Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[filledeplage]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.  

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, the question really just calls for a yes/no response. So if she responds with just a yes or a no, I'm curious whether or not you would accept her response? Forgive my curiosity, I'm just trying to understand.

Understand what ?  

Your reasoning for what sources you consider to be legitimate.

That depends on what the source is and whether it conflicts with another source meaning there is a controversy as to the information.

As before, I rely on band members' accounts, first.  There are many interviews on Youtube, and in print that I would rely on, first.

Badman has session sheets that should have been redacted for personal information, but has photos that are consistent with the era.

Rusten/Stebbins seems pretty good with concert info.       

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

[filledeplage]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made by a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

[filledeplage]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made my a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Every session sheet is not included in the Badman book.  Others here, have far more documentary evidence, than I and have access to those BB session documents.  That is her particular occupation.   Those session players often did multiple sessions for other bands or musicians.  At no point have I ever read or seen her in film, or still photos doing anything else.  

And, no I don't agree that it is a simple mistake.  And, further find it incomprehensible that every single article has not been scrutinized for errors before being relied upon so heavily.  If I am the "lone juror" here, so be it.  

And, I find it troubling that the intolerance has not been addressed before, especially, since this was written during the era of the Equal Rights Amendment and Civil Rights era in the context of the time. We can agree to disagree.    

Two months is a long time to mistake someone for a percussionist.  Some accounts say Jules was with them longer.

In The Holy Bee's first post under sources, "...by Jules Siegel, published in Cheetah magazine, covering events from (approx.) October '66 to mid '67."  That could be as long as 9 months.

Thread entitled "References to SMiLE tracks from period articles, collaged and arranged by song." January 12, 2016. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made my a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Every session sheet is not included in the Badman book.  Others here, have far more documentary evidence, than I and have access to those BB session documents.  That is her particular occupation.   Those session players often did multiple sessions for other bands or musicians.  At no point have I ever read or seen her in film, or still photos doing anything else. 

And, no I don't agree that it is a simple mistake.  And, further find it incomprehensible that every single article has not been scrutinized for errors before being relied upon so heavily.  If I am the "lone juror" here, so be it. 

And, I find it troubling that the intolerance has not been addressed before, especially, since this was written during the era of the Equal Rights Amendment and Civil Rights era in the context of the time. We can agree to disagree.   

If it's not a simple mistake, then do you believe Siegel purposefully mischaracterized her role? To me, the issue here is that Siegel describes Kaye as looking like she "might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials." That, to me, is problematic while describing someone inaccurately as a "percussionist" is not.

Like I said above, though, if we are to write of the Siegel article for that, we should be prepared to write off about 50% of the lyrics of The Beach Boys. For me, I think that while I do have some problems with the way that women are frequently depicted in Beach Boys lyrics, I also think there is far too much of value in the music to throw it away on that basis alone. Same goes for the Siegel article for me.

[Emily]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made by a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Major edit: I see that AGD meant the Workshop session because it was the "day after MOLC" however,  that same session was for "'Jazz'/I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night/'Workshop'"
What I'd wonder is if the session sheets list hammers, saws, drills as instruments and who played them. If they did not, then probably CK was listed for bass for the music and then, as I understand happened, the musicians who were there were recruited to play the "workshop" tools.

[filledeplage]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made my a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Every session sheet is not included in the Badman book.  Others here, have far more documentary evidence, than I and have access to those BB session documents.  That is her particular occupation.   Those session players often did multiple sessions for other bands or musicians.  At no point have I ever read or seen her in film, or still photos doing anything else. 

And, no I don't agree that it is a simple mistake.  And, further find it incomprehensible that every single article has not been scrutinized for errors before being relied upon so heavily.  If I am the "lone juror" here, so be it. 

And, I find it troubling that the intolerance has not been addressed before, especially, since this was written during the era of the Equal Rights Amendment and Civil Rights era in the context of the time. We can agree to disagree.   

If it's not a simple mistake, then do you believe Siegel purposefully mischaracterized her role? To me, the issue here is that Siegel describes Kaye as looking like she "might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials." That, to me, is problematic while describing someone inaccurately as a "percussionist" is not.

