gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 10:09:51 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 19 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread  (Read 215422 times)
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: August 14, 2006, 03:32:44 PM »

Dan, Brian did an interview around the time that album was released (in Rolling Stone, I believe) in which he discussed "I Wanna Pick You Up" as being about a man wanting to treat his girlfriend like a little baby, literally shrinking a grown woman to the size of a doll and playing with her.  It's not about a baby, and that's according to Brian himself!  It's always struck me as a weird song, because it talks about a "baby" in a rather sensual way.  There are elements of pedophilia in Brian's canon, including "Hey, Little Tomboy" and "Lazy Lizzie."  Perhaps the song has pleasant associations for you, but it never has for me!  It's always given me the creeps, and that's before I read the Brian quotes in some book that reprinted it.  I haven't read Peter's book yet (someday!), but I don't think he's off the mark there. 

     I'm a little more than halfway through the book.  It's definitely a good read and I'll have more to say later on, but I just read Peter's description of "I'm Wanna Pick You Up" and I have to say I was really upset by it.  Yes, I've read a few other people write essentially the same thing on the internet, but it didn't disturb me as much as seeing it in print in a real book.  Peter, I don't have any idea how you come up with your disturbing ideas about the song.  The second line of the song goes, "Cribs and cradles and bottles and toys, are part of joys they bring".  Now from there, how anyone could misinterpret the rest of song, which perfectly describes all things that parents do with children, into being some extremely weird sexual song is way beyond my comprehension.  The song is without a doubt nothing more than a story about a dad and his baby girl, albeit with a double entendre jokey title and first line.  This song has never done anything but bring joy to me.  However, your description of it makes me shudder.

       Love and merci,   Dan Lega
Logged
Peter Ames Carlin
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #276 on: August 14, 2006, 03:35:56 PM »

Yeah, "Hey Little Tomboy" is scary; nearly as much as "Lazy Lizzie," the less said about which, the better. And then you factor in Dennis's eventual sexual relationship with a teenaged girl he met through his teenaged daughter . . . and who just happened to be his second cousin. . . and it's not a very pretty picture.

And I remember that interview with Brian, too, about the guy who wants to treat his chick like a little baby. And then you begin to see how it's not so huge a stretch, after all.
Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2635


View Profile
« Reply #277 on: August 14, 2006, 04:03:18 PM »

Jerry Lee Lewis?? Say no more. Elvis had Priscilla locked up when she was 15 or 16...right? Bill Wyman and that Mandy chick? Rock stars in their 30's and young teenage girls?? Its practically mandatory. Although the baby thing is definitely creepy when tossed in with the rest of the "lecherous" parade...and I was one who pointed out the pedophilic overtones on Love You in my DW book back in 2000. That said, I love I Wanna Pick You Up... It's one of Brian's best in the later days I think.  This is certainly a touchy issue when you start disecting it. Turn the page please!!
Logged
Dave in KC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630


View Profile
« Reply #278 on: August 14, 2006, 04:59:22 PM »

I have always loved both songs. The thought NEVER crossed my mind in all these years. I must have quickly passed over that information in your book Jon, and Peter, I'm not that far into yours. I guess I'm just not wired like that or am I missing something? I've played IWTPYU for my daughter since she was a baby and I refuse to believe the group had any other notion in mind when they produced Tomboy.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #279 on: August 14, 2006, 05:03:42 PM »

Remember,though, Brian can be rather child-like. I don't think he was conciously thinking along the lines of R. Kelly or Michael Jackson, but more along the lines of, I dunno, thinking as a child himself, only with adult feelings. I mean, he WAS going to name an album Adult Child.  Also, too, he was stoned out of his gourd most of the time, and probably thought it was funny. This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #280 on: August 14, 2006, 05:22:38 PM »

What the f*** ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Jonas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1923


I've got the Beach Boys, my friends got the Stones


View Profile
« Reply #281 on: August 14, 2006, 05:28:16 PM »

I dont think its "defending" as much as a different interpretation of the music.
Logged

We would like to record under an atmosphere of calmness. - Brian Wilson
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IgXT3xFdU
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #282 on: August 14, 2006, 05:55:12 PM »

What the foda ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.

