What is the most devastating moment in the band's career?

[HeyJude]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

[filledeplage]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

Sorry you feel that way.  That post created that inference.  This is a message board.  This thread is for "devastating moments" and the case is long settled. 

The BRI board hasn't changed, as far as I know.  It's not worth losing sleep or getting upset over it.  And, I'm certainly not going to.   

[Jim V.]

Thank you for pointing out the filledtheplagessf likely doesn't read others posts. She will pick out a certain phrase or word and elaborate upon that. For instance, recently, I mentioned John Stamos in one of my posts, and rather than responding to the what the basis of the post was about, she picked out the Stamos thing and absolutely avoided the rest. So it leads me to believe she either does not read the posts or as Mrs. Mott, she just chooses not to the respond to things using this half-assed notion of "liberty" or "freedom" saying "hey, in an Amuurrrican, I don't have to reply to you, even if this is a message board and if it made sense people would actually reply to the topics listed."

[HeyJude]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

Sorry you feel that way.  That post created that inference.  This is a message board.  This thread is for "devastating moments" and the case is long settled.  

The BRI board hasn't changed, as far as I know.  It's not worth losing sleep or getting upset over it.  And, I'm certainly not going to.  

This is, I hope, the last round for me, as I've taken far too much of the bait. I will only add that this is what I posted:

"...one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc."

The only way you could read that and come away with the impression that one would be a masochist for simply reading the document is if you *didn't actually read the entire post*, as if you literally stopped reading the sentence half-way through.  

[filledeplage]

Thank you for pointing out the filledtheplagessf likely doesn't read others posts. She will pick out a certain phrase or word and elaborate upon that. For instance, recently, I mentioned John Stamos in one of my posts, and rather than responding to the what the basis of the post was about, she picked out the Stamos thing and absolutely avoided the rest. So it leads me to believe she either does not read the posts or as Mrs. Mott, she just chooses not to the respond to things using this half-assed notion of "liberty" or "freedom" saying "hey, in an Amuurrrican, I don't have to reply to you, even if this is a message board and if it made sense people would actually reply to the topics listed."

You have no idea what anyone reads or not.  It is amazing that because a person randomly might agree with a point of view they become "spouses."

[filledeplage]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

Sorry you feel that way.  That post created that inference.  This is a message board.  This thread is for "devastating moments" and the case is long settled.  

The BRI board hasn't changed, as far as I know.  It's not worth losing sleep or getting upset over it.  And, I'm certainly not going to.  

This is, I hope, the last round for me, as I've taken far too much of the bait. I will only add that this is what I posted:

"...one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc."

The only way you could read that and come away with the impression that one would be a masochist for simply reading the document is if you *didn't actually read the entire post*, as if you literally stopped reading the sentence half-way through.  

I'm asking the mods to make note of your screaming bold print, in multiple posts and your attempts to derail a thread on "devastating moments in the band's career."

[HeyJude]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

Sorry you feel that way.  That post created that inference.  This is a message board.  This thread is for "devastating moments" and the case is long settled.  

The BRI board hasn't changed, as far as I know.  It's not worth losing sleep or getting upset over it.  And, I'm certainly not going to.  

This is, I hope, the last round for me, as I've taken far too much of the bait. I will only add that this is what I posted:

"...one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc."

The only way you could read that and come away with the impression that one would be a masochist for simply reading the document is if you *didn't actually read the entire post*, as if you literally stopped reading the sentence half-way through.  

I'm asking the mods to make note of your screaming bold print, in multiple posts and your attempts to derail a thread on "devastating moments in the band's career."

Bold print was only meant for emphasis, not screaming. Apologies if using bold print is against forum rules. I've used it many times as have others for emphasis.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think the back and forth has hit a dead end. Apologies for contributing to derailing the thread.

[kookadams]

It was hardly a moment, but dropping out of Monterey, giving up on Smile and Brian's gradual withdrawal from the group was the absolutely devastating chain of events. Nothing that happened in later years was even remotely as important to their career.

But nobody knows what would have happened if they'd done well at Monterey, and gotten in that movie, and released a great Smile album. For most people, the Beach Boys were only important from 1963 to 1966. Adding a successful 1967 might have yielded a lot of money and critical esteem and might have permanently changed their image, but given the times and who they were, everything could have easily fallen apart in 1968.

I think many of us fans assume that everything would have been great "if only" they'd gotten it right in 1967. Or "if only" some other scenario occurred. There's a really good probability that things would have gotten screwed up eventually, one way or another, regardless.

who are the most people? The beach boys were still huge after 67, just not in the US, but american music consumers were into other music and not rock in 68-73,...the BBs always maintained commercial viability even if it wasn't so much in America.

