Student Demonstration Time

[Bicyclerider]

Of course Jack Rieley was trying to get them hip again. That was his offer and what the boys were looking for. But I don't think he was dictating them what to write about. It probably was more of telling them they shouldn't think in formula like hits but write about what comes naturally and what concerns them. * Now, regarding SDT I don't know if Mike really felt that way but I don't have any reason for thinking he didn't. Maybe, since Rieley wasn't as fond of Mike, he felt that he had to come up with something relevant even if his mind was on other stuff like TM. Still, in some way Mike (and the group) must've been concerned with this topic and I think it was only natural that they recorded this. Same with the eco-songs. It's just that before Rieley no one told the Beach Boys that they had grown up and were living in a time when people weren't looking for a utopia in music but for someone to tell it like it is.

Well since Jack was writing the lyrics, and suggesting songs to the group about specific things, in some ways he was telling them what to write about.  In the Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, Jack tries to get Brian interested in writing a political song 4th of July, which he completely ignores - and of course then he gets Dennis to do it.  He was telling them essentially to write "relevant" of the moment "hip" politically and counter culturally aware songs.

And it worked - without Jack's  guidance they would not have had the resurgence in popularity they had Surf's Up through Holland.  He also "dictated" changes in the stage show, longer sets, not just the hits, dress hipper.  But now the same things that contributed to their popularity surge now seem dated and at times insincere or "posing.". We know that the Beach Boys were far from supporting revolution and Brian's interests were not to be "au courant" but to express emotions of everyday life and universal truths and beauty.

[TMinthePM]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that the Beach Boys were not much more than a bunch of home-room dorks, in over their heads when commenting on anything beyond their immediate concerns as millionaire pop stars.

I will grant that they are not always the most insightfully articulate. After all, these guys had barely finished high school before they found themselves swept along their remarkable life odyssey. If I want serious analysis of socio-political developments I will probably not be turning to the Beach Boys for insight. No Dylanesque or even Lennonesque word-play coming out of Hawthorne.

Still, there can be no doubt that they were exposed to the full range of contemporary ideas and trends as they travelled the world. Think of the 1968 Maharishi tour, derailed by the murder of MLK. So if their expression is somewhat clumsy there is yet no real reason to believe them insincere.

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that the Beach Boys were not much more than a bunch of home-room dorks, in over their heads when commenting on anything beyond their immediate concerns as millionaire pop stars.

I will grant that they are not always the most insightfully articulate. After all, these guys had barely finished high school before they found themselves swept along their remarkable life odyssey. If I want serious analysis of socio-political developments I will probably not be turning to the Beach Boys for insight. No Dylanesque or even Lennonesque word-play coming out of Hawthorne.

Still, there can be no doubt that they were exposed to the full range of contemporary ideas and trends as they travelled the world. Think of the 1968 Maharishi tour, derailed by the murder of MLK. So if their expression is somewhat clumsy there is yet no real reason to believe them insincere.

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

And add Carl's conscientious objection to that list as well. A brave act, made even more humble by his "at least I had the money to fight this" remark.

No, I'm not saying for one minute these guys weren't affected by what was going on around them. Who wouldn't be?

But if political commentary was that important to them, why wasn't KTSA, and BB85 full of protest songs? Why just this album, at this time?

This is why I am cynical about it, but not critical. They were fighting for their careers.

[Cabinessenceking]

As a whole SDT doesn't work for me. The instrumentation is good, track is fine and the fact that it's based on Riot In Cell Block #9 doesn't bother me the slightest.
The lyrics, weird lead vocal processing and siren however are abominable, utterly shite. The SU album definitely needed a rocker, but sadly this was not the one. When Sound Of Free comes out, it will quickly take that spot from SDT.

[Tristero]

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

Sorry, but this sounds like another straw man argument to me.  No one is objecting to the fact that the Beach Boys wanted to be successful and that they needed to reinvent themselves for a new decade, but when the group suddenly gets into a range of explicit political issues that had rarely touched on by them before or since, it's hard not to wonder what was driving that.  I don't blame them for writing songs about surfing and cars early in their career in an attempt to win over a broad audience, but to take on complicated political topics in such a hamfisted manner, at the urging of their manager for the sake of burnishing their image does seem a bit cynical to me.  Would they have felt compelled to pursue this course if they were still scoring hits with more traditional Beach Boys fare?

