Well, the second one is mild. I'm not sure if I would appreciate someone referring to the work I worked hard on as "stupid" though. And furthermore, what's important is the consistency. One or two "mild statements" can build up.

No doubt they can and it's clear that there was friction at times during this period. But we can only make guesses as to their magnitude overall. Only one guy knows for sure and he's changed his story so many times you can't take anything he says about the subject as gospel.

I disagree, I don't think Mike is the only one that knows.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

Those are both fairly mild statements. With all the Surf and Hot Rod knockoff material Bruce helped out on in the 60s, I'm sure there are many things he played on that he didn't think was all that great. Still I have no doubt he gave it his all every time.

As for why the band recorded the vocals, you'd have to ask them. Just as you'd have to ask the many actors who perform roles in films and tv shows that they probably don't like very much. Why did Chevy Chase do such a great performance in Community for four seasons when he is on record as not liking the show?

I'm guessing in Chevy's case, it was because he needed the money.

And so we have our answer.  You must admit that at the time of Pet Sounds recording and release no Brian meant no Beach Boys which meant huge income cut for Mike.

There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it. If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

So we discard all of be statements quoted by those who were there because there is no documented evidence?  Brian was the gravy train, whoo whoo...alllllllll aboard.  They had no choice.  Capital was still paying them.  What was Mike going to do, go solo?  Let's be serious...Brian was the music, they had to follow, kicking and screaming perhaps, but they had to follow.  Drop Brian and goodbye Capital and goodbye meal ticket.  Their compliance proves they were aware of reality, not that they supported Brian or the music.

EoL

[Pet Sounds]

But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

In that case, do you think that the comments for the band since, say, 2000, have generally reaffirmed these quotes?

Pet Sounds

Tony Asher: And they didn’t know I was even there. And they’d say things like, I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway. And I thought, why am I sitting here listening to that? I don’t need to.

Al: Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

Brian: Mike said, “Gee, this is too much of a departure.” And I said, but Mike I got to do it this way for just one album. He goes, “All right. One album.”

Good Vibrations

Did everybody support what you were trying to do?
BRIAN: No, not everybody. There was a lot of "oh you can't do this, that's too modern" or "that's going to be too long a record." I said no, it's not going to be too long a record, it's going to be just right.
Who resisted you? Your manager? The record company?
BRIAN: No, people in the group, but I can't tell ya who. We just had resisting ideas. They didn't quite understand what this jumping from studio to studio was all about. And they couldn't conceive of the record as I did. I saw the record as a totality piece.

Smile

Anderle: The Beach Boys as a band were in England at the time, they were having a great time there, throwing The Beatles out of the number one spot. When they got back, and Brian started playing them the music he had done for the Smile album, and they started to question Brian about the lyric content … and suddenly everything that been a year and a half, 2 years of complete positive vibes, now became very negative vibes.

Parks: The friction was so great that, as he was just achieving the apex of his creative arc, he abandoned the project, I think in the interests of…social harmony? And Smile was left unfinished, for that reason.

Anderle: [Smile] wasn’t done mainly because he had to put their voices on it – he had to get them to sing those Van Dyke Parks lyrics, and it wasn’t easy for Carl, and Mike and the boys to sing some of those – strange lyrics.

Parks: I wasn’t close enough to the other guys. I was in a position of defending my lyrics … Mike Love said to me one day: “Explain this: Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.” And it was an American Gothic trip that Brian and I were working on. I said, “I don’t know what these lyrics are all about. They’re not important. Throw them away.” And so they did.

Derek Taylor:  "A key factor in the breakdown had to be the Beach Boys themselves, whose stubbornness by this time had seemingly twisted itself into a grim determination to undermine the very foundations of this 'new music' in order to get back to the old accepted, dumb formulas."

Marilyn: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead, you do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it.” … and I don’t think ever really came back. I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

Friends

Bruce: It’s not a bunch of great songs. They’re pretty light. … No, that’s a pretty lightweight album. I mean, I love “Friends.” I love the songs “Friends.” … But the album – I’m surprised it got to 126. Maybe 1026 might be more appropriate.