I have a response to this, but as this thread is about Peter & his book, I'll create a new topic for it.  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2615.0.html

I'm interested in what you guys think about this...
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Peter Ames Carlin
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #283 on: August 14, 2006, 06:09:45 PM »

I'm gonna weigh in one last time on this thread, if only because it's within the context of 'CAW,' which seems on-topic here.

Guys dig younger girls, it's true. And while Jerry Lee wasn't far from a teenager himself when he got into it with his woefully young cousin (13 or something?) and Brian wasn't far removed from high school while swooning over HS girls during his conversations with Tony Asher during the 'PS' writing sessions (see also: chapter five in 'CAW'), I'm going to guess that his ongoing fixation with youngsters and young love may have had more to do with his upbringing than anything else. Rememering, perhaps, the purity of those feelings when you're that young, and wishing it could be that way again. Not just in terms of puppy love in high school, but also as a very young child, when your needs are met and love doled out almost constantly, without anyone telling you to be successful or profitable of whatever.

Hence "I Wanna PIck You Up" and maybe some of those other vaguely (or not so vaguely) lecherous tunes. At least, that's the most charitable way of interpreting it.

That said, you don't have to listen to 'Love You,' and other tunes from that era, very hard to see how the always-uncomfortable relationship between Brian (and the others) and women was playing out in their early-to-mid-30s. As ever, grown-up relationships seem fraught with so many complexities it's hair-raising. Consider the first line of the first song on the first side of 'Love You': "To get you babe, I went through the wringer..." Which takes us back to so many great first lines in so many great Brian love songs. To wit: "SInce she put me down I been out doing in my head"; "Wendy, Wendy what went wrong?"; "Sometimes I have a weird way of showing my love," "and on and on and on and on and on.

It's always so much easier when the girl is either a complete abstraction ("Well east coast girls are hip!") or too young to have any authority in the relationship ("You're still a baby to me.")

I ain't saying it's sick or wrong. I'm just sayin'. And I'm glad my head doesn't work that way. But my dad kept his eyes in his head, even when he was really mad.

Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #284 on: August 14, 2006, 06:15:03 PM »

I think that has a lot to do with it too. I do think this issue bears further discussion, but I personally think it'd be better served in the link I posted Wink
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #285 on: August 14, 2006, 11:57:03 PM »

What the foda ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.

Exactly. "Oh, that's just Brian" is absolutely NO defense against someone who tried to get his pre-teen daughter to snort heroin with him. That was the point where Marilyn said "enough".
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Dan Lega
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 191


View Profile
« Reply #286 on: August 15, 2006, 07:36:31 AM »


      Whether you think some of their other songs are lecherous or not, I still defy anyone to show me one line in "I Wanna Pick You Up", other than the opening line, that even comes close to something that hasn't been done innocently with babies for generation upon generation upon generation.  "Pat her on the butt"?  Please tell me one time you haven't held a baby and didn't pat him or her on the butt!

      Okay, I admit, I totally forgot about Brian saying the song was about someone wanting to treat his girlfriend like a little baby.  That is really weird.  Still, I defy you to show one instance in this song (again, other than the jokey opening line) that gives any impression of the sort.  I'm not talking about inferences you want to pull from other songs, I'm talking about this song only.  But why would Brian give such a weird explanation as this?  I don't rightfully know.  Perhaps because he was embarassed about writing a cute little song about a baby and thought that something as innocent as that would not sell to teenagers?  That's the only "rational" explanation I can come up with, otherwise, I really don't have the foggiest clue.  But remember, Brian is known for the "put on".  Also, he's lied about so many things over the years, and what was that weird answer he gave to what constitutes "The Elements" in SMiLE -- something like "H&V" is earth and "Good Vibrations" is air, etc.  Brian doesn't always answer every question truthfully.   

