Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?

[Cam Mott]

Sounds like the Boys must have very much had Carl's back and were willing to give up much money and effort on Carl's behalf.

[DonnyL]

To Emily and the other sensible posters in this thread ...

I think the initial decision to go with Landy was made because he was totally unorthodox and had a good track record. Marilyn, Carl, and the family probably figured (correctly in my opinion) that Brian's situation was unusual, and being that he's a sensitive guy, this program made sense because Landy approached Brian in a way that couldn't be done in a conventional treatment scenario. I think it's generally accepted (maybe I'm wrong?) that the first Landy treatment was relatively successful. And probably the second one too, for the first couple years.

The idea that the initial treatment program was commercially motivated seems too black and white to me. I think that to most people around him, the idea of a "healthy" Brian Wilson included making music again. And I think BW was on board. There's an interview around the time where he talks about wanting to "experience people. And make money of course." The commercial aspect was obviously opportunistic, but I don't think it was malicious.

Whether it was successful is subjective. I think that to call it successful one must focus on criteria that have to do with Brian's practical ability to function over his emotional well-being. If you read the contemporary RS or New West articles (the latter of which I haven't read for a long time, does anyone have it? I'll go look on the scans thread) it's pretty evident that he was not well and was being treated in completely humiliating ways that must have been bad for his psyche, and that the focus was entirely on his actions and not at all on his root problems. Contemporary articles from the second period indicate that as well.

The fact that he was marched out and forced to participate in the interviews, most obviously against his will, is evidence enough that his health wasn't a priority. One can easily argue that making music would be beneficial and healing and give him joy and a will to engage, but interviews and touring were never things that he indicated were fulfilling.

It's also evident from those articles that Landy was a charlatan whose main concern was his own image.
 
So, 1. for a job of this magnitude and importance one should still check someone's professional reputation. Psychology attracts a pretty loose bunch and one could find an unconventional and flexible psychologist that had earned some respect and credentials beyond working with Alice Cooper. I'd also think that his evident prioritizing of schmoozing with stars over serious work would tip people off.
2. Once he swindled his way in and things got rolling, alarm bells should've gone off and the plug should've been pulled.

But, I wouldn't characterize it as malicious. Or even conscious. My guess is that the first Landy hiring came down to a lack of sophistication and self-deception.
Regarding the former, I'm repeatedly surprised at how unsophisticated the people around the Beach Boys still were. I think, reading about Murry and reading his letter and interviews, that he was jealous of professionals and passed that on to his sons as suspicion. They seem to have avoided hiring professionals, other than music-makers (instrumentalists, engineers, etc.), for anything.
Regarding the latter, I think humans are greatly skilled at convincing themselves that what is good for them is good.

eta: haven't found the New West article but a Oui article from the same period is here:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10376.50.html
and it shows pretty well what Brian Wilson wanted vs. what he got.

e again ta: I've seen in multiple contemporary interviews that Landy threatened to "put [Brian] on the funny farm" (from Oui interview linked above, but I've seen it in other interviews as well). The wrongness of that, both in terms of "treating" BW through crazy coercive threats, and in terms of scaring him away from possibly beneficial treatments is, well, just is.

I understand where you're coming from, and agree on some points.

I'm certainly not defending Landy, or even stating that I personally found him to be "successful" at treating BW. Really not even defending the family's decisions, but I suppose I am understanding of why they may have made the decisions that they made.

And it's been mentioned before, but it's worth noting that the mid-1970s was a very different time. The "unsophisticated" angle makes sense, though I'm not sure I would be comfortable using that term. These were just people who came from working class backgrounds. The world was a different place then too. I think that Brian and his family were open to more unorthodox (maybe even "faddish"?) lifestyle choices. These are folks that were into with TM, astrology, and certainly lots of other things. The idea of a "straight" treatment program might have seemed like it wouldn't work.

So here's this guy who maybe seemed crazy enough to get Brian back to work, back on track, etc. And yes, the concerts, interviews, etc. were obviously strictly business and not in Brian's best interest (in my opinion).

