Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?

[Emily]

I'm so frustrated by all this dancing around.  Isn't it obvious from this thread and from the contemporary articles that Brian Wilson didn't want to play and that all of this (Landy 1 and Pamplin) was about getting him to do so? forcing him to?

[The Shift]

To be fair, Rocky did express regret on reply #817 on page 33 of this thread. What I don't fully understand is the seemingly blind devotion to Brian. To keep Brian away from drugs and anything else dangerous to his health and well being. But why not Carl? It seems obvious to me that everybody involved in the tour knew Carl was drinking to excess and abusing drugs to excess. Why wasn't he given the same protection from substances, and people giving him said substances? Look, everybody shared and gave drugs and booze to everybody else. Why wasn't Brian "punished" for using and sharing drugs with Dennis? Same goes for Dennis and Brian sharing drugs with Carl. If they didn't actually share and use drugs with him(Carl), they damn sure knew what he was doing, and let him! The blind love and, if you will, worship of Brian baffles me.

You mean where he said this: "...is not something then... nor are we proud of now. Our tactics, like Murrys, regarding discipline, were not good ones (spare the rod and spoil the child)" and then went on for about 10 more sentences explaining why it was the best thing to do?

"The blind love and, if you will, worship of Brian baffles me."  $$$$$

I'm struggling also to fathom much difference in motivation between Rocky & Co's approach and Landy's – Brian's health seems only to have been worthy of consideration due to it having been the key to a source of wealth. (I was going to write "untapped wealth", but the cash cow was already being milked, however clumsily…)

[DonnyL]

I know I'm beating the same point into the ground, but notice how the further we dig into this the more it comes right back to the bizarre rules of the toxic up-is-down world of the '70s music industry that all the players inhabited, and how it warped everybody involved in ways that, looking at it through our own prism, seems baffling.

I mean, that's basically it Adam. It doesn't seem baffling to me at all. It's not about celebrities guys, it's about the '70s counterculture. Nobody wanted anyone to go to jail, nobody wanted a scandal to break up the tour ... The books from those days are filled with stories of tricks to revive people when overdosing. Totally different world. Totally impossible to say how any of us would have behaved in that scene, with that kind of background. I'm sure some would have called the cops right away. But if guys like Rocky and Stan were the kind to call an ambulance right off the bat, they probably would have been fired long before this happened. Right or wrong, good or bad, glad or sad.

]
OK, I understand yours and Adamghost's perspectives. But is it a problem to ask Rocky Pamplin to try to evoke that? His recountings are giving a play-by-play but not explaining the motivations. He should be aware that his audience was not living at that time in that place. A good narration will pull us in so we relate to and understand the narrator or the characters; so we have a better sense what drove their choices. And that understanding should be able to be developed from the book alone, not from an outside awareness of the culture they were living in. The book should paint that for us. It's just good writing.
And I still think the 'different world' stuff is overplayed a bit as well as the moral relativity. There were some people who were around at the time who knew what was going down and thought it was wrong. And there were a lot of people around at the time who didn't act like this even in the music industry. The people involved must have known that this was not standard behavior and while standard behavior is often not the best behavior one would think that a deviation from standard would prompt one to think a bit about what's the best thing to do. I'd expect that calling an ambulance crossed their minds because it's the obvious thing to do when faced with an unconscious person. They chose not to do it. Why? What went through their minds when they chose to deviate from the standard? That's the kind of thing that would make this an interesting read rather than a typical sensationalist Hollywood tale.

Hi Emily,

I think such a book, the way you describe it, might be interesting to some ... But I don't think that's the kind of book they seem to be promoting here.

But I don't think the "different world" is overstated. I also think it's very difficult to help people who don't seem interested in helping themselves (in a general sense), and desperate measures are sometimes taken, particularly when there are emotions and money involved.

I personally find the whole affair to be dismal to think about, but I still keep coming back to this thread.

I think you're coming from a perspective of moral idealism, which is lofty and all, but hardly applicable to late '70s-early '80s Beach Boys.

Slightly off topic, but some people on my Facebook feed were talking about David Bowie being a statutory rapist, because apparently he slept with an underage girl in the '70s. The girl has recounted the affair on some blog, and apparently it was consentual and she has no regrets, however she was something like 14 years old.