      Someone said something about "don't defend Brian with 'Oh, that's just Brian'".  I guess I am defending him, but I'm not defending him from being a lecherous old man or a child molester, because first you have to prove to me that there is evidence that Brian in his thirties was a lecherous old man or a child molester.  If there was any evidence he did these things I would not defend him.  Just as no one defends him being out of his mind and offering hard drugs to his children.  You can say Brian is lecherous because he wrote songs about teenage girls when he was in his thirties.  However, that is not really enough evidence.  As far as we know he never did anything with teenagers when he was that age, so I don't have to defend him from being a true lech.  Also, if you look carefully as songs such as "Roller Skating Child", "Let Us Go On This Way", and, yes, even "Hey Little Tomboy" you'll find that they were most likely written in the voice of a teenaged male.  There's not a single line is any of those songs that suggest that the protaganist is a much older male.  Therefore, I don't even have to defend him for writing numerous lecherous songs because in my view he didn't.  Okay, now we get to "Lazy Lizzie".  I'll admit, this does seem to be a song with strictly lecherous overtones, but it's the only one you can make an airtight case for.  And since we have no evidence that Brian really was lecherous, then I don't see why you need to condemn the man and all his other songs for one song that is a bit unsettling and unpleasant.   

       
             Love and merci,   Dan Lega
Logged
busy doin nothin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 209



View Profile
« Reply #287 on: August 15, 2006, 08:21:34 AM »

A while back I posted a comment in which I complained about Peter's very harsh criticism of MIU Album in the book.  I think Dan's concern about the "I Wanna Pick You Up" comment arises from the same fundamental problem with the book  -- it spends way too much time providing criticism of the music.  The problem with this type of criticism is that it is usually based on the lyrics.  I find analysis of rock lyrics to be very uninteresting, personally.  Peter spends a fair amount of time in the book making a case that the Beach Boys' music is "significant" American art on a scale similar to the music of Stephen Foster or works like Huckleberry Finn.  Ironically, almost the entire case for this view rests on lyrics that were written by Mike Love.

I have read the entire book carefully and spent a lot of time thinking about it.  In many respects, this book is -- or should be -- the definitive biography of Brian Wilson.  Certainly the list of interview subjects is very impressive -- from BW himself to the Lovester, Al, David Marks, numerous high school friends of Brian including Carol Mountain and Rich Sloan, Steve Love, Steve Desper, Melinda, Carnie Wilson, Danny Hutton, Van Dyke Parks, Andy Paley, and many others.  The portrait of Brian in high school is very interesting and telling.  I also found the insights of David Sandler extremely informative and something I had never read before.  Ultimately, Peter does a good job of portraying Brian's life -- at least through about the mid-eighties -- as much less fractured that it has previously been presented.  In other words, Peter shows that Brian had signs of mental illness as early as high school, and that he was not as "crazy" or messed up in the years after SMiLE as we are usually led to believe.

On the other hand, there are many important people who were not interviewed for this book.  Although Al and Mike spoke to Peter, it does not appear that they contributed much of interest.  (I did find the story, told mostly by Maureen Love, about Glee Love throwing all of Mike's belongings out the window when he at 18 got his girlfriend pregnant to be very poignant and telling.)  Brian also does not appear to have said much about the Beach Boys history.  The single biggest person who did not contribute is probably Marilyn.  If it had been my book, I certainly would have wanted to talk to Ricky and Blondie; I don't know if Peter tried.

A major problem I have with the book is the failure to provide sources.  When Peter is quoting from an interview, he makes it clear in the text.  But he makes many, many definitive statements about musical issues that have been the subject of debate for decades (often on this very board) without explaining his sources.  One example is the statement that Brian came up with the piano part on "Don't Go Near the Water" -- I'm not disputing it, I'd just like to know the source.  Also Peter describes and refers to many unreleased studio tapes and home recordings without explaining where he got them.

