Still Cruisin' and Summer In Paradise rerelease?

[Nicko1234]

Yes, there have indeed been many things regarding this band that were previously widely regarded a certain way that were fortunately later proven wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way.  There is such a thing as bad and hare-brained history-rewriting attempts regarding this band, especially on the pro-Mike side.  That's a "thing"; it happens, as sure as the sky is blue.   Regardless of "political" affiliation or motive, learned BB fans should be bugged enough to point that stuff out, across the political spectrum.

It's so incredibly frustrating that while some people on the pro-Mike side are essentially willing to vaguely admit that there are some undeniably illogical and at times absurd pro-Mike ideas spouted on this board, the actual pointing out of that is seeminly *always* left to people like myself, guitarfool, heyjude, etc. It sucks, because it just furthers the divide, and makes it more about one side vs another side.

As I have pointed out before, I have defended Mike on numerous occasions, and have outright told people in person that they have the wrong idea about many things about him, whenever I hear things that are grossly inaccurate. I will swoop in to say so.  

Yep and you are one of them.

[SMiLE Brian]

CD is a level headed guy!

[SMiLE Brian]

It doesn't matter what song it was, the incident went down with other witnesses beside Chuck Negron.

[Douchepool]

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes, there have indeed been many things regarding this band that were previously widely regarded a certain way that were fortunately later proven wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way. There is such a thing as bad and hare-brained history-rewriting attempts regarding this band, especially on the pro-Mike side.  That's a "thing"; it happens, as sure as the sky is blue.   Regardless of "political" affiliation or motive, learned BB fans should be bugged enough to point that stuff out, across the political spectrum.

It's so incredibly frustrating that while some people on the pro-Mike side are essentially willing to vaguely admit that there are some undeniably illogical and at times absurd pro-Mike ideas spouted on this board, the actual pointing out of that is seeminly *always* left to people like myself, guitarfool, heyjude, etc. It sucks, because it just furthers the divide, and makes it more about one side vs another side.

As I have pointed out before, I have defended Mike on numerous occasions, and have outright told people in person that they have the wrong idea about many things about him, whenever I hear things that are grossly inaccurate. I will swoop in to say so.  

Yep and you are one of them.

Umm... no, not really. But hey, it's cool if you think that. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm happy to defend Mike on many, many points. But again - this appears to be a deflection from answering my query: why are people such as yourself not jumping in to call out BS on the pro-Mike side of the fence? And a polite request: is it possible to directly answer this question without answering with another question?

[CenturyDeprived]

CD is a level headed guy!

Muchas gracias, amigo.

[Douchepool]

Umm... no, not really. But hey, it's cool if you think that. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm happy to defend Mike on many, many points. But again - this appears to be a deflection from answering my query: why are people such as yourself not jumping in to call out BS on the pro-Mike side of the fence? And a polite request: is it possible to directly answer this question without answering with another question?

I think plenty of people call bullshit on the pro-Michael side of the fence. In fact, it's in vogue to do that. Always has been.

[Nicko1234]

Umm... no, not really. But hey, it's cool if you think that. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm happy to defend Mike on many, many points. But again - this appears to be a deflection from answering my query: why are people such as yourself not jumping in to call out BS on the pro-Mike side of the fence? Is it possible to answer this question without answering with another question?

I already answered it once.

I don`t agree with many of Cam`s posts but they are easy to ignore (and I also ignore certain other posters who post much worse stuff than Cam from an opposite perspective). He very rarely starts threads it seems and having somebody on a fan board saying only positive things about a band member is hardly unusual. If he were posting insults or accusations about other band members (and I know somebody linked to threads from 9 years ago where that happened) then I could understand it being more of a problem.

Now to have somebody on a fan board who does constantly start threads which inevitably are about hypothesizing one of the band members in the worst possible light is not so common imho. The fact that you said yourself that there may be some partial truth in at least one of the things that you said speaks for itself really. You can`t really accuse Cam of rewriting history when you do the same thing on a regular basis.

You and Cam are one and the same. But him writing positive things about a band member is more common imo.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Here's my say in this...

For a long time, Mike was not given his fair due in the band.  There's a difference, though, in giving him his fair due and having the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.  That, I fear, is what's beginning to happen here.

CD has admitted to being wrong in the past. Hell, and maybe I'm tripping, but I might have seen him apologize to Cam earlier in the thread, too. So, Nicko, since it was between the two of them at the time, why in the world did you have to throw your two cents in, and started flinging insults his way first, when he hadn't even gone off on you?