Like I said above, though, if we are to write of the Siegel article for that, we should be prepared to write off about 50% of the lyrics of The Beach Boys. For me, I think that while I do have some problems with the way that women are frequently depicted in Beach Boys lyrics, I also think there is far too much of value in the music to throw it away on that basis alone. Same goes for the Siegel article for me.

Is it the lack of material that is the problem with that era?  I'm not now ready to rely on someone who went out of his way to mischaracterize a musician.  He looked for words that fit his impression of her, I think. 

It was deliberately mean and disparaging, as to her, so I look at his journalistic judgment as slanted.  He isn't the guy with a bird's eye view (although that was his job) or the fly-on-the-wall who painted the picture of what those sessions were like. For example, guys like Leon Russell tell a story, about sessions, backed up by photos of sessions he played for the BB's in his movie with Elton John.     

Who would not have jumped to have a job like that? And who would not bend over backwards to make sure he dotted every "i" and crossed every "t."

[Emily]

The Carol Kaye question is entirely trivial and not in the least related to whether or not Jules Siegel's reporting of Brian Wilson's activities at the time is a good resource.

FdP wants all resources scrutinized, which is absolutely right. I believe that Guitarfool2002, AGD and at this point everyone on this thread has scrutinized this article. Only FdP finds it lacking, evidently on the one negligible error (which I consider still to be unproven as an error). Everyone else considers that one small potential error to not discredit the source. Possibly she considers his sexism to render all else he says uncreditable.

As GuitarFool2002 has said, what Siegel reports cross-checks with other sources; as we have seen in this thread, someone very vigorously trying to poke holes in it has possibly found one small and unimportant error; and Siegel was there at the time; so the evidence is that it's a sound primary resource. It has withstood intense scrutiny.

I wonder if FilledePlage will hold all resources to the same very high standard? If we find that a Beach Boy has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that Beach Boy has said be considered uncreditable?

If FilledePlage herself has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that she has said be considered uncreditable?

If we used the standard being applied here to judge sources we would never be able to think anything anyone ever says is true, because I doubt anyone who has lived beyond learning language has met the standard.

ps - as to the latest, what possible evidence is there that he went "out of his way" to mischaracterize a musician? Can you not see the absurdity?

[Emily]

CSM, as you have asked a few times, here is the extent of description of activities at a studio in Siegel's article. The rest of his article is about non-studio activities.

But walking into the control room with the answers to all questions such as this was Brian Wilson himself, wearing a competition-stripe surfer’s T-shirt, tight white duck pants, pale green bowling shoes and a red plastic fireman’s helmet.

Everybody was wearing identical red plastic toy fireman’s helmets. Brian’s cousin and production assistant, Steve Korthoff was wearing one; his wife, Marilyn, and her sister, Diane Rovelle—Brian’s secretary—were also wearing them, and so was a once dignified writer from The Saturday Evening Post who had been following Brian around for two months.

Out in the studio, the musicians for the session were unpacking their instruments. In sport shirts and slacks, they looked like insurance salesmen and used-car dealers, except for one blond female percussionist who might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials.

Controlled, a little bored after 20 years or so of nicely paid anonymity, these were the professionals of the popular music business, hired guns who did their jobs expertly and efficiently and then went home to the suburbs. If you wanted swing, they gave you swing. A little movie-track lushness? Fine, here comes movie-track lushness. Now it’s rock and roll? Perfect rock and roll, down the chute.

“Steve,” Brian called out, “where are the rest of those fire hats? I want everybody to wear fire hats. We’ve really got to get into this thing.” Out to the Rolls-Royce went Steve and within a few minutes all of the musicians were wearing fire hats, silly grins beginning to crack their professional dignity.

“All right, let’s go,” said Brian. Then, using a variety of techniques ranging from vocal demonstration to actually playing the instruments, he taught each musician his part. A gigantic fire howled out of the massive studio speakers in a pounding crash of pictorial music that summoned up visions of roaring, windstorm flames, falling timbers, mournful sirens and sweating firemen, building into a peak and crackling off into fading embers as a single drum turned into a collapsing wall and the fire-engine cellos dissolved and disappeared.

