You're The Beach Boys, it's 1966, and come home from a tour to find........

[Cam Mott]

Not the quote I think I was remembering but Brian is quoted in "In Their Own Words" as saying:

"I remember Carl saying to me: 'We've been on this song for months and it doesn't sound like music! God knows what will happen if it doesn't work out. Every cent we've got is in it.'  I told him just trust me and it will work out OK, and it did."

[guitarfool2002]

I've seen some attempts to try reshaping-rewriting the history but this one with "Hang On To Your Ego" is pretty ham-fisted, to the point of not only taking the cake but maybe taking the bakery too. Mike objected to the drug references in the original, that's pretty much been established for decades. No parsing, no reading into it is necessary because it happened as reported. The title as well, as has been stated by others, is the reference to ego and the acid experience beyond Timothy Leary, although as his books and lectures were probably the most visible at that time in the early and mid 60's, it would be the easiest reference to make regarding ego related to LSD. It's just part of what went on, that's beyond opinions of it over all. People who never used LSD were reading leary and other similar books, and attending lectures on the subject. It was still a legal substance, what is also written out of the history of those times is that so-called "mainstream" publications such as Look magazine and others which were in millions of middle-American homes had been running stories on LSD since the late 50's. Back to the song: I've read more than one account of John Lennon, for one, losing his "ego" in both a Freudian and literal way in late '66 into 1967 due to the massive amount of acid he had been taking regularly. He took on a much less dominant role as leader of the group, and parts of his personality changed during this period. They didn't disappear, he was still Lennon, but the amount of LSD he was taking caused a noticeable shift in his personality which had previously been the dominant, Alpha leader in any group he was in.

Put it this way - If someone were to meditate deeply on a topic, any topic or point whether enhanced by chemical means or not, that topic will be the focus of the meditation to the point of becoming a fixation. If there was someone like John Lennon reading a book by Leary about letting go of your ego, and he meditates on it enhanced by Owsley acid, he's going to come out of that fixated on the ego thing...as he perceives it. If he had just read or heard that you need to drop the pretenses and let go of your ego, he's perhaps not thinking of the Freudian notion of ego versus Id versus super-ego...he'll fixate and meditate on his impressions and perceptions of the word ego as it relates to him and come out of the experience accordingly.

So there are references out there in 1965 telling people to drop their ego related to a psychedelic experience, here is a song whose title references that as well as people who trip through the day and waste their thoughts at night, and there is the reference to psychedelics and the psychedelic experience as many understood them in 1965, agree with the whole "scene" or not, it was out there and legal.

There was a trigger in the phrase "hang on to your ego" that would have been pegged as an LSD reference, beyond the actual verses and chorus of the song, beyond Leary and the "heads" since these topics were being reported in the mainstream since the 50's, and Mike objected to it. It wasn't "more" of a Brian versus Sachen thing, or more of a Brian versus anyone else thing because Mike was the one who didn't care for those lyrics, and wanted them changed.

[Cam Mott]

JV: I never quite understood "Hang On To Your Ego" to "I Know There's An Answer."
BW: It was an inappropriate lyric.
JV: How so?
BW: I just thought that to say "Hang on to your ego" was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.
JV: So what was the answer you were looking for in "I Know There's An Answer"?
BW: Your self. There is an answer for you.

Bittersweet Symphony; By Jonathan Valania; MAGNET, Aug/Sep 1999


RC:  "On the "Pet Sounds'' boxed set and re-releases, fans got to see some behind-the-scenes making of the album, including finished versions of a song called "Hang on to Your Ego'' which was later changed to "I Know There's an Answer.''

BW: "I thought it was too much of a heavy statement to talk about ego. Ego is something I don't discuss with anyone.''


'Pet Sounds' As Symphony, July 09, 2000,  By ROGER CATLIN, Hartford Courant

[guitarfool2002]

So you're suggesting Mike didn't object to it, or did he? I don't see where you're going with that. As far as the other guys and what they thought, post some of what Tony Asher remembered from the PS vocal sessions after the band got back to start working on them in Feb '66, among the statements he heard from the BB's if memory serves were phrases like "what the f*** do these words mean?"