So Landy's eventually fired, and the re-hiring in 1983 was clearly done out of desperation. As to how or why the family "let" it get to that point ... I guess that's what we're discussing. But I can't help but think of interviews with Carl and Dennis in which they seem to just think Brian's just being Brian. "What's so crazy about wanting to stay at home? He's crazy!", etc. ... This was their older brother, and I don't think he was perceived as being "mentally ill" until it was getting very bad. But who knows.

I guess that's what it all comes down to to me ... we weren't there, and it's pretty easy to say "would have, could have, should have" through our enlightened lense of the modern era.

On a personal note, my dad is paranoid schizophrenic, and I dealt with lots of difficult things growing up. And you always sort of want the person to be "normal" (especially someone who you look up to), so you see what you want to see. And my mom did leave my dad when I was very young when it came to a breaking point. But even as my dad was sleeping with knives under his pillow, sealing the drapes with clothespins, and talking about how chips had been implanted into his brain during an appendectomy ... the people close to him just thought he was having "a spell", as he used to refer to it. The 1970s-early '80s were a different time indeed. And I guess since I come from an "unsophisticated" background myself, I just relate to why they may have made the decisions that they did.

[Cam Mott]

I think we shouldn't second guess loved one's best efforts and suspect we might be over estimating how effective the so-called best treatment available might have been at the time.

[Emily]

I understand where you're coming from, and agree on some points.

I'm certainly not defending Landy, or even stating that I personally found him to be "successful" at treating BW. Really not even defending the family's decisions, but I suppose I am understanding of why they may have made the decisions that they made.

And it's been mentioned before, but it's worth noting that the mid-1970s was a very different time. The "unsophisticated" angle makes sense, though I'm not sure I would be comfortable using that term. These were just people who came from working class backgrounds. The world was a different place then too. I think that Brian and his family were open to more unorthodox (maybe even "faddish"?) lifestyle choices. These are folks that were into with TM, astrology, and certainly lots of other things. The idea of a "straight" treatment program might have seemed like it wouldn't work.

So here's this guy who maybe seemed crazy enough to get Brian back to work, back on track, etc. And yes, the concerts, interviews, etc. were obviously strictly business and not in Brian's best interest (in my opinion).

So Landy's eventually fired, and the re-hiring in 1983 was clearly done out of desperation. As to how or why the family "let" it get to that point ... I guess that's what we're discussing. But I can't help but think of interviews with Carl and Dennis in which they seem to just think Brian's just being Brian. "What's so crazy about wanting to stay at home? He's crazy!", etc. ... This was their older brother, and I don't think he was perceived as being "mentally ill" until it was getting very bad. But who knows.

I guess that's what it all comes down to to me ... we weren't there, and it's pretty easy to say "would have, could have, should have" through our enlightened lense of the modern era.

On a personal note, my dad is paranoid schizophrenic, and I dealt with lots of difficult things growing up. And you always sort of want the person to be "normal" (especially someone who you look up to), so you see what you want to see. And my mom did leave my dad when I was very young when it came to a breaking point. But even as my dad was sleeping with knives under his pillow, sealing the drapes with clothespins, and talking about how chips had been implanted into his brain during an appendectomy ... the people close to him just thought he was having "a spell", as he used to refer to it. The 1970s-early '80s were a different time indeed. And I guess since I come from an "unsophisticated" background myself, I just relate to why they may have made the decisions that they did.

First of all, I followed your link and love the music - is it you? Also, the posts on the site - are those you? I plan to purchase once I've recovered from Christmas. I found the posts really interesting and familiar - kind of how I could think back before I had a kid. Now I'm just on auto-pilot.

I can see where 'conventional' might be a point against a conventional psychologist to people who are into subud and est and TM.
Rereading those articles reminded me how much degradation Brian lived with under Landy, though. And I remember reading the 80's RS Landy article when I was a kid and thinking that it was really f'ed up. And reading the 70s one, it's also obviously f'ed up; the reporter thinks it's f'ed up. Why don't the people who see Brian every day think so?
I feel like people are going to great lengths to justify decisions that turned out to be awful, and I'm not sure why exactly.