Breakaway

Al: I was really disappointed and frustrated by how this one ended up. We knew we had 90% of a good record, but typical of his late 60s mentality, Brian underproduced and undersold the ending of the record.

Til I Die

Johnston remembers Brian “playing it for the band and one member of the band didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.”


[/quote

But I thought Andrew might have once asked Voyle Giilmore and so the discussion was over?

But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

About as solid as your other pro-Mike arguments.

EoL

They went back to the formula with "Do it Again". Which shot to #1 with a bullet, oh, sorry, it didn't. (I do love the song)

This is all utter nonsense. In a November 14, 1964 Melody Maker interview, Mike told them that "he" (Mike) and the band wanted to look beyond surf rock, wanting to avoid living in the past, or resting on their laurels."

Brian had written his last surf song in 1964, and intended All Summer Long (July, 1964) to be the group's final statement on beach-themed music. (All Muisic) Richie Unterberger.

The purported "formula" statement is inconsistent with these earlier-in-time statements.

And I so love Do It Again, too!  (Summer of 1968!) 

Looking beyond surf rock simply is not mutually exclusive to not effing with the formula.  Right or wrong I believe the argument has always been that around the time of Pet Sounds and Smile Mike wanted to prioritize commercial success over art/experimentation while Brian want to experiment and take things in a new direction - and I think he wanted to take the record buying public along with him, I don't think he ever wanted to be avante guard and/or inaccessible, to the dismay of the hip/indie/Sean O'Hagan crowd.  I think Brian and Mike could have continued to be a good team, something of a balancing act.  It worked on Good Vibrations: Brian's complex, forward looking but accessible music with Mike's accessible lyrics (versus VDPs more obscure lyrics).  Perhaps there could have been a compromise, but I think Mike's talents and ability to keep up with Brian were maxed out and/or stuck in the early 60s (not that he didn't show flashes of brilliance later, but he is a lesser lyricist than Brian is a song writer).  Additionally I would think that Brian's personal problems (if you do any reading you may have heard Mike mention them once or twice) had a polarizing affect: if Brian is going this far out, then I'm going to the other extreme to balance it out.  It would be a natural  reaction, especially if Mike, and people in general, did not have an understanding of mental illness and what Brian was struggling with.

With that said, I have no idea how one can cite Good Vibrations as evidence Mike didn't have a "don't eff with the formula" outlook.  H&V is a better example, potentially, though it's a really exciting song and could easily be mistaken for a hit.  But what did Mike do, praise the song when they recorded it?  Write the lyrics?  I'm just not persuaded by a couple of exceptions to the rule of what Brian and Al and other eye witnesses have said for years.  It seems, at best, to be a case of the exception proves the rule.  At best.

End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL

My thoughts


 - "The Beach" would have worked very well.  It wouldn't have been career suicide, because it's literally the first half of the name anyways, there wouldn't have been any confusion in the market and most people would have logically been able to follow that it was the same band as "The Beach Boys".  I think it would have worked wonderfully and would have probably given them more legitimacy.


- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

I think ultimately too time proved that Michael was plenty willing to f*** with the formula.  His two biggest lyrical achievements that the fans herald completely destroy the formula, "Good Vibrations" changed music, and "Big Sur" is amazingly outside the box.  


I've never understood the need to villify Mike.  Even Brian doesn't...

1. The Beach: I think that three name change  alone would have been a positive.  If it had represented the collective agreement of the band to head in the direction Brian had in mind I think it would have resulted in a second wave of success for the band.  It would have meant Brian had more support, which it seems he needed, and that there was less friction and an overall healthy, creative environment.  The change alone would not have had any magical powers.