[TMinthePM]

I can really get behind what you're saying here. Ham-fisted...hmmm...yeah, I guess.

It was quite a time. They were probably better off commenting by indirection.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Well, I think it's a great album, despite any impure motives, real or imagined. The only track I can't stand is SDT, and that's more to do with the musical style than the lyrics. My favourite track, by a looooooong way, is Day In The Life Of A Tree. That, and "Don't Talk", are the only two songs by anyone that make me cry.

[drbeachboy]

Also, they were not the first band to invent or record Surf or Hot Rod music, either. Were they pandering at the very beginning too? Wow, maybe their whole career has been a fraud. See, I don't get this whole line of thinking in this thread. Why do they have to be first in every thing for their songs to be relevant? The whole point is nonsense. If that were the case, you'd only have a handful of performers, one from each sub-genre who would be relevant. Shoot, every band follows some other band, even the Beatles & Stones were influenced by and playing other peoples music.

Rather a strawman argument there, as that's obviously not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between jumping on a fad at the beginning of your career, and, during a bad patch, chucking a load of different styles at the wall and seeing what sticks. Not that, as I've been saying from the beginning,  there's anything wrong with that.

I'm also not saying the album is a complete marketing sham, but, it's lyrical messages are targeting a particular demographic that I don't think Mike has ever really been a part of.

I love the Surfs Up album. It works really well, except for (me persoanlly) that song.

DrBeachBoy, you know I love you an' all, but you do have a tendancy to put words in peoples mouths and to intentionally misunderstand peoples posts. Read back over my recent contributions to this thread again. At no point did I say there's anything with wrong with a band trying to jump start their career again by appealing to a market which has been lost to them. Above all the Beach Boys are businessmen, which is why they've had such a long career.

SmileBrian used the word pandering, not me. I react to what you all write. At the beginning here, you brought up that the Beach Boys should not record this type of music, pigeonhoing them to just certain types of vocals. You then changed that to not liking R&B as a genre. So you went from stating one thing to meaning another. I took issue with former, but have no issue with the latter. You don't like it, that's cool.

[TMinthePM]

Interesting, the polarization this track accomplishes.

If there is anything we can agree on maybe it's that when this track comes up on the playlist, some of us are apt to turn up the volume, while other turn it off.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Of course Jack Rieley was trying to get them hip again. That was his offer and what the boys were looking for. But I don't think he was dictating them what to write about. It probably was more of telling them they shouldn't think in formula like hits but write about what comes naturally and what concerns them. * Now, regarding SDT I don't know if Mike really felt that way but I don't have any reason for thinking he didn't. Maybe, since Rieley wasn't as fond of Mike, he felt that he had to come up with something relevant even if his mind was on other stuff like TM. Still, in some way Mike (and the group) must've been concerned with this topic and I think it was only natural that they recorded this. Same with the eco-songs. It's just that before Rieley no one told the Beach Boys that they had grown up and were living in a time when people weren't looking for a utopia in music but for someone to tell it like it is.

Well since Jack was writing the lyrics, and suggesting songs to the group about specific things, in some ways he was telling them what to write about.  In the Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, Jack tries to get Brian interested in writing a political song 4th of July, which he completely ignores - and of course then he gets Dennis to do it.  He was telling them essentially to write "relevant" of the moment "hip" politically and counter culturally aware songs.

And it worked - without Jack's  guidance they would not have had the resurgence in popularity they had Surf's Up through Holland.  He also "dictated" changes in the stage show, longer sets, not just the hits, dress hipper.  But now the same things that contributed to their popularity surge now seem dated and at times insincere or "posing.". We know that the Beach Boys were far from supporting revolution and Brian's interests were not to be "au courant" but to express emotions of everyday life and universal truths and beauty.

Going slightly off tangent here, but...

I personally couldn't care less what Jack Rieley's intentions were or weren't - the results speak for themselves: two great albums, one interesting curio, and a cracking live album. He helped Carl produce the greatest songs of his entire career. He also co-wrote several great songs with Brian and Dennis. He got the Boys selling records again and filling stadiums.