Another problem is the treatment of Carl, Dennis, and (to a lesser extent) Al.  Peter seems to basically agree with the David Leaf view that it was the Beach Boys who stifled Brian, forcing him not to put out SMiLE in 1967 and forcing him to be the cash cow that kept them going through the lean times.  For instance, Melinda is quoted, uncritically, as saying, about SMiLE, that Brian "show[ed] it to [his] family, and they did nothing but belittle it."  I'm sorry, but I don't see the evidence for this anywhere in the book.  If you use the term "family" and you only mean Mike (and maybe Murry), you have to make that clear.  Where is the evidence that Carl and Dennis were ever anything but supportive of SMiLE?  Certainly it's not to be found in Peter's book.  I loved the story about Peter and his friend running into Dennis and Karen Lamm on the streets of Seattle in 1976.  But that was the only time Dennis came alive in the book.  Dennis and Carl are portrayed as pretty minor characters in this story

Ultimately, sadly, even Brian fails to come alive.  How can a biography of Brian Wilson not even mention Debbie Keil?  Or make some attempt to explain the relationship between Brian and Diane Rovell?  From the mid-eighties on, Brian comes across as a cipher in this book.  The idea that the failure to complete SMiLE was the fundamental issue in his life -- and that he achieved some divine closure with the release of BWPS -- I find very hard to swallow.  What is Brian Wilson really like these days?  Having read this book I still don't know.
Logged

"Your rent bill is high, so you work to try and get by . . . "
Peter Ames Carlin
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #288 on: August 15, 2006, 09:17:23 AM »

If Dan and BDN don't like the book, that's cool. They have their own expectations and needs, and if 'CAW' didn't satisfy them, I'm sorry about that, and I hope their questions and concerns are satisfied by another writer or book sometime soon. And I think their problems can be instructive for other potential readers/purchasers. To wit:

1. Criticism: If you're looking for a book that doesn't identify and analyze the flaws in BW and the BB's music, this isn't the one you're after. A large part of the story I set out to tell is about how a band/artist who produced some of the rock era's best, most innovative music, could also produce some really awful stuff, too. Then come back and produce more great stuff. I think that's fascinating.

2. Sources: I identify them when/where it seemed important. As to the chain of events that led to my having this tape or that collection of outtakes...that's not the sort of info this book seemed to call out for. Does the average reader really want to know which collector slipped me which tape, as a result of it being slipped to him back in the 'i80s by some other, nameless collector? That's a whole other book, not the one I set out to write.

3. Carl, Dennis and Al: To the extent that they were a part of Brian's life (a lot, often) they figure in. But take a close look at the book title. See how it's about Brian? That makes everyone else a supporting character. And when it comes to whether they did or didn't always support Brian's artistic vision....my interpretation of that issue came from dozens of conversations with dozens of sources, ranging from Brian on down.

4. Diane: I have a hard time with your assertion that the book doesn't discuss or explain Brian's fixation with his sister-in-law. It's all over the 'Pet Sounds' chapter, for instance. And if it doesn't go into even more depth, or take in his exploits with Debbie Keil, etc., that's because it has nothing to do with his work. It's tabloid stuff, at best symptomatic of other problems which are discussed, analyzed, etc. But if it's sex and drugs you're after, Gaines' book is out in softcover.

'CAW' is a book about the life and work of an American artist who has defined both the greatest and most tragic threads in our national character.  It includes all manner of sex, drugs and horror, but most often as a way to describe how the work echoed or expanded upon these other, bigger themes. If that sounds interesting you should buy it or check it out of the library. If not, don't. 


Logged
busy doin nothin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 209



View Profile
« Reply #289 on: August 15, 2006, 11:18:23 AM »

If Dan and BDN don't like the book, that's cool. They have their own expectations and needs, and if 'CAW' didn't satisfy them, I'm sorry about that, and I hope their questions and concerns are satisfied by another writer or book sometime soon. And I think their problems can be instructive for other potential readers/purchasers. To wit:

1. Criticism: If you're looking for a book that doesn't identify and analyze the flaws in BW and the BB's music, this isn't the one you're after. A large part of the story I set out to tell is about how a band/artist who produced some of the rock era's best, most innovative music, could also produce some really awful stuff, too. Then come back and produce more great stuff. I think that's fascinating.

2. Sources: I identify them when/where it seemed important. As to the chain of events that led to my having this tape or that collection of outtakes...that's not the sort of info this book seemed to call out for. Does the average reader really want to know which collector slipped me which tape, as a result of it being slipped to him back in the 'i80s by some other, nameless collector? That's a whole other book, not the one I set out to write.

