gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 11:06:30 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: A little love for Mr. Love  (Read 26543 times)
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2017, 08:39:22 AM »

Nice change of pace, Nate:

1.  Too many great leads to name, especially in the early years.  I Get Around, All Summer Long, When I Grow Up, come to mind.

2.  The lead and lyrics to perhaps the most iconic BB song - California Girls.

3.  Heck, I even like Beaches in Mind. 



Ya know I used to abhore ‘Beaches in Mind’ but relistening lately I’ve found I really like it. The harmonies are pretty cool and it is catchy, even if it’s kinda cliche.

I know just about any fun in the sun songs post Pet Sounds are usually frowned upon, but I'm a big fan of summertime fun music.  That's kinda what drew me to The Beach Boys in the first place. 

It's what drew me to them in the first place too. Pet Sounds really enveloped me in the band, but I became a fan listening to some fun-in-the-sun compilation many years prior to hearing Pet Sounds in full.

With that said, post-Pet Sounds 'It's Ok' is a powerful lead by Mike that harkens back to the classic days.

Another, 'Bop-Bop on the Beach' which was featured in the original Karate Kid was always catchy to me when I watched that movie. Years later I learned Mike composed it for Jan and Dean (and I think he even sings on the chorus - but I could be mistaken about that).
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
KDS
Guest
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2017, 09:31:21 AM »

Nice change of pace, Nate:

1.  Too many great leads to name, especially in the early years.  I Get Around, All Summer Long, When I Grow Up, come to mind.

2.  The lead and lyrics to perhaps the most iconic BB song - California Girls.

3.  Heck, I even like Beaches in Mind. 



Ya know I used to abhore ‘Beaches in Mind’ but relistening lately I’ve found I really like it. The harmonies are pretty cool and it is catchy, even if it’s kinda cliche.

I know just about any fun in the sun songs post Pet Sounds are usually frowned upon, but I'm a big fan of summertime fun music.  That's kinda what drew me to The Beach Boys in the first place. 

It's what drew me to them in the first place too. Pet Sounds really enveloped me in the band, but I became a fan listening to some fun-in-the-sun compilation many years prior to hearing Pet Sounds in full.

With that said, post-Pet Sounds 'It's Ok' is a powerful lead by Mike that harkens back to the classic days.

Another, 'Bop-Bop on the Beach' which was featured in the original Karate Kid was always catchy to me when I watched that movie. Years later I learned Mike composed it for Jan and Dean (and I think he even sings on the chorus - but I could be mistaken about that).

I was trying to build a collection of summer music about a decade ago, so I got a copy of Sounds of Summer and Pet Sounds.  I didn't really "get" Pet Sounds at first.  Took me a few years.  But I was more into the early 60s stuff. 

It really wasn't until I saw one of the C50 shows in 2012 that I dug deeper into the late 60s / early 70s stuff, and later the rest of the catalog. 

I do like the lead on It's OK, and I think that should've been the lead single for 15BO over RNR Music.  To me, their version of RNR Music is limp, and I think Mike's lead in It's OK is much better. 
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2017, 09:48:25 AM »

The first time I ever heard “I Know There’s An Answer” I flipped and within months I had spent so much money on albums and books about the band. In my initial post in this thread I praise for Mike for convincing Brian to change the lyrics of this. “I Know There’s An Answer” was the turning point for me and is one of their most special songs to me - without Mike’s involvement it would’ve been a tune I wouldn’t have cared too much for.

It’s funny how there is so much good stuff from this band that any number of things pulled us into this fandom. As an aside, ‘Don’t Worry Baby’ from the movie De Ja Vu jostled my memory of that Beach Boys comp I had as a kid, within days of seeing that movie I had bought Pet Sounds.

And totally agreed about ‘It’s Okay’ over RnR Music - that was a major lost opportunity imo.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
KDS
Guest
« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2017, 09:55:02 AM »

The first time I ever heard “I Know There’s An Answer” I flipped and within months I had spent so much money on albums and books about the band. In my initial post in this thread I praise for Mike for convincing Brian to change the lyrics of this. “I Know There’s An Answer” was the turning point for me and is one of their most special songs to me - without Mike’s involvement it would’ve been a tune I wouldn’t have cared too much for.

It’s funny how there is so much good stuff from this band that any number of things pulled us into this fandom. As an aside, ‘Don’t Worry Baby’ from the movie De Ja Vu jostled my memory of that Beach Boys comp I had as a kid, within days of seeing that movie I had bought Pet Sounds.