[Mikie]

I'm asking the mods to make note of your screaming bold print, in multiple posts and your attempts to derail a thread on "devastating moments in the band's career."

Nah, you don't need to do that. That's what we have PM's for. No use pissing someone off worse by notifying the Moderators.

Besides, someone might get banned for no real good reason, and you don't want that to happen because it creates even more animosity. Trust me, it happened to me and three others recently.

We're all adults here. Deal with it one on one, preferably behind closed doors. Deal with it like you would in person sitting at a table having a coupla beers. DON'T get the Mods involved!!

[HeyJude]

Thanks for the wise advice Mikie. By the way, I'm always happy to do PM's with anyone, whether we're agreeing or disagreeing. Few do write, but please feel free!

[SMiLE Brian]

All of this is filledeplage-bustering to deflect blame from Mike Love as usual. Same lady thinks Mike's solo group is the Beach Boys and Christian Love gave a sh*t.

[filledeplage]

All of this is filledeplage-bustering to deflect blame from Mike Love as usual. Same lady thinks Mike's solo group is the Beach Boys and Christian Love gave a sh*t.

SmileBrian - Mike (and Bruce's) group is the Touring Beach Boys Band, by agreement of BRI.  It isn't the C50 arrangement, nor is it the band from the 1960's. 

We aren't here to apportion "blame" but to discuss music.  Do I think Christian Love cared about his work? YouTube - GOK in DC, December, 2011 singing for the military. It speaks for itself.

Looking at each group's merit is very easy for me, whether Brian's, Mike's or Al's. 

[kookadams]

After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely music making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .
 

Denny was the guy who seemed, by all accounts, to DEEPLY (and very much not quietly) resist and resent the quality degradation, and traveling jukebox trajectory that the band was headed down. Is it reasonable to assume that this was part (certainly not entirely, but part) of the reason for him and Mike having a deep falling out in the late 70s/early 80s?  Obviously Mike resenting Denny's drinking-related outbursts was a huge part of it... but was the falling out also in part because Denny resented what Denny may have viewed as Mike leading the charge to pull the band in a direction bereft of artistic integrity? Mind you, I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not other bandmates went along with that direction too, or who is to "blame" for that... that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

It did take the band a lot longer to become the 'travelling jukebox' than many seem to think. In the 78/79 they were still playing stuff such as Feel Flows, Everyone's In Love With You and All This is That at concerts. Every new album got a healthy showing on the road but with fans not reacting much to new material very little lasted. I think they only really became a travelling jukebox after the fail of KTSA and stopped making new material for years. By that point Dennis was too far in the hole to make a positive difference anyways.

After the success of Endless Summer and 15 Big Ones they shoulda never made another album. Love you shoulda been "Brian loves you" as orig intended and they just stuck to touring, then abominations like miu, the ligh album and ktsa woulda never happened to tarnish everything they worked for.

[HeyJude]

After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely music making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .
 

Denny was the guy who seemed, by all accounts, to DEEPLY (and very much not quietly) resist and resent the quality degradation, and traveling jukebox trajectory that the band was headed down. Is it reasonable to assume that this was part (certainly not entirely, but part) of the reason for him and Mike having a deep falling out in the late 70s/early 80s?  Obviously Mike resenting Denny's drinking-related outbursts was a huge part of it... but was the falling out also in part because Denny resented what Denny may have viewed as Mike leading the charge to pull the band in a direction bereft of artistic integrity? Mind you, I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not other bandmates went along with that direction too, or who is to "blame" for that... that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

It did take the band a lot longer to become the 'travelling jukebox' than many seem to think. In the 78/79 they were still playing stuff such as Feel Flows, Everyone's In Love With You and All This is That at concerts. Every new album got a healthy showing on the road but with fans not reacting much to new material very little lasted. I think they only really became a travelling jukebox after the fail of KTSA and stopped making new material for years. By that point Dennis was too far in the hole to make a positive difference anyways.

After the success of Endless Summer and 15 Big Ones they shoulda never made another album. Love you shoulda been "Brian loves you" as orig intended and they just stuck to touring, then abominations like miu, the ligh album and ktsa woulda never happened to tarnish everything they worked for.

They ultimately mostly *did* just stick to touring, especially post-1980, and there are enough good bits on the 1977-1980 albums that I wouldn't want to give those up. (Nor some tracks on '85 and "Still Cruisin'").

I think by the early 80's that they stopped being a recording act that also toured and became a touring band that occasionally did studio work.

[Nicko1234]

Maybe I should apologize for linking to the court documents. I thought they would show a factual account of what happened and certainly didn`t expect Cam`s 9 year old posts on the board to be dredged up because of it.

There seems to be something of an obsession with wanting to pound Cam down right now though. In a recent thread, completely off topic, we had him being harangued over his opinions on Smile, Kokomo and the correct way to treat any and all mental illnesses for example!?! 