This stuff is not unusual. Dennis Wilson was arrested in Tucson in 1977 for something similar, and surely slept with tons of teenage girls in his adult life. So we could say Dennis Wilson was a statutory rapist. We could also say that if an angry father found out his teenage daughter was raped by a rock star, he might be justified in beating up the rock star. So we could say that it was justifiable that Dennis Wilson should be assaulted at some point for his wrongdoings.

I'm personally not interested in making such judgements. What I'm getting at is taking a walk down the "objective morality" road can lead to places like that.

[Emily]

I know I'm beating the same point into the ground, but notice how the further we dig into this the more it comes right back to the bizarre rules of the toxic up-is-down world of the '70s music industry that all the players inhabited, and how it warped everybody involved in ways that, looking at it through our own prism, seems baffling.

I mean, that's basically it Adam. It doesn't seem baffling to me at all. It's not about celebrities guys, it's about the '70s counterculture. Nobody wanted anyone to go to jail, nobody wanted a scandal to break up the tour ... The books from those days are filled with stories of tricks to revive people when overdosing. Totally different world. Totally impossible to say how any of us would have behaved in that scene, with that kind of background. I'm sure some would have called the cops right away. But if guys like Rocky and Stan were the kind to call an ambulance right off the bat, they probably would have been fired long before this happened. Right or wrong, good or bad, glad or sad.

]
OK, I understand yours and Adamghost's perspectives. But is it a problem to ask Rocky Pamplin to try to evoke that? His recountings are giving a play-by-play but not explaining the motivations. He should be aware that his audience was not living at that time in that place. A good narration will pull us in so we relate to and understand the narrator or the characters; so we have a better sense what drove their choices. And that understanding should be able to be developed from the book alone, not from an outside awareness of the culture they were living in. The book should paint that for us. It's just good writing.
And I still think the 'different world' stuff is overplayed a bit as well as the moral relativity. There were some people who were around at the time who knew what was going down and thought it was wrong. And there were a lot of people around at the time who didn't act like this even in the music industry. The people involved must have known that this was not standard behavior and while standard behavior is often not the best behavior one would think that a deviation from standard would prompt one to think a bit about what's the best thing to do. I'd expect that calling an ambulance crossed their minds because it's the obvious thing to do when faced with an unconscious person. They chose not to do it. Why? What went through their minds when they chose to deviate from the standard? That's the kind of thing that would make this an interesting read rather than a typical sensationalist Hollywood tale.

Hi Emily,

I think such a book, the way you describe it, might be interesting to some ... But I don't think that's the kind of book they seem to be promoting here.

But I don't think the "different world" is overstated. I also think it's very difficult to help people who don't seem interested in helping themselves (in a general sense), and desperate measures are sometimes taken, particularly when there are emotions and money involved.

I personally find the whole affair to be dismal to think about, but I still keep coming back to this thread.

I think you're coming from a perspective of moral idealism, which is lofty and all, but hardly applicable to late '70s-early '80s Beach Boys.

Slightly off topic, but some people on my Facebook feed were talking about David Bowie being a statutory rapist, because apparently he slept with an underage girl in the '70s. The girl has recounted the affair on some blog, and apparently it was consentual and she has no regrets, however she was something like 14 years old.

This stuff is not unusual. Dennis Wilson was arrested in Tucson in 1977 for something similar, and surely slept with tons of teenage girls in his adult life. So we could say Dennis Wilson was a statutory rapist. We could also say that if an angry father found out his teenage daughter was raped by a rock star, he might be justified in beating up the rock star. So we could say that it was justifiable that Dennis Wilson should be assaulted at some point for his wrongdoings.

I'm personally not interested in making such judgements. What I'm getting at is taking a walk down the "objective morality" road can lead to places like that.

You and Adamghost seem to think I've expressed a moral judgment since Pamplin's last post. I haven't other than an implied one here: "But I keep hearing somebody who doesn't understand to this day that these were not good approaches to the problems at hand."

