Brian Recording Pet Sounds This Weekend At Capitol

[Pretty Funky]

Just looking at the 'Sloop' clip again and there is a piano being played at 46sec. Must be the same ex-keyboardist. I wonder if we are now going to get each song individually rather than a complete performance due to some digital wizardry required. Must be time consuming.

[HeyJude]

Just looking at the 'Sloop' clip again and there is a piano being played at 46sec. Must be the same ex-keyboardist. I wonder if we are now going to get each song individually rather than a complete performance due to some digital wizardry required. Must be time consuming.

It's a pretty common thing to release individual tracks through different websites/channels, so I don't think that aspect of it has anything to do with Bennett.

I think the main purpose of the session may have been for Spotify, and they're just separately releasing a few videos as promotion.

[Marty Castillo]

Oops. A certain ex-keyboardist lurking in the background in that one.

Is that Probyn wearing a cap playing guitar btw?

Looks like Probyn, yes.

As for Bennett, it's hard to say for sure, but it kind of looks like they've purposely put the few distant shots of him out of focus in post production. Not sure why that would be easier than just cropping the footage or editing it without any shots of him if that was the goal.

Ouch. That is really awkward. I'd be lying if I didn't say it wasn't insulting too. Yet it's not as though I don't completely understand why it was done.

I wonder if both Brian and Scott really thought that Scott would beat the charge. If Brian and Melinda had an inkling that it was probable that Scott was gonna be found guilty in a few months, I wonder if Scott would have been part of a video filmed for future release.

Please explain how it is insulting? Do you really want Brian to continue to be associated with Scott? In hindsight, it is incredible that he was allowed to participate in this session. Whose call was that?

[Matt H]

Oops. A certain ex-keyboardist lurking in the background in that one.

Is that Probyn wearing a cap playing guitar btw?

Looks like Probyn, yes.

As for Bennett, it's hard to say for sure, but it kind of looks like they've purposely put the few distant shots of him out of focus in post production. Not sure why that would be easier than just cropping the footage or editing it without any shots of him if that was the goal.

Ouch. That is really awkward. I'd be lying if I didn't say it wasn't insulting too. Yet it's not as though I don't completely understand why it was done.

I wonder if both Brian and Scott really thought that Scott would beat the charge. If Brian and Melinda had an inkling that it was probable that Scott was gonna be found guilty in a few months, I wonder if Scott would have been part of a video filmed for future release.

Please explain how it is insulting? Do you really want Brian to continue to be associated with Scott? In hindsight, it is incredible that he was allowed to participate in this session. Whose call was that?

I can only think that they did not know the facts, and that they were presuming innocence until proven guilty.  Maybe they talked to his lawyer, and the lawyer told them that the plaintiff had no case.

[CenturyDeprived]

Oops. A certain ex-keyboardist lurking in the background in that one.

Is that Probyn wearing a cap playing guitar btw?

Looks like Probyn, yes.

As for Bennett, it's hard to say for sure, but it kind of looks like they've purposely put the few distant shots of him out of focus in post production. Not sure why that would be easier than just cropping the footage or editing it without any shots of him if that was the goal.

Ouch. That is really awkward. I'd be lying if I didn't say it wasn't insulting too. Yet it's not as though I don't completely understand why it was done.

I wonder if both Brian and Scott really thought that Scott would beat the charge. If Brian and Melinda had an inkling that it was probable that Scott was gonna be found guilty in a few months, I wonder if Scott would have been part of a video filmed for future release.

Please explain how it is insulting? Do you really want Brian to continue to be associated with Scott? In hindsight, it is incredible that he was allowed to participate in this session. Whose call was that?

No, I think you're missing my point. I think it's completely understandable that Scott has no more association with Brian's band. Of course; for one, he's incarcerated, and for two, he's been convicted of something awful. I just don't like the idea of rewriting history and pretending that a band member wasn't present at a prexisting session by blurring their face. It insults the viewer's intelligence, and like it or not, it insults a person who contributed to the session, even if that person did an unrelated terrible thing.  I totally, completely get why it was done, I think it was probably unavoidable - but the manner in which it was done is just plain weird. I similarly think it's incredible that he was allowed to participate at this session, and I would tend to think that Brian felt loyal to a longtime friend who was only charged, but not at that point convicted of a crime. I agree with HeyJude that it would be less obvious, less conspicuous if he was just cut around instead of blurred out, if the idea was that they can never show Scott on tape again on a Brian Wilson product. The next logical step would be to re-record all of Scott's parts on TLOS and then re-release that album with his name removed.  It would be better comparatively speaking if that album were just not re-released at all.

