gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 02:48:22 PM
*
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 26567 times)
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: July 22, 2017, 10:32:37 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.

I totally agree with all of this. However I’ll just quote what I wrote a slew of posts back:

Quote
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 think it is likely that Mike saw how drugs affected a very close person in his life and he didn’t want to encourage that same behavior in the fans of the band. To me, from Mike’s perspective it doesn’t matter what your average fan thinks about the “Ego” lyrics - whether they are cool or offensive, vague or direct, whether they would’ve made the band hip or tarnished their image. What matters is what Mike was exposed to during that mid-1960s period and how those experiences made him feel about drugs, in my opinion. Frankly, as I said above, this is the one time I feel Mike had a legitimate gripe.

You can argue that “Ego” words are vague and too subtle for your average Beach Boys listener, and I would agree. But those lyrics did lend support to a growing movement in pop culture at that time that was beginning to be less subtle about their drug influences. So vague or not, Mike knew the intent of the lyrics and it’s possible because he saw firsthand how drugs were changing Brian, he didn’t want to push that influence onto their image. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position at all.
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 #76 on: July 22, 2017, 10:39:40 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.

This I have no doubt. Mike admits himself that he was angered by Brian wanting to work with people other than himself. And this anger obviously manifested itself in jabs at the lyrics and lyricists (VDPs). In my opinion, this still doesn’t change the fact that he had a legitimate argument about this set of lyrics. And in Brian’s own words even Brian himself did not like the “Ego” lyrics. As a central figure of the band and as Brian’s go-to collaborator I don’t see why him voicing concerns about lyrics relating to drugs is even an issue.
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 #77 on: July 22, 2017, 11:17:11 AM »

I think we're on the same page but maybe just around the edges. I still have a hard time seeing Mike's objection to those specific lyrics as being what they're described as versus perhaps a more commercial if not (ironically) ego-driven, in terms of getting a cowriter credit and related payments.

I have in mind several things. First, Mike was cracking jokes about Brian and LSD on the Party! sessions. Maybe these didn't come out on the "official" sessions release but I know them well and heard them. Also, Mike cites regularly his work on California Girls, and Brian does as well - justifiably of course, because it's one of the best singles of the 60's, period. But consider that song was conceived and written under the influence of LSD. No secret there, no reason to deny it. The devil's advocate position could be taken to say had it not been for that LSD experience, there would be no track for California Girls and no music for Mike to write those lyrics to match. And it's not like Mike didn't know that. Same with "side 2" of the Today album - what some call a masterpiece, a precursor to Pet Sounds, and that was admittedly written under the influence of marijuana. Again, it wasn't a secret then around the band members and it isn't a secret now.

The hit records, the classics which the band was enjoying and touring behind in 1965 and 1966 like California Girls and Please Let Me Wonder were written under the influence of drugs. You have to wonder if the band members, Mike included, were as concerned about the drugs impacting Brian negatively while all of this was happening if he was cranking out hit single after hit single for them. Like a machine.

And to top it all off, all the worries about the drugs - "Good Vibrations". #1 smash hit worldwide. If any song had the drug influence audible, I'd argue that may be the most prominent one. Again the conception of it, the symphonic nature of the song, the way the song form did the pocket symphony thing Brian has mentioned, the whole ebb and flow of it...for all the talk of the drugs in retrospect, the band didn't seem to mind the hit records that came from all of that.

It just makes Mike's complaints about this specific set of lyrics on an album track, not a single, seem a little suspect. Or overblown as far as what Mike's interests in even singling those lyrics out may have been. I don't think anyone would have noticed had it come out with the ego lyrics enough to negatively impact the band at all.

And to think Mike had these reactions to the drug culture...in 1966 Los Angeles, the music scene he was a part of, the drugs were ubiquitous. In more recent years Mike seemed to take on an even more pious attitude to the drugs, yet his entire professional world was surrounded by it especially in 1966. And the same Manson clan that Mike would hang out with a few years later was built in large part around drugs like LSD, STP, all of it. To levels that would make Brian's LSD experiences seem tiny. That didn't seem to bother Mike, though, or keep him away from "The Family".
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
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: July 22, 2017, 11:49:44 AM »

I don't know about everybody else, but it seems to me, guitarfool, that you seem to put a lot of work into disagreeing with and generally disliking Dr. Love.