On a personal note, your experiences with your dad are similar to my dad's experiences with his mom. I don't know what the outcome was with your dad. They have some pretty good medications now for schizophrenia.
My grandfather wouldn't let my grandmother get treatment. He managed it himself and various family members would help sometimes. But my dad's childhood was a disaster as a result. Once my grandfather died, my dad and his siblings spent a lot of time and effort, in the 1960s when they were kids themselves (one in high school, one college, one just out of college in the Navy) to find her good care. They moved her around once or twice, but eventually found a place that worked, got her off morphine, and worked with her well enough that she ended up living as an outpatient, with occasional stays.

Perhaps, growing up with this history has caused me to take my understanding of the process of identifying and finding treatment for mental health issues for granted, but it also gives me frustration when people say that "back then" no one knew what they were doing, they didn't have options, etc.

So, again I'm being judgmental, but it really frustrates me when something can be done and is being done but the wrong thing is being done. But a better thing could be done if people would just take the step that's right in front of them.

'Unsophisticated' comes off as snobby, I guess. But how do you describe it if someone just doesn't think of asking experts in the field, when that someone has the money and clout to do so? People are saying they were young, inexperienced, didn't know what they were dealing with, impressed by Landy's spiel, etc. which all fits the definition of unsophisticated pretty well.  Unworldly? I don't know. Naïve is maybe best?

[Emily]

I think we shouldn't second guess loved one's best efforts and suspect we might be over estimating how effective the so-called best treatment available might have been at the time.

No the second guessing isn't nice. I agree.

[Emily]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

[DonnyL]

I understand where you're coming from, and agree on some points.

I'm certainly not defending Landy, or even stating that I personally found him to be "successful" at treating BW. Really not even defending the family's decisions, but I suppose I am understanding of why they may have made the decisions that they made.

And it's been mentioned before, but it's worth noting that the mid-1970s was a very different time. The "unsophisticated" angle makes sense, though I'm not sure I would be comfortable using that term. These were just people who came from working class backgrounds. The world was a different place then too. I think that Brian and his family were open to more unorthodox (maybe even "faddish"?) lifestyle choices. These are folks that were into with TM, astrology, and certainly lots of other things. The idea of a "straight" treatment program might have seemed like it wouldn't work.

So here's this guy who maybe seemed crazy enough to get Brian back to work, back on track, etc. And yes, the concerts, interviews, etc. were obviously strictly business and not in Brian's best interest (in my opinion).

So Landy's eventually fired, and the re-hiring in 1983 was clearly done out of desperation. As to how or why the family "let" it get to that point ... I guess that's what we're discussing. But I can't help but think of interviews with Carl and Dennis in which they seem to just think Brian's just being Brian. "What's so crazy about wanting to stay at home? He's crazy!", etc. ... This was their older brother, and I don't think he was perceived as being "mentally ill" until it was getting very bad. But who knows.

I guess that's what it all comes down to to me ... we weren't there, and it's pretty easy to say "would have, could have, should have" through our enlightened lense of the modern era.

On a personal note, my dad is paranoid schizophrenic, and I dealt with lots of difficult things growing up. And you always sort of want the person to be "normal" (especially someone who you look up to), so you see what you want to see. And my mom did leave my dad when I was very young when it came to a breaking point. But even as my dad was sleeping with knives under his pillow, sealing the drapes with clothespins, and talking about how chips had been implanted into his brain during an appendectomy ... the people close to him just thought he was having "a spell", as he used to refer to it. The 1970s-early '80s were a different time indeed. And I guess since I come from an "unsophisticated" background myself, I just relate to why they may have made the decisions that they did.

First of all, I followed your link and love the music - is it you? Also, the posts on the site - are those you? I plan to purchase once I've recovered from Christmas. I found the posts really interesting and familiar - kind of how I could think back before I had a kid. Now I'm just on auto-pilot.

I can see where 'conventional' might be a point against a conventional psychologist to people who are into subud and est and TM.
Rereading those articles reminded me how much degradation Brian lived with under Landy, though. And I remember reading the 80's RS Landy article when I was a kid and thinking that it was really f'ed up. And reading the 70s one, it's also obviously f'ed up; the reporter thinks it's f'ed up. Why don't the people who see Brian every day think so?
I feel like people are going to great lengths to justify decisions that turned out to be awful, and I'm not sure why exactly.

