Don't F**k With the Formula

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Uncork The Love

    Oh no!! Could this be a working title for another myKe luHv solo attempt? 
 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

My bad, July, 1967. Heroes - Single with "You're Welcome" on side B.  Smiley came out on September 18, 1967. Smiley was recorded between February 17, 1966 ( prior to July, 1966 - Brother incorporation) and July 14, 1967. Something must have been ready in April of 1967.  

No, nothing was ready that Brian wanted to come out. Remember that they had not been recording Smiley since February 1966. Brian had been working on Smile since August 1966 and by April 1967 was only a few weeks away from officially shelving the project entirely to start over again with Smiley. So nothing from Smiley had been recorded yet, and if Capitol put something out from the Smile sessions (which they probably wouldn't have been able to) against Brian's wishes, this would have been a far greater crime, at least for Brian, then it was to put out Then I Kissed Her. And nowhere in these quotations do Mike or Bruce suggest that Capitol should have done such a thing either.

[filledeplage]

My bad, July, 1967. Heroes - Single with "You're Welcome" on side B.  Smiley came out on September 18, 1967. Smiley was recorded between February 17, 1966 ( prior to July, 1966 - Brother incorporation) and July 14, 1967. Something must have been ready in April of 1967.  

No, nothing was ready that Brian wanted to come out. Remember that they had not been recording Smiley since February 1966. Brian had been working on Smile since August 1966 and by April 1967 was only a few weeks away from officially shelving the project entirely to start over again with Smiley. So nothing from Smiley had been recorded yet, and if Capitol put something out from the Smile sessions (which they probably wouldn't have been able to) against Brian's wishes, this would have been a far greater crime, at least for Brian, then it was to put out Then I Kissed Her. And nowhere in these quotations do Mike or Bruce suggest that Capitol should have done such a thing either.

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965. Then I Kissed Her ( Spector/Greenwich/Barry) and Mountain of Love (Dorman)(Party - November, 1965) had no Brian authorship. Was it for authorship royalties?

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4. From a position of a record company executive, what do you think they could have put out from Pet Sounds that would have been as commercially successful that hadn't already been released?

[CenturyDeprived]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

[filledeplage]

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.

You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.

You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  

They may have been table scraps but the song did reach #4, which would be the highest charting Beach Boys single in the UK until Do It Again, the following year and the boys had not been opposed to issuing cover songs as singles before (Do You Wanna Dance, Barbara Ann, Sloop John B). They did have an in-house composer, but they also had, in the same person, an in-house producer who could transform other people's work into great Beach Boys songs.

I added a sentence to the post that you quote from but I'll make the point here again. By April 1967, Capitol had issued Sloop John B., Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, and Let's Go Away for Awhile on singles in the UK. Caroline No could have been released but perhaps only as a Brian Wilson single rather than a Beach Boys single, defeating the purpose of trying to capitalize on the success of Good Vibrations. So with all those Pet Sounds songs out the window, what do you think a Capitol executive would think was a song to issue off of Pet Sounds that would be more commercially viable than Then I Kissed Her?

[Mike's Beard]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

[drbeachboy]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

What are you looking for, a pat on the back? Most of us respond if we have something to add. For me, there is just too much animosity discussing issues that are 40+ years old that mean absolutely nothing in 2015. My blood pressure is high enough without coming in here arguing (not discussing) issues that mean absolutely nothing. This stuff is fun to talk about if folks would be civil with each other, but that rarely happens here anymore.

[filledeplage]

The collective band outrage suggests there was a "disconnect of sorts."

They still had Pet Sounds. The British press posed that question. Summer Days and Summer Nights was released on July 5, 1965.

You're looking at it from the American perspective. Pet Sounds entered the British charts on July 3, 1966. Summer Days entered the British charts one week later. The British record buying public did not necessarily see the time lapse that an American listener would have.

It feels like disrespect and "sticking it to the band" for the new incorporation. A little "payback" for losing that power and control.

Again, I think it was a bad choice by Capitol but from their perspective I'm sure they wanted to put out something. It had been around six months since the last single, one which I'm sure everyone thought the band would want to capitalize on by putting out something on its heels since it was the biggest smash hit of the band's career. Then, nothing came out and by April, not only was there no new release in sight but Brian was actually on the verge of scrapping everything that could have been put out. So Capitol wanted to put out something, and as we now know, they didn't see the commercial viability of the Pet Sounds music. Plus, they had already put out a bunch of songs from that album. And besides, it was a decision that paid off financially for Capitol as Then I Kissed Her went to #4.

You have a point. How Summer Days followed Pet Sounds is a mind blower!  I've always been puzzled by the various releases in terms of timing, with wonderment as to the rationale.