" I also think it's very difficult to help people who don't seem interested in helping themselves (in a general sense), and desperate measures are sometimes taken, particularly when there are emotions and money involved."  -- this is certainly true. I just have trouble buying that this was actually an attempt to help Brian or Dennis or Carl Wilson. It seems to me mainly to have been an effort to get Brian Wilson to write, record, and tour.

"I think you're coming from a perspective of moral idealism, which is lofty and all, but hardly applicable to late '70s-early '80s Beach Boys." I don't really get this. Again, I wasn't stating a moral judgment (lately). But if I were I don't really get why there would be a moratorium on late 70's early 80's Beach Boys.

Statutory rape is sex that is defined as rape by statute so one would have to check the laws in those places and times. But, to your point, I've noticed that a few people in this thread conflate asserting something wasn't the right thing to do with asserting that it's not understandable or asserting that I wouldn't do the same. In the hypothetical of a dad assaulting an adult who had sex with his adolescent child, I don't think it would be the right thing to do, but I think it's understandable and I might do the same in his circumstance. It's like when Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis about whether he'd support the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife or something like that. Can't we separate what we think is right from what we think is understandable? Can't someone simultaneously think the death penalty is wrong but have an urge to kill or have killed someone who's done something so horrific? If I say I think something's wrong it doesn't mean I don't think it's understandable or 'normal' or that I wouldn't do it myself if I were in those circumstances.

[adamghost]

Nothing I posted was in any way thinking you were too judgmental or was intended to be judgmental of you, either.  I'm just simply saying, it is really really hard for people sitting on a message board in 2016 to understand what it was like to be in the orbit of a famous rock band in 1977 (or to a lesser degree now, for that matter), and if you can't attempt to grasp it on its own terms, a lot of this stuff is just unfathomable.  

I think the whole environment was pretty awful, and as I've said before, I'm glad I wasn't around for it.  It was bad enough in the '90s, and one of the reason I never got famous myself (there were many others) was I realized about three years into the process that I wasn't a ruthless (I could choose a different word) enough person to hack it.

I do think - again I'm repeating myself - that people in general don't realize the corrosive effect bad environments have on every aspect of our being.  It takes a strong person indeed to withstand it - and strong people generally will exercise that strength to get out of the situation.

It don't make it right at all.  Not saying that nor defending it.  But the context is really, really important.  It explains, basically, everything you have raised legitimate questions about.

[adamghost]

But that's just it, Emily:  there really weren't.  Very, very few people in the music biz were not invested in the drug culture (either as active participants or people who felt they had to go along) and also the culture of the music industry where there was huge amounts of money and great motivation to condone and even enable bad behavior (think the banking industry in the 2000s for a parallel).  

To me there's a pretty big difference between being invested in a drug culture and what went on here but I think we are interpreting the motivations of some of the participants differently. I don't think this was really about drugs so much as compliance. It's a little like if Paul McCartney (or Allen Klein or the Eastmans or Neil Aspinall) had found some leverage to be able use physical force without repercussion to get compliance out of Lennon and Harrison.
Here's where some elucidations from Rocky would be helpful.

Things were probably further exacerbated because there was a faction of people - not just Rocky Pamplin but Mike Love and Al Jardine - who were pushing back against the drug culture, and we see how well they're viewed in retrospect - not very.  This is not to defend what Rocky did.  But I do get that he was operating in a crazy world and in his own weird way, he probably was trying to do exactly what you are suggesting - which is to enforce an outsider's "no way" to this crazy environment - and it worked out being a fist to Carl's face.  Not the way to go at all - but he was given the brief to try and keep drugs out of the hands of drug users who were in a business where such drug use was rampant.  Extreme measures would certainly have been called for.  It doesn't excuse Rocky or Gene Landy or others but it sure helps explain how they came to be.  I think the kind of people we would wish to be in the environment would not have been welcomed and in fact would have stayed very far away of their own accord (family members excepted, since they had no choice).

I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
1. With this quote: "he probably was trying to do exactly what you are suggesting - which is to enforce an outsider's "no way" to this crazy environment" - I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. Could you elucidate?
2. You are saying it's a drug culture environment, then you are saying that Rocky was brought in by anti drug culture people, then you are saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed in the drug culture environment.  I assume you are saying something that makes sense, because you always do, but I'm not getting it.

