The Observer: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’

[Fire Wind]

I don't understand.  I don't use PMs, but figured people bitching in them about other people is par for the course.

[CenturyDeprived]

It's high time we get back to talking about why the article sucks.

[Emily]

Please stop.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologise for any offence caused to anyone.

I'm genuine.

That's my last word on the matter.

I hope everyone can move on and I can continue to post here if I see fit.

I did speak to Emily, she called the number I posted. I agreed with her I wouldnt post here for a month unless I saw myself being besmirched. Well, I lasted nearly 3 hours. But I will go back to that initial agreement.

Again, my heartfelt apologies to anyone who may have been hurt or offended by my comments in this thread.

Iain, what are you apologizing for?? You haven't done a single thing wrong - only a complete and utter moron wouldn't be able to see that OregonRiverRider was deliberately trying to get a rise out of you, as he does with many posters on here (in your case, I suspect it's jealousy on his part because you've had published articles in popular music magazines and he's consigned to making incoherent ranty comments on here, seemingly 24/7).

I don't really understand why the moderators are siding with such a twerp and being so blatantly wrongheaded in their arguments - I mean, of course posters complain about OregonRiverRider to one another in private messages! He comes on here and behaves like an absolute tool, makes no sense, spoils it for everyone else, and gets away with it - what else do they possibly expect?? (This was an interesting and fun thread until he appeared and made that needlessly bitchy comment about you.)

It's precisely because of people like him that I stopped visiting this site myself about six months ago - I've only just recently returned but I doubt I'll be coming back here again...

P.S. The Record Collector article was great - didn't agree with everything you said (so what?), but a lot of it had me nodding in agreement and it was great fun to read. Look forward to something similar soon

7 days. I wasn't playing

[Emily]

Please stop. <-- aimed at Disney Boy, not CD or Fire Wind.

[guitarfool2002]

Both parties have had their say, more information was revealed and clarified, more of what actually happened versus the innuendo was posted, and the discussions about the article will return while the discussions about the PM issues and the like can and will be continued in the sandbox threads.

[Rob Dean]

I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologise for any offence caused to anyone.

I'm genuine.

That's my last word on the matter.

I hope everyone can move on and I can continue to post here if I see fit.

I did speak to Emily, she called the number I posted. I agreed with her I wouldnt post here for a month unless I saw myself being besmirched. Well, I lasted nearly 3 hours. But I will go back to that initial agreement.

Again, my heartfelt apologies to anyone who may have been hurt or offended by my comments in this thread.

Very noble of you Iain (yes mate  ), even though you didn't need to (olive branch and all that) - Love from Cider Land

NOW back on topic anyone ?

[18thofMay]

Look I have to comment.
When I first read Ian's comment, my perception was that it was a passive aggressive comment designed to rile or re-ignite feelings. He has since apologized, but that's normally what passive aggressive people do.
Above all like I have stated before so many times, I would like to know why?
Why people feel compelled to go to such lengths to inflame or defame. I have asked this before, what is at your center? What drives you to do such things?
To make grandiose statements about the death of a forum, to even put out an article that relies on fictional interpretations of fact to be divisive is a reflection on ones self.

[The Shift]

Been away for a few days and just spent an hour if my life reading this thread, catching up.

What a waste of an hour.

Seems the board is becoming more and more about the "fans", the feuding fans, rather than the music and the band. Everyone piling in, mods and posters alike… Emily, in the absence of moderation, on the phone trying to moderate the unmoderatable… rare sensible posts earning their author a seven-day timeout, more innuendo about PMs and who said what and who called who a smelly pig…

No wonder lots of good folk are dissuaded from posting here.

And just for the sake of being on topic, I read the article in question. Some good points, some dismissible points. Nothing to warrant burning The Observer in the street as one poster seemed to be suggesting. The world's still turning… and fer fex's sake, this is all about a pop group. Some folk need a sense of perspective.

Night night.

[guitarfool2002]

Been away for a few days and just spent an hour if my life reading this thread, catching up.

What a waste of an hour.

Seems the board is becoming more and more about the "fans", the feuding fans, rather than the music and the band. Everyone piling in, mods and posters alike… Emily, in the absence of moderation, on the phone trying to moderate the unmoderatable… rare sensible posts earning their author a seven-day timeout, more innuendo about PMs and who said what and who called who a smelly pig…

No wonder lots of good folk are dissuaded from posting here.