2. Don't eff: I agree.  It is one perspective and not necessarily a wrong one.  I don't think "the" formula would have continued to work, because the world/music was quickly and radically changing, but something approximating the formula would have worked.  There is always room on the charts for a catchy song.  I do disagree with the overall sentiment, I prefer a bit if adventure and creativity, but as you said, it's just one man's opinion.

3. I don't think Good Vibrations proves Mike was willing to eff with the formula.  That song has hit/money written all over it, and I think that was/is Mike's primary concern.  It may be Brian's too, but I think he cares about other things as well, and at least for a time wanted to experiment.

4. I don't know why people need to say that some need to vilify Mike, as if the problem is with the person observing him being a jackass.  I don't think anyone needs to vilify him.  He acts like a villain, people point it out.  He proves them right over and over again.  I believe even the staunchest Mike-hater wishes he would change his ways so they could embrace him.  In fact, around the time of C50 people did exactly that.  Then he went back to his old ways (and I'm not talking about blaming him for the end of C50).

Also, I don't think you can take Brian's kindness toward Mike as evidence of his thoughts toward Mike.  I believe those that know Brian best have said he generally doesn't talk badly about people.  He also handles the media far better than Mike.  I think he could hate Mike and we wouldn't know it.  Brian has hardly bad mouthed Landy or his Father, and by most accounts both men deserved it far more than Mike.  If he says very little negative about those two, what makes you think he would bad mouth Mike, who has caused less damage to Brian than either Landy or Murry?

EoL

Edit: Sorry, I became very comma happy in that post .

Until someone gets comments from them, on the record, as to whether this statement attributed to  Mike is real, my sense is David rules.

I haven't seen Brian comment on it but I'm pretty sure there is a published interview where Mike says he never said it and I think AGD said Mike also denied it in an interview with him. There is also Mike's contemporaneous interview where he is complaining about Capitol trying to promote the band in England as a surf band or something and I've seen other interviews where he complains about the same thing being done by Capitol I believe.

I don't know enough about this to opine as to what Mike said.  However, I would like to point out again that there is no contradiction between saying "Don't eff with the formula" and not wanting to be known as a surf group.  "Don't eff..." means "keep writing hits not artsy stuff" while not wanting to be marketed as a surf band means not wanting to be marketed as a surf band.  Brian (and Mike) wrote catchy songs about things other than surfing pre-Pet Sounds.  Don't eff means keep that up, don't write downer music, don't write obscure stuff no one understands, etc.  The "don't eff" comment need not refer to surf music, so appealing to anti-surf music quotes by Mike does not argue against the likelihood he made the statement.

EoL

I know you are all going to disagree with me but I think changing the name to The Beach would actually have eventually legitimized the later albums legacies rather than harmed them. Sunflower by The Beach.. man that's would have been so awesome.

I'm in full agreement.  I believe the name change could have altered the negative perception of the band and would have had almost no negative affect on the perception of the earlier work .

EoL

I am more than aware of said irony.

LOL.  Acknowledging is the first step in recovery.

You are cracking me up TRBB.

Too many people!

It appears you are missing the irony.

Both extremes reveal things about the people who feel that way, not just about Mike Love. This is perhaps a more interesting question - and not a leading question either.

And it has a simple answer - people have too much time on their hands worrying about people they've never met.

As opposed to worrying about people they've never met who worry about people they've never met.  But who would do such a thing? 

That's why all of the bickering is not worth the effort. No one's mind will change. People really think without a touch of sarcasm that Mike actually has "paid" trolls on here. If that's not potentially actionable...

Well, at least you toned the rhetoric down to "potentially" actionable.  Questioning whether or not people are on Mike's pay roll, especially when it is meant figuratively (the clear meaning being that they are doing his bidding), is hardly actionable.  The one person I can recall actually being accused of being on Mike's payroll, AGD, to my recollection, has never been accused of being paid to post in Mike's favor here.  His possibly being on Mike's payroll has been used as an explanation as to why he is so pro-Mike and ready to defend him here.  A huge distinction no court of law would fail to recognize.

EoL

Alan, this was just ahead of that too.

