gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
664431 Posts in 26627 Topics by 3819 Members - Latest Member: Occasional grilled cheese November 27, 2020, 12:37:05 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Beach Boys trying to sack Bruce around Sunflower  (Read 3207 times)
Rebel
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


View Profile
« on: August 08, 2020, 09:55:04 PM »

I was reading about Sunflower on Wikipedia - obviously not a legitimate source - and there was a quote that said:

In August, Carl, Dennis, Mike Love, and Jardine sought a permanent replacement for Johnston. They approached Carl's brother-in-law Billy Hinsche, who declined the offer to focus on his college studies.

I had never heard this before. Is this true? Did Bruce know at the time? What was the reasoning? Strange they wanted to boot him but ended up taking two of his songs for the album. And featuring him vocally on other songs on the album.
Logged
startBBtoday
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 693



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2020, 08:14:12 AM »

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I have a related question that could, in part, answer OP's question.

In Mike's book, he writes:

Quote
"Tensions within the band continued to simmer. No one admired Brian's music talents more than Bruce Johnston, but Bruce stayed clear of drugs and was increasingly frustrated by their effect on all my cousins. One day, when he was recording at Brian's home studio, Bruce posted a sign on the door: "No Wilsons Allowed." And soon, there would be no Johnson either. With the support of Jack Rieley, the Wilsons voted Bruce out of the band in 1972, but it didn't turn out bad for him. ..."

I can understand Bruce's problems with Brian and Dennis. But what was the issue with Carl in the early '70s? It seems Carl could be a bit of a grump/drill instructor on stage as the band leader, but why would Bruce want to keep him out of the studio?

And ultimately, to answer OP's question, my assumption is that Bruce's problems with the Wilsons probably started much earlier. And why would you keep around the new guy if he has such a problem with the three brothers who helped start the band in the first place?

And finally, I'm not sure if Bruce's clean cut image is exactly what the band was looking for at the time. Listen to Bruce's stange banter during The Beach Boys' concert with The Grateful Dead in  1971. I'm not sure if a rock star has ever sounded as lame and out of touch.
Logged
Rebel
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2020, 09:23:10 AM »

Ah yeah, I remember that in Mike's book. Going based of the rumors, Brian wasn't that involved in the studio with the other boys. Usually just some studio cats and a maybe 1 or 2 of the boys, right?

If Bruce admired Brian that much and Brian wasn't playing with the guys in the studio then that 'no Wilson's allowed' sign must have been almost solely directed at Dennis and Carl. Was Carl's drug use really THAT bad during that time? I know him and Jack would indulge in cocaine but I can't see that being that big of a derailment. I'm sure Dennis was smoking weed and dabbling in cocaine as well, but he was the most prolific out of any of them. I understand being against drugs but Dennis was cranking out some good tunes. Arguably the best out of the whole band at the time.

What did Bruce think would happen when he restricted 3 family members and founders of a band he was the newest to join? In the main man's house, no less.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9184


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2020, 09:51:21 AM »

A point was raised in Mike's book which I'd like to address and discuss, as it has been discussed and debated quite a few times through the years. What happened to Bruce when Jack Rieley was managing the band and he ended up no longer in the band?

In Mike's book, the claim is made that Bruce was voted out of the band by the Wilsons with help from Jack Rieley.

What struck me is how that contradicts not only what several researchers here had posted about that situation, and I'll post the relevant quotes from this board's archives, but also what Mike himself told Keith Altham in a New Musical Express interview from June 1972 where he said "The Beach Boys never threw Bruce out...", "...Bruce said 'If that's the way you feel about it maybe I should just leave - I don't want to leave but maybe it's for the best!'. It was very amicable." And further "...when Bruce was confronted with it, he took it subjectively and he over-reacted, and said he would split."

That suggests pretty clearly that Bruce left, as reported by Mike, and according to Mike it was an amicable split.

Here are the relevant quotes from the archives on this issue:

