Don't F**k With the Formula

[rab2591]

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.

[filledeplage]

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.

First, rab - happy birthday! 

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."

[Chocolate Shake Man]

There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it.

True. But is saying, "I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway," questioning something's commercial viability? Or "It’s not a bunch of great songs. ... that’s a pretty lightweight album"?

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

No. We do have audio of Brian during the Smile sessions threatening to cancel if he didn't get cooperation, though.

And we have Brian's quotes on shelving it. And starting from scratch with Smiley with the band. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. Can you elaborate?

Just bumped the quoted sections in the Smiley Likely commercial performance (or lack of ) in 1967?

I read them and was already aware of them but I'm afraid I still don't understand the relevance. I'm just a bit dim -- can you explain it?

http://youtu.be/cVltbEJBkJM
Hope this opens.

Dennis Wilson with Pete Fornatale. 1976.  It is on YouTube if it doesn't.

I doubt you're "dim."  

What the non-band people have to say is of little consequence to me. They editorialize.

I am familiar with the Dennis interview as well. It's a good one.

A few things though - the band members can editorialize just as much as anybody else, no? They might have a vested interest in not speaking to the kinds of claims and statements that have been attributed to them. Even when the band does admit to opposition, they cloud it. Brian saying opposition to Good Vibrations came from "people in the group, but I can't tell ya who." Bruce noted that "one member of the band didn't understand [Til I Die] and put it down" but doesn't name who that member was. And why should they name names? I don't expect them to throw each other or themselves under the bus and I wouldn't want them to either. Nevertheless, the statements that band members have made do a nice job of reinforcing the kinds of claims made by people outside the band anyway.

[Empire Of Love]

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly EOL, even Mike's own words point to him being against BW's new direction. He wanted the formula of "relatable songs" to continue. But the one thing Mike didn't get was "relatable" music in 1962 wasn't so in 1967.

[guitarfool2002]

And that is exactly the point I tried to raise by mentioning Brian asking his dad after the "Rhonda" session and captured on tape "So you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?"

That's it. Either take it for what it is or ignore it, but it was there before Smile, GV, and Pet Sounds and Mike's quote above fell into line with the same general sentiment. What worked and what sold records was a comfortable place to be that some perhaps didn't want to leave. Murry was one of them. Who else?

[rab2591]

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.

First, rab - happy birthday! 

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."

Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.

[Mike's Beard]

But on point, you agree then that there are reasons why a performer can perform material very well other than them liking and supporting the material.

Well by doing their job and singing over and over to Brian's satisfaction is showing their support. Once the tape is rolling you put aside any issues and be a pro.

[rab2591]

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

It is indeed a real quote, from Peter Carlin's 'Catch A Wave' book.

[filledeplage]

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

EOL - they were definitely connected to the LSD domain. Seriously. Mike wasn't wrong.

We've had that discussion. In the locked thread above.

No hard feelings. Just hard facts.

And, I don't appreciate being lumped into a faction. I try to look at all possible factors.  Sorry if there is a perception that we are playing a "team sport" here.  I like and support all the band members. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.

[guitarfool2002]

It wasn't just about the lyrics, either. The Beach Boys when they returned from a tour to hear the tracks Brian had been cutting for Pet Sounds heard backing tracks, music without lyrics. David Anderle in the '67 interviews said the same process repeated in fall 1966 when the band returned from the European tours and Brian played them the instrumental tracks he had been cutting for the next album, i.e. Smile. And Anderle compared them to a symphony in progress...so the *sound* was as much an issue as the lyrics. And the band balked at what Brian played them, worried it was too far out.

"So you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?", that is a key to the whole thing that perhaps no one wants to touch, and it was bubbling underneath the band and those around them before Pet Sounds.

[filledeplage]

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.

First, rab - happy birthday! 

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."

Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.

Well you can be happy Stamos is older than you! 

Ever listen to brothers "carry on" and "mouth off" to each other one day, and be best buds the next? And they even forget why they argued! 

It is a "process" to get to "yes" in a closely-held / family-based business and it can be hot or cold. So, that tells me only that they are no different from the rest of us, as mere mortals.  And I take the finished product rather than the squabbling that went down in the process. And write off the naysayers.  They don't matter.  Only the band matters, and those who support them rather than tear them down, after-the-fact.