What particuarly annoys me is when people basically say (as AGD does in his book) that Rieley was a bad egg because he lied to the band about his CV and past achievements (or lack thereof). Ok, fair enough had he turned out to be a disaster as their manager then his fibbing would understandably be an issue ('gee, why did they trust that charlatan?') - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success, and he succeeded in making the band relevant again! So, you know, who cares about his prior track record and whether he did or didn't embellish it somewhat. Besides, who amongst us hasn't told a few porkies on their own CV every now and then...?

I think Jack Rieley is one of the most unfairly maligned persons in Beach Boys history. (Oh, and his lyrics kick ass too!)

[TMinthePM]

Having been along for the ride since the beginning I'd have to say that the Jack Rieley era was the best...no, wait - the Today/Summer Days/Pet Sounds...no, wait again, definitely the classic Surfin...no, I mean the Smiley/Honey...but then there's the...

[filledeplage]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that the Beach Boys were not much more than a bunch of home-room dorks, in over their heads when commenting on anything beyond their immediate concerns as millionaire pop stars.

I will grant that they are not always the most insightfully articulate. After all, these guys had barely finished high school before they found themselves swept along their remarkable life odyssey. If I want serious analysis of socio-political developments I will probably not be turning to the Beach Boys for insight. No Dylanesque or even Lennonesque word-play coming out of Hawthorne.

Still, there can be no doubt that they were exposed to the full range of contemporary ideas and trends as they travelled the world. Think of the 1968 Maharishi tour, derailed by the murder of MLK. So if their expression is somewhat clumsy there is yet no real reason to believe them insincere.

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

High schoolers in the 1950's were far and away better educated that those now.  Brian was in college as well as Al and I think Bruce.  Someone admitted them.  The standards were far more rigorous than today.  And, even a "tutored" certificate, was efficient, because it was usually a small group or individualized instruction.  I still credit my high school education for being able to get through college, grad and post grad.  One "study" a week.  It was harder than college.

As for the Maharishi Tour, I held a ticket.  Front row.   And hours before the show, it was cancelled.  (I haven't decided if I'm going to forgive them   ) My sense is that there were two distinct tours going on.  The April one looked like a BB tour. And, the latter in May was Maharishi who reportedly was going to make a movie.  It also appears that the latter was tied to Maharishi and without him, it was a no-go.  (Badman) p.219. Some of his stuff is unreliable.  MLK was killed April 4, 1968.  Those dates appeared to be in the South.  The Maharishi Tour was listed as May 3rd to May 21st.  

Back to the high school preparation.  It would be no stretch for any 1950's or 1960's grad to be quite capable of complex thought and writing.  I don't think Lennon went to college.  And any well-travelled and worldly rock band member had an "in your face" education.  I have little doubt that Mike's SDT lyrics came from a "place of rage" over what he saw, across his country, where the college kids got a pass for military service and could major "basket weaving" to stay out of Nam, whereas those who did not become admitted to college such as Carl, or any auto mechanic or cab driver, would be shipped off.  And, he found a song (melody) that readily lent itself for adaptation.  And, it made Top 10.

It was unfair and frustrating for a double standard for military service to exist.  And, as much as he has written about pleasure filled and those works judged as trite, there is a sort of self-educated (autodidact) quality I'd apply to a lot of his work.  And that which he has used to raise environmental awareness, which was so ahead of its time, it is not even funny.  "Don't Go Near the Water." Mike and Al. No surprise and I'm impressed that those are sincere as well. And TM is now being taught in some schools to combat school violence.  Change takes time. 40 years.  They lost dough on the tour, but won the war as "change agents." Not unlike Pet Sounds'  "long and winding road" journey to recognition.  

Nowadays, Mike (or any of the band) could likely drop his "work" on a college admission desk and be granted credit for his work "in life" which no book or professor could teach.  It is why colleges and universties  recognize and award doctorates (honorary) such as Northeastern did for Brian a number of years ago.  It recognizes autodidact education.  And "credits" innovation and technique in business and the arts.  

And, Jack "inflated" his credentials. That would likely never happen today with the Internet.  Some of that work was already complete when he arrived on the scene.  And they were long already on the college tour circuit. 