And totally agreed about ‘It’s Okay’ over RnR Music - that was a major lost opportunity imo.

Yeah, as I recall, Its OK was released as a single in October.  It's a freakin summer song. 

Funny who mention I Know There's an Answer.   Upon many listens, that's the first track outside of the big three hits that really grabbed my attention.  Mike's lyrics definitely turned a good song into a great song. 

I think you can say that say for GV.  The original lyrics seem clunky to me. 
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: July 21, 2017, 10:02:02 AM »

The first time I ever heard “I Know There’s An Answer” I flipped and within months I had spent so much money on albums and books about the band. In my initial post in this thread I praise for Mike for convincing Brian to change the lyrics of this. “I Know There’s An Answer” was the turning point for me and is one of their most special songs to me - without Mike’s involvement it would’ve been a tune I wouldn’t have cared too much for.
 

I think it's a bit of a mixed thing with that song.

On one hand, I think the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer are great; I have no issue with them, I think they flow well/work well, and that the final product is a superb song.

On the other hand, I think it's possible the band might have gotten a bit more cred from the circles where it might have mattered most at the time, had they released a song as Hang On to Your Ego with subtle, yet obvious LSD references. It might have been a moment where people could've thought that this band maybe wasn't just a bunch of squares; that they were dudes who weren't afraid to push boundaries and talk about drug use/mind expansion. Let's face it: the band suffered greatly for their image not evolving fast enough at that time, so they needed all the help they could get.

On the third hand, while I do agree that the lyrics to Hang On to Your Ego are a bit more clunky from a sonically flowing perspective, and that ultimately, the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer flow better... I could be ok with Mike having had objections over the song's lyrics simply for that flowing/sonic reason... but the actual truth, as we all know, is that Mike specifically had a bug up his butt regarding the band taking chances and writing about drug use in a manner like that. And ironically, of course, being as Mike is widely regarded as a guy with massive ego problems (Brian's own words, mind you); it's quite funny how a guy who couldn't/can't let go of his ego specifically objected to a song about letting go of one's ego.

So I can partially praise Mike for intervening since we probably got a better flowing song out of it, but it came from some of the wrong reasons IMO. It's not like Mike said that he was ok with a song about letting go of one's ego, but that he thought the lyrics needed to be tweaked to flow better. That did not happen. Had that happened, I could respect it totally.  Sort of like how I can be very happy that we have Time to Get Alone as a BBs song, and I'm grateful it's available with Carl's vocal and BB harmonies for us to enjoy, but I can't at all respect the ugly circumstances of how it came to be in its final form (Brian bullied into giving it back to The BBs).
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 10:11:19 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: July 21, 2017, 10:55:01 AM »

In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.

And by allowing these references in the music it would possibly influence their own fans to take the same substances that were clearly changing Brian for the worse. If anything standing up to the culture that was clearly becoming popular at that time was a noble thing to do.

One thing I have to give credit Mike for is that he is normally commercial as hell and looking for profit (always following trends and rarely treading new ground) yet drug culture was clearly huge after '66 and yet Mike never pushed the band toward those profits. Hell, he basically went the opposite direction with TM. So yeah, it sucks that Monterey never worked out and The Beach Boys were regarded as squares after '66, but I can't and don't blame Mike at all for lobbying to ditch the drug references given all he had heard and possibly seen firsthand up to that point with the drugs Brian was taking.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
KDS
Guest
« Reply #56 on: July 21, 2017, 11:08:40 AM »

In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.



Thank goodness Brian didn't take the amount of LSD taken by Syd Barrett.

Personally I think the song with the Ego lyrics would've sounded very out of place on Pet Sounds.  Maybe if they held it for Smiley Smile, or even Friends. 

Speaking of Friends, while we're patting Mike on the back - Meant For You.  I wish Mike used his Meant for You, All I Wanna Do, Big Sur voice more often.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: July 21, 2017, 11:11:07 AM »

In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.

And by allowing these references in the music it would possibly influence their own fans to take the same substances that were clearly changing Brian for the worse. If anything standing up to the culture that was clearly becoming popular at that time was a noble thing to do.