He gives us lots of reasons to think he's an asshole, but on something like this, it just seems you have to disagree with rab's assessment because it doesn't totally portray Mike negatively.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: July 22, 2017, 11:55:16 AM »

I don't know about everybody else, but it seems to me, guitarfool, that you seem to put a lot of work into disagreeing with and generally disliking Dr. Love.

He gives us lots of reasons to think he's an asshole, but on something like this, it just seems you have to disagree with rab's assessment because it doesn't totally portray Mike negatively.

It's called discussing, debating, and offering opinions. Simple as that.
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
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: July 22, 2017, 12:24:04 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.
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 #81 on: July 22, 2017, 02:21:09 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.
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
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: July 22, 2017, 03:45:08 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.

With this in mind your thoughts on Mike being motivated more by songwriter credit than anything would appear to be more on point. Given he, at that point, was Brian’s main co-writer again he didn’t appear to put up any fight against a record whose drug atmosphere is fairly blatant. So yeah, I gotta say that’s a good point.

At the risk of veering this thread further off course (though I have to say this discussion has been great) would you mind possibly transcribing some of the LSD banter between Brian and Mike? If it’s too much work no worries, I need to dig out my SOT boots soon anyways.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 03:51:10 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!
The Lovester
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #83 on: July 22, 2017, 04:01:48 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.
Mike made it pretty clear in his book that he used pot just like everyone else (I'm pretty sure, I don't have the book with me). I don't think that just because he's against LSD that he can't smoke pot. They are totally different drugs and he made it clear that he's against one, which he saw first hand how it affected his cousin, and used the other, which is mostly harmless.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: July 22, 2017, 05:54:19 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.
Mike made it pretty clear in his book that he used pot just like everyone else (I'm pretty sure, I don't have the book with me). I don't think that just because he's against LSD that he can't smoke pot. They are totally different drugs and he made it clear that he's against one, which he saw first hand how it affected his cousin, and used the other, which is mostly harmless.

According to Mike the problem was also the marijuana regarding this time period (from his book):

The problem, of course, was the drugs – not just LSD, but large amounts of marijuana, hashish and amphetamines.”
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 #85 on: July 22, 2017, 05:58:46 PM »

Page 4, paragraph six of the playbook... Wink
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
The Cincinnati Kid
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 802



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: July 22, 2017, 06:57:08 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.

With this in mind your thoughts on Mike being motivated more by songwriter credit than anything would appear to be more on point. Given he, at that point, was Brian’s main co-writer again he didn’t appear to put up any fight against a record whose drug atmosphere is fairly blatant. So yeah, I gotta say that’s a good point.

At the risk of veering this thread further off course (though I have to say this discussion has been great) would you mind possibly transcribing some of the LSD banter between Brian and Mike? If it’s too much work no worries, I need to dig out my SOT boots soon anyways.

There's certainly merit to the argument that he just wanted a writing credit, but it doesn't have to mean what you're saying is false.  Despite the drug atmosphere on SS, there are no lyrics that suggest drug use on it, or any of the next few albums.
Logged
The Lovester
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: July 22, 2017, 08:06:02 PM »

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.
Mike made it pretty clear in his book that he used pot just like everyone else (I'm pretty sure, I don't have the book with me). I don't think that just because he's against LSD that he can't smoke pot. They are totally different drugs and he made it clear that he's against one, which he saw first hand how it affected his cousin, and used the other, which is mostly harmless.

According to Mike the problem was also the marijuana regarding this time period (from his book):

The problem, of course, was the drugs – not just LSD, but large amounts of marijuana, hashish and amphetamines.”
I found the quote I was referring to: "We were stoned out of our heads. We were laughing our asses off when we recorded that stuff." I interpreted this as him saying they were having a good time with marijuana included, but it could be out of context.
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 23, 2017, 08:11:10 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.