3. Carl, Dennis and Al: To the extent that they were a part of Brian's life (a lot, often) they figure in. But take a close look at the book title. See how it's about Brian? That makes everyone else a supporting character. And when it comes to whether they did or didn't always support Brian's artistic vision....my interpretation of that issue came from dozens of conversations with dozens of sources, ranging from Brian on down.

4. Diane: I have a hard time with your assertion that the book doesn't discuss or explain Brian's fixation with his sister-in-law. It's all over the 'Pet Sounds' chapter, for instance. And if it doesn't go into even more depth, or take in his exploits with Debbie Keil, etc., that's because it has nothing to do with his work. It's tabloid stuff, at best symptomatic of other problems which are discussed, analyzed, etc. But if it's sex and drugs you're after, Gaines' book is out in softcover.

'CAW' is a book about the life and work of an American artist who has defined both the greatest and most tragic threads in our national character.  It includes all manner of sex, drugs and horror, but most often as a way to describe how the work echoed or expanded upon these other, bigger themes. If that sounds interesting you should buy it or check it out of the library. If not, don't. 




Peter --

I should say, first of all, that I thought the book was very well written and as I hope I suggested above, well researched.  I think you're right that my concerns are probably fundamentally at the conceptual level -- not with how well you accomplished what you set out to do, but rather with the goal you set for yourself.  I think you wrote a very solid book.

However, I still have a problem with a theme that is repeated throughout -- that Brian was the victim of his "family."  Brian certainly was a victim of Murry, but I feel you allowed the implication to permeate the book that he was also victimized by the rest of his family -- and you didn't define the term very well.  Do you really mean that Brian's problems were caused by Carl or Dennis (yes, I know about Dennis giving Brian drugs in the late 70s, but Brian was 35 years old by then)?  How exactly was Brian exploited or victimized by his brothers -- or even really by Mike?  Brian was (and is) a rich, powerful, famous fully grown man, fully capable of deciding what he wanted and getting it.  Sure, he had terrible judgment and psychological problems, but so do a lot of people.  The fact that he made big mistakes doesn't turn him into a martyr.  When exactly did anyone put a gun to his head and forbid him to release SMiLE?  Certainly it wasn't Carl or Dennis.

As for the sources, it's not just the tapes -- although you can see on this very thread that many people who know a lot about BB bootlegs have never heard some of the stuff you refer to in the book (such as the tape of Brian singing SJB in high school).  It's also many statements about musical attribution -- like Brian's piano on Don't Go Near the Water -- that it would be nice to see the sources for.

I don't think you can call Brian's relationship with Debbie Keil (or Diane Rovell) "tabloid stuff."  You allude to Brian's crush on Diane in the Pet Sounds section, but this was more than a crush -- by many accounts it went on well into the 70s.  I don't know exactly what happened between BW and DR, but if I were writing a bio of Brian that would be one of the first questions I would try to get answered.  It's an important part of his life -- as is his relationship with Debbie Keil.  If you don't mention those things it seems like you are trying to whitewash the story.  It seems as though you feel Carolyn Williams is okay to talk about because Brian was divorced at the time and they lived together -- but Debbie and Diane are not because they happened when Brian was still married to Marilyn.  I want to know the truth -- about Brian and his brothers, and the group as a whole.  I don't want to think of Brian as some feeble child-like saint who just wanted to put out SMiLE for all these years but his mean old family wouldn't let him.  I want to think of him as a vibrant, living human being who did what he wanted with his life, made some huge mistakes, but also made more beautiful music than anyone in history -- including, yes, his contributions to MIU, KTSA, and BB85, as well as his solo stuff.
Logged

"Your rent bill is high, so you work to try and get by . . . "
Peter Ames Carlin
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #290 on: August 15, 2006, 12:46:17 PM »

Hey BDN: Again, you're welcome to not like the book for whatever reasons. But I think you've imagined this idea that I say or even imply that Brian was victimized by his family. I never say that in the book, so unless you can come up with specific examples, and want me to address them, I can't really answer that. I think it's fairly obvious that Carl lost his patience with Brian sometime in the '70s and was less than eager to see his big brother re-establish control over the band. I think I make that clear in the book, but  I don't believe I ever define that as "victimization."

