The Beach Boys Wild Honey(Sunshine Tomorrow) 2CD Set?

[Bicyclerider]

1. That many fans care about this (or any BBs) CD's chart is really puzzling. I don't understand what big importance there is if it's sitting at #97, #3, #12 etc.
2. Reply to CenturyDeprived - forgive me saying this but your point about 50th T-LB murder Anniversary is absolutely stupid. 1st, it's done deal & very ancient case. Then, generally, the hypersensitive attitude by some of you about Manson connection baffled me since I read related posts. Why do we care if 1) BBs didn't kill these celebs 2) they recorded NLNTL before the murders Edit: 3) BBs track differs from Manson's demo. Therefore, there shouldn't be even question or point made about 20/20 Anniversary coinciding with murders' 50 jubilee. So what if it does? It wouldn't do BBs reputation any bad.

The Manson Connection has probably helped the BBs reputation with certain types of folks!  Not saying that it should, but, it is almost always mentioned in media discussions of Dennis and the Boys circa this time period....

At a time when their musical output was being ignored commercially and they were out of favor and out of style with the rock world, the unusual Manson connection provides them with some "edge" and  collaterally connects them to the more violent and dark underbelly of the aftermath of the "love generation."  That PR angle may make this period more of interest to music fans who are unfamiliar with it.

[CenturyDeprived]

Anyway, crossing my fingers that we'll get more in the future. I absolutely REALLY feel we'll get a Sunflower deluxe release, since that's widely regarded by critics and fans as a solid contender for arguably the best BB album after Pet Sounds. (Tears in the Morning excepted!)

Buy more than one copy! Get a gift for a BB nut or two!

Plan to do just that, buying several copies in fact!  However don't get the slam on Tears in the Morning?  Could you be more specific about what you don't like about the track?  To me it is one of the highlights of the disk.
[/quote]

I don't completely hate Tears in the Morning, I just find it a bit cheesy and kinda meh on the whole. I don't have to run to my player to skip it, but it's also not a track I'd ever really seek out to listen to on its own. Although the very end of the song from "I'm missing you..." on is pretty cool. I'd listen to Tears over Student Demonstration Time and When Girls Get Together.

[Don Malcolm]

Since we are on the topic of Redwood/Heider--despite a number of efforts from various posters to importune one of the moderators to just let it go (to little avail...)--I think we need to debunk a myth that keeps cropping up whenever the discussion of that event resurfaces.

What myth is that? The myth that Brother would have made a fortune with Redwood. This is a retrospective illusion that began with a questionable assertion by David Leaf back in the 1980s and seems to live in the minds of folks who need to add more drama and irony to the BB story.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Brian Wilson would have been a commercially successful fit as producer for Redwood, and that the aborted efforts undertaken in 1967 were destined for huge chart success. Indeed, as a producer, Brian had no outside commercial success whatsoever. The assumption that Redwood (which underwent a series of stylistic changes in 1968 as they morphed into Three Dog Night) was going to storm the charts and make Brother a ton of money is just that--an unfounded and unprovable assumption.

It's based on the fact that Three Dog Night became a huge success from 1969-76. Somehow there is an assumption that because Three Dog Night, with its yodel-y version of Nilsson's "One" serving as springboard for success on AM radio, hit it big in 1969 that we can backtrack to 1967 with "Darlin'" and take it to the bank that their version of the song would have been a bigger hit than the BBs.

And then there's the underlying situation with Brother itself. Capitol was distributing Brother, and everyone was just coming out of a protracted set of disputes that in no way helped the band when their 1967 Brother releases appeared ("H&V" by far the best at #12, but considered by most to be a significant setback at the time; SMILEY SMILE taking a bath despite having "Good Vibrations" included; "Gettin' Hungry" sinking without a trace, and curiously marketed by Brother as "Brian & Mike").  What makes us think that the BBs had a business operation in place that could have provided the necessary support to a Redwood single in the fall of 1967? What makes us think that Capitol was particularly motivated to aggressively market anything that came from the Brother imprimatur? After all, it was summarily abandoned with the release of WILD HONEY.