[filledeplage]

Maybe I should apologize for linking to the court documents. I thought they would show a factual account of what happened and certainly didn`t expect Cam`s 9 year old posts on the board to be dredged up because of it.

There seems to be something of an obsession with wanting to pound Cam down right now though. In a recent thread, completely off topic, we had him being harangued over his opinions on Smile, Kokomo and the correct way to treat any and all mental illnesses for example!?! 

Nick1234 - thank you for linking them.  I re-read them and attempted to "distill" the decision, and pull out the facts, since I've read hundreds of cases and thought that might be helpful, to those without that background.

But, those who already have a strong position against the info those documents may hold, may not be receptive to that.  Not my problem. 

Where the "Cam" nonsense came, I don't know.  How I ended up "married" to Cam, warrants notice. It is abusive.  Cam is entitled to his opinions as am I, and everyone else. 

Facts debunk fiction, and add something worthwhile.  Thanks, Nicko and ... for you!

[ontor pertawst]

There seems to be something of an obsession with wanting to pound Cam down right now though.

I guess they are all entitled to their opinions as am I, and everyone else. Or maybe he just made an incredibly weak set of arguments that look pretty laughable and perhaps he needs to recharge his batteries by staring silently at a picture of a smiling Al Jardine.



You are an obsession
I cannot sleep
I am your possession
Unopened at your feet
There's no balance
No equality
Be still I will not accept defeat

[filledeplage]

There seems to be something of an obsession with wanting to pound Cam down right now though.

I guess they are all entitled to their opinions as am I, and everyone else. Or maybe he just made an incredibly weak set of arguments that look pretty laughable and maybe needs to recharge his batteries by staring silently at a picture of a smiling Al Jardine.

Ontor - the positions you might not agree with.  And, "staring at a picture of a smiling Al Jardine."

"Weak?" - "laughable?"

[Nicko1234]

I guess they are all entitled to their opinions as am I, and everyone else. Or maybe he just made an incredibly weak set of arguments that look pretty laughable and maybe needs to recharge his batteries by staring silently at a picture of a smiling Al Jardine.

Nobody is saying they should agree with Cam on anything...

But in another thread you have people mocking him for making a spelling error and bringing up the Macarena again when it is off topic.

It doesn`t seem to be about discussion or debate anymore but only about haranguing one poster.

[ontor pertawst]

Oh, I know! Let's steer this back on topic. The most devastating moment in the band's career... say, filledeplage... coughSTUDENTDEMONSTRATIONTIMEcoughcoughcough. There. All better and back on topic.

Nicko1234, you seriously think petty internet snipping at spelling and grammar somehow only applies to Cam Mott? C'mon. It's the beloved past-time of some of this board's greatest pedants with rich, near-Biblical beards. The weak complaints about personal attacks DO neatly change the subject from Mr. Love's boneheaded moves, tho. If you're really concerned about balance and protecting the integrity of Cam Mott's paper mache arguments, do feel free to post on topic and blame other members of the band for devastating moments so some weird equality is achieved in your minds.

There's a riot goin' on!

[filledeplage]

Oh, I know! Let's steer this back on topic. The most devastating moment in the band's career... say, filledeplage... coughSTUDENTDEMONSTRATIONTIMEcoughcoughcough. There. All better and back on topic.

Nicko1234, you seriously think petty internet snipping at spelling and grammar somehow only applies to Cam Mott? C'mon. It's the beloved past-time of some of this board's greatest pedants with rich, near-Biblical beards.

Well ontor, now, we have opinion-based insults.  Now, that is against board rule #2.

[ontor pertawst]

Opinion-based insults? Good name for a band. Sorry if you're offended, I was expressing my laughable opinions totally devoid of all logic and not backed up by court documents... which is my gawd-given right as a 'Merican or something. It's the latest thing, all the kids are doing it. How dare you question my opinions! I feel so offended and picked on. I think I'm gonna go put on a baseball cap and point at someone, feel free to take this thread in exciting new directions in the meantime if you want to raise the tone.

We're counting on you. I'll bow out here, thanks.

[Mike's Beard]

who are the most people? The beach boys were still huge after 67, just not in the US, but american music consumers were into other music and not rock in 68-73,...the BBs always maintained commercial viability even if it wasn't so much in America.

You are talking about an alternative reality America here I take it?

[Mike's Beard]

 I think I'm gonna go put on a baseball cap and point at someone

I've often thought about going out on the street and doing this, maybe shouting out 'Wheeeeeeeeeeen!' as I do so, see how long it takes for the cops to show up.

[Moon Dawg]

 Wait a sec...did two posters get married? Why wasn't I invited?