Monterey Pop Festival

[bgas]

Coca-Cola was a licensed vendor, so if that counts as sponsorship, I guess.

And when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if they really were a sponsor or not; only that Mike felt they were, and opposed playing for that reason.( if he did indeed act upon it)

[Pretty Funky]

Mike must have been ok with Coke by 68 as he is holding a can in those Saltair pictures as discussed a few weeks back.

[tpesky]

Sure in 67 it could take paint off  metal...but by '68 it was practically health food.

[filledeplage]

Sure in 67 it could take paint off  metal...but by '68 it was practically health food.

Yes, it was made with real sugar (in the US) as opposed to high fructose corn syrup which is terrible.  I watch for the Kosher blend around the Jewish holidays and which is bottled with a yellow cap. That is real Coca-Cola. 

And, a lot of stores also carry Coca-Cola in the original green glass bottles, from Mexico, for about $1.40 a bottle. That is also made without high fructose corn syrup.  That is available, year round.

Didn't they use it to clean car engines with Coca Cola back in the day?   

[Mikie]

The Coke thing was a minor excuse. If the rest of the band wanted to, they woulda shoved the Coke excuse down Mike's throat. I'm not so sure The Boys realized how big this thing was going to be, even though the organizers didn't invite The Stones, The Doors, or Clapton/Cream, or Dylan.

After reading about this Monterey Festival retraction for years (yes it hurt them) I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was all about hipness. How were the older Beach Boys songs going to play out with The Who and Hendrix and Joplin and the Jefferson Hairpie? Times were a-changin.

Brian had just come off the Smile album and was burnt out. They were right in the middle of recording the Smiley Smile album (which was very late) and gettin' stoned on hash all the time. Didn't feel like going anywhere until two months later when they went to Hawaii and got more stoned, then came back to Heider's to touch up the tapes. But I don't think Brian was a big factor anyway - he wasn't in the touring band at that point. They had Good Vibrations and Heroes & Villains to play for the crowd - and what else? Vegetables? Nah. Couple songs off the Pet Sounds album? Maybe. Carl's draft? A little bit. Dennis' divorce? Nah. The band nmay have been intimidated and didn't like the idea of possibly getting a negative reaction, especially in Rolling Stone Mag and other press. Just some thoughts........

[Cam Mott]

I agree, it looks pretty shaky but you know they heard what they heard. Mike alone couldn't keep them from going. Also, how does that square with his MPF comments at the time of the festival to that reporter.

Brian probably could unilaterally keep them from going but I don't know if he did. Might of, Vosse seemed to think that the people involved with the organizers sort of freaked/creeped Brian out if I remember right. Maybe he had a "your festivals a witch" type personal issue.

I wonder if the Boys didn't see the organization as flaky or seeming to be all hat and no cattle or something else that didn't inspire their confidence. I can't believe the Boys were intimidated by the other acts, they were still c*ck of the walk. Weren't they headliners? Weren't they having most of the hip bands of the moment open for them up to through that period.

I'm leaning more toward Brian and/or some/all the Boys having a lack of personal confidence in the organizers with maybe Carl [and the maybe others] caving to a worry about his legal status. And maybe Mike had a fleeting [for a few days] issue with Coke being vended on top of it. I guess I'm agreeing it probably was many things.

[Sheriff John Stone]

There's three things I never understood regarding the decision not to play Monterey.

First, Mike was making a judgment about the merits - or lack of - of Coca-Cola. Now, keep in mind that this was an outdoor rock & roll festival. Didn't Mike realize what other "substances" were going to be consumed during the concert, including his band's set? That would be terribly naive and contradictory to take a stand on Coke, but not the other substances more harmful to one's health.

Second, Carl was protesting the war in his own personal (religious?) way. Wouldn't Carl be praised for this stance by the audience at Monterey rather than be criticized? You know, love and peace, man...

Third, I don't think the band would've gone with the mellow, slowed-down sound of the Hawaii set. A large part of that Monterey audience was right up their alley. I mean, you had kids from California, outdoors, enjoying the summer day (and summer night), trying to pick up girls, enjoying rock and roll music. The Beach Boys could've easily - easily - come up with a satisfying setlist. I can't see how the audience would not be entertained. How far removed were they from that infamous poll which voted them the Number 1 group in the world?