On a personal note, your experiences with your dad are similar to my dad's experiences with his mom. I don't know what the outcome was with your dad. They have some pretty good medications now for schizophrenia.
My grandfather wouldn't let my grandmother get treatment. He managed it himself and various family members would help sometimes. But my dad's childhood was a disaster as a result. Once my grandfather died, my dad and his siblings spent a lot of time and effort, in the 1960s when they were kids themselves (one in high school, one college, one just out of college in the Navy) to find her good care. They moved her around once or twice, but eventually found a place that worked, got her off morphine, and worked with her well enough that she ended up living as an outpatient, with occasional stays.

Perhaps, growing up with this history has caused me to take my understanding of the process of identifying and finding treatment for mental health issues for granted, but it also gives me frustration when people say that "back then" no one knew what they were doing, they didn't have options, etc.

So, again I'm being judgmental, but it really frustrates me when something can be done and is being done but the wrong thing is being done. But a better thing could be done if people would just take the step that's right in front of them.

'Unsophisticated' comes off as snobby, I guess. But how do you describe it if someone just doesn't think of asking experts in the field, when that someone has the money and clout to do so? People are saying they were young, inexperienced, didn't know what they were dealing with, impressed by Landy's spiel, etc. which all fits the definition of unsophisticated pretty well.  Unworldly? I don't know. Naïve is maybe best?

Hi Emily,

Thanks and yes that's my music and posts!

Well yes I don't think there's too terribly much to disagree with.

I think some posters in the thread may be going to great length to justify decisions, but I'm more of the "it's hard to say without being there" camp. After all, we just have media, interviews, etc. to go on. And we know there are things that are not discussed publicly.

The vibe I got from the '70s articles was something along the lines of "this guy's crazy enough to actually get through to Brian Wilson!". Whereas by the '80s, it was, "something is fishy about this relationship".

I don't think it was clear that Landy was a creep until his name began appearing on album credits. And we really don't know what might have happened if Landy hadn't treated BW the second time. Though he probably should have been fired by '85 or so.

Let's also not forgot (particularly with regard to Dennis), that no matter how much you care for someone, everyone has their limits of how much they can handle.

[DonnyL]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

I don't doubt there were reasonable conventional treatments available in the '70s, but I think the biggest difference was the average person's perception and understanding of mental illness. And folks who were involved in the various counterculture movements might have had views that seem naive these days. And some of them (like my mom) were just young and naive, and didn't really understand what was really going on until it got too bad to bear.

[Emily]

Hi Emily,

Thanks and yes that's my music and posts!

Well yes I don't think there's too terribly much to disagree with.

I think some posters in the thread may be going to great length to justify decisions, but I'm more of the "it's hard to say without being there" camp. After all, we just have media, interviews, etc. to go on. And we know there are things that are not discussed publicly.

The vibe I got from the '70s articles was something along the lines of "this guy's crazy enough to actually get through to Brian Wilson!". Whereas by the '80s, it was, "something is fishy about this relationship".

I don't think it was clear that Landy was a creep until his name began appearing on album credits. And we really don't know what might have happened if Landy hadn't treated BW the second time. Though he probably should have been fired by '85 or so.

Let's also not forgot (particularly with regard to Dennis), that no matter how much you care for someone, everyone has their limits of how much they can handle.

I think I'll go with the word 'naïve.'

It's interesting about the vibe you got from the '70s articles.
 The scene where Brian tries to leave the interview (RS) and the Landy handler forces him to come back; and the part about him being humiliated in front of the SNL crew; Landy talking to a reporter about his patient; just the thought of talking to a reporter about his patient; the handler saying "If he sings good, I'll give him the patty" within the hearing of a reporter, and family members, and Brian; Landy bringing himself, his girlfriend, and another doctor of Brian's along on an interview, uninvited; then Landy calls the reporter back to LA to trot Brian out to show the reporter his improvement - as if the subject of the article is Landy and Brian is the case study he's showing the reporter; and handler "Scott" saying to the reporter that Brian "took his own shower", then Landy suggesting they go "watch Brian work out in the gym" then go listen to some songs he wrote, like he's a show pony; this - "During lunch Brian committed an infraction, nothing big really, but it resulted in Landy yelling at Brian and Brian cringing back, his eyes smarting.";

