckhead, but I decided to ignore it and him because his idiocy isn't worth the time. I'm talking about threads being derailed, not about pm tattle-tales. If you want to argue a point, fine, but don't use a thread about something else to trot out your views that figure A is a worthless piece of sh*t or that figure B hasn't written anythinsg decent since The Lonely Sea and shouldn't be allowed out. It's just the sort of thing that makes me stop reading because I've seen it so many times. The board is reduced to schoolyard-level name-calling. Now, of course, we can add paranoia and desperate insinuation to this.

Smilin Ed, if I were as thin-skinned as some like to suggest, I would take your first line as a personal swipe since several posters who have had issues with me personally have used variations of the same comment to try to get a reaction. It's also been the case where other posters have dropped comments to me off the board telling me to ignore it, they're trying to provoke you. So I do ignore it, and I don't come back to escalate it. I write how I write, if someone doesn't like it I'm going to say that's their choice, simply don't read it. But I won't change how I write because of comments made by people who don't agree with what I do or say, and so far the comments have come strictly from those posters who seem to have issues with me beyond the surface.

It would be relevant to point out as well that comments which have been made and repeated about any number of band members for well over a decade continue to be posted. I've stayed away from trying to ask people why they didn't post, but I have to ask for the sake of discussion: There have been any number of similar comments posted and threads derailed on 'all sides' of the BB's spectrum, involving multiple band members. Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members? Do you react as strongly when phrases like "the handlers" get injected into discussions that have nothing to do with handlers or anything related? There are people who when seeing an opinion they disagree with will offer a challenge in return. It's an open forum, unless there is a call to monitor and control what opinions people post rather than allow it to be a back-and-forth offering of opinions, it's everyone's choice to either read and respond or simply ignore.

There shouldn't need to be a board cop on duty to step in and remove comments, unless a majority of posters here now want censorship to become the standard instead of an open exchange. And it also opens up the issue of mob rule, where a group of people can decide what or who they'd like to see policed, and that next public target could be Smilin Ed H if you post something the angry mob disagrees with, or if your posts in general somehow manage to get portrayed as being a reason why the board is falling apart.

I don't think many here want that kind of board.

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

One of the things that deters me from joining in some threads is this habit of posting unfeasibly long responses to points made in debates.

A few here have mentioned these lengthy responses to posts, and here's a perfect two-part example, that came, by chance (?) immediately after two other consecutive posts of yours, Craig.

I get to the stage where I just don't have enough hours left in my life to wade through these dissertations; this is, after all, an online message board, not a short story competition.

Okay, I'm perhaps being rude here maybe, but I interpret such lengthy posts as rude in themselves - they don't stifle debate so much as suffocate it. I mentioned it before, in a post (was it last year?) referring to "5,000 word responses" (or similar) and you reacted negatively and at the time I thought I'd been put on a naughty list – knowing you we're a mod, and given the prevailing atmosphere on the board, I feared you'd use that status to, well, get your own back, sooner or later.

Though that has never happened, rightly or wrongly that was my instinctive fear. I've never felt that way about any other mods (though I don't recall any others getting into the 5,000-word realm either!). It goes back to that "perception" thing that someone (was it Emily?) mentioned above.

Now, others here are also suggesting that these long-winded responses are irksome and I realise I'm not alone.

I know here's no rule about talking the hind legs off a donkey but – and I offer this as a constructive criticism – can I suggest that your posts are more concise, less verbose, so that it's easier for some of us to stay with a debate than nod off? At times I wonder whether its easier for you to suffocate an unwanted debate with inordinately long contributions, in the hope that it'll go away!

I hope this will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended; this thread seems like the place for airing issues, and the long posts thing is something that makes me feel uncomfortable on a board I regard as a second home - like the religious guy on the door who won't go away.

Nope. I already get it...twice a day, every day.

On prescription. Or by subscription?

Hats are okay if you need to keep the sun off the exposed bonce.

More! More! Tell us more!