Frankly, this is BS and constitutes "Mike-bashing." As with so many things that "float" around here, it is based on facts not in evidence and assumes that Mike's behavior in 1966 is on some linear point of connection with his actions in the 90s. Mike certainly became sour and cynical over time, but there is no evidence that he was overtly operating with the type of strategy outlined here at the time of PS. It's just plain irresponsible to say this, just as it was to extrapolate Brian's involvement with Redwood as a lost opportunity because a later incarnation of that group hit it big.

Aside from our assumptions of Mike's various forms of disgruntlement about the overall direction of PS, there is no evidence that he was trolling for songwriting credit in 1966. That came later, and is part of the terrible legacy in which he (rightfully) continues to marinate. But with respect to "I Know There's An Answer," he had a valid point--the original lyrics are obscure, they come out of left field, they reflect a persona who is resigned to failure. All of those flaws are there BEFORE anyone even gets to the so-called "drug references." In this instance, Mike was right to question the lyrics, and his substitution substantially improved the song--as well as (inadvertently, perhaps) creating a more overt thematic connection to "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times."

People will grasp at the line change in "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as "evidence" of Mike's need to horn in. Again, that is an artifact of a more aged, bitter individual who'd spent the previous twenty-five years being identified as the group's albatross and as an unrepentant schlockmeister. That's a long time to have to be aware of a lingering negativity--and it continues to plague him, since even his legitimate claims are generally seen as part of his bitter, self-serving modus operandi. He's made that bed, and he's going to have to lie in it forever. But in this case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that songwriting credit was his motivation.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 23, 2017, 09:17:25 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.

Frankly, this is BS and constitutes "Mike-bashing." As with so many things that "float" around here, it is based on facts not in evidence and assumes that Mike's behavior in 1966 is on some linear point of connection with his actions in the 90s. Mike certainly became sour and cynical over time, but there is no evidence that he was overtly operating with the type of strategy outlined here at the time of PS. It's just plain irresponsible to say this, just as it was to extrapolate Brian's involvement with Redwood as a lost opportunity because a later incarnation of that group hit it big.

Aside from our assumptions of Mike's various forms of disgruntlement about the overall direction of PS, there is no evidence that he was trolling for songwriting credit in 1966. That came later, and is part of the terrible legacy in which he (rightfully) continues to marinate. But with respect to "I Know There's An Answer," he had a valid point--the original lyrics are obscure, they come out of left field, they reflect a persona who is resigned to failure. All of those flaws are there BEFORE anyone even gets to the so-called "drug references." In this instance, Mike was right to question the lyrics, and his substitution substantially improved the song--as well as (inadvertently, perhaps) creating a more overt thematic connection to "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times."

People will grasp at the line change in "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as "evidence" of Mike's need to horn in. Again, that is an artifact of a more aged, bitter individual who'd spent the previous twenty-five years being identified as the group's albatross and as an unrepentant schlockmeister. That's a long time to have to be aware of a lingering negativity--and it continues to plague him, since even his legitimate claims are generally seen as part of his bitter, self-serving modus operandi. He's made that bed, and he's going to have to lie in it forever. But in this case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that songwriting credit was his motivation.

Don: Find the lyrics for both Hang On To Your Ego, and I Know There's An Answer. Look at them side-by-side and note which lines stayed and which were changed after Mike's objections. I also note that a line which *could* be interpreted perhaps most obviously as an LSD reference "they trip through the day..." was left intact.

Percentage wise, as far as what stayed and what was changed apart from the title, what percentage of the words were actually changed by the time the song reached it's final mix for the album? Offer an estimate after looking at both lyric sheets, just out of curiosity.
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 #90 on: July 23, 2017, 09:50:59 AM »

Back to the lyric change, and again just my opinions on "what if?"...

I'm not that into interpreting lyrics into a bigger analysis, as some really enjoy doing and in some cases like with the VDP lyrics for Smile some are really, really perceptive and I enjoy reading the various interpretations. But consider what could be an overreaching narrative or story arc that the various singers are reciting throughout the album.