But, looking at the facts...

First, they had been performing Pet Sounds cuts, globally, even in Paris for UNICEF in December of '67 while the nearby European UK neighbors are watching Then I Kissed Her, two years post release, in December of '67.

Second, Capitol put out table scraps, in my opinion, and shafted the band out of compositional royalties. Not one song, but two, which makes me very suspicious of the intent.  One, maybe, but not two. They aren't a vocal cover band. They have their in-house composer.

Third, They are uniformly (and publicly) offended. The press blames the band and they have to defend against it, because their silence would cause people to infer that they were directly responsible for the release.

It sounds harsh, but how it looks to me.  

They may have been table scraps but the song did reach #4, which would be the highest charting Beach Boys single in the UK until Do It Again, the following year and the boys had not been opposed to issuing cover songs as singles before (Do You Wanna Dance, Barbara Ann, Sloop John B). They did have an in-house composer, but they also had, in the same person, an in-house producer who could transform other people's work into great Beach Boys songs.

I added a sentence to the post that you quote from but I'll make the point here again. By April 1967, Capitol had issued Sloop John B., Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, and Let's Go Away for Awhile on singles in the UK. Caroline No could have been released but perhaps only as a Brian Wilson single rather than a Beach Boys single, defeating the purpose of trying to capitalize on the success of Good Vibrations. So with all those Pet Sounds songs out the window, what do you think a Capitol executive would think was a song to issue off of Pet Sounds that would be more commercially viable than Then I Kissed Her?

There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.

[Robbie Mac]

COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 

Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.

This is why I'm talking about the perspective of the Capitol executive not the band. While I like every song that you name from Pet Sounds more than Then I Kissed Her, I'm not surprised that some executive thought Then I Kissed Her would sell more copies. I'm not sure I see any of those songs reaching #4 the way that  TIKH did.

As far as Capitol releasing a "BB group version" of Caroline No, I'm unaware that such a thing existed. Would you be able to point me in that direction?

And again, while Caroline, No came out in advance of Pet Sounds in the States, it was never issued as a single in England.

[drbeachboy]

COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 

Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.

Me too, but having 6 visionaries in the band, they'd be in each others way. Everyone in a band has their own roll to play to make it successful.

[Autotune]

Gaines used to post here until some nerd fanboy chased him away by pointing inaccurate minutiae. It'd be great if he showed up again.

  It wasn't me, but Gaines got a lot of stuff wrong that was easily verified.

He hadn't answered a question yet and the guy jumped all over him.

[CenturyDeprived]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy. Give me a break. Count the number of subsequent unrelated posts they've made in this thread, while sidestepping my direct query.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.

[filledeplage]

There are a lot of good/great ones on Pet Sounds. I'm Waiting for the Day, Here Today, You Still Believe in Me, I Know there's an answer. And, notwithstanding Caroline, No was a "Brian" single, they could have used a BB group version.  Caroline, No  - came out in advance of Pet Sounds, as a single in March of '66, even ahead of Sloop.

"Charting" appears to be less important, than their own work-product being used, from their collective responses. It was a money decision, from the "farmer in the dell" milking Bessie.

This is why I'm talking about the perspective of the Capitol executive not the band. While I like every song that you name from Pet Sounds more than Then I Kissed Her, I'm not surprised that some executive thought Then I Kissed Her would sell more copies. I'm not sure I see any of those songs reaching #4 the way that  TIKH did.

As far as Capitol releasing a "BB group version" of Caroline No, I'm unaware that such a thing existed. Would you be able to point me in that direction?

And again, while Caroline, No came out in advance of Pet Sounds in the States, it was never issued as a single in England.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that a BB single of Caroline, No exists. The issue was the choice of songs for the apparent special pressing.

Often credit goes, as well it should, for the songs that have become hits in the UK, and not in the US. It is a different and perhaps more reflective listenership. That is a compliment.

And, I'm not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, but from the responses of the band to perhaps "assemble" what happened, and look at their actions to assess whether it was "retaliatory and punitive."

But, because it appears first, they were apparently not consulted, second, the choices were offensive to them, (given the Pet Sounds masterpiece out there to add choices,) and third, the dynamic of the new Brother incorporation.

***
From the Rusten/Stebbins book, p. 90..."another negative issue popped up when the group arrived in Europe to find that EMI had released the 1965 track, "Then I Kissed Her" as a single without their approval. The song sounded horribly dated in the wake of Pet Sounds and much celebrated "Good Vibrations." One reviewer commented, "To release "Then I Kissed Her" as a 'new' single is to go backwards and can do the Beach Boys' nothing but harm."

So, it does appear that this release was done without their knowledge/consent or approval. 

[drbeachboy]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.

Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

[filledeplage]

COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd

Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.

Me too, but having 6 visionaries in the band, they'd be in each others way. Everyone in a band has their own roll to play to make it successful.

Put me on that list of six. No man (woman) is an island. 

[Cam Mott]

Is Tom Nolan still alive?

[CenturyDeprived]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.

Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.

[Autotune]

1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.

4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.

[drbeachboy]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.

Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.

That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

[CenturyDeprived]

1. I have no clue if Mike said the words in the OT.

And it doesn't really matter, since that was his sentiment which he has communicated in so many words anyway.

2. It's no sin to have arguments or express disagreement about artistic direction. Happens everywhere all the time.

No, it's not a sin. Disagreements in and of themselves are not "sinful".

3. It's understandable that 22-24 year old guys who are family use an informal, un-diplomatic vocabulary to deal with those issues.

Well, would you say there is a line to be drawn somewhere? Not you nor I were there, but I would hope you wouldn't say it's inconceivable that the un-diplomatic vocabulary and guilt tripping might have gone too far. It might have. Or are you saying there's no possible way that a situation like that could have crossed the line in any way, shape or form?

4. Brian and the guys must have been aware of the issues that would arise when the 1965 arrangement (i.e. Brian not touring and recordinrg).... Much of the sh*t that happened between them is a result of this arrangement, IMO.

Fair enough, but we are lucky as hell that the arrangement was made in the first place.

5. I don't get what the big deal with group members arguing about material and career direction is.

When we are talking about music either made, or not made, by the best band in the world, it's a big deal (probably too big) to some of us nerds here.

[CenturyDeprived]

SJS, voice of the Silent Majority, Keeper of the Formula. It's good BW didn't pay attention to such mean-spirited career advice, "Heroes and Villains" alone was worth it!

 I like how he seems to think BW underachieved somehow, that having all of those hits, changing the face of pop music, influencing generations, bringing joy and hope to mopey goofballs dealing with breakups by ingesting Pet Sounds, AND a bunch of diverse experiments and different styles wasn't enough. He should somehow be having #1 singles in his 70s too. I wonder if Mike Love should be held to those standards too, I mean he certainly kept with the formula and despite Queen Latifah's help, Pisces Brothers didn't burn up the charts or make much of an impact on anyone.

Yep, what a shame that "God Only Knows" proved to be such a dismal failure in the long run...  That certainly f**ked with the formula.  This is all so absurd.  Surf music was hardly hip or selling in the later 60's or 70's.  I was there and I was a fan.  We were all looking for something more interesting as far as musical concepts were concerned.  We didn't stop loving those gorgeous compositions, harmonies, nor productions.  But we wanted something more thought-provoking and quite a few of us were growing with Brian.  Describing Brian's actions in response to an awareness of this as what caused the BBs decline in sales is certainly re-writing history.  I seriously doubt "Shut Down Vol III" would have sold any better...in fact...  

What really undermined the band? Or who? If the record company under promoted the albums, who's the problem?

Yes, it is absurd. But not all of the music was ever painted with a surf, car or girl brush. It was more diverse from the outset.  There is something on each album that is thought provoking and profound.  They didn't become gorgeous become on Pet Sounds.  They were evolving all along.

The hate here creates imbalance and discord.  

I don't think anybody doesn't blame the record company for underproduction being part of the problem. But it wasn't the whole problem.  And yes, Brian was evolving all along, until he evolved too far for some, a quantum leap beyond what some people around him could comprehend, but what future generations would come to appreciate deeply... and that's when the pushback took hold more than ever before.

The discussion here is not a matter of hate, or at least not for me. I don't hate any member of this band. But posters who are too hardline into defending the "formula" quote/sentiment need to give a little, and realize that in hindsight the sentiment (or quote, if it was actually said) may have been short-sighted. Just maybe a little.

CD - today I was shocked reading what chicanery Capitol was up to in 1967, releasing minor work, 2 years post release, in the UK, which picked up the huge support that fell by the wayside in the States.  Apparently others weren't.

Those facts are not unimportant and I guess the law would call it "exculpatory" in nature.  Meaning that it would tend to show someone wasn't guilty.  That would be the band members. It should be persuasive. But never reaches a faction that is disinclined to consider alternatives. Or do a little research, instead of just running their mouths. A lot of the posters have been to college (not a requirement, of course) so why not "raise the bar?"

It was unreasonable of Capitol, and clearly didn't appreciate the "gorgeous" work cited above. As was a Best of Vol. 1 only eight weeks post Pet Sounds. They were already conspiring at the record company to "milk the early work," to the detriment of the later work.

This isn't a game of win or lose.  We all lose with this divisiveness.