I remember the first time David Leaf broached the idea that the BBs had had a incredibly ironic lost opportunity. That part made sense, but the idea that Brian was necessarily the right producer for Redwood/Three Dog Night--particularly based on the recordings they made in subsequent years--seemed like a total stretch at the time (1984-85) and that is still the case today. It's an exercise in needless myth-mongering for those who have some need to augment Brian's resumé when such is hardly necessary. In David's case, he was in the middle of advocating for Brian at record labels during this time, rewriting his book to cement the idea that Brian would be much better off going out on his own (a point that's hard to dispute, save for the identity of his "mentor" at the time...), and was caught up in the need to justify and accentuate Brian's importance in the commercial world of rock music (already moving into its "terminal" state in the mid-80s thanks to all the newly emergent technology).

It's a natural outgrowth of the times and the situation in which David was operating. It's also bad history.

We've all heard Redwood's work on "Time to Get Alone." Those of you who see it as a ticket to instant glory are clearly deluding yourself. The song is a very poor fit for those singers, who were clearly meant to do something significantly different stylistically than what the BBs were doing. (To get a better idea of this, go over to YouTube and listen to a track called "Mo-Jo Woman," a 1966 MGM single from The Enemys that features Danny Hutton and Cory Wells--this should make it clear how much of a stylistic stretch is being made given the natural predilections of the singers.)

Redwood was on the leading edge of a whole bunch of glorified bar bands, some of whom contained highly exploitable raw talent that fit with the commercial niches opening up at the end of the 60s, while others benefited from canny production and became big names (the Doobie Brothers and Ted Templemann, originally from Harpers Bizarre). Three Dog Night hit a giant sweet spot in that transition into the 70s, and they were great live due to the performance chops of the singers, but there was really precious little connective tissue between them and Brian Wilson (aside from his friendship with Danny Hutton) and it's really not that hard to play Devil's advocate and claim that Mike Love unwittingly did them a big favor when he went all territorial on Brian at Heider's.

Does that mean that Mike did the right thing in that moment? Of course not. But sometimes bad actions wind up having fortunate results. It's part of the complexity of life--and why it's ill-advised to make sweeping retrospective analogies and references that further distort what is already a complicated and opaque story.

[guitarfool2002]

Since we are on the topic of Redwood/Heider--despite a number of efforts from various posters to importune one of the moderators to just let it go (to little avail...)--I think we need to debunk a myth that keeps cropping up whenever the discussion of that event resurfaces.

What myth is that? The myth that Brother would have made a fortune with Redwood. This is a retrospective illusion that began with a questionable assertion by David Leaf back in the 1980s and seems to live in the minds of folks who need to add more drama and irony to the BB story.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Brian Wilson would have been a commercially successful fit as producer for Redwood, and that the aborted efforts undertaken in 1967 were destined for huge chart success. Indeed, as a producer, Brian had no outside commercial success whatsoever. The assumption that Redwood (which underwent a series of stylistic changes in 1968 as they morphed into Three Dog Night) was going to storm the charts and make Brother a ton of money is just that--an unfounded and unprovable assumption.

It's based on the fact that Three Dog Night became a huge success from 1969-76. Somehow there is an assumption that because Three Dog Night, with its yodel-y version of Nilsson's "One" serving as springboard for success on AM radio, hit it big in 1969 that we can backtrack to 1967 with "Darlin'" and take it to the bank that their version of the song would have been a bigger hit than the BBs.

And then there's the underlying situation with Brother itself. Capitol was distributing Brother, and everyone was just coming out of a protracted set of disputes that in no way helped the band when their 1967 Brother releases appeared ("H&V" by far the best at #12, but considered by most to be a significant setback at the time; SMILEY SMILE taking a bath despite having "Good Vibrations" included; "Gettin' Hungry" sinking without a trace, and curiously marketed by Brother as "Brian & Mike").  What makes us think that the BBs had a business operation in place that could have provided the necessary support to a Redwood single in the fall of 1967? What makes us think that Capitol was particularly motivated to aggressively market anything that came from the Brother imprimatur? After all, it was summarily abandoned with the release of WILD HONEY.

I remember the first time David Leaf broached the idea that the BBs had had a incredibly ironic lost opportunity. That part made sense, but the idea that Brian was necessarily the right producer for Redwood/Three Dog Night--particularly based on the recordings they made in subsequent years--seemed like a total stretch at the time (1984-85) and that is still the case today. It's an exercise in needless myth-mongering for those who have some need to augment Brian's resumé when such is hardly necessary. In David's case, he was in the middle of advocating for Brian at record labels during this time, rewriting his book to cement the idea that Brian would be much better off going out on his own (a point that's hard to dispute, save for the identity of his "mentor" at the time...), and was caught up in the need to justify and accentuate Brian's importance in the commercial world of rock music (already moving into its "terminal" state in the mid-80s thanks to all the newly emergent technology).