“When did he write this?” asked an astonished pop music producer who had wandered into the studio. “This is really fantastic! Man, this is unbelievable! How long has he been working on it?”

“About an hour,” answered one of Brian’s friends.

“I don’t believe it. I just can’t believe what I’m hearing,” said the producer and fell into a stone glazed silence as the fire music began again.

For the next three hours, Brian Wilson recorded and re-recorded, take after take, changing the sound balance, adding echo, experimenting with a sound effects track of a real fire.

“Let me hear that again.” “Drums, I think you’re a little slow in that last part. Let’s get right on it.” “That was really good. Now, one more time, the whole thing.” “All right, let me hear the cellos alone.” “Great. Really great. Now let’s do it!”

With 23 takes on tape and the entire operation responding to his touch like the black knobs on the control board, sweat glistening down his long, reddish hair onto his freckled face, the control room a litter of dead cigarette butts, Chicken Delight boxes, crumpled napkins, Coke bottles and all the accumulated trash of the physical end of the creative process, Brian stood at the board as the four speakers blasted the music into the room.

For the 24th time, the drum crashed and the sound effects crackle faded and stopped.

“Thank you,” said Brian into the control room mic. “Let me hear that back.” Feet shifting, his body still, eyes closed, head moving seal-like to his music, he stood under the speakers and listened. “Let me hear that one more time.” Again the fire roared. “Everybody come out and listen to this,” Brian said to the musicians. They came into the room and listened to what they had made.

“What do you think?” Brian asked.

“It’s incredible, incredible,” whispered one of the musicians, a man in his fifties wearing a Hawaiian shirt and iridescent trousers and pointed black Italian shoes. “Absolutely incredible.”

“Yeah,” said Brian on the way home, an acetate trial copy or “dub” of the tape in his hands, the red plastic fire helmet still on his head. “Yeah, I’m going to call this ‘Mrs. O’Leary’s Fire’ and I think it might just scare a whole lot of people.”

[Emily]

Oh. Forget the whole thing. He spelled 'Rovell' wrong too. Throw it out. It's trash.

[filledeplage]

In any case, I will add that this is entirely trivial and not in the least related to whether or not Jules Siegel's reporting of Brian Wilson's activities at the time is a good resource.

FdP wants all resources scrutinized, which is absolutely right. I believe that Guitarfool2002, AGD and at this point everyone on this thread has scrutinized this article. Only FdP finds it lacking, evidently on the one negligible error (which I consider still to be unproven as an error). Everyone else considers that one small potential error to not discredit the source. Possibly she considers his sexism to render all else he says uncreditable.

As GuitarFool2002 has said, what Siegel reports cross-checks with other sources; as we have seen in this thread, someone very vigorously trying to poke holes in it has possibly found one small and unimportant error; and Siegel was there at the time; so the evidence is that it's a sound primary resource. It has withstood intense scrutiny.

I wonder if FilledePlage will hold all resources to the same very high standard? If we find that a Beach Boy has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that Beach Boy has said be considered uncreditable?

ps - as to the latest, what possible evidence is there that he went "out of his way" to mischaracterize a musician? Can you not see the absurdity?

If FilledePlage herself has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that she has said be considered uncreditable?

Emily - here is the difference, and you as a woman, formerly in the military...should understand the basic concept of "parity" - which is still not bona fide, in any manner in the military.  I am not the author of the articles. I am calling into question both the tone and the veracity, which I find sadly lacking. It is extraordinary that any woman had a role in this man's world of music, in the 60's and earlier.

And, I lived during that era, reading those articles generated often by the record company, which your late father may have read, but which you didn't, with a different basis of comparison, some decades later.  I am thinking it did not pass the "smell test"  for both tone and veracity.  

And, I take seriously, that any woman had a role in the sphere of BB/BW, whether it was Carol Kaye, or Toni Tenille whom I saw in concert with my favorite band.  You have chosen to make it "personal."