Here is the paragraph from my book about this subject:
Bruce told the BBC in early 1974 that on “the last tour I was on, I kind of felt strange because the group had gotten kind of clubby again.  You had two guys, Mike and Al, who were deeply involved in meditation, you had Carl and Ricky that were kind of tight, you had Blondie who was kind of alone and Dennis (who) wasn’t quite sure of his role because he had an accident with his hand and he couldn’t play drums for a long time and he was trying to get used to the role of finally singing.  And so the group kind of felt a little uncomfortable with each other and we just kind of decided that it would be better to not play together and feel comfortable.” The Beach Boys had their own take on Bruce’s departure.  Brian told Record World in June 1973 that Bruce “got into a horrible fight with Jack Rieley. Some dispute and they got into a horrible fight and the next day he was gone.” Mike opined to Val Mabbs of Record Mirror that Bruce “left because he wasn’t too happy about things.  It was decided that because of a couple of feelings harbored by different members of the group and the way things went with Bruce developing a solo career it made it more or less an uncompromising situation.” Dennis told Martin Lewis of NME that “musically we didn’t click…appreciate each other, so one day we both said OK, that’s it.  He’s a good guy but he was writing stuff for a solo artist…we’re a band.” Chip Rachlin noted, “Bruce didn’t really have a buddy in the group and he was sort of the odd man out.  He didn’t get along with Jack Rieley and he could be a little meddlesome.”


Bruce: depends on who you listen to as to what happened. Bruce himself says he wasn't happy with the direction in which Rieley was taking the band, so he quit, amicably. According to Brian, there was a huge bust-up. But all agree, Bruce left - he wasn't fired.

Blondie: similarly, he quit, after a backstage altercation with then-manager Steve Love at Madison Square Garden, December 19th, 1973. Allegedly, racial epithets were applied to him.

So, neither fired.


As far as the idea of Bruce behing fired, that seems to stem from two Leafs:  David Leaf wrote in his book, "The one member who never wanted to leave the band was ultimately let go in the spring of 1972.  An Earl Leaf gossip column noted that 'On the seventh anniversary of attaining his official status as a Beach Boy, guitarman Bruce Johnston got the axe.  Carl Wilson, Mike Love and Al Jardine voted unanimously to drop him from the group due to hostile vibes his lefeways caused them.'"  DL then goes on to write, "Bruce claims that he left the group by mutual consent, but regardless of how 'mutual' the decision was, there is no question that it was Jack Rieley who forced Bruce out of the group.  Bruce:  'I don't know if he was trying to get rid of me; I think he was just trying to redirect a band.'"  Leaf, Gaines, and Bruce himself also imply that Bruce was trying to convince the group to sack Rieley.

Other sources say Rieley fired Bruce, Rieley in a 2013 Record Collector interview says he was asked to fire him by The Wilsons, yet others report that Jack hated Bruce, and Brian's quote in Ian's post above describes a blow-up between the two...

Needless to say, there is a lot going on here.

But again, what jumped out of the book as of 2016 was the claim that Bruce was voted out (essentially fired) by the Wilsons and helped by Jack Rieley, while Mike himself in 1972 told Keith Altham it was Bruce who left and it was amicable, and I think some of the writers quoted above and others took that NME interview as at least one of the official versions of events since it was coming from Mike himself. Now that narrative seems to have changed.

A bit confusing.


It is, to be blunt, confusing as hell.

The book suggests the Wilsons helped by Jack Rieley voted Bruce out.

C-Man referenced and Earl Leaf gossip column that reported Carl, Mike, and Al "voted unanimously" to oust Bruce.

Ian Rusten, C-Man, and Andrew Doe posted what they had researched, including comments from individual band members, and with the statement that Bruce was not fired.

Jack Rieley as recently as discussions here from the past few months has had his credibility challenged, and doubt cast on his word in general on the basis of certain "lies" he told being outed and disproven. With the implication that his word isn't trustworthy because of his lies in the past. So there is Jack's 2013 Record Collector interview saying "The Wilsons" were behind Bruce's removal. Do we trust him on that? Is that the source cited for the book's version of events?

But the main point seems to come back to Mike's own interviews. In the 1972 interview in NME, he specifically said Bruce was the one who walked away, in an amicable split, and gave further details which line up with several other quotes turned up by the researchers. He was also quoted in Record Mirror as saying Bruce "left".

We realize fact-checking and researching these things requires a lot of weighing of sources and trying to determine what is the most on-point version of events.

In this case, Mike's book in 2016 looks to be in direct conflict with what Mike himself said in 1972 when Bruce's departure was current news. Perhaps more of a clarification was necessary, because it doesn't add up as written. And the researchers quoted above, as well as their sources, paint a different picture than is presented in 2016 where "the Wilsons" are reported to be the ones who voted for Bruce's ouster.


Those are just a few old posts to consider on this topic. As I posted 4 years ago, what was published in Mike's book doesn't line up with other accounts of Bruce's departure, specifically the point that Mike suggests "The Wilsons" voted Bruce out while other sources prior to the book said Mike voted him out too. Besides the other contradictions, that's a pretty glaring one to consider. And there's also the notion floated in the above quotes that Bruce had said he left as his own decision and was not fired.

