Summer in Paradise Recalled

[drbeachboy]

Anything for defending Mike's crass statements and behavior in the interview. Even throwing Carl Wilson under the bus by implying he was in a bad mood, suffering from jet lag, etc.

How about he was actually annoyed with Mike Love acting like the "end all, be all" of the BBs since the fluky success of kokomo's hit status due to "cocktail".

Why this is such an impossible option for some people to just at least *consider* is beyond my comprehension. The same few people could at least just say "while I doubt that's the case, it is possible".

That would be an actual neutral opinion.

How about we just use "jet lag" as the reason that Dennis rudely yanked Mike's hat off onstage, and the reason why Shawn never received paternal recognition. These wacky Boys were always flying around, so jet lag is the reason for any and all behavior. Makes sense to me. Then we can all be "neutral" and no blame ever assigned to anyone. Right? Right?

I don't understand why you always force these silly question on people.  They seem to show up in nearly every Mike Love related thread.  Of course it's possible!  It's always the same few people who give their opinion, then you randomly come in to ask "don't you think it's possible that (insert negative light cast on Mike)?"  

It's what he does and why I got out from participating in the thread. He doesn't get that we are only giving opinions to things that simply have no correct answer.

[CenturyDeprived]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts might make you think otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same. Does that sound like extremist words to you?

Extremism is people who refuse to admit they could ever be wrong. Don't you think?
 
I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we ALL cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

[drbeachboy]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

[CenturyDeprived]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

[Cam Mott]

I made a mistake once.

I thought I was wrong about something but it turned out I was right all along.

[Bittersweet-Sanity]

Regarding SOL... Wasn't the Wilson-Love penned "Baywatch Nights" song going to be in its place?

http://www.ew.com/article/1995/03/31/back-beach From March 31st, 1995

Pop maestro Brian Wilson, 53, brother Carl, 50, and cousin Mike Love, 54, are gathered round the microphone, just like old times, singing one of those unmistakable harmonies that so often lifted the Beach Boys to the top of the charts. But this is no oldies show. The three are actually working on a new song, happily crooning, ”Meet me somewhere out in Malibu!” ”We’re putting Carl’s guitar on next,” announces Brian Wilson, ”which will make it even more raucous. It might even fly away. It’s good enough to totally fly out of the universe.”

The song is tentatively slated for submission to a new syndicated TV spin-off called Baywatch Nights. But Wilson is so pleased with the results, he’s reluctant to let it go for anything other than a Beach Boys album. ”We need this kind of a song,” he insists. ”You can’t throw away your ace.”

Baywatch Nights/Dancin' the Night Away  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgJLQeWdHTs

Just to clear it up, that project was mentioned in numerous articles and came from the Was/Paley time. The first I heard of it at the time was Don Was mentioning it in a magazine. Baywatch Nights was set to air in the Fall of 95 as a separate spinoff, and Hasselhoff wanted to incorporate more music into the storylines so he cast Lou Rawls to play a nightclub owner where the plots would bring them into that nightclub and the music would be less "pop/beach/etc" and lean more toward blues...in concept. That's why Lou Rawls was cast.

I remember clearly following all of this as it played out in the press, because quite frankly it was major news in the world of the Beach Boys that Brian and Mike had been writing new songs and one of them was going to be on "Baywatch Nights" when that show finally premiered in the fall of 95.

Then the reports that summer of the filming at the beach for Baywatch (the original, not 'Nights') didn't add up, as it reported Brian being there for one video shoot (I remember thinking this had to be the Brian-Mike Baywatch Nights appearance) but he didn't show for the concert on the beach and David Marks showed up to play guitar instead. It wasn't adding up (at the time) when or how either the guys or this "new" Wilson/Love original song would actually show up on TV, so in those pre-internet days (for me at least), I followed all the papers and mags and even TV Guide, which would drop hints about what was happening.

Keep in mind what a shock it was when the Beach Boys actually ***did*** appear on something connected to Baywatch, and it was them miming in a video for a song that was three years old and featured hardly any of the musicians shown in the video actually on the track, and it was prominently a vehicle for Mike rapping the verses. And the concert and plot itself was written around the Beach Boys creating a "new" song for a charity written into the plot, only problem was the song itself was familiar to any BB's fan and it was also 3-years old, the title track of a failed album from 1992.

It was one of the most baffling, WTF? moments as a fan that i can remember, because one of the sad things was that there had been a positive buzz and anticipation going around that there would be a new Wilson-Love song connected to a new show called Baywatch Nights that was going to have Lou Rawls cast as a music nightclub owner...and instead we got whatever that Summer Of Love video was supposed to be, Mike rapping and Stamos playing electronic drums in the sand. It still makes absolutely no sense, and it didn't line up with what fans may have expected to see on TV if they had been reading the press reports leading up to it.

Just a total wasted opportunity and one which makes no sense at all. IMO

It's the Beach Boys. When have they done anything that made sense? ;p

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-17/entertainment/ca-36177_1_beach-boy A nice article from 95, if anyone wants to read more on the Beach Boys Baywatch saga. I luv how Al says Brian is a leprechaun  

[clack]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Perhaps we should rate our opinions on a certainty percentage scale. As in, "Terry Melcher's production on SIP gave the record a flat, plasticky sound (71%)", or "Carl was disengaged in the making of SIP (64%)".

