John Stebbins FAQ Book: Rather harsh on Brian's Solo Tours and Handlers?

[harrisonjon]

I must confess that I only bought the FAQ book last month but I was rather surprised that it seems to characterize Brian's post-1999 touring persona as not that much more free and voluntary as his Landry-era persona. I can recall that I got slammed back in 2001 (ish) for being opposed to Brian being out on tour if he's not 100% happy (infact probably less than 20% happy) with being out there. Moreover, my opinion changed somewhat after watching the Pet Sounds and Smile concerts: I couldn't believe that Brian could be strong-armed into doing such complex material (and in the case of Smile, material associated with so many demons); you can't really puppet-master that kind of music, which requires a lot more from the vocalist than just mouthing the greatest hits.  

So if Jon is reading this: have I misread, or am I straw manning, your argument, or have you changed your position in response to any negative reactions since the book came out?

Second question: I felt the book was a little schematic in that it seemed to think that Dennis and Brian were doomed from quite early on due to Murry's abuse of them and the fact that (especially Dennis) never got over that abuse. Again am I pereceiving your position accurately?

[GhostyTMRS]

When there was a lot of hysterical screaming going on back and forth a few months ago about Brian's touring situation, I remembered that section of the book. It gave me chills.

[Jon Stebbins]

I must confess that I only bought the FAQ book last month but I was rather surprised that it seems to characterize Brian's post-1999 touring persona as not that much more free and voluntary as his Landry-era persona. I can recall that I got slammed back in 2001 (ish) for being opposed to Brian being out on tour if he's not 100% happy (infact probably less than 20% happy) with being out there. Moreover, my opinion changed somewhat after watching the Pet Sounds and Smile concerts: I couldn't believe that Brian could be strong-armed into doing such complex material (and in the case of Smile, material associated with so many demons); you can't really puppet-master that kind of music, which requires a lot more from the vocalist than just mouthing the greatest hits.  

So if Jon is reading this: have I misread, or am I straw manning, your argument, or have you changed your position in response to any negative reactions since the book came out?

Second question: I felt the book was a little schematic in that it seemed to think that Dennis and Brian were doomed from quite early on due to Murry's abuse of them and the fact that (especially Dennis) never got over that abuse. Again am I pereceiving your position accurately?

Hi Jon, I can only give my perspective, and i don't claim to be Brian's friend or an intimate. I can say I've spoken to him maybe a dozen times between 1979 and 2014. Most of those times were at his shows, back stage or in some realm of the concert lead up, a few times were in other settings. My article is a view of how I felt at the time (2010), it might be a little different now, but most of the basics are the same. Sometimes it seems like Brian would rather be anywhere than having to go out and perform, other times he's cool with it. The last time I talked to him before he played a show was just a couple months ago, and he was completely happy. But, as I said, other times he looked like he was facing the electric chair or something. Dreading it. Howie Edelson has a direct quote, on tape from Brian, recent, where he says the worst thing about touring is going on stage. So, my piece on Brian stands, for the time i wrote it, everything evolves, everything has nuance, everything can be contradicted. I try to write honestly, and in the case of that piece i was very honest about my opinion. It doesn't win me any friends on the inside, but it's a perspective I can share about an artist that has my complete respect and love.

My opinion that Brian and Dennis were messed up by their relationship with their dad, and how that gnawing and destructive issue haunted them both into adulthood is accurate. But again, there are more sides. Their deep love for music is also one of the things Murry ingrained in them, so it wasn't all bad. Thanks for your interest in the book.