Maybe someday the questions will be answered properly, until then there are the above accounts to choose from to find a logical answer.
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
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1887



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2020, 12:07:54 PM »

If Bruce actually posted a sign that said “No Wilsons Allowed” in Brian’s home studio, he deserved to get kicked out.
Logged

B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 721



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2020, 01:02:56 PM »

I was reading about Sunflower on Wikipedia - obviously not a legitimate source - and there was a quote that said:

In August, Carl, Dennis, Mike Love, and Jardine sought a permanent replacement for Johnston. They approached Carl's brother-in-law Billy Hinsche, who declined the offer to focus on his college studies.

I had never heard this before. Is this true? Did Bruce know at the time? What was the reasoning? Strange they wanted to boot him but ended up taking two of his songs for the album. And featuring him vocally on other songs on the album.

And their next A-side was "Tears In The Morning". So, if true, very odd. I think it's telling, though, that it wasn't until Blondie, Ricky, and Jack were on board, and Dennis had injured his hand, that they "finally" pushed Bruce out.

Edit: The wiki quote is referring to August 1969, not 1970.

If Bruce actually posted a sign that said “No Wilsons Allowed” in Brian’s home studio, he deserved to get kicked out.

Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal - assuming it happened only once. I'm sure much crazier sh*t went down.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 01:58:59 PM by B.E. » Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4744


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2020, 04:11:59 PM »

According to an Al Jardine interview from around 2000-2002, the sign Bruce posted on the studio door actually read, "No Beach Boys Allowed", and it was during the "Disney Girls" sessions. Of course, Al's memory isn't impeccable (no one's is), and we know that the other guys (except Dennis, I think) ended up singing on "Disney Girls", so I take this to mean Bruce didn't want any help aka interference aka distractions from the others during the song's production, until he was ready to loop them in.

As for Bruce's exit from the band in early '72, another thing he (Bruce) said shortly thereafter was that he and Dennis weren't getting along.


Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9468


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2020, 03:48:28 AM »

Also the fact needs to be remembered that Bruce still played or sang on nearly all Beach Boys albums between his departure and his "comeback". If there was any real animosity, I don't know if this would've happened. Plus Dennis even got him to play on P. O. B. and wrote in the credits "God bless you, Bruce" or something to that effect. Again, if there was a falling out between the Beach Boys and Bruce, this seems kinda odd (not that that's uncommon with this band).
I guess if anything bad happened, it wasn't between the Beach Boys and Bruce, although they certainly may have had different ideas of the band's direction. And although Brian's memory is not always the most reliable, it seems that it is mostly spot on, when he says things out loud that others try hard to formulate in diplomatic terms - Jack and Bruce had a falling out. That makes the most sense to me. Certainly that also implies that to the band it was not such a big deal to let him go. There may have been some tensions and the presumed Riley incident was just the last straw. But that's just my guess.


If Bruce actually posted a sign that said “No Wilsons Allowed” in Brian’s home studio, he deserved to get kicked out.

Not to overly nit-pick, but Stephen Desper made it clear on this board, that the studio was owned by the Beach Boys, not Brian. It was in his house, sure, but the studio itself belonged to the band. I can see your point though. On the other hand, do we know if this was maybe just a joke by Bruce?
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
Mark H.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 316



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2020, 10:19:11 AM »

I heard or read somewhere that Bruce was fishing for a solo record deal from Warner Brothers in summer-67 - thus his absence from the Hawaii concerts.  I doubt that set well with the band.

I've also heard or read that Mike approached David Marks in 69 or so about returning to the band to replace Bruce.  Seems like his status was never really that rock solid until he returned in 1980. 
Logged
startBBtoday
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 693



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2020, 11:53:36 AM »

Ah yeah, I remember that in Mike's book. Going based of the rumors, Brian wasn't that involved in the studio with the other boys. Usually just some studio cats and a maybe 1 or 2 of the boys, right?

If Bruce admired Brian that much and Brian wasn't playing with the guys in the studio then that 'no Wilson's allowed' sign must have been almost solely directed at Dennis and Carl. Was Carl's drug use really THAT bad during that time? I know him and Jack would indulge in cocaine but I can't see that being that big of a derailment. I'm sure Dennis was smoking weed and dabbling in cocaine as well, but he was the most prolific out of any of them. I understand being against drugs but Dennis was cranking out some good tunes. Arguably the best out of the whole band at the time.

What did Bruce think would happen when he restricted 3 family members and founders of a band he was the newest to join? In the main man's house, no less.

