New Examiner Article Link: "Brian Wilson's Musical Voices"

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The thing is, would you call someone who had a stroke "brain-damaged"? Would you say that to Kirk Douglas or Garrison Keillor or Ray Bradbury -- all of whom had strokes and then kept on doing public appearances? I mean, that is the definition of what a stroke does -- it damages your brain!

But no, people understand that a stroke might affect someone's speech, and might slow them down in certain ways, but if they're lucky enough and have quality care, they can resume most of their lives.

No one would call them brain-damaged, even though it's literally true, because the term is pejorative. Pure and simple.

As someone who's HAD a stroke (4 years on, now), I can say I agree with you 100 %

[HeyJude]

I'm actually truly NOT a big fan of overreactions, and fake outrage, which we often see in the news. Sometimes people don't truly really find something offensive, but they observe that it's something that they can attack someone for saying/doing.

However, in the case of this article, it's all about tact, and context. I would argue one could even reference Brian's problems and conditions and do so respectfully and tactfully. This article was a hit piece in my opinion, albeit an attempt at a very subtle one, again in my opinion.

If *anyone* should know how to tactfully and appropriately write about Brian's past problems and condition, and accurately write about the current state of his tour/show, you'd think it would be the editor of the only ongoing Beach Boys fanzine. That's probably another reason the piece came across as being so disrespectful and tactless and purposeful; it wasn't written by some random blogger or writer who knows next to nothing about Brian who wiki'ed the Beach Boys ten minutes before writing their article.

How disrespectful that article was is obviously open for debate. But I think several points/assertions were disrespectful, and I would imagine Brian and/or his camp know it.

[Howie Edelson]

And not only that -- who exactly was this piece written for? A casual fan? Die hards?

Why does every piece David writes need to address Brian's "condition." People are much more than their perceived setbacks and/or afflictions. SURELY, SURELY, SURELY David is aware of Mike Love and Bruce Johnston's sketchy (read: human) personal issues that he blatantly has ignored ever harping on -- Brian's health issues seem a pre-requisite for any type of coverage, be it on his career or Mike Love's.

I don't want to sh it on David, or make it a character assassination, because I absolutely believe that he cares about the band and fully loves and appreciates all the music. That's never been in doubt in my mind. I think he's a guy that responds to this music the same way we all do -- or at least I do. What I question is the reason WHY he does what he does. I would read even the greatest, most informative issues of ESQ and throw each of them down because every 9 words had a copyright notice attributed to his name -- it seemed sometimes as much as four times per page (I mean, how many people are stealing content about the Morgans from ESQ, dude?)

I already said what I thought about the journalistic and historic aspects of the last few articles, so I pose this to David. . .

Use your magazine for unity.
This is a fork in the road situation re: your rep.
Stop kissing asses, stop shitt ing on heads and do a great job.