[Nicko1234]

Here's my say in this...

For a long time, Mike was not given his fair due in the band.  There's a difference, though, in giving him his fair due and having the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.  That, I fear, is what's beginning to happen here.

CD has admitted to being wrong in the past. Hell, and maybe I'm tripping, but I might have seen him apologize to Cam earlier in the thread, too. So, Nicko, since it was between the two of them at the time, why in the world did you have to throw your two cents in, and started flinging insults his way first, when he hadn't even gone off on you?

Point taken.

I will refrain from posting on this and similar topics for the foreseeable...

[guitarfool2002]

Well, Michael wasn't the only one involved in the alleged "Redwood incident" according to Chuck Negron. He also names Carl and Al alongside Michael. So all three allegedly reduced Brian to tears.

Problem is that, if the track was "Darlin'" as is generally agreed, the sessions were at the home studio, and not Wally Heider's - October 11th, 1967 - as was the "TTGA" session the next day.

And this comes up again. The last time it came up, I posted this and I cannot add to nor improve on anything already posted about the Redwood incident other than to again share this link from the last time:

Once the alleged Heider incident was examined, turned out there was one source for it, i. e. Negron's autobiography. No one else made any such specific claim in over thirty-odd years. TDN experts have said the session dates don't fit. Thus, questionable.

Since it came up, recall there was a specific discussion about this Heider/Redwood incident where it was in fact examined and any claims of the stories being questionable or apocryphal were aired out. I'll find the link to that discussion if necessary. It happened at Heider's, and more than just Negron can and have said who was there and involved. I don't mind hashing out the details, but this has been gone over already with the word of more than one of the direct participants adding to it.

Anyone interested in reading as much about the Redwood incident as you'll likely find anywhere else, citing at least two others besides Negron who were there at Heiders that day, click here on this link, then if interested work a few pages back and a few pages forward of that thread. The exploration of the Redwood/Heider "incident" in full-blown detail:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18454.msg482585.html#msg482585

[guitarfool2002]

If we'd not rewritten BB history, then we'd still "know" that...

The band never actually played on their hits...
David was just a temporary replacement for Alan...
Dennis was a rubbish drummer...
Mike was married 8 times...
Alan left the band to go to dental college...
Brian stayed in bed 1971-76...
Carl's first lead vocal was "Girl Don't Tell Me"...
Murry smacked Brian in the head with a baseball bat in Little League...

Yup, gotta love them "facts".  

You can't rewrite history if it goes against one's preconceived notions, dontchasee.

If I could address these two posts and cite one of the myths specifically to point out something "factual" about this kind of mythology and myth busting.

This one: Brian stayed in bed 1971-76...

Consider how events of 1966-67, specifically the so-called "Smile Era" were portrayed in the ABC TV movie in the early 2000's. Brian, out of control, surrounded by drug addicts, leeches, hangers-on, interlopers, whatever the terms might be. Unless we believe that the people in the airport photo and those working to get Brother up and running were members of this group, and we can name specifically pretty much everyone who was a regular visitor during Smile, the portrayal of 1966-67 in that film is a farce, not based on fact but rather, perhaps, emotion or an impression of it coming from what could be more than one axe to grind.

So that film was, what, 2002? Or thereabouts?

OK. There is proof, accessible proof, that several years after that TV movie aired, after it got debunked pretty much universally on that portrayal among other "facts", this image of that era was still being put forth as fact.

When there is fact, when that fact is attempted to be swayed or changed or even altered in order to make a point, would that be worth calling out? So the attempt to put forth the notion that in 1966-67 as Smile was being worked on, there was a group of hangers-on, leeches, drug dealers, etc surrounding Brian...would such an attempt be given any credibility, any weight at all, if getting to the fact over the mythology were the goal?

I'd say a strong and emphatic "NO", because it has little or no basis in fact. It's an incorrect portrayal, it's an attempt to present an image or form an opinion that was not rooted in the facts.

Now what if within that same source it was also suggested that from the year 1967 onward in that era, Brian spent his time living in bed or in the sandbox while the Beach Boys toured. And beyond that, he was too ill to do anything of note beyond collect the money. So it takes out, effectively erases every album and song from 1967 onward and upward however many years you'd want to go.

In other words, would such a suggestion of spending the days from 1967 onward either in the sandbox or in bed be factual, or would it play into the mythology category and be worthy of - if getting to the truth and the facts is the ultimate goal - almost complete ridicule up to the point of dismissing the suggestions entirely?