One thing I have to give credit Mike for is that he is normally commercial as hell and looking for profit (always following trends and rarely treading new ground) yet drug culture was clearly huge after '66 and yet Mike never pushed the band toward those profits. Hell, he basically went the opposite direction with TM. So yeah, it sucks that Monterey never worked out and The Beach Boys were regarded as squares after '66, but I can't and don't blame Mike at all for lobbying to ditch the drug references given all he had heard and possibly seen firsthand up to that point with the drugs Brian was taking.

I can understand this point of view too. And I can empathize to a point also. Yet even though the drug thing was still lingering in the background of the song (and the "trip through the day" lyric still made it through, either suggesting that Mike maybe didn't realize that line was about LSD, or that it was less an objection to the drug references, and more an objection to the idea of singing about losing one's ego), I still can't help but laugh at the irony that the song was about ego, and subtly about how people need to take check of their own ego and not get their heads too far up their own asses... and how the guy who needed to take that message to heart the most was the guy who simply had to make that song lyric go bye-bye.

Brian had to have seen the irony in that. You can't make stuff like that up.

Yet as I said earlier, I think the final product rules, so I can praise Mike for the song getting to a very good place in the end, even though I inherently have some issues with a guy with a huge ego not wanting to sing a song about taking stock of one's ego. That is simultaneously both problematic and laughably funny to me.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 11:17:31 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: July 21, 2017, 11:47:34 AM »

They come on like they're peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through their day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the narrator seems to be speaking to people who trip through their day, the narrator says to these people that they could be living better (which isn't endorsing drugs at all, the opposite in fact). Then the chorus says that you can find the answer to how to live better, but you have to do it by yourself (implying without the aid of drugs).

Imagine you see in person your lead bandmate have a nervous breakdown on a plane...this eventually leads to your bandmate quitting touring. You see him then start smoking pot/eating special brownies. You see him take LSD, amphetamines. You see his behavior change, you hear stories about him on acid screaming into a pillow crying about his mom and dad. He becomes more paranoid about things, perhaps he has told you he's been hearing voices in his head. Keeping all that in mind, I highly doubt Mike was upset more about a possible check of his own ego over keeping pro-drug references out of The Beach Boys music.

Edit: wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that all drug references were erased from the song (I even read the section of Lambert's book while typing the post above where he clearly states there are still drug references in the song...my bad). From my standpoint any reference to drugs in the song are negative and it's more of an anti drug song in its current form...which just exacerbates their square image.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 12:09:57 PM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: July 21, 2017, 11:53:16 AM »

Personally I think the song with the Ego lyrics would've sounded very out of place on Pet Sounds.  Maybe if they held it for Smiley Smile, or even Friends. 

Speaking of Friends, while we're patting Mike on the back - Meant For You.  I wish Mike used his Meant for You, All I Wanna Do, Big Sur voice more often.

'Meant For You' is one of my favorites. Embarrassed to admit that at one point I thought it was Brian singing (I don't think I was used to Mike's voice being that soft at that point). Especially love the Pony version on the MiC set.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 21, 2017, 12:23:35 PM »

Pretty much everything Mike contributed to was great until the Surf's Up album.
Logged

BBs Footage Saga
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


FOOTAGE!!!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: July 21, 2017, 02:47:18 PM »

I LOVE MIKE LOVE
Logged
The Lovester
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: July 21, 2017, 02:51:42 PM »

In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.

And by allowing these references in the music it would possibly influence their own fans to take the same substances that were clearly changing Brian for the worse. If anything standing up to the culture that was clearly becoming popular at that time was a noble thing to do.

One thing I have to give credit Mike for is that he is normally commercial as hell and looking for profit (always following trends and rarely treading new ground) yet drug culture was clearly huge after '66 and yet Mike never pushed the band toward those profits. Hell, he basically went the opposite direction with TM. So yeah, it sucks that Monterey never worked out and The Beach Boys were regarded as squares after '66, but I can't and don't blame Mike at all for lobbying to ditch the drug references given all he had heard and possibly seen firsthand up to that point with the drugs Brian was taking.
I agree, I see the fad in the 60's of making things drug related as just that: a fad. I don't think the Beatles are any cooler because Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds spells out LSD. I'm glad that for the most part The Beach Boys stayed out of that drug culture. They walked a fine line between being hip with the drug scene and being "squares," and for the most part I'm okay with that. They had other chances to be seen as cool and mainstream, such as playing the Monterrey Pop Festival. Mike had seen first hand what those drugs that were glorified in some sub-groups can actually do, and I don't blame him for being against it and certainly don't see it as him being stuck up or being a "square."
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: July 21, 2017, 03:32:17 PM »


Yeah, as I recall, Its OK was released as a single in October.  It's a freakin summer song. 