[Emily]

In any case, I will add that this is entirely trivial and not in the least related to whether or not Jules Siegel's reporting of Brian Wilson's activities at the time is a good resource.

FdP wants all resources scrutinized, which is absolutely right. I believe that Guitarfool2002, AGD and at this point everyone on this thread has scrutinized this article. Only FdP finds it lacking, evidently on the one negligible error (which I consider still to be unproven as an error). Everyone else considers that one small potential error to not discredit the source. Possibly she considers his sexism to render all else he says uncreditable.

As GuitarFool2002 has said, what Siegel reports cross-checks with other sources; as we have seen in this thread, someone very vigorously trying to poke holes in it has possibly found one small and unimportant error; and Siegel was there at the time; so the evidence is that it's a sound primary resource. It has withstood intense scrutiny.

I wonder if FilledePlage will hold all resources to the same very high standard? If we find that a Beach Boy has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that Beach Boy has said be considered uncreditable?

ps - as to the latest, what possible evidence is there that he went "out of his way" to mischaracterize a musician? Can you not see the absurdity?

If FilledePlage herself has made a small factual error or sexist statement, should everything else that she has said be considered uncreditable?

Emily - here is the difference, and you as a woman, formerly in the military...should understand the basic concept of "parity" - which is still not bona fide, in any manner in the military.  I am not the author of the articles. I am calling into question both the tone and the veracity, which I find sadly lacking. It is extraordinary that any woman had a role in this man's world of music, in the 60's and earlier.

And, I lived during that era, reading those articles generated often by the record company, which your late father may have read, but which you didn't, with a different basis of comparison, some decades later.  I am thinking it did not pass the "smell test"  for both tone and veracity.  

And, I take seriously, that any woman had a role in the sphere of BB/BW, whether it was Carol Kaye, or Toni Tenille whom I saw in concert with my favorite band.  You have chosen to make it "personal."

I agree, as I think do most people here, that the wording of his description of whom we assume to be Carol Kaye was sexist. But note it was not "out of his way" to insult her - it was in his way of describing the bland normalcy, as he perceived it, of the musicians. Note the way he described the male musicians just before.

You have in no way shown that his report lacks veracity. You have been trying very hard to establish that for many pages and you have completely failed. Not because your efforts or skill are lacking but because you are trying to discredit something that is highly creditable.

It is personal, in the sense that there is one person who can not accept that this is a sound primary resource.

[Emily]

I'm going to add, thinking about your possible motivation - it sounds like you felt very offended by the tone of the article, and I can imagine that. And I know that there have been times when I've found someone very offensive, just awful, and have been frustrated by perceiving others to give them kudos - like in the Pamplin thread.
I think it's a natural reaction to want others to frown upon what you frown upon and it can be startling and frustrating and most importantly isolating when they don't. I think it's to be expected that one's defenses would go up and one might try to get others to share their negative opinion. Sometimes one might grasp for straws in that effort and stop making sense.

There's a point where one needs to separate out one's feelings regarding the subject in order to evaluate the subject objectively in other regards.

[filledeplage]

I'm going to add, thinking about your possible motivation - it sounds like you felt very offended by the tone of the article, and I can imagine that. And I know that there have been times when I've found someone very offensive, just awful, and have been frustrated by perceiving others to give them kudos - like in the Pamplin thread.
I think it's a natural reaction to want others to frown upon what you frown upon and it can be startling and frustrating and most importantly isolating when they don't. I think it's to be expected that one's defenses would go up and one might try to get others to share their negative opinion. Sometimes one might grasp for straws in that effort and stop making sense.

There's a point where one needs to separate out one's feelings regarding the subject in order to evaluate the subject objectively in other regards.

Emily - I have been trained not to rush to judgment and to look for inconsistent statements, which I found, as between some of the little that are characterized as the "Big 3." I wonder how many people have done term papers on this Big 3, and have relied on those articles?   

And, you bet those are sexist images of Carol.  Not one time, here have I seen that called into question until I raised that issue sometime last week.  I have read this board for about ten years. But I thought her character was very well treated in Love and Mercy.   

The Pamplin issue is problematic.  I will leave it at that.