The myth highlighted involved staying in bed from 1971-76. An obvious myth, worth busting on every level.

Add to that myth a few additional years prior to 1971, dating it back to 1967 and including not only bed but the sandbox too...and let's talk about the source for where that myth was coming from.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

More than that, it's actionable as libellous.

[SMiLE Brian]

Great posts GF!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

More than that, it's actionable as libellous.

It is,  which is why I'd suggest anybody making such claims should tread lightly.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The myth highlighted involved staying in bed from 1971-76. An obvious myth, worth busting on every level.

Add to that myth a few additional years prior to 1971, dating it back to 1967 and including not only bed but the sandbox too...and let's talk about the source for where that myth was coming from.

Not specifically checked it out, but that's likely one of those BB factoids that "everyone knows" but, on closer inspection, has no apparent source. Much like the famous "formula" quote. I know of several BB researchers/historians/obsessives/folk with way too much time on their hands who have tried to trace it to the published, contemporary source for the latter, and failed, because there doesn't seem to be one. My best guess on the former - staying in bed for half the seventies - is that someone took a band member's flip response (Mike ? Bruce ? Dennis ?) to being asked where Brian was seriously, and like all good myths it snowballed from there. The reply was, as I recall, "Oh, he's back home in bed."

Anyone have a better explanation (and dear God there has to be one), feel free...

Finally: one can rewite history, accurately, until one is blue in the face, but that doesn't mean it won't be summarily ignored in subsequent projects, or indeed by Joe Q. Public in general. The so-called Loch Ness Monster was comprehensively debunked by an excellent book back in 1983 (The Loch Ness Mystery Solved) yet the myth sustains. Same with Roswell and The Bermuda Triangle.

[Cam Mott]

Well, Michael wasn't the only one involved in the alleged "Redwood incident" according to Chuck Negron. He also names Carl and Al alongside Michael. So all three allegedly reduced Brian to tears.

Problem is that, if the track was "Darlin'" as is generally agreed, the sessions were at the home studio, and not Wally Heider's - October 11th, 1967 - as was the "TTGA" session the next day.

And this comes up again. The last time it came up, I posted this and I cannot add to nor improve on anything already posted about the Redwood incident other than to again share this link from the last time:

Once the alleged Heider incident was examined, turned out there was one source for it, i. e. Negron's autobiography. No one else made any such specific claim in over thirty-odd years. TDN experts have said the session dates don't fit. Thus, questionable.

Since it came up, recall there was a specific discussion about this Heider/Redwood incident where it was in fact examined and any claims of the stories being questionable or apocryphal were aired out. I'll find the link to that discussion if necessary. It happened at Heider's, and more than just Negron can and have said who was there and involved. I don't mind hashing out the details, but this has been gone over already with the word of more than one of the direct participants adding to it.

Anyone interested in reading as much about the Redwood incident as you'll likely find anywhere else, citing at least two others besides Negron who were there at Heiders that day, click here on this link, then if interested work a few pages back and a few pages forward of that thread. The exploration of the Redwood/Heider "incident" in full-blown detail:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18454.msg482585.html#msg482585

I hope Brian and Mike and Al (and whoever else may have been able to actually hear) all give their memory of what was going on in the booth that day. What is the source for them taking the tapes, are they in BRI's "vault", and who actually owned those tapes?

[Douchepool]

It is,  which is why I'd suggest anybody making such claims should tread lightly.

Good luck with that...the allegation will probably resurface in a week.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

More than that, it's actionable as libellous.

It is,  which is why I'd suggest anybody making such claims should tread lightly.

Understood. It was a facetious remark that went too far.

[Douchepool]

It's a remark that has also been made before on this very forum by supposed "not-conspiracists."

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's a remark that has also been made before on this very forum by supposed "not-conspiracists."

... and stated to be a fact, not merely an opinion.

[Jay]

Didn't Ray basically confirm the "Redwood incident" not to long ago on this board?

[SMiLE Brian]

Jay, that's what GF linked to in his post on the thread. It went down for sure!

[Douchepool]

... and stated to be a fact, not merely an opinion.

If we're lucky they'll get slapped with a suit. One can only hope.

[Jim V.]

... and stated to be a fact, not merely an opinion.

If we're lucky they'll get slapped with a suit. One can only hope.

Yeah, we need more lawsuits. Especially over stuff on a message board.