Funny who mention I Know There's an Answer.   Upon many listens, that's the first track outside of the big three hits that really grabbed my attention.  Mike's lyrics definitely turned a good song into a great song. 

I think you can say that say for GV.  The original lyrics seem clunky to me. 

Fact: "It's OK" was released on August 9, 1976. There are many discussions here on the bord about why the BBs released "Rock'n'Roll Music" first--in fact, releasing it before the 15 BIG ONES LP itself. While many (including myself) consider it to be a flawed piece of work (including Mike's vocal, which is the point where he begins to ratchet up his nasality to heretofore unmeasurable levels...), someone's instincts were correct in that the song did become a Top 5 hit and helped drive the sales of an LP that--let's face it--had some serious issues.

Opinion: "It's OK" didn't have a memorable chorus--as discussed in a number of threads elsewhere on the board--and it was dismissed by many critics and listeners at the time as "Do It Again Again." (Keep in mind that it took 15-20 year for "Do It Again" to escape its stigma of being a "retrograde" song--as has been noted earlier, it didn't chart higher than "Darlin'".) "It's OK" is part of a group of songs that get somewhere in the neighborhood of the band's classic old sound, but somehow miss the mark. That's why none of them could push higher on the charts--in their varying ways, they all sounded like a rehash of something much better. We'll never know if it would have cracked the Top 20 if it had gone first--but there is some evidence that the song was reworked in the time between the release of "Rock'n'Roll Music" and the 15 BIG ONES LP, which would have made it impossible to release as a 45 very much earlier than what was the case.

Opinion: Mike's lyrics did help GV, but what really puts the song over from the opening measure is Carl's brilliant vocal. Follow that up with Mike's  "I'm picking up good vibrations" and you have art and commerciality in transcendent co-existence, followed by a perfectly fractured "mosaic" form that captures a deep emotional experience in 3:35. The lyric change is 5%, Carl is 20%, Mike's bass line (in conjunction with the chorus) is 25%, and the amazing carry-through of the song through its various sections is 50%.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 21, 2017, 03:52:19 PM »

They come on like they're peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through their day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the narrator seems to be speaking to people who trip through their day, the narrator says to these people that they could be living better (which isn't endorsing drugs at all, the opposite in fact). Then the chorus says that you can find the answer to how to live better, but you have to do it by yourself (implying without the aid of drugs).

Imagine you see in person your lead bandmate have a nervous breakdown on a plane...this eventually leads to your bandmate quitting touring. You see him then start smoking pot/eating special brownies. You see him take LSD, amphetamines. You see his behavior change, you hear stories about him on acid screaming into a pillow crying about his mom and dad. He becomes more paranoid about things, perhaps he has told you he's been hearing voices in his head. Keeping all that in mind, I highly doubt Mike was upset more about a possible check of his own ego over keeping pro-drug references out of The Beach Boys music.

Edit: wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that all drug references were erased from the song (I even read the section of Lambert's book while typing the post above where he clearly states there are still drug references in the song...my bad). From my standpoint any reference to drugs in the song are negative and it's more of an anti drug song in its current form...which just exacerbates their square image.

That's an interesting take on things, but it doesn't quite jibe with what I hear. Call me crazy, but I've always thought the lyrics about uptight people were intended as a slightly veiled reference to squares like Mike... I certainly think Brian certainly thought that Mike was uptight at the time. To think that Brian thought otherwise doesn't seem to add up.

The other interesting thing to consider about the song's lyrics is how little they actually changed from Hang Onto Your Ego -> I Know There's An Answer. I mean, the only changes are the line about being "guilty", and the title line.

So now that I think about it when comparing the two, I don't necessarily see how changing the title suddenly makes the song *not* an LSD type song at all *whatsoever* anymore. I mean, the song doesn't (in either of its forms) have to - by necessity - be just only about taking drugs, but it could just be about dealing with/coping with difficult people in one's life.

I feel like on the final version of the song, the line "I have to find it by myself" is a reference akin to the message Brian says on I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, where the uptight people who don't want to push boundaries are determined to be thorns in the side of the protagonist of the song, and how that protagonist has to find answers/meaning/truth by themselves without anyone necessarily there amongst their buddies to really help them along the way.