[SMiLE Brian]

But these disagreements were no small family squabble, BW slowly pulled away from group until he gave up control by the late 1960s. There was huge tension in the group even after smile was canned.

[Empire Of Love]

If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them?

Yet again, 'Hang On To Your Ego' is a perfect example.

Al Jardine: "Mike just didn't feel it was something that people could to relate to, so he pretty much said "Hey Brian, I'm not gonna sing on this more than likely"...if the lead singer don't wanna sing it I guess you have to rewrite the lyrics."
Bruce Johnston: "I think Mike didn't like the idea that in the drug era, as you were on one of those acid journeys...and you were supposed to hang on to your ego, well in Mike's mind the Beach Boys were not about drugs and was just adamantly against the lyric direction."
Al Jardine specifically recalls Brian saying "Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

So it appears Mike wasn't always up for learning his parts.

But there is none of that happening for the Smile material, if not there'd be Wilson/Love credits. We do have Mike singing the lyrics he didn't like on the finished recording(s).
Also the lyrics for Hang on to Your Ego sucked the hairy pipe, wouldn't you agree?

The fact remains that Mike did refuse to sing certain lyrics in 1966.

And I totally agree that 'I Know There's An Answer' is far (lightyears) better than the original.
______

I'm not opposed at all to Mike questioning the creative direction of the band during this time, but when Filledeplage claims there was no conflict (solely based on the fact that the guys sang really well on some tracks) I do feel it is playing down what actually went on according to the guys who were there.

Even Mike admits (regarding Cabinessence): "That’s why I said, "What the f*** does that mean?" It's not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' And it wasn't like I was against his lyrics. But people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a f*** about the way I think, either. But that’s okay. I'm a big boy, and I can take that. I was just asking: What did it mean?"

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

There was conflict and controversy, admitted by the guys who were there. Regardless of who sang on what.

First, rab - happy birthday! 

Second - being partners in a family business doesn't mean you agree on everything. In fact you often clash. But it all is for the "good of the business."

It isn't about getting personal.  They are your partners and you have to accept criticism and work for compromise with all your business partners because it's a joint work product.

You come as well prepared as you can be and hope your partners accept a percentage of your work. What we are talking about is outsiders who are making and trying to impose their points of view on fellow corporate members.

They have to negotiate their way to the final, finished product, and sometimes it bears little resemblance to the "rough draft."

Thanks for the birthday wishes! Admittedly I share my birthday with John Stamos as well.

You're all too correct on those points about negotiating to get to a final product. But the quotes given by the guys around at the time, even Brian himself (as quoted by Al) prove there was controversy. So during these negotiations, according to the guys, according to Brian, there was a lot of tense conversation and conflict regarding certain lyrics during the 66/67 years.

Well you can be happy Stamos is older than you! 

Ever listen to brothers "carry on" and "mouth off" to each other one day, and be best buds the next? And they even forget why they argued! 

It is a "process" to get to "yes" in a closely-held / family-based business and it can be hot or cold. So, that tells me only that they are no different from the rest of us, as mere mortals.  And I take the finished product rather than the squabbling that went down in the process. And write off the naysayers.  They don't matter.  Only the band matters, and those who support them rather than tear them down, after-the-fact.

So Mike matters because he is in the band and the band is all that matters.  But also Mike doesn't matter because he continues to tear Brian down and those who tear down the band don't matter.  FP, you are defying basic logic.

Lolz

[filledeplage]

But these disagreements were no small family squabble, BW slowly pulled away from group until he gave up control by the late 1960s. There was huge tension in the group even after smile was canned.

He (Brian) worked on Wild Honey, post Smiley, which the band used to enlarge the performance set lists with and was highly and well reviewed even by Christgau. Other factors play into the late 1960's.  That sale of SOT in 1969.

His band stepped in.  That's what supportive partners do. They worked on 20/20.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But on point, you agree then that there are reasons why a performer can perform material very well other than them liking and supporting the material.

Well by doing their job and singing over and over to Brian's satisfaction is showing their support.