What I don't understand is this continuous inference that there is an underlying bias...   

[filledeplage]

I'm going to add, thinking about your possible motivation - it sounds like you felt very offended by the tone of the article, and I can imagine that. And I know that there have been times when I've found someone very offensive, just awful, and have been frustrated by perceiving others to give them kudos - like in the Pamplin thread.
I think it's a natural reaction to want others to frown upon what you frown upon and it can be startling and frustrating and most importantly isolating when they don't. I think it's to be expected that one's defenses would go up and one might try to get others to share their negative opinion. Sometimes one might grasp for straws in that effort and stop making sense.

There's a point where one needs to separate out one's feelings regarding the subject in order to evaluate the subject objectively in other regards.

Emily - it is of no consequence to me whether someone else "frowns on" something; only that is is recognized.

 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made my a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Every session sheet is not included in the Badman book.  Others here, have far more documentary evidence, than I and have access to those BB session documents.  That is her particular occupation.   Those session players often did multiple sessions for other bands or musicians.  At no point have I ever read or seen her in film, or still photos doing anything else. 

And, no I don't agree that it is a simple mistake.  And, further find it incomprehensible that every single article has not been scrutinized for errors before being relied upon so heavily.  If I am the "lone juror" here, so be it. 

And, I find it troubling that the intolerance has not been addressed before, especially, since this was written during the era of the Equal Rights Amendment and Civil Rights era in the context of the time. We can agree to disagree.   

If it's not a simple mistake, then do you believe Siegel purposefully mischaracterized her role? To me, the issue here is that Siegel describes Kaye as looking like she "might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials." That, to me, is problematic while describing someone inaccurately as a "percussionist" is not.

Like I said above, though, if we are to write of the Siegel article for that, we should be prepared to write off about 50% of the lyrics of The Beach Boys. For me, I think that while I do have some problems with the way that women are frequently depicted in Beach Boys lyrics, I also think there is far too much of value in the music to throw it away on that basis alone. Same goes for the Siegel article for me.

Is it the lack of material that is the problem with that era?  I'm not now ready to rely on someone who went out of his way to mischaracterize a musician.  He looked for words that fit his impression of her, I think. 

Just as his description of the male session musicians as "insurance salesmen and used-car dealers" were used to fits his impression of them. That wasn't particularly a flattering portrayal either. The fact is the article suggests that Siegel had very little interaction with the session musicians at all - and thanks to Emily for posting that. But I will say that the way he went about characterizing these people whom he most likely only knew at the most superficial level was based on assumptions about gender that were still in full force in 1966/67. Contrary to what you suggest, this did not change in any serious way until the feminist movement began to take hold in the 1970s but even today many, many people still have very problematic assumptions when it comes to gender and I agree, it is necessary to attend to that. That being said, I repeat, if the de-valuing of women (which I agree is wrong) is enough to discredit the substance of an entire piece, then we should be prepared to throw about half of the Beach Boys songs from the 1960s away. It had very little to do with "the lack of material" in the era and had far more to do with the status quo assumptions about gender that many people held to at the time.

[filledeplage]

I worded my question wrong. Sorry about that. I suppose what I'm asking is why you consider a source legitimate or not, rather than what specific sources. In this case, for example, I was curious as to why you would ask a well-known notoriously inveterate liar to help clear up an inaccuracy in an article which you are using to discredit the article as being too biased to be acceptable.

Who would that liar be?  If Carol, (and I am aware that there are session dates in controversy.)

However, what she did as an "occupation" is not in controversy as far as I know.

If she said she was a dentist rather than a bass guitar player, then I would wonder.

The fact that she claims to have played on many sessions that she didn't play on seems to make her an unreliable source to tell us in any convincing way whether or not she played percussion at a session once.

But this is moot. I've already accepted that she didn't play percussion. It was a simple error made my a writer who clearly didn't pay much attention to any of the session musicians.

Every session sheet is not included in the Badman book.  Others here, have far more documentary evidence, than I and have access to those BB session documents.  That is her particular occupation.   Those session players often did multiple sessions for other bands or musicians.  At no point have I ever read or seen her in film, or still photos doing anything else.  