[Empire Of Love]

Jon,

Thank you for your input.  My question is this, and I admit not having read your book, based on the comment of the OP it seems you state in the book that Brian is as controlled now as he was in the Landy era.  This is very a strong claim.  The statements you posted below do not seem to support that he is controlled, but rather that he has, at times, a strong distaste for going on stage.  It seems you are drawing the conclusion that if a man detests something as much as you discern Brian detests going on stage, and yet that person does it anyway, then he is under Landy-like control.  I don't think that conclusion is warranted on the basis of your statements below.  Are there not several other possible reasons for such behavior?  An example:

I detest public speaking.  Most recently I had a training session where I had to give a five minute presentation on a topic that I know quite well, probably as well as Brian knows his own songs.  I was only going to be speaking in front of an audience of my colleagues, around 20-25 other people.  There was nothing on the line, it was just for practice.  As I sat through the training portion leading up to the presentations I began to plot ways to get out of it.  I though of feining illness, but as a couple of others knew I was scared, I knew I could not get away with it.  I came up with several other absurd ideas, the most compelling was to get up, walk out, and quit my job.  I have a family of five people.  To do this would be financial suicide.  Yet, sitting there, I seriously considered this option.  I tried to hide my fear, and I probably did a decent job of it, but if you could have been in my mind you would have seen someone who looked like he was facing the elecric chair.  Yet, I chose to get up and give the presentation rather than quitting.  Why?  Was I being controlled by some external person or people?  Not at all.  As I weighed the options I concluded that the pain of giving the presentation was less than the pain of financially ruining my family.  

Now add in Brian's history of psychological issues.  He is aware of this struggle.  Don't you think he has reason to try to overcome these problems, these fears?  I have to believe any good psychiatrist would tell you that facing your fears is a better way to address them than to run from them.  Most likely Brian has been counseled to do so.  I can imagine other reasons, just as rational, for why he might want to choose to do that which he fears.  Why is it that with Brian the assumption is that he is being controlled?  Is it because he has been controlled in the past?  To my knowledge this is a somewhat isolated period in his life while under the influence of Landy.  Others have often commented that Brian does what Brian wants to do, that he is not being controlled. I believe everyone has seen and sensed from a bit further distance the same things that you have witnessed a bit closer up, and many here, such as Sheriff John Stone, have drawn similar conclusions.  I cannot take the average poster here seriously on this issue because they are no closer to the situation than I am.  They've drawn a conclusion based on very shaky evidence.  I've remained open minded because, unlike the evidence that Brian struggles psychologically, which exists in abundance (he has admitted it publicly), I don't think enough evidence has been presented to warrant the conclusion that he is controlled.  The argument seems to go something like this:

He was controlled in the past, part of that control resulted in him doing things he did not want to do, currently he is doing things he does not want to do, therefore he is currently controlled.  I don't recall my logic courses perfectly, but I believe this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

But you are a respected figure within the Beach Boys world and have had access far greater than most of us.  So your perspective is intriguing.  I am wondering what evidence exists, beside an extreme case of stage fright, and seeing Brian do things he admits he doesn't want to do, that would lead one to believe Brian is presently being controlled in a Landy-esque sense.  You were persuaded enough to make the comments in a book (assuming the original poster's claims are accurate, and I assume so as you did not dispute them), to live with the consequences, and to affirm them after the fact.  I would be grateful for any further evidence, anecdotes, or insights that you might have.

EoL

[runnersdialzero]

Howie Edelson has a direct quote, on tape from Brian, recent, where he says the worst thing about touring is going on stage.

It's interesting - you usually hear artists say the exact opposite. The travelling sucks, being away from family sucks, everything sucks, but being on stage is the part that they really enjoy and that, in some cases, "makes it all worthwhile." It's unfortunate that the music industry works the way it does now. Being a great artist isn't good enough, you HAVE to tour whether you can handle it or not. Or have a really well-paying job on the side, which is not really conducive to doing the whole "artist" thing. I doubt Brian really needs to tour, but still.

I'm sure Brian does have the occasional night where he does enjoy performing, but I sometimes wonder if the folks around him think he's seemingly better off when he's touring even if he doesn't realize it. Like, he's mentally better being productive and having a consistent schedule instead of staying at home. I can't say for sure if that's correct, I'm just saying that may be a reason that he continues to tour; the folks who run his career think it's good for him.

Personally, at his age (which is the biggest factor in all of this, I feel. The man is in his 70s.), if he told me he felt better hanging out at home, writing and recording when it felt good to do so and maybe doing a few shows a year, I'd say that's good enough for me. But I don't know and can't say for sure, I'm not in his life, so I ultimately realize I may not be "right" about all of this.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

I hate going to work a lot of the time too.