[Autotune]

So you're suggesting Mike didn't object to it, or did he? I don't see where you're going with that. As far as the other guys and what they thought, post some of what Tony Asher remembered from the PS vocal sessions after the band got back to start working on them in Feb '66, among the statements he heard from the BB's if memory serves were phrases like "what the f*** do these words mean?"

The main thing here is, I think, if changing the lyrics to Ego (at Mike's request as reported), was harmful to Brian or the group in any way. Or if changing those lyrics made the song any worse. The lyric change is seen in a negative light sometimes, as if Brian's genius song or vision is being compromised by a mediocre request. I think that the negativity that ubderlines the Ego discussions is unjustified.

[Cam Mott]

So you're suggesting Mike didn't object to it, or did he? I don't see where you're going with that. As far as the other guys and what they thought, post some of what Tony Asher remembered from the PS vocal sessions after the band got back to start working on them in Feb '66, among the statements he heard from the BB's if memory serves were phrases like "what the f*** do these words mean?"

I thought I had made it pretty clear that they both say they objected to Sachen's lyric (Brian and Mike v. Sachen). Unless it is Brian's lyric and he wrote a lyric he objected to.

Feel free to post Asher's actual comments but what does it have to do with HOTYE?

[guitarfool2002]

So you're suggesting Mike didn't object to it, or did he? I don't see where you're going with that. As far as the other guys and what they thought, post some of what Tony Asher remembered from the PS vocal sessions after the band got back to start working on them in Feb '66, among the statements he heard from the BB's if memory serves were phrases like "what the f*** do these words mean?"

I thought I had made it pretty clear that they both say they objected to Sachen's lyric (Brian and Mike v. Sachen). Unless it is Brian's lyric and he wrote a lyric he objected to.

Feel free to post Asher's actual comments but what does it have to do with HOTYE?

It plays into the topic at hand, and the first page of replies. Asher reports what he saw happen when the band came to work on the vocals, and what happened during the process. They were questioning and challenging what ultimately would become one of the most respected and beloved albums of the era, and lyrics which some fans would go so far as to have printed and framed to hang on their wall at home, or played and recited at weddings in the case of God Only Knows. And Brian in return would throw it back on them in order to get the process of recording the vocals done, short of doing the majority of parts himself when the band didn't do it. And that could explain a lot, including some sections of Pet Sounds where all the vocal overdubs are a "Wall Of Brians" rather than the band members. And it speaks to the kind of tensions that were reported from Feb 66 that transferred into early 1967 as reported by David Anderle among others who witnessed it.

Maybe some fans feel that there could have been a little more support and confidence shown in these early stages of the process (or processes) for the plans Brian had laid out, which included which lyricists to use and what the lyrics would be. Is it that cut and dry? Perhaps not, but it's also not as cut and dry as to suggest it was all-out positivity and agreement in 1966-67 and any doubt or tensions amounted to suggesting it was Brian arguing with himself or with those not in the band, because that's not how it was. And we need to also factor in the reports of Asher, Anderle, Vosse, etc...those who were involved but not directly in the family or studio dynamic, who saw as insiders yet outside observers too how f***ed up the situations could get and what (and who) could drive them to those points.

It's also a context where Mike, I think, was either hurt or resentful (or both) that he wasn't getting the gig to write the lyrics, and that too may have added more fuel to the fire in these disagreements and tensions. Perhaps due to the feelings over not being asked to add lyrics on a number of projects, he went beyond the usual squabbles to find fault or to point out issues with the songs that caused a different kind of tension in the process. It's fine to go over details, but trying to find every way to try to imply that the band was 100% behind the decision-making process regarding Brian's music for the band just isn't telling the true story.

I've heard numerous producers and engineers say something to the effect of the recording process is as much psychological as it is technical, nuts-and-bolts music making. Dealing with artists, bands, squabbles, issues beyond those on the studio floor...you need to referee sometimes and offer a sympathetic ear, whatever else is necessary to smooth the process. In Brian's situation, he had a band challenging him in Asher's case (and Parks later) over the lyrics. So the lyricist, then, gets in the middle wanted or not...and you need to keep peace enough to finish the process and make the records. Who do you keep happy? One group of people you need to keep happy has issues with the lyrics, what do they mean, that's not who we are, etc. The other group has been writing lyrics in close collaboration with you, ostensibly under your direction geared to music you've laid out for those lyrics and themes...now you have to keep everyone happy or else the record doesn't get made. What or who do you compromise or even risk jeopardizing as part of that task? And factor in the underlying theme that you, Brian, want people to accept and like your work, needing maybe that extra bit of support and validation from the people around you, then from the fans once the end result comes out.

