http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocj_sGKFOIA to the MAX!

MY GIRLFRIEND OFFERED ME ANAL 4 LYFE BUT I SAID UNLESS SHE WAS BI-ANUS AND COULD OFFER ME ANAL IN STEREO SHE COULD GO FUCK HERSELF (in the ass)

Trust me, she is and she does.

Listening to all the Nick Lowe one man can stand...luckily my lady is also obsessed. He's just such a great, classic songwriter and his last four albums have been his best yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8SgNCF9g5o... Check it out.

     How can anyone defend a man who physically hurt his children and damaged them emotionally and on purpose? Things ARE black and white...if you (any person) hit your child for any reason, just like if you hit your wife for any, you are doing irreparable harm to them (and in the case of a child you are attacking someone 1/5 your size) and are most likely continuing the cycle of violence that your own father abused you with. Imagine how beautiful the music would have been had violence and fear not been the way the Wilsons were raised...

It's amazing how much Carl looks like Murry here.

He looks more like Bill Hicks than anyone here...

'So what does that lyric mean Brian?'

Always thought it was staged. You know, like cassius love vs. sunny wilson, or the vegetables arguments.

we are stoked!!!

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

Socialism IS CENTRALIZED PLANNING, which IS THE GOVERNMENT. Where has socialism made the state smaller?
How can forced wealth transfers make people free? Like Monty Python said, the violence is inherent in the state.
 Also, I'm not too keen on your 'you americans" statist crap. My parents f***ed here, that's all that happened. I am an individual who happens to live on the land mass who's arbitrary borders are enforced by the violence of the autoritarian sociopaths who rule from Washington (but who are part of a worldwide phenomenon) .
I'm sure the tens of millions who have died in the last century due to the wonders of socialism might argue with you about what 'socialism is traditionally about'.

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

Absolutely right. Van Dyke is protecting his intellectual property which has been used unlawfully.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

This is preposterous!

Regardless of financial interest, a creator has a right to determine what is done or not done to their creation.  Without this legal right, any greedy corporation could take anyone's creative output and do whatever they want with it to sell a product.  Or another artist could use your work in any way they see fit.

Intellectual properly laws protect integrity of content.

[/quote] Hahaha. Yeah, the integrity of Mickey Mouse, which has forced the 'LAW' to change so Disney can control 'it's character' ad infinitum. Do you see where it is just moneyed interests (not necessarily a bad thing) using government force (always a bad thing) to control their 'investments'?
Also a creator doesn't always have the rights to their creations even now. If you work for a company and come up with a new idea that the company uses, do you think they should pay you every time that said company uses your idea? of course not.
When I buy record, new or used, their is no implied contract between me and the artist. I own the cd. I can do whatever I want with the cd, as long as I don't Physically harm anyone or thing with it.
If I own a car and decide to build ten exact copies of that car, with my own resources, does the car company have a right to those ten cars I made?
I am truly interested in your answers and wonder if you have read much about the destructive nature of Government enforced IP laws.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

A discussion/debate on this seems necessary, but hopefully staying clear of sarcasm, sniping, attacks, etc...

The thoughts about VDP "owning" or "not owning" those words and lyrics struck a nerve. Maybe some of the published authors and songwriters on this board can chime in both pro and con. But I feel that the notion of ownership over something you create - whether it be music or words - is a rather basic concept worth protecting, especially for the "creator". If upon the completion of that work, defined as "Intellectual Property", the work no longer has an owner but is instead somehow floating in limbo between being "ours for the taking" and "free", doesn't it create a scenario which borders on anarchy? If Van Dyke does not own those words, then can anyone feel free to take them and use for their own purposes? Or misuse the words? Or change the words? That doesn't even mention the legality of profiting from those words.

Mr. Kinsella is a learned man, with challenging theories. However, breaking it down to a basic question, what does he do to earn money? What is his product, or what does he produce? How does he draw a paycheck, and make a living?

Kinsella is paid for his thoughts, his ideas, and the writings and lectures which people seek out when they either see him in person or read his words. He is an economist, legal scholar, and also a theoretician of sorts. Therefore, the product which he is paid to "produce" is mostly his thoughts and his words. He doesn't necessarily make anything concrete to sell or buy, his words and ideas are his product. He also signs his writings with his name, suggesting a basic level of claiming ownwership over what others are about to read or see.