[runnersdialzero]

I hate going to work a lot of the time too.

And you (probably) don't suffer from schizophrenia etc. like Brian does, so... erm.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

I hate going to work a lot of the time too.

And you (probably) don't suffer from schizophrenia etc. like Brian does, so... erm.

You know zero about me and I wasn't talking to you. 

And I stick by what I said.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Do you think maybe he meant that he hates when he has to go on stage but maybe once he's there and he starts playing, he feels comfortable?  Because I think that's pretty normal for a lot of performers.

[runnersdialzero]

And you (probably) don't suffer from schizophrenia etc. like Brian does, so... erm.

You know zero about me  

Thus why I said "probably".

and I wasn't talking to you.

You posted something on a public message board and someone responded. Come on, d00d.

[jeffh]

Do you think maybe he meant that he hates when he has to go on stage but maybe once he's there and he starts playing, he feels comfortable?  Because I think that's pretty normal for a lot of performers.

If you!ve attended his concerts, you'd know that being on stage and feeling comfortable a lot of times do not go hand in hand.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Do you think maybe he meant that he hates when he has to go on stage but maybe once he's there and he starts playing, he feels comfortable?  Because I think that's pretty normal for a lot of performers.

If you!ve attended his concerts, you'd know that being on stage and feeling comfortable a lot of times do not go hand in hand.

I've seen him twice.  Once solo (with Jeff Beck and Al and Dave) and once with the Beach Boys.  Both times he looked very happy, his singing was on point, and he was even talking to the audience.  Maybe I just got lucky on both those nights.  And then I also have many concert DVDs of his where he looks very comfortable.  Of course, most of those performances are more than ten years old but still, I get the feeling that fans worry about him more than they need to.

[Jon Stebbins]

John,

Thank you for your input.  My question is this, and I admit not having read your book, based on the comment of the OP it seems you state in the book that Brian is as controlled now as he was in the Landy era.  This is very a strong claim.  The statements you posted below do not seem to support that he is controlled, but rather that he has, at times, a strong distaste for going on stage.  It seems you are drawing the conclusion that if a man detests something as much as you discern Brian detests going on stage, and yet that person does it anyway, then he is under Landy-like control.  I don't think that conclusion is warranted on the basis of your statements below.  Are there not several other possible reasons for such behavior?  An example:

I detest public speaking.  Most recently I had a training session where I had to give a five minute presentation on a topic that I know quite well, probably as well as Brian knows his own songs.  I was only going to be speaking in front of an audience of my colleagues, around 20-25 other people.  There was nothing on the line, it was just for practice.  As I sat through the training portion leading up to the presentations I began to plot ways to get out of it.  I though of feining illness, but as a couple of others knew I was scared, I knew I could not get away with it.  I came up with several other absurd ideas, the most compelling was to get up, walk out, and quit my job.  I have a family of five people.  To do this would be financial suicide.  Yet, sitting there, I seriously considered this option.  I tried to hide my fear, and I probably did a decent job of it, but if you could have been in my mind you would have seen someone who looked like he was facing the elecric chair.  Yet, I chose to get up and give the presentation rather than quitting.  Why?  Was I being controlled by some external person or people?  Not at all.  As I weighed the options I concluded that the pain of giving the presentation was less than the pain of financially ruining my family.  