And, no I don't agree that it is a simple mistake.  And, further find it incomprehensible that every single article has not been scrutinized for errors before being relied upon so heavily.  If I am the "lone juror" here, so be it.  

And, I find it troubling that the intolerance has not been addressed before, especially, since this was written during the era of the Equal Rights Amendment and Civil Rights era in the context of the time. We can agree to disagree.    

If it's not a simple mistake, then do you believe Siegel purposefully mischaracterized her role? To me, the issue here is that Siegel describes Kaye as looking like she "might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials." That, to me, is problematic while describing someone inaccurately as a "percussionist" is not.

Like I said above, though, if we are to write of the Siegel article for that, we should be prepared to write off about 50% of the lyrics of The Beach Boys. For me, I think that while I do have some problems with the way that women are frequently depicted in Beach Boys lyrics, I also think there is far too much of value in the music to throw it away on that basis alone. Same goes for the Siegel article for me.

Is it the lack of material that is the problem with that era?  I'm not now ready to rely on someone who went out of his way to mischaracterize a musician.  He looked for words that fit his impression of her, I think.  

Just as his description of the male session musicians as "insurance salesmen and used-car dealers" were used to fits his impression of them. That wasn't particularly a flattering portrayal either. The fact is the article suggests that Siegel had very little interaction with the session musicians at all - and thanks to Emily for posting that. But I will say that the way he went about characterizing these people whom he most likely only knew at the most superficial level was based on assumptions about gender that were still in full force in 1966/67. Contrary to what you suggest, this did not change in any serious way until the feminist movement began to take hold in the 1970s but even today many, many people still have very problematic assumptions when it comes to gender and I agree, it is necessary to attend to that. That being said, I repeat, if the de-valuing of women (which I agree is wrong) is enough to discredit the substance of an entire piece, then we should be prepared to throw about half of the Beach Boys songs from the 1960s away. It had very little to do with "the lack of material" in the era and had far more to do with the status quo assumptions about gender that many people held to at the time.

CSM - Great!  - Now you are "thinking critically."

Of course, I saw that insurance and used-car salesman nonsense but chose the Carol attack, to "open the door." There are conflicting accounts as to how long Jules was there.  (The feminist movement was coming to life with Simone de Beauvoir's "Le Deuxieme Sexe" publication in 1949.  News travels slowly, gaining traction slowly with laws in our world.)

And CSM, I am still looking for all this promo heralding Smile.  Or even the promo on Pet Sounds.  Carl summed it up with what I quoted from Rusten/Stebbins, from 1970. Capitol didn't want them for their "creative group." The wanted hot rods and girls.

What does the article offer?  I didn't have my printout of it with me, but do remember liking and quoting the characterization of the BB's voices.  He got that right.  I would hate to have to defend a doctoral or master's thesis on SMiLE and use his article as a supporting document.      

By the 70's there was no turning back after those laws were passed.

As far as the article goes, I would take it with a grain of salt. 

[Emily]

pretty sure you missed CSM's point.

[filledeplage]

pretty sure you missed CSM's point.

Pretty sure that he found those other disparaging images.

What was Jules thinking?

[SMiLE Brian]

The point is to smear the rock press like Vosse and Siegel. They saw the divide between BW and the group that blew up into open conflict during smile. Especially from Mike Love.....

[Emily]

pretty sure you missed CSM's point.

Pretty sure that he found those other disparaging images.

What was Jules thinking?

Jules was probably thinking that he would depict the session musicians in language that he thought would convey his impression to the readers: that they were blandly normal professional suburbanites.

Pretty sure that CSM was saying that Siegel was unflattering to others as well as Carol Kaye and that Siegel didn't spend much time with the musicians, so if he inaccurately identified Carol Kaye, it's no surprise.
He was also saying that he thinks sexism is bad and persists, but that it was not unusual at the time and if you discredit Jules Siegel for his sexism, you will also have to discredit the Beach Boys for theirs.

[filledeplage]

pretty sure you missed CSM's point.