[Mikie]

Well, on the other hand, I think if the Mama's and Papa's could play this festival, the Beach Boys could too. Like the Mama's & Papa's, the Beach Boys had recent hits that were pretty well received the previous two years. John & Michelle Phillps lived in Brian's neighborhood, didn't they? You'd think they would have influenced their decision. Were the Beach Boys as hip as the Mama's and Papa's. Would they have left their striped shirts and tennis shoes home for this gig?

[Steve Mayo]

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

[bgas]

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

do you remember where in the special?  not sure I want to listen to the whole thing ( again?)

[Steve Mayo]

it was when they talk about 1967 and smiley and such. don't remember which tape...maybe 4?

[Shady]

Maybe Mike thought it was another type of coke

[bgas]

it was when they talk about 1967 and smiley and such. don't remember which tape...maybe 4?

I think I have it on LP. I'll have to check.... (or maybe tape)  there's SO much stuff....

But I can't find them....

[Sheriff John Stone]

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

Not THAT ^ is more believable. The Beach Boys and problems with money. Not surprising at all.

[filledeplage]

There's three things I never understood regarding the decision not to play Monterey.

First, Mike was making a judgment about the merits - or lack of - of Coca-Cola. Now, keep in mind that this was an outdoor rock & roll festival. Didn't Mike realize what other "substances" were going to be consumed during the concert, including his band's set? That would be terribly naive and contradictory to take a stand on Coke, but not the other substances more harmful to one's health.

Second, Carl was protesting the war in his own personal (religious?) way. Wouldn't Carl be praised for this stance by the audience at Monterey rather than be criticized? You know, love and peace, man...

Third, I don't think the band would've gone with the mellow, slowed-down sound of the Hawaii set. A large part of that Monterey audience was right up their alley. I mean, you had kids from California, outdoors, enjoying the summer day (and summer night), trying to pick up girls, enjoying rock and roll music. The Beach Boys could've easily - easily - come up with a satisfying setlist. I can't see how the audience would not be entertained. How far removed were they from that infamous poll which voted them the Number 1 group in the world?

Sheriff - Why they didn't play, I don't know, and whatever reasons set forth, are of no consequence.  It didn't happen.  It was too far away for me, so it did not affect me.  But, I hope that in the Rock History courses, they teach the rock music material in historical context, as it reflects the era.  

To be sure, Carl Wilson was under government scrutiny, as a result of his draft status.  And, that had to have spilled over his family.  Read the Band.  Or 4 of 6.  If anyone had a case in Federal Court, and your personal freedom might be at stake, would it be prudent to taunt the government by showing up at a festival such as Monterey or "walk the line" and keep your "nose clean?"  (That could be the reason; I don't know.). But these were very public facts.

If Carl lost his petition, and ended up getting drafted, it would have been a way to make an example of him, and send a "message" to those who would evade the draft.  It was a very high bar of evidence to support your claim for CO status.  Had he been drafted, it would have changed the dynamic of the Band, and the loss of that incredible voice.

There is much interesting material in print and online concerning privacy invasion by the government.  You might start with John Lennon.  It went on for decades.  Rock music was perceived as anti-government, anti- establishment, etc. Yada Yada Yada. They stalked actors, musicians, and other high profile people.  Carl's draft status was often in the news because of a "Why should he be above the law?" attitude.
 

[Mikie]

If they would have wanted Carl that bad in June of 1967, they would have grabbed him. They didn't need to wait for the Monterey gig to expose him or set any kind of "examples." All they had to look at was the list of shows he'd be at or when Carl would be home. That's all.

[Cam Mott]

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. They were never going to get paid because that was the deal, it was non-profit with proceeds to go to something. There is a letter out there from the Foundation about it I think. I can see them having issues with where the money went or maybe if the money was really going to get distributrd even.

I just don't buy the not hip enough angle, they were invited by people who thought Pet Sounds and GV was genius, the Boys were on top. Just beat the Beatles. They were invited by people who admired them for what they were, not what they should be.

Hadn't Carl just been nabbed in NYC the month before over his court case?