"So what prompted your decision to stop touring with Love's version of the Beach Boys?

We had a symphony tour lined up for the United States. Lots of interested symphonies that could give our music a breadth and depth that we didn't have before and give them a little extra business they needed. A lot of symphonies were going bankrupt. For instance the San Diego Symphony was in a desperate state, and we were going to do our rehearsal concert there in San Diego. They would get one and we would get one. That kind of deal where they get one for their coffers and we'd get a chance to rehearse and get it underway. And then go to the Hollywood Bowl, get that wonderful place sold out and take it from there all over the country. Carry our charts with us and give them to all the different symphonies.

What happened?

Love steadfastly refused to do it. He insisted that Brian be there, I remember that remark which is not all wrong. I don't disagree with that. It would be great if Brian could be everywhere, but we all have to be realistic. He's not going to be predictable that way. He's got only so much energy for that kind of work. He's not built for it.

Brian never liked to tour.

I think Brian was designing our songs back in the day so we wouldn't have to be dependent on him. Anyway, I suggested that he conduct the concert at the Hollywood Bowl. I thought it would be neat if he could come out and take some credit for all that great work. Anyway, that wasn't to be. Mike refused to do it. I think it would've been a great tribute to Carl. It would have been built around the music, not the messenger. It wouldn't have been built around any one of us."

There is more to that story too according to Mike, but I seem to remember another interview with something like the Jardine album claim.

Oh the whining we'd have to endure had it been Mike who opposed Brian's participation.

As opposed to whom?  The comments from Al above don't seem to amount to opposition and don't have the same bitter/ jealous tone that so many of Mike's comments have had for years, nor the insincere/backhanded compliments.  You are really reaching here my friend.

EoL

Point ons. A known and published author who starts a thread with such a title , instead of, say, "Do you feel Mike Love's reputation is justified"

The results would have been exactly the same.

I completely agree.  A different thread title might have given people more reason to think the author was being sincere, but the end result would have been the same.  Assuming the author is an outsider to this board, it is possible he had no idea the sh!t storm that would ensue.  I'm sure he knew it would be lively, but be probably wouldn't know there are two factions who really go at each other on this topic.  If a long time member started this thread with the current title I would be more likely to think he was trolling.

EoL

Sheriff - In recent years JC Penney wanted to try to reverse some of their losses and decreasing hold in the retail sales and department store market, they had once been among the iconic American brands and a retail powerhouse for decades until the business in general began to change, leaving Penney's brand and image seemingly stuck in the past. The Penney's board hired an executive who had been with Apple previously to try re-energizing the company and reversing their fortunes which were on a downward trend.

This Apple exec steps in, and proceeds with his "vision" and plan for the Penney brand. It was all but a reboot, or a total revamping of everything from how the store interacted with customers, to the look, to the overall day-to-day ops of the stores.

This former Apple exec's "vision" ended up nearly destroying the Penney brand for good. The loyal customers they did have rejected the changes. They still looked for weekly sales and special buys via ads that the Apple exec thought were too old-fashioned for his modernization plan. They wanted some of the old JC Penney to still be recognizable, and when it changed too much too fast, those loyal customers bailed too. The new, more tuned into Apple style business operations customer demographic never warmed up to the "new" ways of JC Penney either. Thinking perhaps..."I don't want to buy a pair of Khakis like I just bought this iPhone at the Apple Store". Etc etc etc.

Point is, it was one of the biggest corporate flops of the past decade. The Apple exec ended up getting shown the door after he all but marched the company off a cliff. JC Penney is still recovering after realizing JC Penney is NOT and should NOT be The Apple Store for obvious reasons. You'll have to check how they're doing now, I stopped following it.

But the point also that I'm getting at is this:

If the board of directors for JC Penney brought this Apple exec in to develop and execute a business plan to help the business, if everyone from high level management to mid level managers to buyers to the individual store managers and floor workers put their trust in the former Apple exec's vision and plan but it ended up almost destroying the company...