Now add in Brian's history of psychological issues.  He is aware of this struggle.  Don't you think he has reason to try to overcome these problems, these fears?  I have to believe any good psychiatrist would tell you that facing your fears is a better way to address them than to run from them.  Most likely Brian has been counseled to do so.  I can imagine other reasons, just as rational, for why he might want to choose to do that which he fears.  Why is it that with Brian the assumption is that he is being controlled?  Is it because he has been controlled in the past?  To my knowledge this is a somewhat isolated period in his life while under the influence of Landy.  Others have often commented that Brian does what Brian wants to do, that he is not being controlled. I believe everyone has seen and sensed from a bit further distance the same things that you have witnessed a bit closer up, and many here, such as Sheriff John Stone, have drawn similar conclusions.  I cannot take the average poster here seriously on this issue because they are no closer to the situation than I am.  They've drawn a conclusion based on very shaky evidence.  I've remained open minded because, unlike the evidence that Brian struggles psychologically, which exists in abundance (he has admitted it publicly), I don't think enough evidence has been presented to warrant the conclusion that he is controlled.  The argument seems to go something like this:

He was controlled in the past, part of that control resulted in him doing things he did not want to do, currently he is doing things he does not want to do, therefore he is currently controlled.  I don't recall my logic courses perfectly, but I believe this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

But you are a respected figure within the Beach Boys world and have had access far greater than most of us.  So your perspective is intriguing.  I am wondering what evidence exists, beside an extreme case of stage fright, and seeing Brian do things he admits he doesn't want to do, that would lead one to believe Brian is presently being controlled in a Landy-esque sense.  You were persuaded enough to make the comments in a book (assuming the original poster's claims are accurate, and I assume so as you did not dispute them), to live with the consequences, and to affirm them after the fact.  I would be grateful for any further evidence, anecdotes, or insights that you might have.

EoL

I think anyone who reads the piece will see that I consider both sides of the argument, that maybe Brian isn't comfortable with the touring and live setting, but despite that it likely has beneficial aspects, feeling the love of the audience, getting to be a musician and play that amazing music, the camaraderie with other musicians etc... Maybe it's better than what he would be doing without it. That point is in there too. People tend to focus on the part that maybe not to many other books have articulated, my impression is that he's a guy who'd rather not be under the spotlight but somehow is. Some part of that makes me sad for him. But it's not a black and white thing, there's shades of gray all over it.

[Empire Of Love]

Jon,

Thank you once again for your response.  To clarify, are you saying that beyond anecdotal evidence that you have seen up close and others have witnessed from afar - namely Brian seems exteremely uncomfortable with going on stage, which he has publicly admitted, and yet he does so anyway - that there really isn't any additional evidence he is controlled?  In other words, you haven't witnessed someone controlling him, or acting in a controlling manner toward him, and then* him folding and doing as he was told to do?

This is all very interesting to me, I appreciate your input.

EoL

*Corrected my initial typo of "them" to "then".

[Mr. Cohen]

The vibe I've gotten from Brian in interviews is that he views touring as essential to his career, and at the end of the day, he wants a successful music career. I basically agree with him on that, but it's true that he probably didn't need to tour as exhaustedly as he did. I think there was an aspect of competition with Mike and his relentless schedule. The thought being, if I'm not out there performing, Mike will be out there shaping my musical legacy for me.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Jon,

Thank you once again for your response.  To clarify, are you saying that beyond anecdotal evidence that you have seen up close and others have witnessed from afar - namely Brian seems exteremely uncomfortable with going on stage, which he has publicly admitted, and yet he does so anyway - that there really isn't any additional evidence he is controlled?  In other words, you haven't witnessed someone controlling him, or acting in a controlling manner toward him, and them him folding and doing as he was told to do?

This is all very interesting to me, I appreciate your input.

EoL

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

[Jon Stebbins]

Jon,

Thank you once again for your response.  To clarify, are you saying that beyond anecdotal evidence that you have seen up close and others have witnessed from afar - namely Brian seems exteremely uncomfortable with going on stage, which he has publicly admitted, and yet he does so anyway - that there really isn't any additional evidence he is controlled?  In other words, you haven't witnessed someone controlling him, or acting in a controlling manner toward him, and then* him folding and doing as he was told to do?

This is all very interesting to me, I appreciate your input.

EoL

*Corrected my initial typo of "them" to "then".

The only way to clarify is to read the piece, consider for yourself if the evidence i present is anecdotal or something more, and see if it informs your own opinion or not. No way i can re-explain something that is a full statement within itself. And again, it's a snapshot of how I felt in 2010. There has been an incremental evolution since then, but IMO not enough to discount the basic points of the piece. Thanks for your interest!