And again, Brian's romantic life is richly covered in Gaines's book. I cover it to the extent it helps us understand his work. But I'm way more interested in his relationship with David Sandler than I am in his relationship with Debbie Keil. I certainly acknowledge that he had affairs and that life in the Wilson house was kinda topsy-turvy that way. But getting into it more deeply than that seems like a distraction, and a stupid one, at that. So he screwed around. Wahoo. It's super-titillating to read it in Gaines's book, but it has nothing to do with what makes him an important artist, and it tells us nothing about his work. At which point I cease to care. But if you need to know specifics about someone's sex life in order to make them come alive in your imagination, you've got plenty of options, book-wise. I wanted to know more about his music.

Logged
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #291 on: August 15, 2006, 03:55:13 PM »

Did Brian ever do what he wanted to do with his life?  Many times, no.  People forget that Brian was very seriously mentally ill in the '60s and '70s.  His thought processes aren't going to be the same as someone who does not suffer from that.  I know people say that his speaking voice and demeanor were much better than they have been in recent years, judging by the few films and tapes from those years.  But that's much different than what was going on  in his mind.  For example, journalist David Dalton recounted meeting Brian in 1968.  Brian was friendly with him, but then the reason for that came out -- Brian was convinced that David was Phil Spector.  And David Dalton doesn't look the least bit like Phil Spector!  The man had delusions, heard voices, the whole bit.  I'm sure his family had nothing to do with that, but I'm sure they made decisions on his behalf he may or may not have agreed with due to his disablity, or may not  have been in his best interest.  They had to keep things going, and it was the best they could do.  They also had their own self-interests in mind, which is natural.  That doesn't make them evil, just human, and they also had problems of their own, as several people have stated.  They all came from the same dysfunctional family situation, as Melinda Wilson has said.  I haven't read Peter's book, but I can see how maybe the family might come across as non-sympathetic, which they also do in the Steven Gaines book.   The Steven Gaines book is hardly pro-Beach Boys, either.

As for Diane Rovell, I don't see it being that important, either.  It is tabloid stuff.  Brian was also so self-involved due to his illness, I'm not sure how impactful human relationships were to him, at least not as much as a more stable person.  Diane must have had huge problems of her own to resort to that, and I'm not sure how much anyone would get out of her, because it's a touchy topic for her sister and her nieces, as well.  Gaines just touches on it as it is.  As for Debbie Keil, no, I don't care either.  I don't think it would add that much.  I've always gotten the impression that Brian's male friendships had a bigger impact on him, and that's even mentioned in the Gaines book, that Brian always needed a best friend to bounce off of.  Those friendships sometimes resulted in songwriting, so, yes, they are more important in his story just from that standpoint.

I guess I need to buy and read the book!  Peter's musical analysis surely can't be any worse than Steven Gaines, who seemed to have never even listened much to the music.
Logged
Glenn Greenberg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 307


View Profile
« Reply #292 on: August 15, 2006, 04:16:22 PM »

This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!
Logged

Glenn
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #293 on: August 15, 2006, 04:17:29 PM »

I think Peter wanted to write a certain kind of book with his perspective on the creative life of Brian Wilson and how it was impacted by certain events and people and his own struggle with mental illness.  It certainly  succeeds on that basis, but it is colored (by necessity) by his critical bias (concerning the music) and his perspective on who and what influenced Brian.  Because of the book's relatively short length, many life episodes and people and events are given short shrift or ignored.  Personally, I feel Brian's relationships with women are very important and telling as to what needs these women were fulfilling and what needs Brian had that were being ignored.  To what degree Brian's romantic life was based on fantasy and an obsession with "innocence" is important in evaluating his crushes on Marilyn, Carol Mountain, and then Diane, Barbara, and others.  These romantic fantasies and obsessions filled his talk with his collaborators (which, to give Peter credit, he does cover in discussing Tony Asher and Andy Paley) and also fueled his creativity in writing songs - Pet Sounds in particular but Love You and Adult Child as well.  so I would have liked more coverage of this area.