And just for the sake of being on topic, I read the article in question. Some good points, some dismissible points. Nothing to warrant burning The Observer in the street as one poster seemed to be suggesting. The world's still turning… and fer fex's sake, this is all about a pop group. Some folk need a sense of perspective.

Night night.

Goodnight, John.

The article was a travesty.

[RangeRoverA1]

Mr. Manning, what Disney Boy (1985) said is anything but "sensible" post. Nobody forced Mr. Lee to apologize, he had an option not to. DB's post is uber-emotional overreaction which didn't help any. What he doesn't understand is that people didn't merely complain about OregonRiverRider - his private information was passed and, as I read it, lies about some of it. It's not OK.

Let's not feel bad for his ban. Your post about moderators not doing their job should be in the Sandbox thread. Not sure why you raise it here.

[The Shift]

Mr. Manning, what Disney Boy (1985) said is anything but "sensible" post. Nobody forced Mr. Lee to apologize, he had an option not to. DB's post is uber-emotional overreaction which didn't help any. What he doesn't understand is that people didn't merely complain about OregonRiverRider - his private information was passed and, as I read it, lies about some of it. It's not OK.

Let's not feel bad for his ban. Your post about moderators not doing their job should be in the Sandbox thread. Not sure why you raise it here.

Well, I mentioned it here cos "here" is where that particular conversation has been taking place for a while now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other matters. I've missed ORR's beef about what went on in PMs and have no wish to know - or to attempt to second-guess - the detail.

[guitarfool2002]

Mr. Manning, what Disney Boy (1985) said is anything but "sensible" post. Nobody forced Mr. Lee to apologize, he had an option not to. DB's post is uber-emotional overreaction which didn't help any. What he doesn't understand is that people didn't merely complain about OregonRiverRider - his private information was passed and, as I read it, lies about some of it. It's not OK.

Let's not feel bad for his ban. Your post about moderators not doing their job should be in the Sandbox thread. Not sure why you raise it here.

Well, I mentioned it here cos "here" is where that particular conversation has been taking place for a while now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other matters. I've missed ORR's beef about what went on in PMs and have no wish to know - or to attempt to second-guess - the detail.

She called you on it, John. Maybe taking the time to read what happened - i.e. the "beef" - prior to passing judgement especially considering someone you know behaved very badly in the course of whole thing, and the details are anything but positive.

Might be time to discuss the article, perhaps?

[Lee Marshall]

And yet another thread gets kidnapped, sabotaged, waylaid, overturned, pee'd on, ruined and turned into a bitching festival.    And this one starring those of us who haven't gone off to exclusively post at the new 'shop' on the block.  The topic article is a piece of crap.  It's sadly weighted down with enough bullshit to re-float the Titanic.  And as 'some' don't want it to be analyzed and discredited for being exactly what it isn't...ie: it isn't worthy of any thinking person's further attention...the thread takes a mangling as some kind of weak-assed retribution by a scant few with a shallow yet transparent agenda.

Anyone with a nose can see that.  The stench being all one needs to read between the lines.  So quit the tom-foolery.  Mike's minions...YOU have failed yet again.  The truth floats highest and it does so with dignity.

[Debbie KL]

Discussing the article - yes, what a concept.  

What's highly amusing is that that the well-known flame-thrower sent in to disrupt the thread is made out as the victim.

What else is new?

The article is spin, aiming to get clicks to promote it.  It has nothing to do with what really happened.  Some eyewitnesses are still alive to state the obvious.  Brian was the musical genius behind the BBs.  The "licensed" BBs perform Brian's songs every night.  Show me one performance where his music isn't used.  Then tell me how he isn't essential to the BBs brand.

Just saw your post AddSome - also quite on topic and accurate.

[Jonathan Blum]

By complete chance, I randomly just happened to notice that this garbage article is now trending on the main page of Yahoo:



How does that even happen?