But all this aside, why am I being corrected for asking him to explain for himself?

Whoops!  Missed this, the prior page wouldn't load.  Sorry about that, Emily.

<<1. With this quote: "he probably was trying to do exactly what you are suggesting - which is to enforce an outsider's "no way" to this crazy environment" - I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. Could you elucidate?>>

Well, I think it is.  If you're asking somebody to go into that environment and do what we at our distant remove think would have been the right thing to do at the time - that person would be very disruptive to the status quo.  The "right" people - skilled and ethical doctors, psychiatrists, handlers - that we might think of who were around at that time simply wouldn't get into that kind of situation in the first place, wisely so.  They'd hang out at UCLA or wherever, holding down their posts, and wait 'til you checked in like any other patient.

<<You are saying it's a drug culture environment, then you are saying that Rocky was brought in by anti drug culture people, then you are saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed in the drug culture environment.  I assume you are saying something that makes sense, because you always do, but I'm not getting it.>>

No, I wasn't saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed.  What I'm saying is a repeat of the above - if you're in that environment, and you're trying to bring in an outsider to help in an in-house situation, you're not going to get Dr. Super Credentials at UCLA.  You're going to get Rocky Pamplin or Gene Landy.  Because those are the kind of people who would gravitate to, and/or be available to, someone in the Beach Boys' orbit.  I hesitate to say "Hollywood people" because it is neither accurate nor really fair, but it does get the point across.  I think this might be hard to understand because, again, it's just hard to visualize what it's like to be inside that kind of bubble.  I haven't been in it, but I live in L.A. and I'm a professional musician, so I have been near it and have seen it.  The vortex of fame and money draws in people that are attracted to exactly that, even if their motivations are (to themselves) supposedly pure.

<<I don't think this was really about drugs so much as compliance.>>

Ding ding ding.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Compliance to the prevailing L.A. rock star/music industry culture.  Which was driven to a large degree by drugs and money - warping the rules for everyone who came in contact with it. 

[Emily]

Whoops!  Missed this, the prior page wouldn't load.  Sorry about that, Emily.

<<1. With this quote: "he probably was trying to do exactly what you are suggesting - which is to enforce an outsider's "no way" to this crazy environment" - I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. Could you elucidate?>>

Well, I think it is.  If you're asking somebody to go into that environment and do what we at our distant remove think would have been the right thing to do at the time - that person would be very disruptive to the status quo.  The "right" people - skilled and ethical doctors, psychiatrists, handlers - that we might think of who were around at that time simply wouldn't get into that kind of situation in the first place, wisely so.  They'd hang out at UCLA or wherever, holding down their posts, and wait 'til you checked in like any other patient.

<<You are saying it's a drug culture environment, then you are saying that Rocky was brought in by anti drug culture people, then you are saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed in the drug culture environment.  I assume you are saying something that makes sense, because you always do, but I'm not getting it.>>

No, I wasn't saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed.  What I'm saying is a repeat of the above - if you're in that environment, and you're trying to bring in an outsider to help in an in-house situation, you're not going to get Dr. Super Credentials at UCLA.  You're going to get Rocky Pamplin or Gene Landy.  Because those are the kind of people who would gravitate to, and/or be available to, someone in the Beach Boys' orbit.  I hesitate to say "Hollywood people" because it is neither accurate nor really fair, but it does get the point across.  I think this might be hard to understand because, again, it's just hard to visualize what it's like to be inside that kind of bubble.  I haven't been in it, but I live in L.A. and I'm a professional musician, so I have been near it and have seen it.  The vortex of fame and money draws in people that are attracted to exactly that, even if their motivations are (to themselves) supposedly pure.

<<I don't think this was really about drugs so much as compliance.>>

Ding ding ding.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Compliance to the prevailing L.A. rock star/music industry culture.  Which was driven to a large degree by drugs and money - warping the rules for everyone who came in contact with it.  

OK. Just didn't understand what you were saying; now I do.