Sound like a fun or productive place to be as a general rule? Ever hear the "Party!" full sessions? It's amazing these guys could get together long enough to record a single take, sometimes the distractions and little petty arguments are so silly, it could have derailed the whole project had it not been compromised, soothed, and smoothed out somehow. No wonder Brian got frustrated, I'd say. Now imagine trying to cut a record like Pet Sounds, complex as it is, with even a bit of that vibe going on.

[Cam Mott]

Sounds like you don't believe Brian about HOTYE.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'd say that after roughly 1980, you have to be quite careful and judicious with any Brian Wilson quote.

[Cam Mott]

I hear you, so how will we judge? He has said this twice on two different occasions to two different people, does this pass?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Anyone here see any drug-related lyrics ?

Yes. Timothy Leary often said that taking LSD would enable the user to let go of your ego (as in the Freudian definition, not the common misuse of the word).  That is, to let go of your inhabitions and revert to the Id. It'actually kind of hard to miss.

Ah... but... the lyric urges one to "hang on to your ego", not let it go.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Not the quote I think I was remembering but Brian is quoted in "In Their Own Words" as saying:

"I remember Carl saying to me: 'We've been on this song for months and it doesn't sound like music! God knows what will happen if it doesn't work out. Every cent we've got is in it.'  I told him just trust me and it will work out OK, and it did."

Almost certainly "GV", or possibly "H&V".

[Robbie Mac]

Anyone here see any drug-related lyrics ?

Yes. Timothy Leary often said that taking LSD would enable the user to let go of your ego (as in the Freudian definition, not the common misuse of the word).  That is, to let go of your inhabitions and revert to the Id. It'actually kind of hard to miss.

Ah... but... the lyric urges one to "hang on to your ego", not let it go.

"Hang onto your ego, but I know that you're going to lose the fight".  I always interpeted that line as meaning that the protagonist feels uptight or scared about the tripping experience. "Don't give in to your urges, but this is so overpowering, that avoiding it is impossible. " The singer could also be singing to himself.

[Cam Mott]

Not the quote I think I was remembering but Brian is quoted in "In Their Own Words" as saying:

"I remember Carl saying to me: 'We've been on this song for months and it doesn't sound like music! God knows what will happen if it doesn't work out. Every cent we've got is in it.'  I told him just trust me and it will work out OK, and it did."

Almost certainly "GV", or possibly "H&V".

It was GV, I left off that part.

[Cam Mott]

Does anybody NOT have the Sea of Tunes Unsurpassed Masters Vol.13 (1966), The Alternate Pet Sounds Album Vol. 1 (or whichever one with the HOTYE and IKTAA vocal sessions on it) because it is WRONG?

[Cam Mott]

OK I meant I can't find mine. I think I remember there is singing and discussion of HOTYE by the group on one or more of the tracks. Would somebody who does have Sea of Tunes Unsurpassed Masters Vol.13 (1966), The Alternate Pet Sounds Album Vol. 1 (or whichever one with the HOTYE and IKTAA vocal sessions on it) (for study purposes only of course) be willing to confirm or deny that please? I'm beginning to think I dreamed it or misheard it because no one else ever seems to mention it. 

[Cam Mott]

It plays into the topic at hand, and the first page of replies. Asher reports what he saw happen when the band came to work on the vocals, and what happened during the process. They were questioning and challenging what ultimately would become one of the most respected and beloved albums of the era, and lyrics which some fans would go so far as to have printed and framed to hang on their wall at home, or played and recited at weddings in the case of God Only Knows. And Brian in return would throw it back on them in order to get the process of recording the vocals done, short of doing the majority of parts himself when the band didn't do it. And that could explain a lot, including some sections of Pet Sounds where all the vocal overdubs are a "Wall Of Brians" rather than the band members. And it speaks to the kind of tensions that were reported from Feb 66 that transferred into early 1967 as reported by David Anderle among others who witnessed it.