Pretty sure that he found those other disparaging images.

What was Jules thinking?

Jules was probably thinking that he would depict the session musicians in language that he thought would convey his impression to the readers: that they were blandly normal professional suburbanites.

Pretty sure that CSM was saying that Siegel was unflattering to others as well as Carol Kaye and that Siegel didn't spend much time with the musicians, so if he inaccurately identified Carol Kaye, it's no surprise.
He was also saying that he thinks sexism is bad and persists, but that it was not unusual at the time and if you discredit Jules Siegel for his sexism, you will also have to discredit the Beach Boys for theirs.

And that would be pure conjecture.  Much of the West Coast music scene was a migration from NYC.  Not bland. 

Yes, the BB music has a lot of boy-girl themes, which have more of a "goddess" theme than a "plastic detergent bottle mannequin" theme.  Guess that is how it is distinguishable.   

[guitarfool2002]

And CSM, I am still looking for all this promo heralding Smile.  Or even the promo on Pet Sounds.  Carl summed it up with what I quoted from Rusten/Stebbins, from 1970. Capitol didn't want them for their "creative group." The wanted hot rods and girls.

Domenic Priore along with a team of others filled their book "Look Listen Vibrate Smile" with pages full of promo and press heralding Smile. Ads were taken out in Billboard magazine advertising Smile featuring the Smile album cover. Capitol gave the Smile cover a full page, back cover ad promoting it's release in their Teen Set magazine which is where Priore got his book's title. Music press from the Disc & Music Echo to Song Hits to "Beat" to all the other teen music mags were featuring gossip and articles about the upcoming Smile album in Fall 1966 going into 1967.

Capitol had sales displays made up and sent to record shops for them to display, cardboard displays and posters too. They also featured Smile as one of the upcoming albums of note when they made a record to be sent to their salesmen and various rack-jobbers featuring Good Vibrations and with a narration saying, famously, "sure to sell a million copies...in January!"

The promo was there in 1966 going into 1967, the best source is Priore's LLVS which collects these examples. And some exist that didn't even make LLVS's pages.

There was both official PR from Capitol and non-official buzz surrounding this upcoming album "with the Good Vibrations sound" while Good Vibrations was going to #1 on the singles charts.

[filledeplage]

And CSM, I am still looking for all this promo heralding Smile.  Or even the promo on Pet Sounds.  Carl summed it up with what I quoted from Rusten/Stebbins, from 1970. Capitol didn't want them for their "creative group." The wanted hot rods and girls.

Domenic Priore along with a team of others filled their book "Look Listen Vibrate Smile" with pages full of promo and press heralding Smile. Ads were taken out in Billboard magazine advertising Smile featuring the Smile album cover. Capitol gave the Smile cover a full page, back cover ad promoting it's release in their Teen Set magazine which is where Priore got his book's title. Music press from the Disc & Music Echo to Song Hits to "Beat" to all the other teen music mags were featuring gossip and articles about the upcoming Smile album in Fall 1966 going into 1967.

Capitol had sales displays made up and sent to record shops for them to display, cardboard displays and posters too. They also featured Smile as one of the upcoming albums of note when they made a record to be sent to their salesmen and various rack-jobbers featuring Good Vibrations and with a narration saying, famously, "sure to sell a million copies...in January!"

The promo was there in 1966 going into 1967, the best source is Priore's LLVS which collects these examples. And some exist that didn't even make LLVS's pages.

There was both official PR from Capitol and non-official buzz surrounding this upcoming album "with the Good Vibrations sound" while Good Vibrations was going to #1 on the singles charts.

Yes, while that stuff was produced, many new bands were were over-taking the US by storm, marginalizing the BB's, and even if they sent out those cardboard displays, it was not a guarantee that they would be put up as displays in the record stores and just put the LP's out for sale.  It seemed to be up to the record store department manager and their music tastes.  (I'd love one as a souvenir - maybe I will find one on eBay?) 

And no GV video ever appeared until the one in 1968, with the guys in the white suits, that is still on Youtube about 18 months after it was a hit.  It seemed a "pile on"of not much media promo after Pet Sounds.