Specifically on a song that Mike himself sang so well, That's Not Me, there is a sense of self-doubt in what he's saying. He's unsure, or was unsure who he is or what he's doing...and why he may be doing it. You Still Believe In Me, again there is a sense of the narrator's self-doubt, in this case the guy is trying to be what his girl wants him to be, but he's reverting back to his old behavior patterns, and yet this girl loves him so much she still believes in him. What keeps him going is she believes in him even though he is doubting himself and his behaviors...yet he has someone to believe in him when he's unsure why he does what he does or even who he is.

Now take Freud's concepts of ego. It's the sense of "I", of self-worth, or knowing who "I" really is. Whether the psychedelic culture adapted it in their own explorations, at heart the "ego" is a Freudian concept related to personality and behavior. Knowing who you are, as in ego = "I am."

I think having a song titled "Hang On To Your Ego" coming near the close of the album which had already seen various narrators expressing self-doubt or trying to figure out who they are actually would have fit quite well, if we see such a story arc in Pet Sounds' lyrics. It's a reassurance, it's either the narrator or those around him saying "stay true to yourself", "be yourself", hang on to that which makes you "you" and use it to make things better. Of all the lyrics that have that self-doubt element on the album, here is one title which is reassuring for the narrator.

As a title, how is it less effective to say "hey man, be yourself and hang onto it." than saying "I Know There's An Answer" when both of the lyrics are basically saying 'find the answer within yourself'.?
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
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: July 23, 2017, 10:35:10 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.

Frankly, this is BS and constitutes "Mike-bashing." As with so many things that "float" around here, it is based on facts not in evidence and assumes that Mike's behavior in 1966 is on some linear point of connection with his actions in the 90s. Mike certainly became sour and cynical over time, but there is no evidence that he was overtly operating with the type of strategy outlined here at the time of PS. It's just plain irresponsible to say this, just as it was to extrapolate Brian's involvement with Redwood as a lost opportunity because a later incarnation of that group hit it big.

Aside from our assumptions of Mike's various forms of disgruntlement about the overall direction of PS, there is no evidence that he was trolling for songwriting credit in 1966. That came later, and is part of the terrible legacy in which he (rightfully) continues to marinate. But with respect to "I Know There's An Answer," he had a valid point--the original lyrics are obscure, they come out of left field, they reflect a persona who is resigned to failure. All of those flaws are there BEFORE anyone even gets to the so-called "drug references." In this instance, Mike was right to question the lyrics, and his substitution substantially improved the song--as well as (inadvertently, perhaps) creating a more overt thematic connection to "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times."

People will grasp at the line change in "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as "evidence" of Mike's need to horn in. Again, that is an artifact of a more aged, bitter individual who'd spent the previous twenty-five years being identified as the group's albatross and as an unrepentant schlockmeister. That's a long time to have to be aware of a lingering negativity--and it continues to plague him, since even his legitimate claims are generally seen as part of his bitter, self-serving modus operandi. He's made that bed, and he's going to have to lie in it forever. But in this case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that songwriting credit was his motivation.

I’ll just leave a quote here from Mike himself: “But at that point in time, there were so many drugs being taken by Brian and other members of the group, and there was a lot of collaborating with people other than myself. I had literally nothing to do on anything on the SMiLE album, so naturally I was a little upset.

He was admittedly upset about having nothing to do with SMiLE (even though he wrote the lyrics to the hit lead single from the album). Here we are just months prior with Pet Sounds and Mike had main involvement lyrically with just one minor song on the album (the other two songs he contributed only a couple lines). I would find it hard to believe that Mike wasn’t also angry about his lack of participation in this album as well which possibly manifested itself through irritation about some of the lyrics (“Don’t f*** with the formula” and Tony Asher swears that Mike said this)...like he did with Smile, it would make sense he would take up beef about lyrics he found objectionable (partly grounded in his confusion/dislike of the lyrics, which is perfectly reasonable, but also having a jealousy, which he admits, for being kicked to the curb as Brian’s co-writer).