Don't you think the "history" depends on too narrow a witness in this case? The witness is almost entirely from one non-group member who attended a few sessions of the group itself over a period of a few months. Should that impression alone be the history? My impression is that the group doesn't agree with that impression at all. Specific to PS, isn't there an interview with Dennis where he is asked about how much the group was resistant to PS and Dennis flat out tells the guy that notion is BS. Mike I believe has said the notion was not only bullocks but he even drove with Brian to deliver PS to Capitol. To my memory, at the very worst, Brian and Al have said they took a bit to get on the same page or something but the group got on that page together and knew it was something special while they were making it. So it wouldn't be a matter of rewriting history, it would be a matter of filling out the too narrow narrative about the history.

[Autotune]

I think there's a paradox among us here. Most people are quick to praise Brian as a collaborator, how fast and effectively he's able to pick ideas from others, how he incorporates other people's input into his own vision, how he enhances other guys' ideas, etc. However, when it comes to the group, who were his partners, some guys have a hard time accepting that they collaborated too, and more rightfully so than anybody else. What's the big deal with the group giving some ideas, nixing others, adding arrangement bits, criticising lyrics or melody lines, or instrumental choices? It is as if anybody else, including some of the hired musicians, are made look like great collaborators of Brian's, while the group (doing precisely what any collaborator does) is seen as a hinder of his talent and its development. In that light (i.e. that people criticising Brian's ideas are detrimental to his artistic realization), perhaps Van Dyke was as much hinder in his own right, or Usher, or Thomas. Or perhaps collaborations in the realm of music are just that, and a big deal has been made historically about the group out of antipathy towards some of its members.*





*alright, one of its members.

[JasonK]

I think it was in the twofer booklet that has the Carl quote about the fuzz bass on Little Honda.  I used to have those little snippets about each song practically memorized.

[Cam Mott]

Re. HOTYE

"Brian was very concerned. He wanted to know what we thought about it. To be honest, I don't think we even knew what an ego was... Finally Brian decided, 'Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

Al Jardine  "Pet Sounds Track Notes",  Brad  Elliott

[Lonely Summer]

It seems the anti-BB's argument is often portrayed this way: Jeez, what a bunch of idiots the Beach Boys were. They'd just come back from touring Japan, where they'd successfully played the same old surf and turf stuff as they had everywhere else. No musical experimentation, don't take any chances, just silly songs about girls, cars and surfing. Now Brian wants them to suddenly take a radical left turn and sing this music that bears no relation to anything they'd done before. And the group, being the simple minded idiots they were, only concerned with having hit records and making money, gave Brian endless grief about this new music he wanted them to sing. Brian was a genius and should never have had his ideas challenged; the Beach Boys would've been pumping gas if not for the genius of Brian. Ungrateful, talentless hacks!

[Douchepool]

Thank Leaf and his acolytes for that viewpoint.

[Mr. Verlander]

Seriously, what would you do if you were a member of the BB's, and you went into the studio to listen to what Brian was doing, and all you got were a bunch of segments of songs?

[Cam Mott]

Seriously, what would you do if you were a member of the BB's, and you went into the studio to listen to what Brian was doing, and all you got were a bunch of segments of songs?

If I had the relationship I think they had I would do what I think they did: the usual guy goofing around and mild complaining and mocking each other (locker room stuff) and then getting down to doing what Brian told us to do the best we could do it because we trusted Brian and thought the work was beautiful even if we didn't understand a lyric or didn't think we could do it at first but Brian told us we could and even if we were humiliated by getting down on the floor and making animal noises.

That is if you accept the narrow narrative of a few guys from outside the group who were around some of the time for a few months and then widen the narrative with the Boys' (including Brian's) own witnesses about the work and the actual work by the group captured on the session tapes.

[Douchepool]

Brian encountered such resistance from those asshole Beach Boys...they didn't even have the g*ddamned common courtesy to refuse to sing their parts like real assholes.