At one point the RS reporter says: "But aren't drugs just a symptom? There must be something else. Carl said that at some point you looked at the world and it was so messed up that you just couldn't take it." Then he talks to Audree about depression and leads Audree through a series of questions that lays out that Brian has underlying problems that aren't being addressed by jogging and not doing cocaine. After the yelling incident, he asks BW if he's embarrassed and writes, "I felt brought down myself, and it occurred to me that Landy might be as concerned with his own image as he is with Brian's." Then "Scott asked, "So, what did you think of Brian today? Did he seem any different?" I couldn't answer him, I couldn't continue this game of dissecting Brian, mulling over Brian, in his presence, as if he wasn't there."
The reporter is diagnosing BW better than Landy. Because it's obvious.

For me, red flags all over the place. And in the Oui article. Still haven't found the New West one, but if I recall correctly, it's worse.

[Emily]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

I don't doubt there were reasonable conventional treatments available in the '70s, but I think the biggest difference was the average person's perception and understanding of mental illness. And folks who were involved in the various counterculture movements might have had views that seem naive these days. And some of them (like my mom) were just young and naive, and didn't really understand what was really going on until it got too bad to bear.

I'm getting this. And I think it's fair enough to say that they didn't know what options were available.

[filledeplage]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

I don't doubt there were reasonable conventional treatments available in the '70s, but I think the biggest difference was the average person's perception and understanding of mental illness. And folks who were involved in the various counterculture movements might have had views that seem naive these days. And some of them (like my mom) were just young and naive, and didn't really understand what was really going on until it got too bad to bear.

I'm getting this. And I think it's fair enough to say that they didn't know what options were available.

Emily - This is an emerging area of more exact medicine.  About the best drug prevention they had was "just say no to drugs" publicity campaign for about 20 years, which integrated law enforcement coming into the schools for drug prevention.  The war on drugs now is on between the state legislators and the medical industry, and who have parents/family members of addicts begging for some assistance in treatment, and the legislators who are now telling doctors they can only dispense several days of opiates instead of giving months with refills. 

There is huge pushback from both docs and big pharma.  The doctors are freaking out. Big pharma is freaking out.  They are compensated for writing prescriptions for opiates. 

And, I have seen the in-patient addiction profiles written up as "poly-addiction" to opiates, stimulants, (etc.) with "underlying behavioral illness," and the diagnosis is named.  So the diagnosis could be not just a heroin addiction but heroin-cocaine, addiction diagnosis.  The behavioral illness component is one that has been treated but, not the "combination" of addiction and behavioral illness.  Their definition of Addiction, is "a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry." And the neuroscience and brain scanning, and neurobiology and neurochemistry, and genetic factor integration, is very new to their diagnosis and is helping to de-stigmatize the disease. 

Earlier standards from the 1980's were very vague, and referrals were to "allopathic or osteopathic" physicians. (The ASAM statement)  Now, this epidemic has put pressure on the medical community to do better.  The difference is that back then, you might get someone a bed someplace for 30 days, where they are off the grid and away from their "contacts."  Now, if you are lucky to get a bed, you might get 3-5 days, and be at greater risk for relapse, since behaviors don't change because the drugs have been removed from the body in 3 days.  And there is no tolerance (because of the detox) so the risk of overdose after only 3 days is very high.  And there is virtually no uniform mandatory regulation for after-care such as sober housing. 

There was so much corruption in the dispensing of these opiates in occupational medicine, for work injuries or in dentistry, for wisdom teeth, that there has been no coordinated effort for the medical industry to get their arms around all the respective tentacles, because all these areas of medicine have the power to prescribe powerful and addicting medications.  The 1980 standard "such a physician should be board certified in addiction medicine or addiction psychiatry." "Should be certified" is not the same as "must be certified."

There were no solidly specific departments of addiction medicine.  It was an offshoot of the practice of psychiatry.  Now, it is being integrated into internal medicine and should be in the pediatric departments, as kids are gaining access while they are still being seen by a pediatrician. I've read where pediatricians are now speaking directly to their young patients (sort of screening) to assess whether there is a "behavioral risk" for future addiction. 

