Don't F**k With the Formula

[Bicyclerider]

"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.

David sounds as though he was "hiding behind Brian." (Maybe doing what "David wanted.") (I'm skeptical of "managers" who often have their own career agenda and use a business to advance their own personal interests.)

In working for Brother, inc., he had a duty to work for "all the band" members. And he should have been able to get all the interests of all the members on the table. This is a small corporate board of members/directors.

To me it's clear this discussion and the quote is about creative direction, not business.  What business direction was Brian wanting to go down that Mike wanted to go another way?  Other than Brian's ideas of starting Brother and potentially signing other artists - if Mike was ever opposed to that he apparently has never mentioned it in the almost fifty years since and it has never come up in any of the books or interviews or research on their history.  It's creative direction that there was a disagreement about, and that's what's referenced in the Anderle account.  "Bring Mike a bag of money" - the other Beach Boys joked about Mike's motivations, he didn't want to rock the boat.  

[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.

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.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

[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.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.

[Bicyclerider]

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.

I agree with all of the above except . . . 5.  Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

[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.

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.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.

Again, how do we know if hasn't apologized, in our way or in his own way? Hell, he could have apologized years ago for the outburst, but not for the reasoning. He may still feel he was right in how he felt, but not how showed or expressed it. Get my drift? Kind of hard to put into words.

[drbeachboy]

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.

I agree with all of the above except . . . 5.  Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Who? If they never argued, I want whatever they were drinking. The main point is, whether they argued or not, ultimately, back then, if Brian wanted things a certain way, it got done. He was the boss. I assume that most times he got his way, and once in awhile he would back down and listen to the rest of the band. Have second thoughts about things.

[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.

I don't like it either, but then what do you do about it? All you can do really is just deal with it. Nobody should actually have to do this in public either. Should Mike have a complete change in personality, while I might expect him to say something to Brian in private, I would never expect anyone to come out with a public apology. It wasn't a public incident. In this case we know, because we or someone else poked our noses into their personal business or someone aired their dirty laundry. I think as long as an issue eventually gets resolved through an apology or other means, is all that is needed.

I'm not even talking about it being what's appropriately "needed" or not. The point is just that if he had done a few interviews where he said some tough things that would surely have been difficult for him to say, that he'd be better thought of by many people. Let's forget the talk of whether he "needs" to do it or not.

Point is that it would or would have helped (somewhat at least), it's a shame that it hasn't happened (if only for the fact that he'd be less hated), and for some strange reason, a small group of posters (who I'd think would probably see at least *some* logic in this point) are similarly paralyzed in a way that they cannot bring themselves to say that there's some truth here.  They'll run for the hills and not respond rather than give an inch on this matter, and I cannot figure out why that is.

Again, how do we know if hasn't apologized, in our way or in his own way? Hell, he could have apologized years ago for the outburst, but not for the reasoning. He may still feel he was right in how he felt, but not how showed or expressed it. Get my drift? Kind of hard to put into words.

Very true. He could have apologized in his own way, privately. But again, that has basically nothing to do with my point of the fact that the court of public opinion could have been won over a bit more if there was some sentiment expressed in public. No he doesn't have to do that, he doesn't have to do anything whatsoever. But that doesn't negate what I'm getting at, nor does it answer the mysterious question about why some posters are so afraid to touch this inconvenient truth.

[Mike's Beard]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

[CenturyDeprived]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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. 

I thought the quotes that you've given already effectively illustrated that the band hadn't been consulted about the release.

Yes, the British listeners were a bit more sophisticated when it came to the band's more mature work but this did not necessarily mean that they would have put a song like Here Today higher than #4 on the charts. Let's face it, in a logical world, Darlin' would have been a #1 single in every country but it didn't crack the top 10 in either the US or England (to be fair, it almost did in England).

And while you say that you are not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, it has been you who has accused them of chicanery and also of punishing the band, so you have devoted some space to discussing what you believe their intentions may have been. And it's that that I have been, in part, responding to. So when I say that I am looking at this from their perspective, I'm doing so based on the comments that you have provided. And, again, I suggest that there were reasons other than punishment that they released Then I Kissed Her - namely they had to pick something to fill a void and, perhaps to them, TIKH was what they considered to be the most commercial viable option.

And of course, if I were The Beach Boys I wouldn't have been happy with the choice either. But let's be sure that not even Mike Love and Bruce Johnston in these quotes suggest that there was a better option beyond a Brian Wilson composition. Johnston notes that, "The record is in no way representative of the things we are doing now, or were doing even a year ago." In other words, it seemed to be the case that Johnston was miffed that TIKH did not represent Beach Boys April 67 (and it sure didn't) but the problem is that nothing did. "A year ago" from Bruce's perspective was Pet Sounds -- so even a song from that would not be properly representative in the way that Johnston would have liked it. So, for Bruce, I'm not sure if any choice would have suited him. And let's face it, Good Vibrations was an advance over anything The Beach Boys had done at that point so I don't think anything could have been chosen that didn't seem like a step backwards.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

[CenturyDeprived]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

Absolutely. And I'll at least give Al some credit (quite a bit of credit, at least) for essentially saying as much in so many words regarding Dennis being an underrated talent who didn't always get his due.

That's an example of mature, reflective talk that I'm sure did not hurt Al's reputation one bit. I'm sure it was healing to some people at the very least (even with Dennis gone and not around to hear those words), and the court of public opinion has a way of helping people like Al out in the longrun for saying that kind of stuff, and quite the opposite effect for people who refuse to say anything of the sort.

[Mike's Beard]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

[Mike's Beard]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?