[HeyJude]

I think they did whatever they could in post-production and ended up striking a balance, one could at least try to argue, by not literally scrubbing Bennett from the footage but just making it look like shots of him aren't in focus.

The "out of focus" effect isn't awful; I would venture to guess that nobody much would have noticed or cared had Bennett's story not unfolded. The didn't blur his face like an episode of "Cops" or something. I've actually never seen an artificial out of focus background before. It probably would even be a pretty believable effect, but, even though I'm no expert I photography, there are some bits where it doesn't seem realistic that only one portion of the background is out of focus but not the rest.

It probably would have worked better in a two-man shot, with just Brian up front and Bennet behind him. But one of the Bennett shots has Al in the foreground, then Brian further back, and then Bennett way in the back, and that's where the "out of focus" thing seems most obviously wonky.

Bennett is all over numerous Brian (and Beach Boys via C50) products including videos, so I would imagine that's one of the reasons they ended up striking the balance they did; not removing him but just taking him out of focus.

As for why Bennett was at the session in the first place, I would assume as I've said before that Brian and his operation didn't know much of the details of the case beyond Bennett proclaiming his innocence. As I also said awhile back, both the prosecution and Bennett's defense would likely not want to disclose any more details about the case prior to trial than they absolutely had to.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think they did whatever they could in post-production and ended up striking a balance, one could at least try to argue, by not literally scrubbing Bennett from the footage but just making it look like shots of him aren't in focus.

The "out of focus" effect isn't awful; I would venture to guess that nobody much would have noticed or cared had Bennett's story not unfolded. The didn't blur his face like an episode of "Cops" or something. I've actually never seen an artificial out of focus background before. It probably would even be a pretty believable effect, but, even though I'm no expert I photography, there are some bits where it doesn't seem realistic that only one portion of the background is out of focus but not the rest.

It probably would have worked better in a two-man shot, with just Brian up front and Bennet behind him. But one of the Bennett shots has Al in the foreground, then Brian further back, and then Bennett way in the back, and that's where the "out of focus" thing seems most obviously wonky.

Bennett is all over numerous Brian (and Beach Boys via C50) products including videos, so I would imagine that's one of the reasons they ended up striking the balance they did; not removing him but just taking him out of focus.

As for why Bennett was at the session in the first place, I would assume as I've said before that Brian and his operation didn't know much of the details of the case beyond Bennett proclaiming his innocence. As I also said awhile back, both the prosecution and Bennett's defense would likely not want to disclose any more details about the case prior to trial than they absolutely had to.

All good points. It's possible that the blurring, even though it strikes me as clunky in its execution, was an attempt to rewrite history less compared to just cutting around him completely.

[Marty Castillo]

I would assume that Scott was there for Sloop John B, but they had enough other shots that they could effectively edit him out. It appears the angle they had for Matt on WIBN almost exclusively had Scott in it. There is no way they would release these videos with Scott prominently featured--call it rewriting history, but I prefer to have this historical document than leaving it in the archives.

I personally feel this could have been avoided. It was obviously known what charges Scott would be on trial for, even if he had been acquitted this wouldn't have been a good look. If Brian wasn't willing to boot him, someone on his team should have taken care of this.

[HeyJude]

Apart from just editing him out (which I'm really curious why they didn't do, none of the shows including him in the background are integral; they could have just cutaway to Nelson or Gary or whomever), I think they would be damned if they do or don't. Had the not blurred him, someone at some point would have said "Can you believe they included him?"

Maybe I'm just conditioned by the supposed/alleged literal digital erasure of Joe Thomas and Steve Dahl for the "On Tour" DVD years ago, so a (semi) subtle blurring effect seems less drastic. Bennett is still there in the footage, and anybody that knows what he looks like can tell it's him. He's just out of focus.