No, it isn't a game of win or lose. And I'm not trying to be divisive, just realistic. It similarly helps no cause when one side refuses to give an inch - that is the most divisive action of all that anyone could take in this. You can bet your bottom dollar that if some more public responsibility had been taken by Mike for things like this, even just a little bit more in order to recognize inadvertent pain that may have been caused, that there would be somewhat less divisiveness about him (maybe quite a bit less), and in overall discussion about the band in general. It wouldn't be a magical cure-all for his exaggerated reputation, but it would have helped, and if it suddenly unexpectedly happens tomorrow (not holding my breath), it would still help some, and surely you must know there's some truth to this.

Funny how when a point is made, some posters just stop responding.

Funny how some people have jobs and other stuff going on in their life and can't be on a msg board 24/7 to respond. Mike has never made it a secret that he wasn't a fan of many of Van's lyrics, at least as far as them working in the BB's framework. What exactly has he got to say sorry for?

No, some posters here simply have the hardest time with saying "there may be a point there". The poster in question didn't just disappear, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with being busy.

And guess what: people apologize if they did something/acted in a way that hurt other people, even if that wasn't the intended result at the time. I have done so myself, if I've ever inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. It's not hard for me to do, and to be sincere about it too. Have you? I don't know what's so hard about the concept. On the other side of the equation, I also do know people in real life who seemingly cannot ever bring themselves to apologize for anything as well, so that's some sort of phenomenon that afflicts some people. And it is an affliction.

And my point wasn't even just about if he "should", but more about that if he did, that people would hate on him somewhat less. That, to me, seems a no-brainer. To say "no, that would not cause anyone to hate on him less" seems absurd to the nth degree, but when somebody refuses to respond to the question in a back-and-forth convo about it, it seems as though that's precisely what they truly believe.

Wait a minute, you ask us to give a opinion, but then you say stuff like "it's no brainer", hey maybe not to us. Why should we answer if you already know the answer? This is exactly why arguments break out.

In my humble opinion, it's obvious that if the man had seemed regretful for inadvertently hurting feelings of a very sensitive person, particularly if this was a view that he'd sensitively shared in various interviews here and there throughout the years, that he would have less people (maybe not hoards less, but at least a good chunk less) who would hate on him. Granted it's an opinion, but honestly do you think that's doubtful? And if so, why? If "no-brainer" is too strong a term, I'll find a nicer way to say it: It seems obvious and plain as day to me, and if someone wants to refute that, I'd sure like to know why.

That wasn't my point. You want us to share our views, but before we can you already have told us we're wrong if we happen to disagree with what you put forth. This type of thing is what causes arguments instead of discussions. I suggest that you ask your question, let folks respond, then give your opinion last. With you, I always feel like I am being set up for a fight from a loaded question. As for this particular question, while I agree with you, that is just me. I know many people who act as Mike did. It is a personality thing. While Brian may be sensitive, he is smart. He knew how to interact with the guys, he knew their personalities. So, while he may get his feelings hurt, he probably got over it quickly most of the time, knowing how Mike operated. Also, consider that people have different ways of making peace without actually apologizing. My father was a perfect example of this. If he was wrong about something and hurt our feelings, he would never say "I'm sorry". I was 21 when he died and I never heard him ever utter those two words in my life. But he was sorry, I could tell just by how he would interact with us later on. Kind of the unspoken word, you just knew. Maybe Brian & Mike have/had that type of relationship.

Fair enough. But ultimately, I see the fact that some people cannot bring themselves to apologize as being a problem, a big personality flaw (doesn't make them some "horrible person", but it is not a trait to be proud of, no offense to your father), and it should not be thought of as something insignificant in this instance. It's not something for anyone to be proud of, I'll put it like that. I'm glad you agree with my point.

Maybe their relationship is as you say, but that doesn't mean that a hypothetical past interview or two or three in the sincere, sensitive manner in which I mentioned earlier wouldn't help his reputation, and that above all is the point I'm trying to make, and which people (who want to defend Mike) don't seem to want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, and cannot even dignify with a response. 

[Sheriff John Stone]

COMMENT:

Brian is a visionary.

Michael is a realist.

Brian sees the present as applied to his vision of the future.

Michael sees the present as applied to his memory of the past.

Brian's view point is ... We must grow our music as we ourselves outgrow our past and embarrass our future creations.

Michael's view point is ... Don't f*** with the formula that has worked so good for us in the past so that our future is assured of continuation.

~swd
 

Boiled down to this, I am on Team Visionary, all the way.

Me too...

Me three!

It's a large portion of the Beach Boys' fans who weren't visionaries, or to be more specific, they STOPPED sharing Brian's and the group's musical visions. Or vice versa, depending on your perspective...