Again, I still feel he had every right to complain about the ‘Ego’ lyrics. They are directly inspired by LSD use and frankly at that time I can see him having a problem with the band shifting their image to that scene. He was also a main member of this group (having contributed to many of their hits thus far) so his input, from his perspective, was indeed warranted. But Guitarfool has a great point about Smiley Smile. I really don’t know what to make of it, but from the quotes above he seems adamant that part of the problem during this era was the marijuana use, yet once Van Dyke was booted from the scene Mike had no objection to getting stoned off his ass recording with Brian (and recording an album that is so clearly bathed in marijuana and acid inspiration). Again, I can’t stress enough that I feel he had every right to complain about pro-drug language being put in their songs, but at the same time his complaints seem less genuine given that their next studio album (recorded just a little over 12 months after the IKTAA session) is obviously so inspired by the drugs they were all taking.

I don’t see Guitarfool’s (or CD’s) comments as Mike bashing. It’s getting down to the root of the matter of what made this band tick. Even if Mike was looking for a co-writer credit, who could blame him!? He saw his band going in a direction that he didn’t like, and he didn’t even have his hand on the helm. Discussions like these help us dig further back into the past and get to the root of the issue. I may not fully agree with Guitarfool’s thoughts on the matter, but I also don’t fully agree that Mike was completely content to sit on the sidelines while Brian used other writers (ei, he probably was looking for excuses to complain about the lyrics) and from his perspective his actions are understandable, imo. Edit; just wanted to add that there is some obvious hypocrisy or lack of genuine motivation behind Mike’s complaints about the lyrics, and I think it warranted a discussion.  
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 11:16:10 AM 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 #92 on: July 23, 2017, 10:42:30 AM »

Back to the lyric change, and again just my opinions on "what if?"...

I'm not that into interpreting lyrics into a bigger analysis, as some really enjoy doing and in some cases like with the VDP lyrics for Smile some are really, really perceptive and I enjoy reading the various interpretations. But consider what could be an overreaching narrative or story arc that the various singers are reciting throughout the album.

Specifically on a song that Mike himself sang so well, That's Not Me, there is a sense of self-doubt in what he's saying. He's unsure, or was unsure who he is or what he's doing...and why he may be doing it. You Still Believe In Me, again there is a sense of the narrator's self-doubt, in this case the guy is trying to be what his girl wants him to be, but he's reverting back to his old behavior patterns, and yet this girl loves him so much she still believes in him. What keeps him going is she believes in him even though he is doubting himself and his behaviors...yet he has someone to believe in him when he's unsure why he does what he does or even who he is.

Now take Freud's concepts of ego. It's the sense of "I", of self-worth, or knowing who "I" really is. Whether the psychedelic culture adapted it in their own explorations, at heart the "ego" is a Freudian concept related to personality and behavior. Knowing who you are, as in ego = "I am."

I think having a song titled "Hang On To Your Ego" coming near the close of the album which had already seen various narrators expressing self-doubt or trying to figure out who they are actually would have fit quite well, if we see such a story arc in Pet Sounds' lyrics. It's a reassurance, it's either the narrator or those around him saying "stay true to yourself", "be yourself", hang on to that which makes you "you" and use it to make things better. Of all the lyrics that have that self-doubt element on the album, here is one title which is reassuring for the narrator.

As a title, how is it less effective to say "hey man, be yourself and hang onto it." than saying "I Know There's An Answer" when both of the lyrics are basically saying 'find the answer within yourself'.?

....”but I know that you’re gonna lose the fight

I think your theory makes perfect sense if the songs chorus didn’t end with an inevitable ego death from taking LSD. And these lyrics are further visible proof about how clunky the song was prior to the lyric change. “I know now but I had to find it by myself” flows perfectly.
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 #93 on: July 23, 2017, 10:47:40 AM »

Back to the lyric change, and again just my opinions on "what if?"...

I'm not that into interpreting lyrics into a bigger analysis, as some really enjoy doing and in some cases like with the VDP lyrics for Smile some are really, really perceptive and I enjoy reading the various interpretations. But consider what could be an overreaching narrative or story arc that the various singers are reciting throughout the album.