It's a natural outgrowth of the times and the situation in which David was operating. It's also bad history.

We've all heard Redwood's work on "Time to Get Alone." Those of you who see it as a ticket to instant glory are clearly deluding yourself. The song is a very poor fit for those singers, who were clearly meant to do something significantly different stylistically than what the BBs were doing. (To get a better idea of this, go over to YouTube and listen to a track called "Mo-Jo Woman," a 1966 MGM single from The Enemys that features Danny Hutton and Cory Wells--this should make it clear how much of a stylistic stretch is being made given the natural predilections of the singers.)

Redwood was on the leading edge of a whole bunch of glorified bar bands, some of whom contained highly exploitable raw talent that fit with the commercial niches opening up at the end of the 60s, while others benefited from canny production and became big names (the Doobie Brothers and Ted Templemann, originally from Harpers Bizarre). Three Dog Night hit a giant sweet spot in that transition into the 70s, and they were great live due to the performance chops of the singers, but there was really precious little connective tissue between them and Brian Wilson (aside from his friendship with Danny Hutton) and it's really not that hard to play Devil's advocate and claim that Mike Love unwittingly did them a big favor when he went all territorial on Brian at Heider's.

Does that mean that Mike did the right thing in that moment? Of course not. But sometimes bad actions wind up having fortunate results. It's part of the complexity of life--and why it's ill-advised to make sweeping retrospective analogies and references that further distort what is already a complicated and opaque story.

How is it any different from Decca and the Decca executives who infamously passed on signing the Beatles getting challenged and even mocked as the folks who let the Beatles slip through their fingers? Go back to the point in time when Decca sent that rejection memo, and was there an indication that the Beatles in the near future would become what they did after EMI took a chance on them and signed them to what was their "joke" label Parlophone at the time? Most fans have now heard the "Decca Audition" tapes, was there anything special on there that would indicate what would happen in 1963 with that band, factoring in as well the replacement of Pete Best on drums at literally the last minute before cutting tracks with EMI? The Decca audition tapes are nothing special, but the point is Decca could have had them and passed on them, in part because they felt guitar bands were not "in".

Their mistake. But it's the same what-if scenario that happened with Redwood. Only a few songs got worked on before the plug was pulled, and it was when Brother was just beginning to do what it was set up to do, which is sign and develop outside artists.

It's just like The Beatles and Decca, despite the eventual results being what they were, it hasn't prevented 50+ years of Decca getting hammered if not mocked for letting a goldmine slip away before it had a chance to develop. Of course, it all worked out for both The Beatles and Redwood, but the discussion is about having something in your hands that had the potential to generate a lot of income and letting it slip through their respective hands. Stories like that are everywhere, of the ones that got away which went on to huge success with other projects and entities.

But the issue I think of is how it felt within Brother and the band/organization as Three Dog Night became a massive success and just like Decca, the thought must have been "we had them and let them go". It's part of the history on those and all related cases.

I also know that the ubiquitous song "Happy" as sung by Pharrell Williams was slated to go to Cee-Lo Green, but for a variety of managerial and other reasons Cee-Lo did not cut the track. So Pharrell decided to cut it himself, and it became one of the most successful songs and singles of the past 5 years or so. Tell me Cee-Lo isn't upset or even sad about knowing he had that goldmine in his pocket too and it slipped away. Same thing. Would it have become as big of a hit as Pharrell had with it? Who knows - no one can know - that's pure speculation. But that's also not the point. It's about seeing the potential in something or even grabbing opportunities when they're presented. Redwood/Beatles/Cee-Lo - all versions of the same thing.

I'd also say short of hearing how Brian cut "Darlin" with Redwood, a great song is a great song and the case can be made in hypothesis just as strongly that a tight R&B flavored take on Darlin from Redwood may have done better than the BB's own take on it. But we'll never know. So we discuss and speculate as fans do.

Simple.

[guitarfool2002]

Since we are on the topic of Redwood/Heider--despite a number of efforts from various posters to importune one of the moderators to just let it go (to little avail...)--

Specifically addressed to you Don: I'll discuss the topic at hand, I enjoy doing so, but throwing this personal crap into the mix doesn't serve any purpose. So I'd invite a discussion on what is a relevant topic considering the material is being featured on the box set being discussed, but I'd ask that this other stuff be left out. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

We've all heard Redwood's work on "Time to Get Alone." Those of you who see it as a ticket to instant glory are clearly deluding yourself. The song is a very poor fit for those singers, who were clearly meant to do something significantly different stylistically than what the BBs were doing.