I lived in Central America for several years. It might be comparable. The sexual and economic exploitation was off the charts. I went to a nice expat beach town now and then for a warm bath, a comfortable mattress and something other than rice, beans and plantains to eat. I knew several 60 or so year old North Americans or Europeans who had, though they would word it differently, purchased preteen girls from their fathers (they were "helping the family financially"). The practice was to bus employees in from the country because the local population wanted to be paid enough to buy food from the local stores which had inflated prices because of the expat population (the local population was "spoiled"). The hotels and restaurants were owned by expats who charged about 70% what a comparable Houston hotel or restaurant would charge, but paid their employees literally about $30/month and pocketed the rest (they didn't want to "spoil" the employees). The chemicals used on the farms are illegal in the US but US companies are making their employees there use them. The farm laborers in those regions have a cancer rate 60% higher than elsewhere in the country and 60% higher than in those regions before the chemicals were introduced. They have no insurance and no treatment (they were "giving them jobs").
All this was/is 'done' in that time and place. People who objected (me) were aggressively silenced. The aggression with which objection was silenced indicates to me that they knew it was wrong despite it being done and normal and accepted. And there was a lot of violence and threats of violence to enforce compliance to the system.
I'm not having trouble understanding that circumstances will lead people to do things that are wrong and that sub-cultures enforce behavioral codes on their members whether those codes are right or wrong. I don't need that explained to me. Hell, I live in the US.
But I do think that some people in those circumstances remember that those things are wrong, though they are aggressively silencing their consciences as well as objectors. In this case, interestingly, I don't think Rocky Pamplin actually believes that what he did was wrong. But call a spade a spade - this is not about 'helping' anyone.

And what I just said isn't actually directed to you Adamghost. Just prompted by your post.

[SteveMC]

Just wondering what I would have done if Carl cursed me out. Since I know me   I would have cursed him back and would have said
 "*** off you ****** ***hole. I'm TRYING to save his life. I'm doing MY job, you worry about yours."

...but I wouldn't have punched him.

[rockrush3]

   Good morning SMILE,... I'm glad to see your all hard at work... to "elucidate" is so hard to "explain" all the worlds perplexities of consciousness in search of a fundamental theory... do you dream in color? If you answer Yes, how can you be sure? Before you recount your vivid memory of a dream featuring all the colors of the rainbow..  Come on people... where's your sense of humor... this thread is called "Smiley Smile"   Now let me hear a deluge of synonyms and euphemisms for HUMOR!   Luv ya.

[Emily]

 Good morning SMILE,... I'm glad to see your all hard at work... to "elucidate" is so hard to "explain" all the worlds perplexities of consciousness in search of a fundamental theory... do you dream in color? If you answer Yes, how can you be sure? Before you recount your vivid memory of a dream featuring all the colors of the rainbow...  Come on people... where's your sense of humor... this thread is called "Smiley Smile"   Now let me hear a deluge of synonyms and euphemisms for HUMOR!   Luv ya...

Hi Rocky, given that you know when someone's unconscious from an overdose the best thing to do is call an ambulance, can you explain what was in your mind that you didn't do that? A few people are explaining that that would be an understandable choice given the subculture in which you were living. As a reader, it's easier for me if I understand the context and motivations that would lead the subject to make such a choice. I think it would be a mistake, as a writer, to not help your readers with that.
And I was going to make a joke referring to cold cuts in response to SteveMC's latest post but I thought it would be inappropriate.

[adamghost]

Whoops!  Missed this, the prior page wouldn't load.  Sorry about that, Emily.

<<1. With this quote: "he probably was trying to do exactly what you are suggesting - which is to enforce an outsider's "no way" to this crazy environment" - I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. Could you elucidate?>>

Well, I think it is.  If you're asking somebody to go into that environment and do what we at our distant remove think would have been the right thing to do at the time - that person would be very disruptive to the status quo.  The "right" people - skilled and ethical doctors, psychiatrists, handlers - that we might think of who were around at that time simply wouldn't get into that kind of situation in the first place, wisely so.  They'd hang out at UCLA or wherever, holding down their posts, and wait 'til you checked in like any other patient.