This definition of addiction is from the American Society of Addiction Medicine.  The older, more vague policy statement/standards are linked within the website.  Hope it is helpful. 

http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction

[Cam Mott]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

I didn't mean violence or Landy's transgressions were preferable or acceptable, and I'm no expert, I just think sometimes we over estimate how good even the best available treatment would have been.  Preferable to the worst available, violence and charlatanism and malpractice.

[Emily]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

I didn't mean violence or Landy's transgressions were preferable or acceptable, and I'm no expert, I just think sometimes we over estimate how good even the best available treatment would have been.  Preferable to the worst available, violence and charlatanism and malpractice.

I had no thought that you meant violence was OK. I just tagged that on because if people start saying that, I will argue to the death about it, so my promise would be abrogated.
Regarding the quality of treatment, I know people who got very good treatment at that time and before. They didn't have great modern pharmaceuticals, but talk and life-management therapies have not altered significantly since then, except for the happiness movement. The idea that psychology was the Wild West in the 1970s isn't so.
Eta: I am not talking about addiction treatment.

[Emily]

Everyone, I promise I will not make one more post in this thread questioning or casting doubt on anyone's motives or wisdom in their choice of care for Brian Wilson, which even though the treatments and results were obviously awful, must still have been the best decisions, if you will all stop claiming that in the 1970s there was no good treatment available (I agree that they didn't have the psychiatric medications that are available today, some of which are remarkably effective). And if you don't start claiming that battery is an acceptable way to address mental illness and addiction.
Deal?

Obviously no deal could be made. I ask too much.

[rockrush3]

    To those who truly love Brian... and comprehend the concept of NO DRUGS IN BRIAN'S LIFE... of any kind...any time any place... BY ANYBODY... EVER...PERIOD!                                          I understand people not wanting to acknowledge or accept the Beach Boys being anything less than AMERICAS GREATEST CLEAN CUT BAND. But if you must hate... Google "Man vs Clown" (Why I hate Mike Love) I sincerely encourage you to do so. "WIPEOUT" is not only about what happened to Brian ... back in the day. It is about BRIAN STILL BEING ALIVE TODAY!!! When Marilyn walked in on Brian... in bed for years on end... weighing over 300 pounds... offering a dangerous drug to their daughter... She made ONE phone call... She called Stephen Love. Not only because he had WORKED his way up the ranks of the Beach Boys, from roadie to manager, for the last 9 years, after graduating (Magna Cum Laude) with his B.A. from U.S.C. and then earning his Masters Degree in Business, and was now the Manager of the Beach Boys  for the last 6 years (1972-1978) as well as Brian's Personal Manager, but it was because... and I quote  Marilyn said  "STEPHEN IS THE ONLY ONE WE TRUST" Stephen not only resurrected  the Beach Boys faltering career, because of Brian's absence, in his nine year tenure but his Brain Child Masterstroke was his "BRIAN'S BACK" campaign where he took a definitive HARD LINE STANCE AGAINST DRUGS...  that ultimately SAVED BRIAN'S LIFE!!! Elvis was 300 pounds and did not have a PROTECTIVE COUSIN around him to draw a hard line and enforce a NO DRUGS ULTIMATUM... Elvis died a year later at 42 years of age... BRIAN IS STILL ALIVE TODAY at 73 years of age! Does that count for anything? The gates were open... the snowball was rolling down the mountain (pick your metaphor) All hell's breaking loose! Once again, please Google, "Man vs Clown" (Why I hate Mike Love) "WIPEOUT" will reveal the REAL STORY!!!      

[Yorick]

Thanks for joining this board and taking the time to answer questions from fans and give some insights into your experience dealing with the Beach Boys!
It's very interesting to see that Steve Love has been posting a lot of replies lately on that Man vs Clown Why I Hate Mike Love blog.
This also caught my eye:
"Ambha Love on February 11, 2013 said:

Oh another fun fact Steve love also put a life ensurance on Brian with high hopes of him passing soon so he would get some money off of his death. He also tried to con my grandfather into getting life insurance on brian as well and he referred to it as an “investment”. I think that’s a little messed up in my humble opinion as well. Bet no one knew that.
"

[Cam Mott]

Rocky,

Did or do you hate Mike Love?