I have to agree with this.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

also know that the ubiquitous song "Happy" as sung by Pharrell Williams was slated to go to Cee-Lo Green, but for a variety of managerial and other reasons Cee-Lo did not cut the track. So Pharrell decided to cut it himself, and it became one of the most successful songs and singles of the past 5 years or so

It actually originally started as a collaboration between Pharrell and Scott Weiland; it's one of the reasons why Scott's 2nd solo album was called "Happy in Galoshes", with the "in galoshes" part in a completely different font.  Something "happened" and that version never made it to Scott's album; *then* Cee-Lo was next.  It was re-written in the mean-time, but was not the first time Williams and Scott worked together.

That's a story for another thread though, as now we're getting off topic

[SMiLE Brian]

GF bashing seems to be a hobby....

[guitarfool2002]

also know that the ubiquitous song "Happy" as sung by Pharrell Williams was slated to go to Cee-Lo Green, but for a variety of managerial and other reasons Cee-Lo did not cut the track. So Pharrell decided to cut it himself, and it became one of the most successful songs and singles of the past 5 years or so

It actually originally started as a collaboration between Pharrell and Scott Weiland; it's one of the reasons why Scott's 2nd solo album was called "Happy in Galoshes", with the "in galoshes" part in a completely different font.  Something "happened" and that version never made it to Scott's album; *then* Cee-Lo was next.  It was re-written in the mean-time, but was not the first time Williams and Scott worked together.

That's a story for another thread though, as now we're getting off topic

There it is - More of the story. Exactly, and ultimately it was Cee-Lo who lost big because everytime I hear Pharrell's hit version, his vocal quality and sound are pretty damned close to how Cee-Lo sings and sounds as well. I can't un-hear Cee-Lo's voice on that song after knowing how plans collapsed that would have had Cee-Lo releasing that song.

It's just more of an example of something big slipping away, sometimes through no one's fault and sometimes through a specific decision that was made. But saying Redwood would not have been successful is like saying The Beatles would not have been successful if they had signed to Decca, and "Happy" would not be a hit if Cee-Lo sang it. No one knows. But talent is talent, and good catchy songs are good catchy songs no matter what happens to get in the way during the process.

[guitarfool2002]

GF bashing seems to be a hobby....

 Some people have more bogus axes to grind than the actors manning the blacksmith booth at a Renaissance Fair.

[guitarfool2002]

We've all heard Redwood's work on "Time to Get Alone." Those of you who see it as a ticket to instant glory are clearly deluding yourself. The song is a very poor fit for those singers, who were clearly meant to do something significantly different stylistically than what the BBs were doing.

I have to agree with this.

I can't help but to think about Glen Campbell and "Guess I'm Dumb" along with this. It is/was a pretty great song, it wasn't a success, but it gave Glen a single on Capitol with related TV exposure as a solo vocalist to add to his resume, even though it predicted none of the massive success Glen would have in a few short years...as a solo vocal artist. I don't know who would have predicted that on the basis of that single. But I'd say Brian saw and heard something in him the same way he did with Redwood and wanted to cut records with him, even though the results were not commercially what they would soon become.

[HeyJude]

Talking about "what if" scenarios is fine, and sometimes fun. But it often portends a series of events that would have been so hugely different as to barely beg the "what if" question in the first place.

In cases where a label or company passes on an artist or product that then went on (usually immediately) to great success *in otherwise identical circumstances*, then the folks who passed on it should rightly kick themselves.

The Beatles/Decca thing is a whole can of worms, and I don't think anyone who has read Lewisohn's biography covering that timeframe could honestly say whether the Beatles would have had the same trajectory if they had been signed in January 1962 by Decca.

The Beach Boys kicking themselves over Redwood/Three Dog Night is a bit closer to Pete Best lamenting what would have happened had he stayed in the Beatles. It's a scenario that just wasn't realistic. It's almost certainly true that a full Redwood LP of songs produced and partly or mostly written by Brian wouldn't have been a huge hit, and then at that point we get into "Star Trek" level "alternate reality" scenarios where Redwood might have disbanded after that, or moved onto other projects. I doubt the Three Dog Night guys felt/feel they would have been as big or bigger had they linked themselves to Brian and Brother.