Well, I suppose this comes down to a debate about what "support" is. I think one can do their job well without supporting the work itself. But, whatever, forget the word "support" -- they can do their job well on products that they repeatedly and consistently denigrated and put down. I suppose if you think that you can support a work while  simultaneously putting it down and calling it stupid, too modern, too long, lightweight, and under-produced, then I can't fault you for that. But we do have different understandings of support and my concern is not whether or not The Beach Boys supported the music in terms of the way you see them supporting it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike Love: "I call it 'acid alliteration. The [lyrics are] far out. But do they relate like 'Surfin' USA', like 'Fun, Fun, Fun,' like 'California Girls', like 'I Get Around'? Perhaps not! So that's the distinction. See, I'm into success. These words equal successful hit records; those words don't."

LOL

Is this a real quote?  Because again, according to Andrew, Cam, FP, and the gang, Mike's opinion was not of the "don't eff with the formula crowd." Except there it is, in his own words.

Please don't put words that I never said in my mouth. I've said nothing about Mike's opinions, merely that there's no proof he actually said the "formula" quote.

[Andrew G. Doe]

End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL

You're entirely missing my point.

[Empire Of Love]

My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion. 

You stated that "eff with the formula" is an opinion but not Mike's opinion.  If you meant simply to say that it is not a direct quote, then I misunderstood.  Do you agree that it was his opinion even if not his direct quote?  Or do you think it was not his opinion?

[CenturyDeprived]

But regardless of whether or not those exact words were uttered, we can agree that Brian's music from about Pet Sounds forward was met with considerable hostility and opposition and that this has been largely downplayed in the years since, right?

Nope.

How is it that anything can be seen completely so black and white? Nothing in as complex a story as this one is black and white like that, especially when peoples' feelings (of the principal players involved) aren't something that you can quantify in a manner of scientific accuracy, in the way that a math problem outputs to an exactly precise answer.

 
 

Pet Sounds

Tony Asher: And they didn’t know I was even there. And they’d say things like, I don’t know why we’re recording this these stupid songs anyway. And I thought, why am I sitting here listening to that? I don’t need to.

Al: Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

Brian: Mike said, “Gee, this is too much of a departure.” And I said, but Mike I got to do it this way for just one album. He goes, “All right. One album.”

Good Vibrations

Did everybody support what you were trying to do?
BRIAN: No, not everybody. There was a lot of "oh you can't do this, that's too modern" or "that's going to be too long a record." I said no, it's not going to be too long a record, it's going to be just right.
Who resisted you? Your manager? The record company?
BRIAN: No, people in the group, but I can't tell ya who. We just had resisting ideas. They didn't quite understand what this jumping from studio to studio was all about. And they couldn't conceive of the record as I did. I saw the record as a totality piece.

Smile

Anderle: The Beach Boys as a band were in England at the time, they were having a great time there, throwing The Beatles out of the number one spot. When they got back, and Brian started playing them the music he had done for the Smile album, and they started to question Brian about the lyric content … and suddenly everything that been a year and a half, 2 years of complete positive vibes, now became very negative vibes.

Parks: The friction was so great that, as he was just achieving the apex of his creative arc, he abandoned the project, I think in the interests of…social harmony? And Smile was left unfinished, for that reason.

Anderle: [Smile] wasn’t done mainly because he had to put their voices on it – he had to get them to sing those Van Dyke Parks lyrics, and it wasn’t easy for Carl, and Mike and the boys to sing some of those – strange lyrics.

Parks: I wasn’t close enough to the other guys. I was in a position of defending my lyrics … Mike Love said to me one day: “Explain this: Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.” And it was an American Gothic trip that Brian and I were working on. I said, “I don’t know what these lyrics are all about. They’re not important. Throw them away.” And so they did.

Derek Taylor:  "A key factor in the breakdown had to be the Beach Boys themselves, whose stubbornness by this time had seemingly twisted itself into a grim determination to undermine the very foundations of this 'new music' in order to get back to the old accepted, dumb formulas."

Marilyn: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead, you do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it.” … and I don’t think ever really came back. I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

Friends

Bruce: It’s not a bunch of great songs. They’re pretty light. … No, that’s a pretty lightweight album. I mean, I love “Friends.” I love the songs “Friends.” … But the album – I’m surprised it got to 126. Maybe 1026 might be more appropriate.