[HeyJude]

I would assume that Scott was there for Sloop John B, but they had enough other shots that they could effectively edit him out. It appears the angle they had for Matt on WIBN almost exclusively had Scott in it. There is no way they would release these videos with Scott prominently featured--call it rewriting history, but I prefer to have this historical document than leaving it in the archives.

Keep in mind again that, at least according to some Facebook posts from Al and/or Brian, this sessions was for Spotify. I think they were doing mainly an audio deal here that also just happened to be captured on video. Unless Spotify releases video of the entire thing, I would guess we'll probably just get a few video clips via Vevo, and then the full thing in audio form on Spotify. I haven't used Spotify much, so I don't know how much (if any) video content they do.

[CenturyDeprived]

It was obviously known what charges Scott would be on trial for, even if he had been acquitted this wouldn't have been a good look. If Brian wasn't willing to boot him, someone on his team should have taken care of this.

That's a dangerous road to go down, where a person is fired just for being accused and not yet convicted of a crime. Think for a moment of the broad implications of that. Can an employer even do that legally (let alone ethically)? I agree that it was a risky proposition to keep him in the band with this issue (and was certainly not a small one) looming.

[Marty Castillo]

It was obviously known what charges Scott would be on trial for, even if he had been acquitted this wouldn't have been a good look. If Brian wasn't willing to boot him, someone on his team should have taken care of this.

That's a dangerous road to go down, where a person is fired just for being accused and not yet convicted of a crime. Think for a moment of the broad implications of that. Can an employee even do that legally (let alone ethically)? I agree that it was a risky proposition to keep him in the band with this issue (and was certainly not a small one) looming.

I'll admit I was a little vague with my wording of "boot him", but you're telling me they couldn't suspend him with pay?

[HeyJude]

It was obviously known what charges Scott would be on trial for, even if he had been acquitted this wouldn't have been a good look. If Brian wasn't willing to boot him, someone on his team should have taken care of this.

That's a dangerous road to go down, where a person is fired just for being accused and not yet convicted of a crime. Think for a moment of the broad implications of that. Can an employee even do that legally (let alone ethically)? I agree that it was a risky proposition to keep him in the band with this issue (and was certainly not a small one) looming.

This veers into off-topic territory I suppose, but I would imagine the people in Brian's band are essentially "contractors" rather than employees, and are paid on a project-by-project (and show by show or tour by tour) basis. In most cases, nobody has to be fired, they are simply not called up again for the next project.

California is an at-will employment state anyway. I suppose if they did have an "employer-employee" relationship, and they called Bennett in and said "We're firing you because you've been charged with a crime", then that might be actionable.

But if they just didn't call him back in, or told him they were just making a musical change in the band, that's part of the at-will concept.

But again, I'm guessing the band members weren't/aren't employees, but rather are contractors. Some independent contractors have made moves to get some of the benefits and status of actual employees for companies, with mixed results I would guess.

If they had already paid him for a project he ultimately was not allowed to do, they would probably have to go ahead an pay him anyway. But I think in Bennett's case, regardless of who thought what about his case, it was known that, I believe, he was prohibited from international travel leading up to his trial while out on bail, so they knew ahead of time that he wouldn't be making the first legs of the tour anyway.

[Lonely Summer]

If I had been Bennett's friend, I would have thought the charges against him were bogus, unless I had witnessed similar situations myself. Friends tend to be loyal to each other. I'm sure Scott told Brian and whoever that the charges were made up, and that he would beat them (the charges, not Brian or his bandmates  ). It's an uncomfortable thing for everyone involved, and it sucks that Scott chose to throw away his friendships and his music career the way he did. But are we going to rewrite history and pretend he never existed? I suppose they can do what they did with Landy - reissue TLOS with all credits to SB removed. I dunno, it's not my call to make. I just hope that somewhere down inside himself, Bennett recognizes what he did was wrong, and can be rehabilitated.

[acedecade75]

Has he actually been sentenced yet?

[HeyJude]

Has he actually been sentenced yet?

I think the articles mentioned that would happen on June 14th.

[HeyJude]

I know some people, not without some justification, are curious how much Brian and his operation knew about the Bennett case up until the point he was still playing in the band prior to the trial.