[Lowbacca]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

[drbeachboy]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

Seriously, you really can't figure out why Jon cannot respond in the fashion that you want? AGD is absolutely correct, the subject is a can of worms. You should know that, as well.

[Lowbacca]

Seriously, you really can't figure out why Jon cannot respond in the fashion that you want?

[Andrew G. Doe]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

It's not all about you (in the collective): there's a few here could open that can, and several others... and they'd wake up the following day to find their sources had totally evaporated. You've not grasped this basic premise yet, you've really not been paying attention: hell, there's even a recently started thread on this very topic. Politely* suggest you read it.

[* there's always a first time]

[Lowbacca]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

It's not all about you (in the collective): there's a few here could open that can, and several others... and they'd wake up the following day to find their sources had totally evaporated. You've not grasped this basic premise yet, you've really not been paying attention: hell, there's even a recently started thread on this very topic. Politely* suggest you read it.

[* there's always a first time]

I have grasped. I still smell hypocrisy and gutlessness. And convenient resorts from continuing a discussion in a precarious direction.

I'm not being disrespectful or acting the fool on purpose. I just felt like stating how all of this comes across to me. And to a couple of others as well, I think.

[Jon Stebbins]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

It's not all about you (in the collective): there's a few here could open that can, and several others... and they'd wake up the following day to find their sources had totally evaporated. You've not grasped this basic premise yet, you've really not been paying attention: hell, there's even a recently started thread on this very topic. Politely* suggest you read it.

[* there's always a first time]

I have grasped. I still smell hypocrisy and gutlessness. And convenient resorts from continuing a discussion in a precarious direction.

I'm not being disrespectful or acting the fool on purpose. I just felt like stating how all of this comes across to me. And to a couple of others as well, I think.

It can be frustrating to re-explain a chapter in a book that is widely distributed, probably 15,000 copies in print, to someone who hasn't read the book as is the case with the poster Empire of Love. And even for those who have read it, I am of the opinion that the chapter stands for itself, it is not a mystery what my opinion is, the chapter is clear. But in no way do i think my point of view is the definitive one, it's just mine, and it's a comparatively informed one. I'm happy to discuss my writings, but in this case, that chapter is what it is. One of the nice things about getting to write books is that I can make a developed statement on a particular subject, and then have the satisfaction that I made my point. And in this case the point is made. Doing that, in a book, is the opposite of gutless. It's honesty.

[drbeachboy]

While I'm somewhat disappointed in Mr. Stebbins's responses on this topic, not really answering harrisonjon's question and all, I think this:

Can of worms, man. Can of worms.

is really childish. If you have something to say, say it (and suitably argue your point) - but if is your only response then dig this: some of us might find the taste of worms not entirely displeasing. Please don't overindulge us.

It's not all about you (in the collective): there's a few here could open that can, and several others... and they'd wake up the following day to find their sources had totally evaporated. You've not grasped this basic premise yet, you've really not been paying attention: hell, there's even a recently started thread on this very topic. Politely* suggest you read it.

[* there's always a first time]

I have grasped. I still smell hypocrisy and gutlessness. And convenient resorts from continuing a discussion in a precarious direction.

I'm not being disrespectful or acting the fool on purpose. I just felt like stating how all of this comes across to me. And to a couple of others as well, I think.

You are disrespectful and gutless and acting the fool. What else could you possibly be? Jon didn't come in here spouting off, you did. He gave his response, so please respect it. Go dig up what you're after and you get back to us.

[Andrew G. Doe]

And convenient resorts from continuing a discussion in a precarious direction.

Not doing this isn't being hypocritical, or gutless: it's what we here in the real world call "not being a complete fucking moron". As you've in fact indicated.

I've spent something like 35 years building my knowledge, reputation (such as it is - opinions vary) connections and sources: you really, really think I'm going to throw that all away in a moment of madness just because you want to know ? That's about thirty kinds of insane. You any kin to Phil Cohen ?