Thanks.

[tony p]

Please Google "Man vs Clown"       (Why I hate Mike Love)

i just googled the above

Steve Love has some really interesting things to say about his brother.

No love there at all between siblings. As Steve Love says:

Mike is a huge disappointment as a person. I used to look up to him but now he creeps me out. What a spiritual phony that poseur is. Somehow he missed the Right Action lesson that is a tenet of all eastern religions. Half the time that Mike devotes to meditation is, I surmise, devoted to scheming and plotting how to f–k people over.

[rockrush3]

     Just a word to the board... I personally do not hate anyone... nor have I ever... there are too many HATERS in the world as it is! Life is too short... and way too good... to be consumed with poison! I leave that to the common  man! Also ONE should never impose their opinion as someone elses ... in particular... stating someones... HIGH HOPES... that couldn't be further from the TRUTH... or more WRONG! Such a cowardly fool should be brought up on charges for FALSE accusations!!! This cowardly fool and the common man should get together for a real SLEAZE FEST... to determine who is the biggest HATER...or biggest LOSER... TAKE YOUR PICK!!!   

[Peter Reum]

There are a few things to pass along. I am a retired substance abuse counselor and my practice was people who were BOTH mentally ill and chemically and/or behaviorally dependent. My work history also contains  a long period  of service in behavioral therapy dealing with people with mental illness and developmental disability.

First, I appreciate the courage it took for Mr. Pamplin to post here. From hearing about Stan Love and Mr. Pamplin's time in the
family circus that was The Beach Boys, I feel that hiring these men  was setting them up for failure. They had no training in dealing with MH/AD patients, and asking them to prevent Brian, Carl, or Dennis from accessing mood altering chemicals or mood altering activities was either a  naive or family secret protection decision.

Second, the Wilson family never had known what a life without chemical or behavioral dependence. This sad reality made it easy for behavioral dependence to take hold early. Brian' s was music, Dennis's was anti-social behavioral  and sexual, and Carl's was overeating. Add in the parental alcohol and ACOA behavior, and it was as if the whole family had some sort of curse. This dependence and abusive environment  led Brian into compulsive questing for musical perfection, Dennis's anti-social and sexual behavior, and Carl's overeating.

Third, there comes a time when the chemically or behaviorally dependent person's true personality is eclipsed by the addictive behavioral false personality, and the chemical or behaviorally dependent addiction no longer relieves the addict's anxiety, depression, or other form of mental illness.

Fourth, it is the  family's desire not to be seen  as an addictive family, because such a label leads to being treated as pitiable, insane, or otherwise not "normal." We Americans hate the stigma of being  "not normal" more than almost any other label.

Fifth, due to the progressive nature of whatever form of chemical or behavioral  dependence an individual may have,  coping  behavior eventually becomes aversive to the individual who used the behavior to escape their particular form of mental illness
This statement is true of roughly 80% of dually diagnosed patients. So, while music was a way of diverting the horrible  form of mental illness that Brian had in high school and post adolescence, it stopped blocking the aversive symptoms of the type of mental illnesses that Brian had.  This began in 1967, and got progressively worse every year thereafter.

[filledeplage]

There are a few things to pass along. I am a retired substance abuse counselor and my practice was people who were BOTH mentally ill and chemically and/or behaviorally dependent. My work history also contains  a long period  of service in behavioral therapy dealing with people with mental illness and developmental disability.

First, I appreciate the courage it took for Mr. Pamplin to post here. From hearing about Stan Love and Mr. Pamplin's time in the
family circus that was The Beach Boys, I feel that hiring these men  was setting them up for failure. They had no training in dealing with MH/AD patients, and asking them to prevent Brian, Carl, or Dennis from accessing mood altering chemicals or mood altering activities was either a  naive or family secret protection decision.