I stand by my assumption that the "ego" line bugged Mike not *solely* because it conjured up images of LSD usage, but *also* because he didn't want to be indirectly called out on having a massive ego on a song, and indirectly told that he needed to get it in check. I think it's a bit reaching to think that this was completely irrelevant to why he wanted that one lyric gone, since most of the other lyrics in the song stayed put, even "drugged-out" ones like "trip through the day". I am certain that by 1966, Mike was told by some people that he had a massive ego. And for good reason; he did! He may have brushed it off and pretended he didn't care what anyone thought... but I don't think the idea of people thinking that Mike had ego problems was absolutely off Mike's radar at the time. No way.  
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 04:00:19 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2017, 04:34:34 PM »

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: July 21, 2017, 05:24:30 PM »

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 05:32:14 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: July 21, 2017, 05:58:29 PM »

Mike's ego is the real illness in the BBs...
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: July 22, 2017, 07:48:41 AM »

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.

Brian says himself, “It was an inappropriate lyric....I just thought that to say 'Hang on to your ego' was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.”...even Brian himself wasn’t happy about the “ego” lyrics. So that can’t be all pinned on Mike. As for the way voicing his opinion went down, though there was admittedly controversy (so one could possibly conclude arguing did occur) I think after all of Brian’s drug use/experimentation Mike had witnessed and heard about he had every right to be confrontational about lyrics that perpetuated that lifestyle.

I won’t further rehash my points, because I think we both understand each other’s arguments. Tbh in the past I’ve argued against Mike regarding this very topic. But over the years I’ve kinda changed my perception about the drug culture in that era and its given me a new outlook on how Mike felt during this time. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Mike has had a pattern of absolutely atrocious behavior when it comes to Brian (stemming from the mid-60s to today - and this is something that some fans just can’t seem to comprehend to point of irritation to the rest of us living in reality). But I really think that this is one instance where Mike had a legitimate gripe.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 22, 2017, 08:41:05 AM »

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.

Brian says himself, “It was an inappropriate lyric....I just thought that to say 'Hang on to your ego' was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.”...even Brian himself wasn’t happy about the “ego” lyrics. So that can’t be all pinned on Mike. As for the way voicing his opinion went down, though there was admittedly controversy (so one could possibly conclude arguing did occur) I think after all of Brian’s drug use/experimentation Mike had witnessed and heard about he had every right to be confrontational about lyrics that perpetuated that lifestyle.

I won’t further rehash my points, because I think we both understand each other’s arguments. Tbh in the past I’ve argued against Mike regarding this very topic. But over the years I’ve kinda changed my perception about the drug culture in that era and its given me a new outlook on how Mike felt during this time. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Mike has had a pattern of absolutely atrocious behavior when it comes to Brian (stemming from the mid-60s to today - and this is something that some fans just can’t seem to comprehend to point of irritation to the rest of us living in reality). But I really think that this is one instance where Mike had a legitimate gripe.

Can't say I see it the same way. I go on the basis of how many fans or listeners in 1966 would have heard anything in the original lyrics as an overt drug song. I'd even go as far as to suggest doing an experiment in the present day: Find some people who are not familiar with the song's original "Ego" lyrics or the backstory, and give them a lyric sheet to read through. Then see if anyone interprets the words as a drug song.

To add what is a direct parallel and comparison since the albums were released in the same general time period: Paul McCartney's "Got To Get You Into My Life".

I'd ask if *anyone* who heard that song without knowing what McCartney was singing about knew it was an overt and direct drug reference. It was Paul's ode to marijuana, a love song about smoking grass. I'd argue perhaps as large a number as 99% of listeners who liked that song since '66 thought it was a Motown style groove about digging a girl, not about Paul's love for pot.

Did it harm the band at all either in '66 or even now when the true meaning of the lyrics is more widely known? I'd argue no...no more than Ticket To Ride was a reference to hookers in Hamburg and Day Tripper was about a girl who never finished with the guys she was with. Both were smash hit records with illicit sex references, being bought by young fans in '65 and enjoyed by millions up to the present day.

Also adding this: What if Mike's objection was more that his writing credit and therefore his royalty percentages would be almost non-existent on Pet Sounds had he not raised a fuss about something to where he could "rewrite" lyrics as a contribution? Sounds a bit like what happened with VDP later that same year.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: July 22, 2017, 08:53:28 AM »

Didn't Mike smoke pot and dabble with LSD before his TM conversion?
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: July 22, 2017, 08:57:46 AM »

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.