<<You are saying it's a drug culture environment, then you are saying that Rocky was brought in by anti drug culture people, then you are saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed in the drug culture environment.  I assume you are saying something that makes sense, because you always do, but I'm not getting it.>>

No, I wasn't saying they were the right kind of people to be welcomed.  What I'm saying is a repeat of the above - if you're in that environment, and you're trying to bring in an outsider to help in an in-house situation, you're not going to get Dr. Super Credentials at UCLA.  You're going to get Rocky Pamplin or Gene Landy.  Because those are the kind of people who would gravitate to, and/or be available to, someone in the Beach Boys' orbit.  I hesitate to say "Hollywood people" because it is neither accurate nor really fair, but it does get the point across.  I think this might be hard to understand because, again, it's just hard to visualize what it's like to be inside that kind of bubble.  I haven't been in it, but I live in L.A. and I'm a professional musician, so I have been near it and have seen it.  The vortex of fame and money draws in people that are attracted to exactly that, even if their motivations are (to themselves) supposedly pure.

<<I don't think this was really about drugs so much as compliance.>>

Ding ding ding.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Compliance to the prevailing L.A. rock star/music industry culture.  Which was driven to a large degree by drugs and money - warping the rules for everyone who came in contact with it.  

OK. Just didn't understand what you were saying; now I do.

I lived in Central America for several years. It might be comparable. The sexual and economic exploitation was off the charts. I went to a nice expat beach town now and then for a warm bath, a comfortable mattress and something other than rice, beans and plantains to eat. I knew several 60 or so year old North Americans or Europeans who had, though they would word it differently, purchased preteen girls from their fathers (they were "helping the family financially"). The practice was to bus employees in from the country because the local population wanted to be paid enough to buy food from the local stores which had inflated prices because of the expat population (the local population was "spoiled"). The hotels and restaurants were owned by expats who charged about 70% what a comparable Houston hotel or restaurant would charge, but paid their employees literally about $30/month and pocketed the rest (they didn't want to "spoil" the employees). The chemicals used on the farms are illegal in the US but US companies are making their employees there use them. The farm laborers in those regions have a cancer rate 60% higher than elsewhere in the country and 60% higher than in those regions before the chemicals were introduced. They have no insurance and no treatment (they were "giving them jobs").
All this was/is 'done' in that time and place. People who objected (me) were aggressively silenced. The aggression with which objection was silenced indicates to me that they knew it was wrong despite it being done and normal and accepted. And there was a lot of violence and threats of violence to enforce compliance to the system.
I'm not having trouble understanding that circumstances will lead people to do things that are wrong and that sub-cultures enforce behavioral codes on their members whether those codes are right or wrong. I don't need that explained to me. Hell, I live in the US.
But I do think that some people in those circumstances remember that those things are wrong, though they are aggressively silencing their consciences as well as objectors. In this case, interestingly, I don't think Rocky Pamplin actually believes that what he did was wrong. But call a spade a spade - this is not about 'helping' anyone.

And what I just said isn't actually directed to you Adamghost. Just prompted by your post.

I get it.  I actually spend a lot of time in southeast Asia and I've seen a lot of the same things - it's been an interesting experience teasing out right and wrong from the cultural overlays the respective societies lay on us, though "treat people with respect" is a superb way to start.  Sometimes things are just simply right and wrong - but even if you're right (and I've learned this as a guy who tends to think and see things for himself apart from the crowd), deviating from the social norm is a very risky business indeed.  Most people don't have the stomach for it.

I think myself whole levels of wrong went on in that time period, but it's easy to see why.

[Custom Machine]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

Adam has posted some excellent comments regarding prevailing rock n roll attitudes in the seventies. I think it's important to remember that what people often refer to as "the sixties" really didn't begin to take hold until the mid to latter part of that decade, and overall the use of illicit drugs and the craziness around that scene reached much higher levels in the seventies.

We now know very well that Brian Wilson was suffering from mental illness, but for those saying, "Well, Brian really didn't do an excessive amount of drugs," if Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, or Jim Morrison had not OD'd and were still around I sure there would be people saying the same thing about them.