Second, the Wilson family never had known what a life without chemical or behavioral dependence. This sad reality made it easy for behavioral dependence to take hold early. Brian' s was music, Dennis's was anti-social behavioral  and sexual, and Carl's was overeating. Add in the parental alcohol and ACOA behavior, and it was as if the whole family had some sort of curse. This dependence and abusive environment  led Brian into compulsive questing for musical perfection, Dennis's anti-social and sexual behavior, and Carl's overeating.

Third, there comes a time when the chemically or behaviorally dependent person's true personality is eclipsed by the addictive behavioral false personality, and the chemical or behaviorally dependent addiction no longer relieves the addict's anxiety, depression, or other form of mental illness.

Fourth, it is the  family's desire not to be seen  as an addictive family, because such a label leads to being treated as pitiable, insane, or otherwise not "normal." We Americans hate the stigma of being  "not normal" more than almost any other label.

Fifth, due to the progressive nature of whatever form of chemical or behavioral  dependence an individual may have,  coping  behavior eventually becomes aversive to the individual who used the behavior to escape their particular form of mental illness
This statement is true of roughly 80% of dually diagnosed patients. So, while music was a way of diverting the horrible  form of mental illness that Brian had in high school and post adolescence, it stopped blocking the aversive symptoms of the type of mental illnesses that Brian had.  This began in 1967, and got progressively worse every year thereafter.

Peter - you just uttered the magic words..."dual diagnosis."

Thank you for service to those who are truly struggling each day.

Substance abuse counselor - that is God's work. 

Hope things improve with neuroscience and brain scanning...thank you again. 

[JakeH]

[...]
Fifth, due to the progressive nature of whatever form of chemical or behavioral  dependence an individual may have,  coping  behavior eventually becomes aversive to the individual who used the behavior to escape their particular form of mental illness
This statement is true of roughly 80% of dually diagnosed patients. So, while music was a way of diverting the horrible  form of mental illness that Brian had in high school and post adolescence, it stopped blocking the aversive symptoms of the type of mental illnesses that Brian had.  This began in 1967, and got progressively worse every year thereafter.

This is interesting, thank you.  This is the first time I've heard anyone intimate that Brian was "mentally ill" in high school.  I personally (and respectfully, and strongly)  disagree with that, but assuming it is true, it necessarily leads one to wonder if Brian was perhaps "mentally ill" in junior high, or grammar school, or kindergarten.  That is, was he born this way, or were his symptoms brought on by the misfortune of having at least one psychopath as a parent? This is a key question with Brian, and you might assume in the field as a whole.  Brian himself has asked this question in his music.

[Don Malcolm]

Peter, thanks for the fascinating glimpse into a framework that I suspect has much more application to people's lives that most of us would care to admit.

I wanted to know if you could elaborate on what seems to be a linkage in your discussion between anti-social behavior and heightened desire/need for the pursuit of sexual activity. Are there any pervasive patterns to such a linkage--gender, birth order, particular types of parent abuse or "uneven nurturing"? Curious about how such parameters might apply to the Wilsons...and, given the clear alliance between Rocky and Stan (and, by extension, Steve), to the dynamics within the Love family?

I, too, think that Rocky has shown courage (and a significant amount of patience and restraint, despite any peculiarities of punctuation and grammar) in entering what is all too often a hostile environment here. His book may be off-putting to many but he has a right to tell his story despite any perceived transgressions or shortcomings.

[ChicagoAnn]

Thanks, Peter, for your always compassionate and insightful response. Your insight is invaluable. When watching the "Dr. Feelgood" show about Brian, I gave a big ol' (silent) fist-pump when I heard your name as one of the heroes in Brian's history. In this post, you are the first person who mentioned the idea that Dennis' may have had sex-addiction--or some kind of pathology surrounding sex. It's not like it didn't mess up his life or anything.

And Rocky, I know I've called you out about how you spoke about Marilyn in the Gaines' book,  but I also commend you for showing up here and giving your side of the story. It seems to be a subject that's contentious as hell. And I have no doubt when it came to when working for Brian and the band, you did what you believed was right and what you were hired to do.

[Smilin Ed H]

So, Rocky, while you were on the job, did you ever hear any outstanding work by Brian, the kind of stuff that went beyond what ended up on released albums at the time?