[Disney Boy (1985)]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that the Beach Boys were not much more than a bunch of home-room dorks, in over their heads when commenting on anything beyond their immediate concerns as millionaire pop stars.

I will grant that they are not always the most insightfully articulate. After all, these guys had barely finished high school before they found themselves swept along their remarkable life odyssey. If I want serious analysis of socio-political developments I will probably not be turning to the Beach Boys for insight. No Dylanesque or even Lennonesque word-play coming out of Hawthorne.

Still, there can be no doubt that they were exposed to the full range of contemporary ideas and trends as they travelled the world. Think of the 1968 Maharishi tour, derailed by the murder of MLK. So if their expression is somewhat clumsy there is yet no real reason to believe them insincere.

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

High schoolers in the 1950's were far and away better educated that those now.  Brian was in college as well as Al and I think Bruce.  Someone admitted them.  The standards were far more rigorous than today.  And, even a "tutored" certificate, was efficient, because it was usually a small group or individualized instruction.  I still credit my high school education for being able to get through college, grad and post grad.  One "study" a week.  It was harder than college.

As for the Maharishi Tour, I held a ticket.  Front row.   And hours before the show, it was cancelled.  (I haven't decided if I'm going to forgive them   ) My sense is that there were two distinct tours going on.  The April one looked like a BB tour. And, the latter in May was Maharishi who reportedly was going to make a movie.  It also appears that the latter was tied to Maharishi and without him, it was a no-go.  (Badman) p.219. Some of his stuff is unreliable.  MLK was killed April 4, 1968.  Those dates appeared to be in the South.  The Maharishi Tour was listed as May 3rd to May 21st.  

Back to the high school preparation.  It would be no stretch for any 1950's or 1960's grad to be quite capable of complex thought and writing.  I don't think Lennon went to college.  And any well-travelled and worldly rock band member had an "in your face" education.  I have little doubt that Mike's SDT lyrics came from a "place of rage" over what he saw, across his country, where the college kids got a pass for military service and could major "basket weaving" to stay out of Nam, whereas those who did not become admitted to college such as Carl, or any auto mechanic or cab driver, would be shipped off.  And, he found a song (melody) that readily lent itself for adaptation.  And, it made Top 10.

It was unfair and frustrating for a double standard for military service to exist.  And, as much as he has written about pleasure filled and those works judged as trite, there is a sort of self-educated (autodidact) quality I'd apply to a lot of his work.  And that which he has used to raise environmental awareness, which was so ahead of its time, it is not even funny.  "Don't Go Near the Water." Mike and Al. No surprise and I'm impressed that those are sincere as well. And TM is now being taught in some schools to combat school violence.  Change takes time. 40 years.  They lost dough on the tour, but won the war as "change agents." Not unlike Pet Sounds'  "long and winding road" journey to recognition.  

Nowadays, Mike (or any of the band) could likely drop his "work" on a college admission desk and be granted credit for his work "in life" which no book or professor could teach.  It is why colleges and universties  recognize and award doctorates (honorary) such as Northeastern did for Brian a number of years ago.  It recognizes autodidact education.  And "credits" innovation and technique in business and the arts.  

And, Jack "inflated" his credentials. That would likely never happen today with the Internet.  Some of that work was already complete when he arrived on the scene.  And they were long already on the college tour circuit. 

Well. Said. But what's. With all. The abruptly short sentences. And full stops.

[filledeplage]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that the Beach Boys were not much more than a bunch of home-room dorks, in over their heads when commenting on anything beyond their immediate concerns as millionaire pop stars.

I will grant that they are not always the most insightfully articulate. After all, these guys had barely finished high school before they found themselves swept along their remarkable life odyssey. If I want serious analysis of socio-political developments I will probably not be turning to the Beach Boys for insight. No Dylanesque or even Lennonesque word-play coming out of Hawthorne.

Still, there can be no doubt that they were exposed to the full range of contemporary ideas and trends as they travelled the world. Think of the 1968 Maharishi tour, derailed by the murder of MLK. So if their expression is somewhat clumsy there is yet no real reason to believe them insincere.

And, when it comes to the question of the mixing of art and money, the myth of the starving artist as repository of truth is debatable.