If Redwood had already changed their name to "Three Dog Night" and had their first hit album ready to go, and Brother passed on distribution or something, then maybe they should have been rightly kicking themselves.

And really, even in scenarios where someone passes on a seemingly "finished" product that goes on to great success, it's unclear if the same series of events would have unfolded. Atari passed on distributing Nintendo's "NES" in the early 80s. Would it have been successful still under Atari? Probably. But it would have been marketed differently, and by a company that had a bunch of their own baggage. So you never know.

It's probably true that while, interpersonally, and certainly *within* the BBs, Mike wasn't doing a good thing by throttling Brian's involvement with Redwood (Negron's story assures us of this), Mike probably did *unknowingly to all* do Redwood a huge favor by forcing them to steer to the later success they had.

And yeah, I think all of this is on topic and fair game, while I also think it's worth taking a step back and looking at how positive the surviving members are about "Sunshine Tomorrow" and how the project is MIRACULOUSLY side-stepping the FIFTY-SIX YEARS of awful band politics, and how one might be just snatching acrimony from the jaws of celebration by honing in so much on something that nobody seems to disagree was an awful moment for the band on a personal level.

I think a full, accurate history of everything to do with the band is immensely important. But I also know there are times when we should take the rare opportunity to coast on the euphoria of a new release like this. The whole Redwood thing is just one tiny morsel of the narrow (in the best way possible) focus of this new set.

So, for instance, as someone who will still drone on about C50 five years later, if all of a sudden BRI opened the flood gates and did a complete C50 show on Blu-ray and CD, un-futzed with, I probably wouldn't take *that precise moment* to lay into Mike again about how he blew the reunion. If the subject comes up, then fine. But if nobody is out there saying otherwise, I don't need to dredge it up again right at that moment. So with this Redwood thing, nobody is denying the story, right? Just because the press release for the set doesn't have a side-bar pointing out how Mike was a dick this one day about Redwood, it doesn't mean anything is being covered up. Read Howie Edelson's posts here over the years. This guy talks to *all* of the guys in interviews, is involved with this new set, and he tells it like it is. He has even specifically cited his conversation with Chuck Negron regarding the Redwood "incident." Is like a full page in the liner notes going to get into that nitty-gritty? Probably not, but do you want Mike to sign off on this stuff? As long as Mike isn't insisting on *changing* the story or something, then I have no problem just leaving the now *well-documented* Redwood incident out of liner notes if it means getting Mike to sign off on the stuff and for everybody to place as nice as a splintered band possibly could.

[Don Malcolm]

Just to clear the air here: I'm only concerned with the apparent unwillingness of a battle-scarred moderator to turn the other cheek in a thread where "bad vibes" were cropping up due to some strange need to remind us of the dark side of events in 1967 rather than simply celebrate the release of what looks to be a wonderfully conceived and executed revaluation of that most embattled year. This dispute is about that, and only that--there are no other axes being ground, "bogus" or otherwise.

I can only take this reaction as stemming from some kind of delayed PTSD from the trauma here. I am not trying to bash anyone personally, simply trying to remind folks to pay attention to the innate fragility of discourse as it occurs here. We are still trying to heal from a really lousy set of situations that transpired, and one thing that would really help is if everyone tried to put Archimedes' axiom at the forefront of what they post: do no harm.

As for Redwood/Three Dog Night--I referenced the significant talent in the band. I merely suggested that the form of their success was eventually matched to their natural predilections, which clearly are divergent from Brian's. Redwood had to shift 30-45 degrees, and get the type of focused production/A&R support that they needed (as non-writing performers) in order to tap their talent into the zeitgeist. That said, there is much more greatness and originality in "lowly" BB album cuts than in anything Three Dog Night ever did, their fantastic performance chops notwithstanding.

I'm wandering off for a bit, so that I will be sure to follow my own advice. I certainly hope GF will remember that I have great respect for his knowledge.

Final thought relevant to this thread--what is significant about the interest in the ST set is that it might be the greatest PR turnaround for the BBs since the release of Endless Summer. If they can turn people's interest to the 1967-73 years and bring that back into public scrutiny, the historical schisms that have plagued the band and its public might just be reconciled at last. Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished...