Specifically on a song that Mike himself sang so well, That's Not Me, there is a sense of self-doubt in what he's saying. He's unsure, or was unsure who he is or what he's doing...and why he may be doing it. You Still Believe In Me, again there is a sense of the narrator's self-doubt, in this case the guy is trying to be what his girl wants him to be, but he's reverting back to his old behavior patterns, and yet this girl loves him so much she still believes in him. What keeps him going is she believes in him even though he is doubting himself and his behaviors...yet he has someone to believe in him when he's unsure why he does what he does or even who he is.

Now take Freud's concepts of ego. It's the sense of "I", of self-worth, or knowing who "I" really is. Whether the psychedelic culture adapted it in their own explorations, at heart the "ego" is a Freudian concept related to personality and behavior. Knowing who you are, as in ego = "I am."

I think having a song titled "Hang On To Your Ego" coming near the close of the album which had already seen various narrators expressing self-doubt or trying to figure out who they are actually would have fit quite well, if we see such a story arc in Pet Sounds' lyrics. It's a reassurance, it's either the narrator or those around him saying "stay true to yourself", "be yourself", hang on to that which makes you "you" and use it to make things better. Of all the lyrics that have that self-doubt element on the album, here is one title which is reassuring for the narrator.

As a title, how is it less effective to say "hey man, be yourself and hang onto it." than saying "I Know There's An Answer" when both of the lyrics are basically saying 'find the answer within yourself'.?

....”but I know that you’re gonna lose the fight

I think your theory makes perfect sense if the songs chorus didn’t end with an inevitable ego death from taking LSD. And these lyrics are further visible proof about how clunky the song was prior to the lyric change. “I know now but I had to find it by myself” flows perfectly.

But how much more clunky are they if you put them side by side and see what was changed, as I suggested to Don? Flowing better is more of an aesthetic opinion, to me at least. The overall theme is practically the same and not all that much was changed. I've also read a published analysis of the final lyrics which suggested the "new" title is a contradiction within the narrative of the song.
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 #94 on: July 23, 2017, 11:03:24 AM »

Adding this to the discussion, which has been quoted and published previously...

Al Jardine: "He (Brian) wanted to know what we thought about it. To be honest, I don't think we even knew what an ego was... Finally Brian decided, 'Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy.'"

In Al's recollection, the "ego" reference as a direct drug reference doesn't seem to have been on Al's radar, along with whoever else the word "we" includes.

Yet Mike's recollections include this: "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."

Might be worth adding to the earlier timeline we were looking at regarding CG, the Party! sessions, and Mike's awareness of the LSD experimentation.
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
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: July 23, 2017, 11:03:51 AM »

Back to the lyric change, and again just my opinions on "what if?"...

I'm not that into interpreting lyrics into a bigger analysis, as some really enjoy doing and in some cases like with the VDP lyrics for Smile some are really, really perceptive and I enjoy reading the various interpretations. But consider what could be an overreaching narrative or story arc that the various singers are reciting throughout the album.

Specifically on a song that Mike himself sang so well, That's Not Me, there is a sense of self-doubt in what he's saying. He's unsure, or was unsure who he is or what he's doing...and why he may be doing it. You Still Believe In Me, again there is a sense of the narrator's self-doubt, in this case the guy is trying to be what his girl wants him to be, but he's reverting back to his old behavior patterns, and yet this girl loves him so much she still believes in him. What keeps him going is she believes in him even though he is doubting himself and his behaviors...yet he has someone to believe in him when he's unsure why he does what he does or even who he is.

Now take Freud's concepts of ego. It's the sense of "I", of self-worth, or knowing who "I" really is. Whether the psychedelic culture adapted it in their own explorations, at heart the "ego" is a Freudian concept related to personality and behavior. Knowing who you are, as in ego = "I am."

I think having a song titled "Hang On To Your Ego" coming near the close of the album which had already seen various narrators expressing self-doubt or trying to figure out who they are actually would have fit quite well, if we see such a story arc in Pet Sounds' lyrics. It's a reassurance, it's either the narrator or those around him saying "stay true to yourself", "be yourself", hang on to that which makes you "you" and use it to make things better. Of all the lyrics that have that self-doubt element on the album, here is one title which is reassuring for the narrator.

As a title, how is it less effective to say "hey man, be yourself and hang onto it." than saying "I Know There's An Answer" when both of the lyrics are basically saying 'find the answer within yourself'.?