High schoolers in the 1950's were far and away better educated that those now.  Brian was in college as well as Al and I think Bruce.  Someone admitted them.  The standards were far more rigorous than today.  And, even a "tutored" certificate, was efficient, because it was usually a small group or individualized instruction.  I still credit my high school education for being able to get through college, grad and post grad.  One "study" a week.  It was harder than college.

As for the Maharishi Tour, I held a ticket.  Front row.   And hours before the show, it was cancelled.  (I haven't decided if I'm going to forgive them   ) My sense is that there were two distinct tours going on.  The April one looked like a BB tour. And, the latter in May was Maharishi who reportedly was going to make a movie.  It also appears that the latter was tied to Maharishi and without him, it was a no-go.  (Badman) p.219. Some of his stuff is unreliable.  MLK was killed April 4, 1968.  Those dates appeared to be in the South.  The Maharishi Tour was listed as May 3rd to May 21st.  

Back to the high school preparation.  It would be no stretch for any 1950's or 1960's grad to be quite capable of complex thought and writing.  I don't think Lennon went to college.  And any well-travelled and worldly rock band member had an "in your face" education.  I have little doubt that Mike's SDT lyrics came from a "place of rage" over what he saw, across his country, where the college kids got a pass for military service and could major "basket weaving" to stay out of Nam, whereas those who did not become admitted to college such as Carl, or any auto mechanic or cab driver, would be shipped off.  And, he found a song (melody) that readily lent itself for adaptation.  And, it made Top 10.

It was unfair and frustrating for a double standard for military service to exist.  And, as much as he has written about pleasure filled and those works judged as trite, there is a sort of self-educated (autodidact) quality I'd apply to a lot of his work.  And that which he has used to raise environmental awareness, which was so ahead of its time, it is not even funny.  "Don't Go Near the Water." Mike and Al. No surprise and I'm impressed that those are sincere as well. And TM is now being taught in some schools to combat school violence.  Change takes time. 40 years.  They lost dough on the tour, but won the war as "change agents." Not unlike Pet Sounds'  "long and winding road" journey to recognition.  

Nowadays, Mike (or any of the band) could likely drop his "work" on a college admission desk and be granted credit for his work "in life" which no book or professor could teach.  It is why colleges and universties  recognize and award doctorates (honorary) such as Northeastern did for Brian a number of years ago.  It recognizes autodidact education.  And "credits" innovation and technique in business and the arts.  

And, Jack "inflated" his credentials. That would likely never happen today with the Internet.  Some of that work was already complete when he arrived on the scene.  And they were long already on the college tour circuit. 

Well. Said. But what's. With all. The abruptly short sentences. And full stops.

This is an "informal" message board.  No one who has anything to say should need fear being judged for grammar, spelling or punctuation.  No grades, here.    We need fearless and spontaneous posters. 

As for the writing, it's the ipad, with fake, virtual keys.  Maybe.   

Have a 

Happy weekend! Summer is here! In the Northern Hemisphere!

[SMiLE Brian]

We all need smiley brews!!!

[filledeplage]

We all need smiley brews!!!

Yes, all around! 

[Cam Mott]

And, it made Top 10.  

[giggle]

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Also, they were not the first band to invent or record Surf or Hot Rod music, either. Were they pandering at the very beginning too? Wow, maybe their whole career has been a fraud. See, I don't get this whole line of thinking in this thread. Why do they have to be first in every thing for their songs to be relevant? The whole point is nonsense. If that were the case, you'd only have a handful of performers, one from each sub-genre who would be relevant. Shoot, every band follows some other band, even the Beatles & Stones were influenced by and playing other peoples music.

Rather a strawman argument there, as that's obviously not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between jumping on a fad at the beginning of your career, and, during a bad patch, chucking a load of different styles at the wall and seeing what sticks. Not that, as I've been saying from the beginning,  there's anything wrong with that.

I'm also not saying the album is a complete marketing sham, but, it's lyrical messages are targeting a particular demographic that I don't think Mike has ever really been a part of.

I love the Surfs Up album. It works really well, except for (me persoanlly) that song.