[HeyJude]

Final thought relevant to this thread--what is significant about the interest in the ST set is that it might be the greatest PR turnaround for the BBs since the release of Endless Summer. If they can turn people's interest to the 1967-73 years and bring that back into public scrutiny, the historical schisms that have plagued the band and its public might just be reconciled at last. Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished...

The key to having good PR buzzing around the band and the brand is to get all of that marketing synergy going even in their splintered state. The end of C50 showed us that even millions in tour proceeds and Top 3 LPs and rave reviews all around can't keep these guys artistically and physically *together*, so the next best thing is for them to follow the Apple model of all joining in on group archival projects, and hopefully cross-promoting the stuff on their various social media platforms and all of that good stuff. Will they go all out? I think the right team is finally in place to make that happen. Yeah, we probably won't see Mike promoting Brian's next solo album on his own Facebook page (though you never know....) anytime soon, but things are looking up for the *brand* for the first time in ages.

And who knows, maybe after massaging the situation for awhile on stuff like these archival releases, the right team being in place can get the guys to do something new together. But I don't want to get ahead of ourselves of course (and frankly, a vast archival program probably excites me more than the idea of a new group studio album anyway!).  

[Robbie Mac]

My take away from the Redwood thing isn't so much "Brother had a fortune in their hands and threw it away" but rather the disrespect being shown toward Brian by the Boys. Chuck Negron has to know that things did work out in the end as far as his own group. But seeing Brian treated that way had to have been galling, which may be why it stood out to Negron.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

My take away from the Redwood thing isn't so much "Brother had a fortune in their hands and threw it away" but rather the disrespect being shown toward Brian by the Boys.

That's my big issue. On topic, are there any stories about how the WH sessions themselves went, and what the prevailing mood was?

[CenturyDeprived]

My take away from the Redwood thing isn't so much "Brother had a fortune in their hands and threw it away" but rather the disrespect being shown toward Brian by the Boys. Chuck Negron has to know that things did work out in the end as far as his own group. But seeing Brian treated that way had to have been galling, which may be why it stood out to Negron.

Right. And the lack of there ever being a morsel of public acknowledgement or owning up to said treatment, despite it obviously still bugging Brian enough to approve it being included in his autobio, with a finger pointed squarely at one band member in particular, who continues to la-di-da pretend that it never happened by simply omitting it from any discussion in 50 years. This effectively amounts to denial of said treatment, and I think that's what's very, very hard for some fans to simply put aside and pretend isn't a thing.

I want shitty treatment to be acknowledged by the perpetrators, and apologized for. Publicly. On Oprah. Kidding, but at the same time not really, because it would literally take SO much of the edge off for everyone who is bugged by it, especially probably including the guy who wrote about it in his bio. Brian said he wonders if Mike thinks about it or regrets it. In his damn bio. Like Cameron Diaz said in Vanilla Sky, "that means something".

Yep, I suppose I'm still advocating for a big public apology by Mike for lots of stuff, even though I know it'll never in a million years happen. Only because I truly believe it would help immensely in terms of healing relationships, as well as his reputation, if done sincerely.  I just want everyone to get along, and I dream for impossible things. Just my two cents on why people keep bringing this stuff up. I apologize in advance myself because I know it gets tiring, and I hate to contribute to negativity; the flipside is that I also hate to contribute to rewriting history, or pretending certain things didn't happen. I ain't down for that.

But I agree it's good to focus on the good at this point, and there appears to be lots of good stuff coming. I am glad that both Mike and Brian are both seemingly excited about this release. That's a good thing.

[guitarfool2002]

My take away from the Redwood thing isn't so much "Brother had a fortune in their hands and threw it away" but rather the disrespect being shown toward Brian by the Boys.

That's my big issue. On topic, are there any stories about how the WH sessions themselves went, and what the prevailing mood was?

That's a great question which I hope gets explored too. The only reports offhand I can think of came from Brian, David Anderle, etc...the usual sources. Those reports ranged from what's pretty evident already, that the band knocked out the tracks pretty quickly and were doing it as a self-contained unit, which wouldn't be the case as much with the next album Friends that brought in more outside musicians, as I mentioned earlier. And there were reports of Brian wailing away on his vocals and playing piano, very into the performances, as well as Carl really getting into the R&B style of the music with his vocals, and even dancing around the studio as he recorded them.

As far as the mood, who knows. But as has been mentioned, considering what happened in those weeks, there had to be something there beyond the good vibes and harmony. But if asking about that aspect much less mentioning it gets tagged as going negative, it may have to remain unreported. But put yourselves into the positions the band was in after the Heider incident, ultimately they got the album done and did a good job but it would be natural if some tensions were hanging around there too. But they got it done.