[phirnis]

...
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-17/entertainment/ca-36177_1_beach-boy A nice article from 95, if anyone wants to read more on the Beach Boys Baywatch saga. I luv how Al says Brian is a leprechaun  

"Brian is an enigma, a leprechaun," said rhythm guitarist Al Jardine. "I had a dream in which the four of us are together in a phone booth--and Brian's on the other side of the street, looking on at us from a distance. You could say he's a bit reclusive."

What an image! This should've made it into the biopic!

[filledeplage]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Perhaps we should rate our opinions on a certainty percentage scale. As in, "Terry Melcher's production on SIP gave the record a flat, plasticky sound (71%)", or "Carl was disengaged in the making of SIP (64%)".

It was early 90's coming off the heels of techno-music.  Next to that, it might even sound mellow.  It is already nearly 25 years, and what is mostly wrong is the presentation and not the actual music. Lahaina Aloha is brilliant.  And Carl's vocals are incredible.  It was recorded between 1991 and mid 1992. Brian was in the process (thanks to Melinda) of being extricated from that late, purported medical provider.  I do like the MIC version of SIP.  It rocks, live. It, coupled with Don't Go Near the Water from 1972 on Surf's Up are activist-based, whether they were hits, or not.  It is the awareness raising that matters to me.   

[bgas]

save $$, oh, too late now...  

[filledeplage]

save $$, oh, too late now... 

   

bgas - you just made my day! 

One for you, baby! 

[Autotune]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Problem is, you are the one placing yourself in the moderate center of the spectrum of opinions. Nobody else is doing it. Perhaps because nobody sees you that way. It's not up to you to place yourself in that spectrum; you have to let those who read your posts do that, and deal with lt.

[CenturyDeprived]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Problem is, you are the one placing yourself in the moderate center of the spectrum of opinions. Nobody else is doing it. Perhaps because nobody sees you that way. It's not up to you to place yourself in that spectrum; you have to let those who read your posts do that, and deal with lt.

You can certainly feel free to think that I'm some sort of extremist if you want to, but how do you reconcile that I can admit that I might be wrong, while others (not myself) refuse to admit that they could possibly be wrong when specifically asked such, thus implying that they know 100% they are correct without a shadow of a doubt?  

This isn't a contest, but I'm simply proving a point that anyone on this board should at least concede that while they may feel strongly about certain things, unprovable assumptions are just that.  We can argue and bicker all we want, but the end of the day, there are certain things that we might not be totally, completely correct about. *All of us*. Don't you think? If we all were a bit more self-deprecating  and not so incredibly defensive, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

[drbeachboy]

Thing is, you're the one who is sitting around making up hypothetical situations that paint Mike in the worst light possible and then getting angry when people don't agree with you or want to argue with you endlessly about it.

While my posts may suggest otherwise, the truth is that I'm not looking to argue endlessly. I'm pointing out that it's preposterous that people cannot concede that they *may* not be correct in their assumptions. Since I'm fully capable of conceding that about my own assumptions - I am saying point blank that I MAY BE WRONG - I'm not sure why it's so hard for others to do the same.

I'm trying to make a point that yes, we are all reading in certain things into what we see in this interview clip, and yes, we cannot know for sure that we are right. That's a neutral and well-balanced point of view as one could hope to have, yet it's pulling teeth to get a few people to simply say that.

On the other hand, you're always pushing back with the Mike is solely to blame bit. Just like you never concede that others may be correct, why would anyone concede their POV to you?

Firstly, kindly don't put words in my mouth. Any "solely to blame" stuff has not been said by me. "More" to blame about certain things than others? Yes, in my opinion. Also, please don't use the word "always"... shades of grey, man.  That's my mindset.

But I'm saying point blank that my opinions may not always be 100% correct. You heard it here first. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle a bunch of the time.  Is there anything vague or unclear about that?

People who won't admit their mindset could possibly be faulty some of the time (particularly about "unprovable" things) truly create the most divisive, absurd atmosphere here. Anyone who can't concede they may not be 100% right in their assumptions absolutely contributes to this. Do you dispute that?

Problem is, you are the one placing yourself in the moderate center of the spectrum of opinions. Nobody else is doing it. Perhaps because nobody sees you that way. It's not up to you to place yourself in that spectrum; you have to let those who read your posts do that, and deal with lt.

I definitely do not see him that way. If he is moderate, then I am misreading everything single post. It must be the wording. I also don't like being called out after I have decided that I have had enough participating in the arguing. I'll stick around if a thread stays in "discussion" mode, but once the calling out starts, it turns me right off. I am here for enjoyment, not for arguing.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

save $$, oh, too late now... 

   

I think the better deal would be getting that trainwreck of an album for free if you buy the Tone(with coupon). 

[guitarfool2002]

save $$, oh, too late now... 

   

I think the better deal would be getting that trainwreck of an album for free if you buy the Tone(with coupon). 

Listeners might have needed the bar of soap to wash off after listening...

ahh, that was a bit harsh. 

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

save $$, oh, too late now... 

   

I think the better deal would be getting that trainwreck of an album for free if you buy the Tone(with coupon). 

Listeners might have needed the bar of soap to wash off after listening...

ahh, that was a bit harsh. 

  No, it was kind of a mild soap. It was the koko butter(degreaser) that actually washed the filth away after listening.   

[Mike's Beard]

SSDD.