For what it's worth, "trending" articles are usually skewed towards things in your search history.  Me, I just did a completely clean search on yahoo.com and yahoo.co.uk (which I never use, so no history), and there wasn't any sign of that article.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[Lonely Summer]

Mr. Sommer's next piece of brilliantly blazing insight will be titled, "For the  My Love of Laine : It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Paul McCartney’ = How Denny Lane enabled Wings to reach great commercial and creative heights while McCartney's use of the reefer madness made him a shadow of his former self!  Intro by Mr. Ian Lee

No it won't, because nobody is trumpeting Laine's contributions to Wings. Macca won't even mention his name these days. Notice that in the Macca Archive Series, there haven't been any bonus tracks sung by or written by Laine or Jimmy McCulloch, or any other Wingsmen. It's not a popular opinion, but I think those guys are seriously underrated. Of course everybody knows who the bandleader was, the guy writing and singing most of the songs; back in the day, Paul always emphasized that Wings was a band; now they're treated as just part of his solo career.

[Emily]

Look I have to comment.
When I first read Ian's comment, my perception was that it was a passive aggressive comment designed to rile or re-ignite feelings. He has since apologized, but that's normally what passive aggressive people do.
Above all like I have stated before so many times, I would like to know why?
Why people feel compelled to go to such lengths to inflame or defame. I have asked this before, what is at your center? What drives you to do such things?
To make grandiose statements about the death of a forum, to even put out an article that relies on fictional interpretations of fact to be divisive is a reflection on ones self.

I feel I have to comment too. I had a very annoying time trying to get things to cool down - to get everyone to go to their corner and stop. I failed; maybe I shouldn't have tried, I don't know. But, I started with Iain Lee mainly because he was bringing up the PMs which are such a hot button issue. When he posted his number, I gave it a shot. I think when he posted his initial post, he did intend to stir a bit. But I think he honestly was unaware of the whole deal of what's been going on here. When I explained to him that there's been a board fracture and a lot of beyond-usual conflict and that I felt that it's a good time to let things settle down, he was entirely amenable to that and said he would not post here for a bit, because he understands that his posts might conflict with some resident views at a time when conflict is particularly heated. He did have the caveat, that I completely understand, that if he felt maligned he'd come back and defend himself.
Then there was a bit of discussing him in which he did not defend himself. Then he came on and apologized.
Can we take him at his word? I do.

[18thofMay]

Look I have to comment.
When I first read Ian's comment, my perception was that it was a passive aggressive comment designed to rile or re-ignite feelings. He has since apologized, but that's normally what passive aggressive people do.
Above all like I have stated before so many times, I would like to know why?
Why people feel compelled to go to such lengths to inflame or defame. I have asked this before, what is at your center? What drives you to do such things?
To make grandiose statements about the death of a forum, to even put out an article that relies on fictional interpretations of fact to be divisive is a reflection on ones self.

I feel I have to comment too. I had a very annoying time trying to get things to cool down - to get everyone to go to their corner and stop. I failed; maybe I shouldn't have tried, I don't know. But, I started with Iain Lee mainly because he was bringing up the PMs which are such a hot button issue. When he posted his number, I gave it a shot. I think when he posted his initial post, he did intend to stir a bit. But I think he honestly was unaware of the whole deal of what's been going on here. When I explained to him that there's been a board fracture and a lot of beyond-usual conflict and that I felt that it's a good time to let things settle down, he was entirely amenable to that and said he would not post here for a bit, because he understands that his posts might conflict with some resident views at a time when conflict is particularly heated. He did have the caveat, that I completely understand, that if he felt maligned he'd come back and defend himself.
Then there was a bit of discussing him in which he did not defend himself. Then he came on and apologized.
Can we take him at his word? I do.

I respect your decision to do so. But I cannot except that the initial post by Ian was not outcomes based. The response was already known it was laid to bare in the frustrations of previous posters whom had vented their displeasure at the original article.
I am not a unreasonable guy, I have been dragged into some things by posters here and remained fairly reasoned and understanding of why people do things. But above all I want to know why? I have seen people I know both on here and personally change and I cannot understand why? It actually upsets me to the point I can't even bring myself to ask why. From a relative outsider to the PM/agenda issue it is pretty clear to me that there is some type of undercurrent that is driving some current/former posters and I can't understand why? When someone has a vehicle like an online blog or other online platform it creates an issue when historical events are re-touched to suit or generate a perception of said historical events. This is dangerous and sets a new precedence that only those at the very core of the issue can answer. Why are they doing this? What do they seek to destroy? This is only a Beach Boys Message Board and its our board not Mikes nor Brian's.