[CenturyDeprived]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

[drbeachboy]

We take what Brian's friends say as gospel. These guys were outsiders. Didn't possibly know all of the dynamics at play within the group. Misread what was going down in the interactions between band members. Remember, these guys were family first and there is a dynamic at play here, between cousins and siblings that is unique and that doesn't always come through in all friendships. For me, just the fact that the Beach Boys have existed for well over 50 years tells me that this family dynamic is still at play to this day and has survived through all the dysfunction that has occurred in that time frame.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Add to that the rejection of Mount Vernon & Fairway and Brian's contributions to the 95 reunion album. And while it's not a Beach Boys album you also have Mike and Bruce publicly criticizing BW '88.

And these are just the examples that we know about. I'd say that Brian faced opposition on almost the majority of the music he was making from 1966 onward.

Again, I ask the question: please find me another group who were very successful after members of the band criticized this much of the music (of the calibre of Pet Sounds, Smile, Friends, Breakaway, Til I Die) of its creative leader.

[drbeachboy]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature.

[CenturyDeprived]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Add to that the rejection of Mount Vernon & Fairway and Brian's contributions to the 95 reunion album. And while it's not a Beach Boys album you also have Mike and Bruce publicly criticizing BW '88.

And these are just the examples that we know about. I'd say that Brian faced opposition on almost the majority of the music he was making from 1966 onward.

Again, I ask the question: please find me another group who were very successful after members of the band criticized this much of the music (of the calibre of Pet Sounds, Smile, Friends, Breakaway, Til I Die) of its creative leader.

Not only that, but with a creative leader who is known for being more sensitive than most to criticism.

[CenturyDeprived]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature.

That's why we have comments from his family like "Wilson based negativity", right? Because nobody on Team Love has an iota of worry about public opinion?  I beg to differ.

[Mike's Beard]

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

Yeah I doubt it 'cos
(a) they'd just find some other beef to rag on Mike for.
(b) To apologize would only be seen as a sign of admission in the eyes of those who have made up their mind about Mike anyway.

[drbeachboy]

Again, apologize for what? For having an artisitic disagreement? Fact is you don't know what exactly was said, when it was said, how it was said, by whom it was said and how many times it was said. All you have is a quote which no one can even clarifiy was actually spoken to begin with.

Apologize for inadvertently hurting someone's feelings. Or express regret that it is unfortunate *if* something like that may have occurred at the time, in case there was any doubt or confusion of if hurt feelings occurred. As I said, it shouldn't be so hard for people to do. I am simply saying that if he did that, he'd be better thought of and less hated by some. We don't have discuss of if it's "necessary", the point is simply that necessary or not, it would not have hurt his image (quite the opposite) if it had happened.

Should Brian publicly apologize to Mike for allowing his dad to convince him to shaft Mike out of credits for some of their most popular songs?
Should Brian call a press conference to let Al know he's sorry he made him crawl around on all fours and squeal like a pig?

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

I think it is pretty clear that Mike is not too worried about public opinion of himself. Else, what you say would have happened years ago. It is the nature of some people to be that way and not care about that stuff. Me thinks Mike be of that nature.

That's why we have comments from his family like "Wilson based negativity", right? Because nobody on Team Love has an iota of worry about public opinion?  I beg to differ.

Here we go, a circle jerk. See, this never ends. I think I've had my say on this subject. I believe what I believe and the same goes for you. You haven't convinced me, nor I you. All we can do at this point is "differ". And really, it doesn't matter. So, I'll make one last plea to Mike: To end this thing, please, god-damn it, publicly apologize to Brian for all the things you said and did 40 years ago, and please, do it today. Scott, John, whoever is reading this board today, please see to it that Mike hears my plea. Thank you!

[filledeplage]

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. 

I thought the quotes that you've given already effectively illustrated that the band hadn't been consulted about the release.

Yes, the British listeners were a bit more sophisticated when it came to the band's more mature work but this did not necessarily mean that they would have put a song like Here Today higher than #4 on the charts. Let's face it, in a logical world, Darlin' would have been a #1 single in every country but it didn't crack the top 10 in either the US or England (to be fair, it almost did in England).

And while you say that you are not looking at it from Capitol's perspective, it has been you who has accused them of chicanery and also of punishing the band, so you have devoted some space to discussing what you believe their intentions may have been. And it's that that I have been, in part, responding to. So when I say that I am looking at this from their perspective, I'm doing so based on the comments that you have provided. And, again, I suggest that there were reasons other than punishment that they released Then I Kissed Her - namely they had to pick something to fill a void and, perhaps to them, TIKH was what they considered to be the most commercial viable option.

And of course, if I were The Beach Boys I wouldn't have been happy with the choice either. But let's be sure that not even Mike Love and Bruce Johnston in these quotes suggest that there was a better option beyond a Brian Wilson composition. Johnston notes that, "The record is in no way representative of the things we are doing now, or were doing even a year ago." In other words, it seemed to be the case that Johnston was miffed that TIKH did not represent Beach Boys April 67 (and it sure didn't) but the problem is that nothing did. "A year ago" from Bruce's perspective was Pet Sounds -- so even a song from that would not be properly representative in the way that Johnston would have liked it. So, for Bruce, I'm not sure if any choice would have suited him. And let's face it, Good Vibrations was an advance over anything The Beach Boys had done at that point so I don't think anything could have been chosen that didn't seem like a step backwards.

When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.

Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  

[Mike's Beard]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording. Also, look at the songwriting credits for Friends. It's one of the most collaborative albums the band ever made. If Bruce didn't like it, his criticisms were not solely directed at Brian.
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.


Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  

You don't get any disagreement from me that Capitol treated their clients poorly during this time. I do find the claims about them punishing the band by releasing a song that would go to #4 in the charts to be somewhat unconvincing. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic in the thread, but as I've said, I'm dim.