Is it their fault too that it failed? Or is it more a case of the leader who was trusted to lead the company simply failing to do what he was charged with doing for a variety of reasons, which was as in all business to make that business better? In the case of JC Penney, it must have been a cold shot in the face to realize Penney customers are not the same as Apple devotees. But the "blame" if you will rests more on the guy who put the entire fortunes of the company on what turned out to be a flawed premise from the start.

The blame is shared, or should be shared. Somebody - the Board Of Directors? - had to look at the incoming Apple exec's idea/plan and vote on it at a corporate meeting. If the plan is approved via a vote, and that plan fails, then not only the person who developed the idea, but the people who gave it "the green light" must be held accountable. In regard to The Beach Boys, not only is the person who thought of the plan - in this discussion Mike Love - should be held accountable, but also the people who approved it - in this case the other band members.

As far as the mid level managers, buyers, and store managers are concerned...now you are talking about the execution of the plan. There is a little bit of apples and oranges at play here with the example you used. Obviously with the subordinates the degree of accountability is limited. They aren't the ones who agreed to the plan; they are merely carrying it out. Their roles in the success or failure of the plan is limited in scope. But I'm not criticizing The Beach Boys for the way they executed and carried out their plans (although there are many instances where I/one could). The Beach Boys accountability and blame lies with the approval or accepting of the plan in the first place. When Mike made "his sales pitch", they could've rolled their eyes, laughed at him, and kicked his ass out the door. And maybe they did that. But they also went along with it. They voted for it. And for that, they share the blame...except on this board.

EDIT: Cam beat me to it with his response, made with much less words...

One question: who was fired?  The guy from Apple or the board who went along with his ideas?  The answer to this question tells you who is considered most responsible.  I didn't know anything about the history/origin of S&S until I read this thread.  I think it was a mistake, but no worse than other mistakes made by other band members, and I don't see it as a reason to dislike ML.  Mike has given us a lot of reasons to dislike him and as much as I dislike Kokomo and S&S and SIP and Uncle Jessie and the current touring band, those are just reasons to dislike his taste, choices, apparent preference for commerce over art, etc.  His public actions, comments about Brian, and lawsuits are the reasons to dislike him as a person.  Those things may not compel some, but it should be clear to all why he is disliked by so many.

EoL

you criticized the album in a pretty disrespectful way...so it's not surprising a couple people got offended by it. And no one is crying about it, just pointing out the absolutely childish manner in which you knocked the album.

A turd by any other name is still a turd. And I only mentioned NPP in the first place because YOU used SIP poor sales figures as a reflection of it's musical content. Well NPP has only sold twice as much as that did and that's with all the internet hype and coming off the back of a #3 reunion record. Yet you no doubt think NPP is a great record, so your argument falls apart.

Do you honestly think the reason a Beach Boys record in the early 90s (or whenever SIP was released) didn't sell is the same reason a Brian Wilson album isn't selling in 2015?  Further, you are isolating one part of the argument to the neglect of the full argument.  Poor sales when sales were robust plus critical panning plus terrible production plus bad music (I would argue) = SIP.  On the other hand, NPP has poor sales in a radically different music environment, received some critical praise, one song has won an award, the production, while far better than SIP, is admittedly too "AOR" for my ears, and the songs are pretty good, some excellent (in my opinion).  And of course a BW release does not have the benefit of the BB brand name, which carries a lot of weight.  In fact, I would argue that the general public wants to hear either Brian's falsetto or Mike's signature lead.  Furthermore, youth sells.  So as far as sales are concerned, NPP is handicapped, in the golf sense, in at least three regards:

1. By not having the BB brand attached
2. By being released in a sales environment drastically less robust than when SIP was released.  
3. The performer is 20+ years older, and in fact can be considered elderly

The point being, low album sales in the early 90s says a lot more about an album than low album sales in 2015, which is why you have to consider not just the other points of the argument, but you also have to "grade on a curve" in regards to sales.  So the argument in total, not just the single bit you chose to isolate because it fits your POV, does not at all fall apart.  But you knew that, you just picked the easy target and ignored the rest.