[Smilin Ed H]

"There’s every bit of evidence that a Brian-less Beach Boys could have been a joyous and logical continuation of the band’s ideals and aural achievements.

Personally, I would argue that post-SMiLE, Brian Wilson wasn’t just a shadow of himself, but less than a shadow; the most Brian-driven of the post-SMiLE albums, The Beach Boys Love You, is bizarre and psychologically fascinating, but the people who insist that it’s a great album are like those who scan those tepid and twisted Alex Chilton solo albums for Big Star-esque greatness. It ain’t there, bubbelah; go back and listen without trying really, really hard to like it."

1, Brian was more involved in those post Smile albums than people once thought - at least up to a point.
2. One aspect of the legend that could be done away with is the one about Brian being in bed for X years.There may have been spells, but it's not quite like the song.
3. When the sh*t does hit the fan for the BB (Murry's death, anyone), it affects all of them. The output of the allegedly Brian-less band after the live album cannot compare with the riches of 67-73 and that includes music by Mike, who may well be the greatest human being the author has ever met - though I suspect he needs to get out more). In fact, Love You aside (yeah, I'm one of the fans), Brian's contributions often aren't up to much either.
4. I don't think the author has much of an understanding of the BB's post-Brian output. I've seen Mike and Bruce and really enjoyed their show and I would advise anyone who hasn't, to go see them, but he's kidding himself if he thinks that post 73 output is that good. Looking back, the huge mistake was not to take more of a leaf out of Dennis' book - he should have been elevated to main songwriter.

You can always come over to the other borad, Iain.

[HeyJude]

From the author's comments on Facebook:

Thanks for weighing in, Jack Rabid, and I always respect your viewpoint. The only thing I'll say is that you should give the current Beach Boys another chance; go see them and get back to me. My piece was largely based (and inspired by) my assessment that the current band is far better than they are given credit for, and that there's something very sad about the current Brian touring experience.



Regardless of his views of the current bands, how does that support what he wrote in the article?

This supports my hunch that the guy started with defending Mike's current iteration/band, and then went from there. A "give Mike's band a chance" article could be an interesting, thoughtful piece (although again a bit unneeded, requiring a straw man), acknowledging the issues/gripes some hardcore fans have with the context of Mike's tour, while touting the musical quality of Mike's band.

I also agree with what someone else said, that one of the guy's problems is an apparent lack of actual familiarity with the band's latter-day output. That includes the output from the other guys. The author isn't exactly highlighting that the one "Brian-less" album the band did in 1992 was by most measures their most UNSUCCESSFUL album of their career.

[guitarfool2002]

Apart from the issues of accuracy or the way opinions were stated, it seemed to me a lot of the background that fans might read into surrounding this article is how the author basically did the same thing last summer with another article that got mostly negative reactions, if not outright hostility. As Yogi Berra said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Look at the timing. Last summer Brian Wilson was about a month or two into a tour of the US, his new album had just come out in the spring, and Love And Mercy was in theaters and getting positive reviews. People outside the hardcore fans like those on this board and others were talking about Brian Wilson and his music again.

Then that article showed up, with almost the same focus. many fans who commented also seemed to feel it was an article to boost Mike and his touring band's profile, by what fans thought was trying to knock Brian Wilson down a few pegs. What are the terms..."set the record straight", "put things into perspective", etc?

Now almost a year later, Brian is again getting press coverage with the Pet Sounds tour, and the *same* author shows up yet again, with what looks like the same template for another article: Try to give readers points on why Brian Wilson should be knocked down a few pegs in terms of his reputation and legacy, and get in a few plugs and praise for Mike and his touring band.

Deja vu, all over again. Even if there is the slightest chance it is pure coincidence, if people look at the timing of both articles, they would at least raise an eyebrow and think it's odd for history to repeat itself with close to the same results.