My major complaint about the book is it's too SHORT!  It could easily have been twice the length, and gone into more detail about the Landy years (I was surprized Peter didn't bring up the short lived plan to finish Smile in 1988 with new lyrics by Landy having to do with therapy), more coverage about Brian's creativity during the "bedroom" years, more on the Paley era with the fall out with Carl, etc.  Everything is touched on, but we Brian obsessives want MORE!  I really feel this book is aimed at the average person who knows the big hits of the Beach Boys and that Brian had problems with drugs and mental illness, and little more.  which is OK, those people should thoroughly enjoy the book, but we Brian nuts want every detail covered and can't help but wish this was discussed or that included.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #294 on: August 15, 2006, 04:41:42 PM »

This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!
I think I have it on my hard drive. I'll look for it. It's pretty famous.

Quote
.  For example, journalist David Dalton recounted meeting Brian in 1968.  Brian was friendly with him, but then the reason for that came out -- Brian was convinced that David was Phil Spector.  And David Dalton doesn't look the least bit like Phil Spector!

WHAT?! I've never heard that one before. Yikes...
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #295 on: August 15, 2006, 08:52:39 PM »

This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!

It's in both editions of the Leaf book.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
MBE
Guest
« Reply #296 on: August 15, 2006, 09:47:35 PM »

Dalton is kind of a Nick Kent if you have read any of his books on the Stones. After all he said that Brian wouldn't do the beach pyramid pictures with the group in 67. Made a big deal of this and we all know Brian took several pyramid pictures that day. Now his stories are fun but how true they are is open to debate. I too wish CAW was longer but to me what is there is overall good.

I disagree strongly though that Diane and Debbie don't have anything to do with Brian's creativity. I have interviewed Debbie and she had a lot of insight (totally non tabloid) on Brian's music, and mental state in the seventies (he seemed fairly normal and self sufficient in 1969 when they met). She was horrified to be labeled a groupie in the Landy book and took serious issue with Kent had to say about her. Diane also was a big part of the Honeys and Spring creative process as songwriter and singer. She also was helped book the Beach Boys sessions and (I think) hired musicians for them. Not to mention songs these women inspired like Funky Pretty, Night Was So Young, and My Diane.

I don't agree totally with everything Peter says about the family, but I do think he gave Love equal time to say his side of the story thus making the book fair overall. For instance while he mentions the Mike Heroes rant, he also points out that Brian probably wrote it with him and participated even laughing at times. I mean that Cassius Love thing was basically the same idea. As far as how bad his family was I think Landy and his current advisers fed Brian a lot of crap about Smile. Not that their weren't issues but the victim thing is to me B.S. He often worked super close with the others from 67-70 and when he didn't feel like it he didn't (something Peter points out quite well). The post Smile era until perhaps 1971 was a time where everyone worked together well. This was something Brian was very clear on and happy about when we spoke. Sure he and Mike continued to clash but more often then not they wrote and performed fantastically together during that time.

I think one thing that everyone misses is that we created Brian to be fed up with Smile ourselves in some ways. By asking him about it all the time when he had new music to offer must have pissed him off. He probably agreed to it to get everyone to stop bugging him. Sure it probably took a great weight off of him once he did it but I think wanting to stop being harassed about it played a big role in why he decided to go along with completing it.

Overall the book is very good and Peter taught all of us some things we wouldn’t have known otherwise.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #297 on: August 15, 2006, 10:15:59 PM »

I don't know if Peter really wants more comments about the woulda-shoulda-coulda regarding his book, but here's my take having read it.

It certainly is important to remember two fundamental things: This is a BW bio, not a BB's bio, and it given the book's length and mainstream release, it probably is targeted more at casual fans or newly-interested fans. Those things are all fine.

At this point, I would love to see a BB's bio (as opposed to bio focusing more on one member) as reader-friendly as the books put together by Carlin or Stebbins, that focuses on all of the members and places equal focus on all eras. I'm not saying that one has to devote as large a word count to Al writing "Lady Lynda" as Brian writing "Pet Sounds", but I for one am interested in things having to do with other members.