Brian says himself, “It was an inappropriate lyric....I just thought that to say 'Hang on to your ego' was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.”...even Brian himself wasn’t happy about the “ego” lyrics. So that can’t be all pinned on Mike. As for the way voicing his opinion went down, though there was admittedly controversy (so one could possibly conclude arguing did occur) I think after all of Brian’s drug use/experimentation Mike had witnessed and heard about he had every right to be confrontational about lyrics that perpetuated that lifestyle.

I won’t further rehash my points, because I think we both understand each other’s arguments. Tbh in the past I’ve argued against Mike regarding this very topic. But over the years I’ve kinda changed my perception about the drug culture in that era and its given me a new outlook on how Mike felt during this time. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Mike has had a pattern of absolutely atrocious behavior when it comes to Brian (stemming from the mid-60s to today - and this is something that some fans just can’t seem to comprehend to point of irritation to the rest of us living in reality). But I really think that this is one instance where Mike had a legitimate gripe.

Can't say I see it the same way. I go on the basis of how many fans or listeners in 1966 would have heard anything in the original lyrics as an overt drug song. I'd even go as far as to suggest doing an experiment in the present day: Find some people who are not familiar with the song's original "Ego" lyrics or the backstory, and give them a lyric sheet to read through. Then see if anyone interprets the words as a drug song.

To add what is a direct parallel and comparison since the albums were released in the same general time period: Paul McCartney's "Got To Get You Into My Life".

I'd ask if *anyone* who heard that song without knowing what McCartney was singing about knew it was an overt and direct drug reference. It was Paul's ode to marijuana, a love song about smoking grass. I'd argue perhaps as large a number as 99% of listeners who liked that song since '66 thought it was a Motown style groove about digging a girl, not about Paul's love for pot.

Did it harm the band at all either in '66 or even now when the true meaning of the lyrics is more widely known? I'd argue no...no more than Ticket To Ride was a reference to hookers in Hamburg and Day Tripper was about a girl who never finished with the guys she was with. Both were smash hit records with illicit sex references, being bought by young fans in '65 and enjoyed by millions up to the present day.

Also adding this: What if Mike's objection was more that his writing credit and therefore his royalty percentages would be almost non-existent on Pet Sounds had he not raised a fuss about something to where he could "rewrite" lyrics as a contribution? Sounds a bit like what happened with VDP later that same year.

You’re right that “Got To Get You Into My Life” is a song that 99% of people out there wouldn’t see as a drug song, even people hip to that culture...it really is obscure. But ego death is certainly something that is talked about in drug/LSD circles, especially back in the 60s when psychedelia/intellectualism met head on. So I think both aren’t really comparable as far as obscurity to the real meaning is concerned.

And also, I’m not arguing that the drug image would’ve hurt the band...I can’t say I’m sure that Mike thought that either. If anything I agree with CD that it would’ve helped their image. But I also think Mike had every right to challenge such an obvious shift in their image.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #72 on: July 22, 2017, 09:13:50 AM »

Good points Rab, I will take that over Mike's 2017 interviews trashing 30 plus years ago drug abuse by BW anyday!
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 22, 2017, 09:21:29 AM »

Did fans object to John Lennon quoting Dr. Timothy Leary almost verbatim in 1966, same time frame as Pet Sounds? Tomorrow Never Knows was a direct rip from the Tibetan Book Of The Dead, which Leary rewrote in his guide to help LSD trippers navigate through their psychedelic experience when they dosed. I don't know if it did any harm at all to The Beatles or their music in 1966. Maybe what The Beatles realized, which is what Brian realized, which sadly Mike seemed to be oblivious of, was that 1966 was the year when the rules changed radically as to perceptions and reactions to music and artists.

Likewise I'd like to see an estimate of how many Beach Boys fans from the original run in 63-64 would have known what all the ego talk referred to or if it would have bothered them at all if it had come out on Pet Sounds and they heard those lyrics in '66.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 22, 2017, 09:28:14 AM »

I still have to come back to Mike wanting a piece of the pie in terms of the songwriting royalties for the next BB's album, Pet Sounds, and this was a gateway to do so. Find an issue with existing lyrics, even though it's doubtful most people hearing them would think it's a blatant drug song especially in mid 1966 outside of the most tuned-in circles, and rewrite them with the credit to go along with it.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.462 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!