[CenturyDeprived]

Apart from the issues of accuracy or the way opinions were stated, it seemed to me a lot of the background that fans might read into surrounding this article is how the author basically did the same thing last summer with another article that got mostly negative reactions, if not outright hostility. As Yogi Berra said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Look at the timing. Last summer Brian Wilson was about a month or two into a tour of the US, his new album had just come out in the spring, and Love And Mercy was in theaters and getting positive reviews. People outside the hardcore fans like those on this board and others were talking about Brian Wilson and his music again.

Then that article showed up, with almost the same focus. many fans who commented also seemed to feel it was an article to boost Mike and his touring band's profile, by what fans thought was trying to knock Brian Wilson down a few pegs. What are the terms..."set the record straight", "put things into perspective", etc?

Now almost a year later, Brian is again getting press coverage with the Pet Sounds tour, and the *same* author shows up yet again, with what looks like the same template for another article: Try to give readers points on why Brian Wilson should be knocked down a few pegs in terms of his reputation and legacy, and get in a few plugs and praise for Mike and his touring band.

Deja vu, all over again. Even if there is the slightest chance it is pure coincidence, if people look at the timing of both articles, they would at least raise an eyebrow and think it's odd for history to repeat itself with close to the same results.

I've yet to hear even any of Mike's biggest apologists respond to the question of what they would think Mike's opinion of the new article might be, and if it seems logical that he'd be anything but pleased by its existence. 

[Emily]

Apart from the issues of accuracy or the way opinions were stated, it seemed to me a lot of the background that fans might read into surrounding this article is how the author basically did the same thing last summer with another article that got mostly negative reactions, if not outright hostility. As Yogi Berra said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Look at the timing. Last summer Brian Wilson was about a month or two into a tour of the US, his new album had just come out in the spring, and Love And Mercy was in theaters and getting positive reviews. People outside the hardcore fans like those on this board and others were talking about Brian Wilson and his music again.

Then that article showed up, with almost the same focus. many fans who commented also seemed to feel it was an article to boost Mike and his touring band's profile, by what fans thought was trying to knock Brian Wilson down a few pegs. What are the terms..."set the record straight", "put things into perspective", etc?

Now almost a year later, Brian is again getting press coverage with the Pet Sounds tour, and the *same* author shows up yet again, with what looks like the same template for another article: Try to give readers points on why Brian Wilson should be knocked down a few pegs in terms of his reputation and legacy, and get in a few plugs and praise for Mike and his touring band.

Deja vu, all over again. Even if there is the slightest chance it is pure coincidence, if people look at the timing of both articles, they would at least raise an eyebrow and think it's odd for history to repeat itself with close to the same results.

I've yet to hear even any of Mike's biggest apologists respond to the question of what they would think Mike's opinion of the new article might be, and if it seems logical that he'd be anything but pleased by its existence. 

Please don't bait or create controversy for a month or so. Please.

[guitarfool2002]

Apart from the issues of accuracy or the way opinions were stated, it seemed to me a lot of the background that fans might read into surrounding this article is how the author basically did the same thing last summer with another article that got mostly negative reactions, if not outright hostility. As Yogi Berra said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Look at the timing. Last summer Brian Wilson was about a month or two into a tour of the US, his new album had just come out in the spring, and Love And Mercy was in theaters and getting positive reviews. People outside the hardcore fans like those on this board and others were talking about Brian Wilson and his music again.

Then that article showed up, with almost the same focus. many fans who commented also seemed to feel it was an article to boost Mike and his touring band's profile, by what fans thought was trying to knock Brian Wilson down a few pegs. What are the terms..."set the record straight", "put things into perspective", etc?

Now almost a year later, Brian is again getting press coverage with the Pet Sounds tour, and the *same* author shows up yet again, with what looks like the same template for another article: Try to give readers points on why Brian Wilson should be knocked down a few pegs in terms of his reputation and legacy, and get in a few plugs and praise for Mike and his touring band.

Deja vu, all over again. Even if there is the slightest chance it is pure coincidence, if people look at the timing of both articles, they would at least raise an eyebrow and think it's odd for history to repeat itself with close to the same results.

I've yet to hear even any of Mike's biggest apologists respond to the question of what they would think Mike's opinion of the new article might be, and if it seems logical that he'd be anything but pleased by its existence. 

Please don't bait or create controversy for a month or so. Please.

I wish such an appeal had been made to the article's author both last summer and before publishing his more recent screed. fans can react however they please, that's what the forum is for.