But I'd say even if you look at it from a rather cynical, PR point of view, I think it's pretty likely that they didn't know any of those sordid, awful details of the case. They probably didn't learn those details (e.g. anything other than the charges and whatever Bennett told them) until we all learned of them due to the court record and the articles posted recounting bits and pieces of the case.

If they were even inclined to blur him after the fact, it tells me that they wouldn't have kept him on had they known all of those details back X number of months ago.

Just my guess/opinion.

[CenturyDeprived]

It was obviously known what charges Scott would be on trial for, even if he had been acquitted this wouldn't have been a good look. If Brian wasn't willing to boot him, someone on his team should have taken care of this.

That's a dangerous road to go down, where a person is fired just for being accused and not yet convicted of a crime. Think for a moment of the broad implications of that. Can an employee even do that legally (let alone ethically)? I agree that it was a risky proposition to keep him in the band with this issue (and was certainly not a small one) looming.

I'll admit I was a little vague with my wording of "boot him", but you're telling me they couldn't suspend him with pay?

I guess that could have been an option. It's all very strange, but at the end of the day, I can have some admiration for Brian being a loyal friend during the time when nobody was yet convicted of a crime. Even if in hindsight at this point it might be regrettable, the innocent before proven guilty thing is an important distinction. Still, I doubt that same level loyalty would have happened for a shorter term member of the band, and I would tend to imagine it would speak to Brian and Scott likely having had a solid friendship, beyond just being bandmates, for many years.

[Pretty Funky]

Has he actually been sentenced yet?

I think the articles mentioned that would happen on June 14th.

Going off topic and remove if thought to be the case but in light of the Stanford case and the criticism of that sentence I await with interest. Some similarities in both.

[Emily]

From California Labor Code section 432.7:
"...nor shall any employer seek from any
source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any
condition of employment including hiring, promotion, termination, or
any apprenticeship training program or any other training program
leading to employment, any record of arrest or detention that did not
result in conviction..."

http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/432.7.html

[Marty Castillo]

From California Labor Code section 432.7:
"...nor shall any employer seek from any
source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any
condition of employment including hiring, promotion, termination, or
any apprenticeship training program or any other training program
leading to employment, any record of arrest or detention that did not
result in conviction..."

http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/432.7.html

So, that would preclude Brian from suspending him with pay?

[Emily]

From California Labor Code section 432.7:
"...nor shall any employer seek from any
source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any
condition of employment including hiring, promotion, termination, or
any apprenticeship training program or any other training program
leading to employment, any record of arrest or detention that did not
result in conviction..."

http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/432.7.html

So, that would preclude Brian from suspending him with pay?

Yeah. Without a conviction, it's not legal for an employer to change the employee's status in any way in response to an arrest (in California).

[CenturyDeprived]

From California Labor Code section 432.7:
"...nor shall any employer seek from any
source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any
condition of employment including hiring, promotion, termination, or
any apprenticeship training program or any other training program
leading to employment, any record of arrest or detention that did not
result in conviction..."

http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/432.7.html

So, that would preclude Brian from suspending him with pay?

Yeah. Without a conviction, it's not legal for an employer to change the employee's status in any way in response to an arrest (in California).

And let's face it. That's a good protection for citizens to have, even if it's imperfect at times.

[HeyJude]

But again, let's keep in mind the guys in Brian's band are probably contracted for each project; they likely aren't employees of BriMel or whatever entity pays them. They aren't kept on retainer most likely.

[Emily]

And let's face it. That's a good protection for citizens to have, even if it's imperfect at times.

Absolutely.

But again, let's keep in mind the guys in Brian's band are probably contracted for each project; they likely aren't employees of BriMel or whatever entity pays them. They aren't kept on retainer most likely.

It's not so clear. If something went to court, the court doesn't care particularly whether the people considered themselves contractors or were paid like contractors; they care what the actual relationship was determined by an "economic realities" test, the main consideration being "whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed,"
Other factors considered:
•1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;
•2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
•3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
•4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
•5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
•6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
•7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
•8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
•9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
•10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
•11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.

So, it could go either way, with some projects leaning more one way and some the other. I'd think touring would lean more toward "employee" while recording more toward "contractor" but it really would end up determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis, if it actually had come down to that.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

But, you're quite right that since they are likely hiring by project, once one project is done, it's easy not to hire for the next.