I think most people on this board know the basic story forward and backwards, so many of us, when it comes to Peter's book, find the most interest in little tidbits of info we haven't heard before and new insights based on new interviews we haven't read. Unfortunately, in a bio covering Brian's whole life in 300 or so pages, it's probably not possible to get into intricate detail on why there was at attempted ousting of Al in 1990 (although, my second post asking for more info on this from Peter got lost among the "I Wanna Pick You Up" discussion, so if Peter replies to my questions regarding that, that would be great!). I give Peter credit for explicitly explaining in the book, at the point where he discusses the Al/Mike 1998 split, that the whole thing is just too complicated to get into. I'm sure Peter is tired of the woulda-shoulda, but I would have like to see perhaps some footnotes or endnotes in the book when things like the attempted outsting of Al were brought up, to at least offer a bit of additional info for those who are interested. Again, perhaps this would have led to page count problems. In any event, since these new little tidbits of info mentioned often in passing are some of the things that hardcore fans are finding the most interesting, that might be why some fans are so adament about following up on these tidbits asking for more background information. "What's your source?" may sound a bit accusatory, but I think most fans ask this because they'd like to see more info on that subject, not because they don't believe what Peter wrote. But I'll let other fans/readers speak for themselves on that.

I'm not too concerned with an author's favoring or not favoring a given album or era. Nearly every BB book I've read, I've disagreed with on that sort of thing. I think Jon Stebbins' DW bio is fantastic, but I certainly don't agree with every opinion he has on every song or album. Same goes to Peter's book, or Andrew Doe's, or most books that take any sort of critical look at the music. So those preferences aren't too important to me. Sure, a huge bias on an author's part might color the entire book, but I don't think anything written by Stebbins or Carlin or Doe has that problem. (I don't meant to single any authors out, these are just the three names that are familiar to this board).

Also, I think, and I hope I'm not making too many assumptions, but just about any author has their own points of interest and things they're not as interested in. I would be willing to bet that Jon Stebbins or Peter Ames Carlin aren't as interested in certain aspects of the BB's story as I am. For instance, as great as Peter's book is, and as much as it does offer some new insights and ways of looking at something like "Pet Sounds", it's been quite awhile since I've really read much in terms of actual new information about the creation of "Pet Sounds." So in this instance, I would probably like to read more in a book about something that we know less about, like the reasons for Al no longer playing in the touring BB's, or the aborted Paley/Was sessions, or Brian's early 80's life, and perhaps less about the creation of "Pet Sounds."

This is how I always look at the Beach Boys: They may never get the coverage they deserve when it comes to literature or documentary, etc. Think about it: the "Beatles Anthology" took nearly 10 hours of video to tell a story that, for the most part, covers 1962 to 1970. 10 hours for 8 years. What do we have for the BB's? Endless Harmony clocks in at something like 1 hour and 40 minutes, right? And that covers about 37 years, 1961-1998 roughly. To tell the BB's story in the same detail as something like the "Beatles Anthology", it would take thousands of pages or 30-40 hours of video (keeping in mind that the entire 40-plus year history of the BB's is not as jam packed from year to year as the 62-70 era for the Beatles).

Taking all that into consideration, I can't fault Peter's book beyond the standard sort of critical look that I would and do give any book. I mean, is any publisher really going to publish a bio on Brian or the group that basically consists of "Only Stories that Haven't Been Told in Other Books". I'd buy it, most of us would. But the general public wouldn't. And as much as I'd like to see a 10-part book on the history of the group, that would be large undertaking for even the most connected group insider to do.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Roger Ryan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1528


View Profile
« Reply #298 on: August 16, 2006, 06:00:59 AM »

This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!

In addition to being published, you can find the picture hanging in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame Museum in Cleveland...in the cafeteria area appropriately enough (just thought a little bit of levity would lighten this heavy thread for a moment).
Logged
JRauch
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 386



View Profile
« Reply #299 on: August 16, 2006, 08:17:05 AM »

Just for the balance of this thread:

Peter, your describtion of "Busy Doing Nothin" is pure brilliance. It was due to your book that I finally "got" that song. Thanks!
Logged

Dance as if no one's looking. Wrestle things out to bring moment to your own sense of discovery, and make the world a better place. This is no time for whiners.  –  Van Dyke Parks
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 19 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.466 seconds with 23 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!