Breakaway

Al: I was really disappointed and frustrated by how this one ended up. We knew we had 90% of a good record, but typical of his late 60s mentality, Brian underproduced and undersold the ending of the record.

Til I Die

Johnston remembers Brian “playing it for the band and one member of the band didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.”

And of course, every one of these quotes is completely, 100% off-base according to Mike and Cam, right? The only possible answer is that it's a giant conspiracy involving lots of people who for no particular reason need to blame someone who doesn't deserve 0.0000001 % of an ounce of blame? Is that logical?

Of course nobody WANTS any of this stuff to be true. As Marilyn stated, she "hate[d]" to say what she said. As a fan, I don't WANT any of this stuff to be true either.

Should I just really believe, squint my eyes together really tightly, listen to "wheeeeeennnnn" for 10 hours straight to convince myself that these are all outright fabricated lies? Will that do the trick?

[Empire Of Love]

End of discussion, except...

Here's how Al defined it:

Mike was very confused by [Pet Sounds]. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the change, but I grew to appreciate it as soon as we started to work on it. … Mike’s a formula hound – if it doesn’t have a hook in it, if he can’t hear a hook in it, he doesn’t want to know about it.

So maybe not as clear cut as you are saying Andrew.  Or is the quote above fabricated?

EoL

You're entirely missing my point.

In a sense it doesn't really matter.  Either you think he held the opinion but didn't make the precise quote or he neither held the opinion and did not make the precise quote.  The implications are plain in both cases.  If you are simply setting the historical record straight regarding the precise quote, (a) we are past that, the question is did he have that opinion regardless of the words he used to express it and (b) a suit at capital saying it does not preclude Mike having also said it.  I believe Mike and the suits at capital had a similar view of Brian's work, keep the cash cow coming, so it would not surprise me if more than one of them said it.  One saying it does not preclude the other having done so.  I still don't totally disagree with the sentiment, and at least see it as valid to the extent I do disagree.  There is nothing wrong with making music for money, even solely for money.  My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.

EoL

[CenturyDeprived]

There's a rather large gulf between questioning something's commercial viability and outright dissmissing it. If Mike or any of the other guys were so against Brian's material in 66/67, why did they learn their parts and record them? Lots of finger pointing but has anybody ever produced any documented proof of a 'Beach Boys Smile Vocal Session' cancelled because the guys point blank flat out refused to sing?

If people got into refusing to sing, I could see that being considered a declaration of war of sorts, where things could get really ugly in any number of ways. Going through the motions with a negative attitude is more passive-aggressive, and could eventually enable the person to get their way if the person on the receiving end gets worn down enough (compounded by the receiving person's own unrelated issues).

Just because nobody necessarily outright refused to sing, that doesn't mean that damage was not nonetheless done.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My thoughts

- Michael saying "Don't f*** With The Formula" isn't some great crime, it was his opinion and many would argue he was right.  Even if you feel he was completely wrong, you can't hate on somebody for having a different opinion than yours, people should be able to discuss things they disagree with, that's how we all learn.  I don't see anything egregious about that statement if he ever even made it.  It's just an opinion, man.

An opinion, yes. Mike's, no. Suppose I'd asked Voyle Giilmore, and he'd said it was a Capitol suit and not Mike. End of discussion. 

You stated that "eff with the formula" is an opinion but not Mike's opinion.  If you meant simply to say that it is not a direct quote, then I misunderstood.  Do you agree that it was his opinion even if not his direct quote?  Or do you think it was not his opinion?

"An opinion, yes. Mike's, no." Seriously, I have to spell it out for you ?  Apparently. Very well. "Dfwtf" is an opinion, but it wasn't Mike's opinion. According to Mike, who was there. Of course, that renders the claim invalid in some eyes, which was my subordinate point.

[Sheriff John Stone]

My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?

[Empire Of Love]

My guess is this sentiment was expressed by Mike and the Capital suits and maybe some fans as well.
EoL

SOME fans? Look at the history of the group and Brian Wilson. SOME fans? Are you sure you don't want to change that to MOST fans?

You think most fans of BB and BW have held to the don't eff with the formula opinion?