DrBeachBoy, you know I love you an' all, but you do have a tendancy to put words in peoples mouths and to intentionally misunderstand peoples posts. Read back over my recent contributions to this thread again. At no point did I say there's anything with wrong with a band trying to jump start their career again by appealing to a market which has been lost to them. Above all the Beach Boys are businessmen, which is why they've had such a long career.

SmileBrian used the word pandering, not me. I react to what you all write. At the beginning here, you brought up that the Beach Boys should not record this type of music, pigeonhoing them to just certain types of vocals. You then changed that to not liking R&B as a genre. So you went from stating one thing to meaning another. I took issue with former, but have no issue with the latter. You don't like it, that's cool.

I thought I was being pretty consistent, but obviously we've misunderstood each other somewhere. I really feel I've said all I have to say on the matter, so rather than it going in circles, shall we just agree to disagree? 

[drbeachboy]

Also, they were not the first band to invent or record Surf or Hot Rod music, either. Were they pandering at the very beginning too? Wow, maybe their whole career has been a fraud. See, I don't get this whole line of thinking in this thread. Why do they have to be first in every thing for their songs to be relevant? The whole point is nonsense. If that were the case, you'd only have a handful of performers, one from each sub-genre who would be relevant. Shoot, every band follows some other band, even the Beatles & Stones were influenced by and playing other peoples music.

Rather a strawman argument there, as that's obviously not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between jumping on a fad at the beginning of your career, and, during a bad patch, chucking a load of different styles at the wall and seeing what sticks. Not that, as I've been saying from the beginning,  there's anything wrong with that.

I'm also not saying the album is a complete marketing sham, but, it's lyrical messages are targeting a particular demographic that I don't think Mike has ever really been a part of.

I love the Surfs Up album. It works really well, except for (me persoanlly) that song.

DrBeachBoy, you know I love you an' all, but you do have a tendancy to put words in peoples mouths and to intentionally misunderstand peoples posts. Read back over my recent contributions to this thread again. At no point did I say there's anything with wrong with a band trying to jump start their career again by appealing to a market which has been lost to them. Above all the Beach Boys are businessmen, which is why they've had such a long career.

SmileBrian used the word pandering, not me. I react to what you all write. At the beginning here, you brought up that the Beach Boys should not record this type of music, pigeonhoing them to just certain types of vocals. You then changed that to not liking R&B as a genre. So you went from stating one thing to meaning another. I took issue with former, but have no issue with the latter. You don't like it, that's cool.

I thought I was being pretty consistent, but obviously we've misunderstood each other somewhere. I really feel I've said all I have to say on the matter, so rather than it going in circles, shall we just agree to disagree? 

Yeppers!

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Is that a yes? Or is yeppers an incredulous exclamation?

[drbeachboy]

Is that a yes? Or is yeppers an incredulous exclamation?

That an American slang YES.

[Bill Ed]

And add Carl's conscientious objection to that list as well. A brave act, made even more humble by his "at least I had the money to fight this" remark.

I share your assessment of the Surf's Up album, but given the sacrifices made by the young Americans who answered the call, I don't know if I'd call Carl's actions particularly "brave".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6kgUnUHNrw

[Iron Horse-Apples]

And add Carl's conscientious objection to that list as well. A brave act, made even more humble by his "at least I had the money to fight this" remark.

I share your assessment of the Surf's Up album, but given the sacrifices made by the young Americans who answered the call, I don't know if I'd call Carl's actions particularly "brave".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6kgUnUHNrw

Not a discussion I'm getting involved in, sorry.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

And add Carl's conscientious objection to that list as well. A brave act, made even more humble by his "at least I had the money to fight this" remark.

I share your assessment of the Surf's Up album, but given the sacrifices made by the young Americans who answered the call, I don't know if I'd call Carl's actions particularly "brave".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6kgUnUHNrw

While I don't doubt that the soldiers who went to fight showed incredible bravery and sacrifice, the Vietnam war remains the most stupid, wrong-headed and pointless war the US has ever started (yes, even more stupid than Iraq) and Carl was absolutely right to refuse to take part. So I'd say 'principled' and/or 'noble' describes his actions better than 'brave'.

[TMinthePM]

The war was a disaster for the USA and a catastrophe for the SE Asians.