EoL

You know I really don't get why some of you waste your time coming to this board. People like drbeachboy and Mike's beard(you know what that makes you right?) This whole Brian vs. Mike thing is futile. It's art vs. commerce. I have always subscribed to Dennis' thoughts about Brian;"He is the Beach Boys,we're just his fucking messengers". I do think Mike gets blamed too much but his personality encourages it. Things like sitting there when Carl got punched by Rocky Pamplin or saying that Brian's first solo album was sh*t in the Goldmine article. Doing the 1981 Long Beach concert without Carl which did a fair amount of harm to their reputation. The cheerleaders onstage in the '90's, yes I know that the other Boys signed off on it but Mike came up with the idea.By the way, comparing SIP with those other albums is just sheer ignorance and bad taste. SIP would've been a better if Brian had been involved with it. Go listen to the Sea of Tunes stuff if you are wondering who the Beach Boys were. Somebody else knocked Brian's solo albums, only in America would people criticize an artist of Brian's magnitude. I don't know if you take Mike's side because you feel somebody has to or you really believe it, but I wish you a lot of luck.

But here it's you purporting this Brian vs. Mike bullshit. Why are there supposed to be two factions? Why is it an x vs. y situation? It is you and others making it that way. Reality is more intricate and subtle than that.

Who are you trying to kid?

1. Mike makes anti-Brian comments publicly and people here read them, you've read and commented on them.

2. Mike has initiated lawsuits against Brian (and Al) and I'm not just talking about the song writing credits lawsuit.  Are you unaware of these lawsuits?  I am pretty sure you've commented in those threads as well.

I don't think people here are making it that way.  I think Mike is making it that way.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is Mike.
 

So it seems it probably was pretty much as the liner notes have it. Haddad had the concept, Wojcik had the contacts, Mike did logistics and probably financial, Brian and Thomas did the "creative", all the Boys participated in recording and promotion.

Do the liner notes state Brian did the creative?  I'm not seeing that in the prior posts, only that Brian requested Willie.  I don't own it so I can't check for myself.

EoL

Never happen because Foskett is Brian's right hand man and Foskett doesn't like it and Brian can't even go out on the road without him...wait, nevermind.

EoL

LOL, it was another David Beard article - that explains the repeated Mike Love references for no apparent reason.  Anyone know what the deal is with that guy?  Is there a reason he is going out of his way lately to talk Mike up?

EoL

Who in the world wrote that (guess I could check for myself)?  In addition to continually fluffing Mike Love out of nowhere every few lines, the article is horribly written.

EoL

If Brian is to be the sole lead vocalist on 12-14 rock and roll songs, it is not a good idea. Brian Wilson is not a good rock and roll singer. But, I can think of a couple of other guys who ARE good rock and roll singers - Mike Love, Al Jardine, and Blondie Chaplin. How about David Marks on guitar? How about Ricky Fataar on drums?

The Beach Boys do have management, right? Well, how about calling a meeting and discussing a Beach Boys' rock and roll album. I would think that Capitol Records would be interested in such a project. Yeah, yeah, I know - been there, done that. But that was 40 years ago, and it would be an understatement to say that the finished product (15 Big Ones) was a train wreck, for multiple reasons. And, yeah, yeah, I know that The Beach Boys consistently show that they haven't learned anything in 55 years. Still, I'd be interested in hearing what that combination/lineup could come up with. I know, not a chance in hell, but still I dream of it.

Lead Vocals:

Mike - 5
Brian - 4
Al - 3
Blondie - 2
Bruce - 1 (a ballad)

I don't want a covers album no matter who is singing.  I have a strong preference for new material.  Pretty sure nobody cares what I want, but hey, now it's out there on the www.

EoL

OK, they are even.

Wait, so is it over the line or not?  Cause it sure seems you've changed your tune from your prior post.