[Howie Edelson]

Yes to all of this.

But. . . . . . . .

Someone somewhere's going to be having a shitty day and they're going to put on Sunshine Tomorrow and their day wont be sh*t anymore.

Beach Boys cure pain.

[guitarfool2002]

My take away from the Redwood thing isn't so much "Brother had a fortune in their hands and threw it away" but rather the disrespect being shown toward Brian by the Boys. Chuck Negron has to know that things did work out in the end as far as his own group. But seeing Brian treated that way had to have been galling, which may be why it stood out to Negron.

Right. And the lack of there ever being a morsel of public acknowledgement or owning up to said treatment, despite it obviously still bugging Brian enough to approve it being included in his autobio, with a finger pointed squarely at one band member in particular, who continues to la-di-da pretend that it never happened by simply omitting it from any discussion in 50 years. This effectively amounts to denial of said treatment, and I think that's what's very, very hard for some fans to simply put aside and pretend isn't a thing.

I want shitty treatment to be acknowledged by the perpetrators, and apologized for. Publicly. On Oprah. Kidding, but at the same time not really, because it would literally take SO much of the edge off for everyone who is bugged by it, especially probably including the guy who wrote about it in his bio. Brian said he wonders if Mike thinks about it or regrets it. In his damn bio. Like Cameron Diaz said in Vanilla Sky, "that means something".

Yep, I suppose I'm still advocating for a big public apology by Mike for lots of stuff, even though I know it'll never in a million years happen. Only because I truly believe it would help immensely in terms of healing relationships, as well as his reputation, if done sincerely.  I just want everyone to get along, and I dream for impossible things. Just my two cents on why people keep bringing this stuff up. I apologize in advance myself because I know it gets tiring, and I hate to contribute to negativity; the flipside is that I also hate to contribute to rewriting history, or pretending certain things didn't happen. I ain't down for that.

But I agree it's good to focus on the good at this point, and there appears to be lots of good stuff coming. I am glad that both Mike and Brian are both seemingly excited about this release. That's a good thing.

What is a great thing too is that hopefully the set and the focus on this era may get new fans interested in the material, or give people who are unfamiliar with it a chance to reappraise the music that was produced. It's what many of us have been trying to do for decades, introduce the music and get more people listening to it so they can hopefully find those nuggets to inspire and enjoy, songs like Aren't You Glad or even Little Pad which I love for specific reasons but which are nowhere near widely known.

And do you think with that renewed focus on the era which I'm sure will come with coverage in the music media as they start writing about this set, will there be questions about things like Redwood and Brother from these newer fans and "civilians", i.e. those not on fan boards and groups? The hypothetical is that people not as aware or invested in the group's story in this time frame may be surprised to learn the Beach Boys label was a half-step away from signing the group that would become Three Dog Night - I don't know how many average listeners will even know about that if conversations I've had with fans about even basic information is any indicator. So how would one answer a question like what happened with Redwood/TDN if the goal is to avoid negativity and focus on the music? It's part of the story because the tracks from Redwood are a part of the story, one of which became a favorite in concert even to this day which fans know. I'm just wondering because it may come up when these new fans and interested listeners discover that Darlin for one was not originally slated for the Beach Boys and has a backstory to it that involves another very popular band from the 70's. It's hard to separate the story from the music when they intertwine as they do in this case...does the answer to potentially curious fans ignore the story? I hope not.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yes to all of this.

But. . . . . . . .

Someone somewhere's going to be having a shitty day and they're going to put on Sunshine Tomorrow and their day wont be sh*t anymore.

Beach Boys cure pain.

And that sounds wonderful.

Won-Won-Wonderful,  in fact

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes to all of this.

But. . . . . . . .

Someone somewhere's going to be having a shitty day and they're going to put on Sunshine Tomorrow and their day wont be sh*t anymore.

Beach Boys cure pain.

+1

[jiggy22]

Yes to all of this.

But. . . . . . . .

Someone somewhere's going to be having a shitty day and they're going to put on Sunshine Tomorrow and their day wont be sh*t anymore.

Beach Boys cure pain.

Maybe rehabilitation centers will once again use the Smiley Smile tracks to help patients overcome substance dependence 

[Jay]

Patch Adams had the right idea. I firmly believe that music heals. If not the body, at least the soul. 