[Emily]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

Adam has posted some excellent comments regarding prevailing rock n roll attitudes in the seventies. I think it's important to remember that what people often refer to as "the sixties" really didn't begin to take hold until the mid to latter part of that decade, and overall the use of illicit drugs and the craziness around that scene reached much higher levels in the seventies.

We now know very well that Brian Wilson was suffering from mental illness, but for those saying, "Well, Brian really didn't do an excessive amount of drugs," if Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, or Jim Morrison had not OD'd and were still around I sure there would be people saying the same thing about them.

Perhaps. And if Paul McCartney died on one of the not many occasions in which he indulged in heroin we'd be thinking he was an addict. I haven't seen evidence that Brian Wilson did that much heroin, though I've seen a lot of drama about it. Think of all the drama surrounding the LSD he took which no one has asserted was more than once or twice. A lot of drama about someone taking drugs does not mean they were taking a lot of drugs.

eta: I'm really not understanding what the point that many people are trying to make when they are saying, basically, "that was the scene." Yes it was. Agreed.

[rockrush3]

  (#884) Emily, I was going  to "bring up the "cold cuts"... but I won't. (do I need to "ELUCIDATE") Furthermore, there is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to explain the "context" and "motivations" that would lead the "subject" to make such a choice! (the details are in the book) PLEASE... spare us the existential prose!

[SMiLE Brian]

God, you are a rock headed brute.

[Emily]

(#884) Emily, I was going to bring up the "cold cuts"... but I won't. (do I need to "ELUCIDATE") Furthermore, there is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to explain the "context" and "motivations" that would lead the "subject" to make such a choice! PLEASE... spare us the existential prose!

There's some irony here after you've ranted at people for commenting on your communications skills.

[CenturyDeprived]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

I too can see how it would have been the "norm" for them to try and revive Brian on their own, without getting the authorities involved. Doesn't make it right, but then again, we are very lucky that those events transpired as they did, because they did in fact lead to none of the band members overdosing. Would a hospital transport have led to the same results? I hope so, but we won't ever know. I am grateful to Rocky for saving Brian's life, even in an unorthodox manner.

I have to wonder though... if the cops would have been called by Rocky, and the ambulance came, the press got hold of it, and sold copious tabloids that Brian overdosed on heroin (but lived)... would the probable resulting negative press ever have had a chance to make any kind of difference in the long run? Did the band ever get press nearly as bad as that (until Denny's death) with regards to bandmates almost killing themselves?

I don't suppose the Wilson brothers needed any more of a wakeup call to reality than they already had (if indeed a wakeup call due to horrible publicity wasn't going to clean them up), but then again, one could almost make the argument that Carl was scared straight, because he was so humiliated over the PUBLIC embarrassment he, of all people, caused onstage. If that hadn't happened publicly, would he have kept dabbling in drugs? I do wonder if any kind of terrible event could have scared Brian or Denny straight.

Look, for example, at The Smashing Pumpkins. In 1996, their drummer Jimmy Chamberlin overdosed (but lived) in a hotel room while on tour, along with the touring bandmate (Jonathan Melvoin) who he was shooting up with. Jimmy woke from having passed out to find Jonathan overdosed... tried to revive him with ice (Rocky-style), but sadly failed. He saw his friend and bandmate dead in front of him, and from that point on, Jimmy has (as far as I am aware) been basically sober. I wonder if any kind of similar situation (of a friend or bandmate dying) could have scared either Brian or Denny into sobriety.

[Emily]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

...we are very lucky that those events transpired as they did, because they did in fact lead to none of the band members overdosing.

Sorry but what evidence is there for this assertion?

[CenturyDeprived]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

...we are very lucky that those events transpired as they did, because they did in fact lead to none of the band members overdosing.

Sorry but what evidence is there for this assertion?

What I was trying to say is that no band member of the Beach Boys ever died on tour as a result of overdosing on hard drugs. In the moment of when a person (Brian, for example) was passed out with their eyes rolled back, one would *think* that if an ambulance was called and Brian had been sent to the hospital, that the medics/doctors would have done their jobs right, and that the same outcome (Brian being revived and surviving) would have transpired... but we can't know that for sure. What if the ambulance got a flat tire on the way to the hospital, or if a doctor screwed up? I'm just saying there were elements of chance at play in whatever scenario happened (the ambulance being called, or them trying to revive Brian on their own).