Is the concept of a thinker and scholar like Kinsella "owning" his words that different from a lyricist like Van Dyke Parks "owning" his words? Kinsella is paid to speak and to write, expressing his thoughts and theories...should anyone then have a legal or even intellectual claim on those words and be able to take them away from Kinsella?

Well, Kinsella of course is getting paid, but he is not using the force of the Government to make sure he gets paid. In other words, the desire to have the state use force to enable your copyright claim to be 'protected' is the objection, not that a person shouldn't be paid for his work.
BTW, its always hilarious when folks who for sure own music that they didn't pay the artist for still fall for the old state-monopoly line about IP.

Absolutely right. Van Dyke is protecting his intellectual property which has been used unlawfully.

[/quote] LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

I think I found it when I stumbled upon the Al_Jardine-didn't-go-to-Ohio? mystery thread/report...4,5, or maybe 6, years ago.

Loved the interview! You're only a few years younger than me and I too saw the AB doc, but I think it was '86 that I saw a cut of it on TV, and fell in love with Brian singing PLMW and his weird eye and lips movements...I could identify with a weirdo like that!
Anyway, I like your matter-of-fact approach and find your opinions closely matching my own. Count me in for a copy!

Don't Worry Baby. Brian's best vocal (other than PLMW maybe) and my favorite Mike part ever "Now doooooooooooon,..."
And Denny also makes his presence known.

I remember being really excited (I was 14 in '88 when it came out) and liked about half the songs right away. I still like about half of it. We were painting my brother's bedroom listening to it and my dad thought the lyrics were really lame.  I also found the Love and Mercy cassette single that summer when I was in Pennsylvania. It was an awesome time to be into the BB 'cos all sorts of things were coming out (and rumored) on CD and you could find almost any of their records for super cheap at a used record store. POB was like $8.00 at second hand tunes in Evanston for the whole 80's.

Great stuff! Thanks for asking the questions we all want to know!

I think this is the only thread I've ever started where something interesting and new appears! Those photos are awesome!

How can you possibly not like the Night was so Young?! I'm serious. The chords are awesome (especially at the end!), the sentiment is awesome, and Brian's heart is thrown right out there in the ring for everyone to kick around!. One of my top ten Beach Boys faves.

Oh, I like the song. However, I despise Carl's vocal on it (and said as much in my original post   )
.

Not only "Night Was So Young", but how can you dislike Endless Harmony? Do you like "Ten Years of Harmony"??  Bruce's best shot, bro!

Something about EH has always bugged me. The actual sound of the song really grates for some reason I don't really know. I'm also not the biggest fan of Bruce's work after his 1st stint with the band ended.

Yeah, Carl's vocals around this time are really bad, pilled out weirdness.

How can you possibly not like the Night was so Young?! I'm serious. The chords are awesome (especially at the end!), the sentiment is awesome, and Brian's heart is thrown right out there in the ring for everyone to kick around!. One of my top ten Beach Boys faves.

It's literally the longest shot in the world, but I think having Nick Lowe & Dave Edmunds produce a Beach Boys reunion LP would scratch most of our itches.

I would literally cream my jeans if this happened. Heck, I'd cream yours too! But Nick says he doesn't produce anymore and Edmunds is kinda old. The Beach Boys really only need someone who can get a good sound...more of an engineer than a producer. The guys can figure out the other stuff (arrangements, dynamics, etc.).

Dennis' s vocal on cabinessence is from the 20/20 sessions?! I thought that was from the original SMiLE version...

So I'll ask again,

While it is definite that Jasper Dailey took the snapshot, I am a little confused as to whether it does actually date from the Smile sessions. In David Leaf's California Myth book, the photo (which uncropped also features Ginger Blake) is credited as being from a Honeys session in 1968.

Does anyone know the actual date for this photograph?

And may I remind everyone of the information in the "Rules and Guidelines - read this before posting" particularly "Please behave and not be an embarrassment to the good name of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys."

I do not know the answer, but I too thought that shot was from 68 or 69 (!!!), so know that you are not alone.

A bit redundant but really great!  I always enjoyed the podcasts for the last two comps that came out, and this webcast really takes it to a new level. Bruce is a good defender and promoter of Mike and Brian sounds like he's actually sort  of interested in what's happening. And Mike is really coming across well. Al seems more like a muppet than ever! How often are these coming out? weekly or what?

Hell Yeah ; Why do lovers break each other's hearts is great, man! Baby I Love you is also really good. No worse than some of the Crystals stuff.