[filledeplage]

If they would have wanted Carl that bad in June of 1967, they would have grabbed him. They didn't need the Monterey gig to expose him or set any kind of "examples." All they had to look at was the list of shows he'd be at or when Carl would be home. That's all.

Carl was already arrested in April of 1967 and it was the day or so before my first BB concert!  Front page news.  He was released, with some fanfare, and made it to perform.  There was an indictment by a Grand Jury in January of 1967.  Criminal prosecution  for draft evasion. He was arrested in New York by FBI agents and released on $15,000 bond.  There is a criminal law blog you can google.  He made an offer to perform with the Band, but it appeared that it failed for "vagueness" and was rejected.

There is some info in the Badman book (which is flawed, and I don't have at my disposal at the moment.)  They were to go to Europe, Ireland I think.  I think he was arrested and the case, continued, for other hearings, etc.  If I remember correctly, he had to go to CA, to that court - found the case number...

United States v. Carl Dean Wilson, 436 F.2d 972 (9th Circuit, January 8, 1971)  I have not read the case.

So, he was in the middle of a mess, and the Band (and Carl) likely did not know what the future held, and whether he would be free to travel outside of the US and, perform the tour schedule.  

And, the case dragged on for four years.  The war did not end until 1973.

[Cam Mott]

Here is that letter:

http://recordmecca.com/store/posters-and-concert-memorabilia/monterey-pop-festival-notes-for-the-friendly-media-press-handout/

They didn't know what they going to do with the proceeds at the time of the letter.

[hypehat]

Just chiming in to say, Jons new book sounds utterly cool and I want a copy. Go whip the editors and get them to hurry up!

[Mikie]

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

[bgas]

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

The Settlement didn't happen until 1971, a little late for Monterey: 
 
http://reasonabledoubt.org/index.php/criminallawblog/entry/january-3-1967-beach-boy-carl-wilson-becomes-draft-dodger-today-in-crime-history

[filledeplage]

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

How the decision was arrived upon, I don't know. Recently, I saw something cool on YouTube in black and white with Al and Carl among some other rockers discussing various topics. And Carl discussed the huge stress he was under as a CO, and if he didn't have "bread" he would have been in big trouble, in other words, to mount a strong legal defense.  

If you read the case, or the online sections of the decision, you would see that he lost on Constitutional grounds of the legality of the war, and, there was a question of what type of community service would satisfy the service requirement.  

The Band is a generous one.  And they were going to play these venues free for Carl's freedom, then why would they quibble about division of monies for Monterey?  I have no knowledge of the contract.  It makes no sense.  I got the "sense" of regret from hearing later interviews about Monterey, in the sense that "they would have, if they could have" and that is just my collective inference.  I got the feeling that Carl wanted to play Monterey.  Maybe he felt guilty, if his draft status impeded the Band.  I don't know.   Does it matter, now?  I don't think it does in the Big Picture.

They did end up doing shows in prisons, etc., but I have no knowledge of the particularity of the court order.  If I was in front of a judge in April/May of 1967, under very hostile circumstances, and someone tried to cover my butt, and my lawyers might have told me to "get under the radar," I would do exactly that.  And, if my big brother had to be the "heavy" and "cancel" and my cousin had to squawk about some sponsor, then, I'd be mighty happy that I had a family who "had my back."

I could be 1000% wrong, but, looking back, I think they closed ranks to protect Carl in absolutely any way they could, even if it cost them, they did what they had to, to keep him out of jail.  Better to perform at a jail, by mutual agreement, than be behind the bars of the jail.  JMHO

[Jon Stebbins]

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

Yeah as Bgas said this thing took until 1971 to really settle. Part of the problem was the original terms of the plea deal required Carl to empty bed pans in hospitals and that type of thing, he refused and instead insisted it would be a better use of his time for the group to perform in prisons and hospitals, but the court initially did not agree and Carl was in violation of the court order throughout '67...and was threatened with jail time.

[Jon Stebbins]

Just chiming in to say, Jons new book sounds utterly cool and I want a copy. Go whip the editors and get them to hurry up!

Thanks, Ian and I are going through the proofs now and the book looks spectacular.