Sometimes I wonder, when I watch TV shows and see doctors pushing a man on a gurney into the ER for an emergency operation. What if the doctors ran just 5 % faster than the slightly fast (but maybe not fast enough) rate at which they were running? Could that make a difference for someone living or dying? I'm sure in some rare instances the answer is yes.

We know what happened with the actual scenario that took place: Brian lived. The other scenario is most likely the same (Brian living), but without a time machine, we won't know if the same would have happened.  Since this is a life and death scenario here, I'm glad there's not even a 1% chance that Brian didn't make it due to some unforeseen complication - this is not to condone not calling the cops, I should add. Not trying to say that was a good, advisable, commendable thing to do. Just that I'm glad an outcome we (in hindsight) are 100% certain would lead to Brian's survival did in fact transpire, even if it may have been more risky and less advisable. I can't argue with results, that Brian did make it through that night.

[Emily]

I recall reading an article in the 70's where Cher was recounting an experience with Gregg Allman where he had overdosed on heroin. To keep him alive she said she kept him up all night, walking around. My recollection is that she never called for an ambulance or other medical assistance, and in reading the article back then it never struck me as odd that she had not done so, presumably wishing to avoid the publicity and Allman's potential arrest.

...we are very lucky that those events transpired as they did, because they did in fact lead to none of the band members overdosing.

Sorry but what evidence is there for this assertion?

What I was trying to say is that no band member of the Beach Boys ever died on tour as a result of overdosing on hard drugs. In the moment of when a person (Brian, for example) was passed out with their eyes rolled back, one would *think* that if an ambulance was called and Brian had been sent to the hospital, that the medics/doctors would have done their jobs right, and that the same outcome (Brian being revived and surviving) would have transpired... but we can't know that for sure. What if the ambulance got a flat tire on the way to the hospital, or if a doctor screwed up? I'm just saying there were elements of chance at play in whatever scenario happened (the ambulance being called, or them trying to revive Brian on their own).

Sometimes I wonder, when I watch TV shows and see doctors pushing a man on a gurney into the ER for an emergency operation. What if the doctors ran just 5 % faster than the slightly fast (but maybe not fast enough) rate at which they were running? Could that make a difference for someone living or dying? I'm sure in some rare instances the answer is yes.

We know what happened with the actual scenario that took place: Brian lived. The other scenario is most likely the same (Brian living), but without a time machine, we won't know if the same would have happened.  Since this is a life and death scenario here, I'm glad there's not even a 1% chance that Brian didn't make it due to some unforeseen complication - this is not to condone not calling the cops, I should add. Not trying to say that was a good, advisable, commendable thing to do. Just that I'm glad an outcome we (in hindsight) are 100% certain would lead to Brian's survival did in fact transpire, even if it may have been more risky and less advisable. I can't argue with results, that Brian did make it through that night.

I have doubts about the reportage of his condition. Does anyone have information regarding Brian's condition that evening or the next day?
Eta: also a quick search indicates that one should NOT put an OD victim in ice water: it doesn't help and may induce shock. So it seems that if his condition was as reported, his survival was not due to the actions of RP and SL, unless you credit their prayers.

[18thofMay]

The last few posts from Balboa are even more disturbing, like a thesaurus as been used to make the post seem "educated".

[mtaber]

This THREAD keeps getting more and MORE strange!  There may actually be SOME heroin being ingested during POSTS!!!

[Emily]

This THREAD keeps getting more and MORE strange!  There may actually be SOME heroin being ingested during POSTS!!!

Not I though it feels like I've been taking crazy pills.

[Custom Machine]

The last few posts from Balboa are even more disturbing, like a thesaurus as been used to make the post seem "educated".

I'm wondering when the quotation mark and caps lock keys are going to give out on Rocky's keyboard, due to overuse.

[adamghost]

The last few posts from Balboa are even more disturbing, like a thesaurus as been used to make the post seem "educated".

I'm wondering when the quotation mark and caps lock keys are going to give out on Rocky's keyboard, due to overuse.

Tee-HEE!