....”but I know that you’re gonna lose the fight

I think your theory makes perfect sense if the songs chorus didn’t end with an inevitable ego death from taking LSD. And these lyrics are further visible proof about how clunky the song was prior to the lyric change. “I know now but I had to find it by myself” flows perfectly.

But how much more clunky are they if you put them side by side and see what was changed, as I suggested to Don? Flowing better is more of an aesthetic opinion, to me at least. The overall theme is practically the same and not all that much was changed. I've also read a published analysis of the final lyrics which suggested the "new" title is a contradiction within the narrative of the song.

Aesthetics were a huge part of Beach Boys music up to that point though, with the exception of a few filler songs...so I could see this being really important to both Mike and Brian (and I quoted earlier where Brian said even he wasn’t happy with the “ego” lyric). And in HOTYE the person the narrator is talking to won’t keep their ego because they are going to “lose the fight” (a direct nod to ego death). Whereas in IKTAA there is absolutely no mention of an ego death. In regards to drug language the two songs are strikingly different.

I too read Lambert’s take on this song, in the book (which I don’t have on me) at the end of the lyrical analysis I think he also alludes that it depends on how you interpret the song. I can check on this later, because I could be misremembering.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 11:09:44 AM 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!
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 23, 2017, 11:08:56 AM »

In Al's quote, though, he clearly says Brian changed them due to too much controversy. As in, it's too much of a pain in the ass to argue so we'll scrap those few lines, perhaps? Decades later Brian said they were inappropriate, but that's in retrospect...maybe at the time he just wanted to eliminate the tension and arguments. Just a thought.

And the same Brian Wilson has said the Smile lyrics and music were also "inappropriate" for the band decades after the fact, yet they like Pet Sounds have received what could be the most scholarly attention and analysis as would be given poetry or art in general. Maybe "inappropriate" is a convenient out for him to get off the topic. Again, just opinion.
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
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: July 23, 2017, 02:54:39 PM »

In Al's quote, though, he clearly says Brian changed them due to too much controversy. As in, it's too much of a pain in the ass to argue so we'll scrap those few lines, perhaps? Decades later Brian said they were inappropriate, but that's in retrospect...maybe at the time he just wanted to eliminate the tension and arguments. Just a thought.

And the same Brian Wilson has said the Smile lyrics and music were also "inappropriate" for the band decades after the fact, yet they like Pet Sounds have received what could be the most scholarly attention and analysis as would be given poetry or art in general. Maybe "inappropriate" is a convenient out for him to get off the topic. Again, just opinion.

Yeah, that is very likely the case. Another thing I’d like to add to the discussion:

According to Carlin’s book, Mike at first “mocked the lyrics for what he perceived as their intellectual pretentions.” So it appears that it wasn’t the drugs he was miffed about at first but the overall intellectual style of the lyrics (which seemed to be the common trend until Mike got let back into the writers fold in ‘67). So it does appear he was just looking for ways to change lyrics from the get-go, even before he was clued into what the ego chorus actually meant.
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!
RangeRoverA1
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4336


I drink expired tea. wanna sip or spit?


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 05, 2017, 05:33:25 AM »

Ha! Some people didn't get Roll Eyes - the issue is with NateRuvin using boring stereotypical trendy banal really dumb description "Mike bashing". NOT with the positive ML thread idea. If NR didn't start bitter like that, instead were positive thru & thru - there wouldn't be any problem & everybody'd be happy. Really funny few posters didn't get such easy reason disliking NateRuvin's post. As usual, jumped to misguided conclusions about disallowing to praise Mike yada yada. Hey I just replied, the thread wasn't even locked.
Logged

Short notice: the cat you see to the left is the best. Not counting your indoor cat who might have habit sitting at your left side when you post at SmileySmile.

Who is Lucille Ball & Vivian Vance Duet Fan Club CEO? Btw, such Club exists?

Zany zealous Zeddie eats broccoli at brunch break but doesn't do's & don't's due to duties.
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: August 05, 2017, 11:59:01 AM »

Huh?  Brow
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
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 0.545 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!