[kreen]

Since we are on the topic of Redwood/Heider--despite a number of efforts from various posters to importune one of the moderators to just let it go (to little avail...)--I think we need to debunk a myth that keeps cropping up whenever the discussion of that event resurfaces.

What myth is that? The myth that Brother would have made a fortune with Redwood. This is a retrospective illusion that began with a questionable assertion by David Leaf back in the 1980s and seems to live in the minds of folks who need to add more drama and irony to the BB story.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Brian Wilson would have been a commercially successful fit as producer for Redwood, and that the aborted efforts undertaken in 1967 were destined for huge chart success. Indeed, as a producer, Brian had no outside commercial success whatsoever. The assumption that Redwood (which underwent a series of stylistic changes in 1968 as they morphed into Three Dog Night) was going to storm the charts and make Brother a ton of money is just that--an unfounded and unprovable assumption.

It's based on the fact that Three Dog Night became a huge success from 1969-76. Somehow there is an assumption that because Three Dog Night, with its yodel-y version of Nilsson's "One" serving as springboard for success on AM radio, hit it big in 1969 that we can backtrack to 1967 with "Darlin'" and take it to the bank that their version of the song would have been a bigger hit than the BBs.

And then there's the underlying situation with Brother itself. Capitol was distributing Brother, and everyone was just coming out of a protracted set of disputes that in no way helped the band when their 1967 Brother releases appeared ("H&V" by far the best at #12, but considered by most to be a significant setback at the time; SMILEY SMILE taking a bath despite having "Good Vibrations" included; "Gettin' Hungry" sinking without a trace, and curiously marketed by Brother as "Brian & Mike").  What makes us think that the BBs had a business operation in place that could have provided the necessary support to a Redwood single in the fall of 1967? What makes us think that Capitol was particularly motivated to aggressively market anything that came from the Brother imprimatur? After all, it was summarily abandoned with the release of WILD HONEY.

I remember the first time David Leaf broached the idea that the BBs had had a incredibly ironic lost opportunity. That part made sense, but the idea that Brian was necessarily the right producer for Redwood/Three Dog Night--particularly based on the recordings they made in subsequent years--seemed like a total stretch at the time (1984-85) and that is still the case today. It's an exercise in needless myth-mongering for those who have some need to augment Brian's resumé when such is hardly necessary. In David's case, he was in the middle of advocating for Brian at record labels during this time, rewriting his book to cement the idea that Brian would be much better off going out on his own (a point that's hard to dispute, save for the identity of his "mentor" at the time...), and was caught up in the need to justify and accentuate Brian's importance in the commercial world of rock music (already moving into its "terminal" state in the mid-80s thanks to all the newly emergent technology).

It's a natural outgrowth of the times and the situation in which David was operating. It's also bad history.

We've all heard Redwood's work on "Time to Get Alone." Those of you who see it as a ticket to instant glory are clearly deluding yourself. The song is a very poor fit for those singers, who were clearly meant to do something significantly different stylistically than what the BBs were doing. (To get a better idea of this, go over to YouTube and listen to a track called "Mo-Jo Woman," a 1966 MGM single from The Enemys that features Danny Hutton and Cory Wells--this should make it clear how much of a stylistic stretch is being made given the natural predilections of the singers.)

Redwood was on the leading edge of a whole bunch of glorified bar bands, some of whom contained highly exploitable raw talent that fit with the commercial niches opening up at the end of the 60s, while others benefited from canny production and became big names (the Doobie Brothers and Ted Templemann, originally from Harpers Bizarre). Three Dog Night hit a giant sweet spot in that transition into the 70s, and they were great live due to the performance chops of the singers, but there was really precious little connective tissue between them and Brian Wilson (aside from his friendship with Danny Hutton) and it's really not that hard to play Devil's advocate and claim that Mike Love unwittingly did them a big favor when he went all territorial on Brian at Heider's.

Does that mean that Mike did the right thing in that moment? Of course not. But sometimes bad actions wind up having fortunate results. It's part of the complexity of life--and why it's ill-advised to make sweeping retrospective analogies and references that further distort what is already a complicated and opaque story.

You're absolutely right, we can't know whether the BW-produced Redwood material would have been a hit. It's just more myth-making from BW hagiographer David Leaf. And if they HAD hit it big, maybe we wouldn't have any of the BB records we love from the late 60's and 70's.