It seems like the constant here is that there was animosity between Bruce and Jack, and there might be some grey area as to whether Bruce left amicably or was forced out.

I tend to agree with Dennis' assessment that Bruce was writing solo material even within the context of the band. I've probably belabored this point in my personal posting, but Bruce's compositions always sound more like Bruce Johnson solo tracks than they do Beach Boys songs.

"Disney Girls" is probably my favorite Bruce song, but it's an odd fit on Surf's Up. A Bruce song would have stuck out even more on Holland or CATP. There's room for Bruce in The Beach Boys, and there's room for Blondie and Ricky in The Beach Boys, but I'm not quite sure there's room for Bruce, Blondie and Ricky. And Jack wanted to go with the rootsier feel for the band.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 02:55:13 PM by startBBtoday » Logged
RubberSoul13
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1223


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2020, 01:53:01 PM »

Bruce never had any business being a full-time member of this band. I like nearly all his songs, but they bring every record they are on to a screeching halt. In live recordings from the 60's and 70's, he sticks out like a sore thumb. By his return in the 80's and onward, he was just another guy in the big party on stage and it didn't really matter. Bruce has had the easiest job in rock and roll: clap your hands and tour non-stop. I see it as the equivalent to a paid vacation for the last 40+ years.
Logged
startBBtoday
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 693



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2020, 02:59:48 PM »

Bruce never had any business being a full-time member of this band. I like nearly all his songs, but they bring every record they are on to a screeching halt. In live recordings from the 60's and 70's, he sticks out like a sore thumb. By his return in the 80's and onward, he was just another guy in the big party on stage and it didn't really matter. Bruce has had the easiest job in rock and roll: clap your hands and tour non-stop. I see it as the equivalent to a paid vacation for the last 40+ years.

Not to pile on the Bruce hate, but it is pretty funny that he was initially hired as a Brian Wilson replacement on falsetto, but that ... didn't really happen for long, at least in a live setting.

It's also odd that Bruce was better at writing songs that sounded like the Beach Boys before he was actually a member of the Beach Boys.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2020, 03:20:17 PM »

According to an Al Jardine interview from around 2000-2002, the sign Bruce posted on the studio door actually read, "No Beach Boys Allowed", and it was during the "Disney Girls" sessions. Of course, Al's memory isn't impeccable (no one's is), and we know that the other guys (except Dennis, I think) ended up singing on "Disney Girls", so I take this to mean Bruce didn't want any help aka interference aka distractions from the others during the song's production, until he was ready to loop them in.

As for Bruce's exit from the band in early '72, another thing he (Bruce) said shortly thereafter was that he and Dennis weren't getting along.


Howie has said that Bruce was extremely informative for his interviews for the "Feel Flows" boxed set, so perhaps we'll get more info on all of this.

Obvious to say, but "No Beach Boys Allowed" is arguably a worse sign to post than "No Wilsons Allowed." He's in Brian's home studio, recording on the *Beach Boys dime* (was Bruce even part of the Warner/Reprise contract? I don't think so.), for a Beach Boys album. If he really posted such a sign, one wouldn't be crazy for wondering if it was an active attempt to get fired.

Imagine, say, Scott Totten going to Mike's home studio today and posting "No Loves Allowed" on the studio door. Totten would be touring with "Papa Doo Ron Ron" before the evening was over.

You'd think Bruce would have a more diplomatic, less passive-agressive way to simply tell the guys he needed some "alone time" to work on the song.

Friggin' weird guys. And yet, all of that amazing music pouring out of them despite it all.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5508



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2020, 03:21:13 PM »

Unrelated Bruce question:

Did Bruce have a promotional deal with the clothing company Big Dog in the late 1980s and early 1980s?

It seems that multiple appearances on full house as well as other schlock at the time seemed to have Bruce looking like a walking billboard for the company in a manner that seems to be way too frequent to have simply been an accident.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2020, 03:34:41 PM »

Unrelated Bruce question:

Did Bruce have a promotional deal with the clothing company Big Dog in the late 1980s and early 1980s?

It seems that multiple appearances on full house as well as other schlock at the time seemed to have Bruce looking like a walking billboard for the company in a manner that seems to be way too frequent to have simply been an accident.

I think it was just trendy in the 90s, especially among some celebrities.

Here's an article from a few years ago (the title of which could arguably help explain its appeal to Bruce):

"How a big dog became a symbol for white, male America" - https://theoutline.com/post/1921/how-a-big-dog-became-a-symbol-for-white-male-america?zd=1&zi=jm235zbv
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5508



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2020, 03:48:56 PM »

Unrelated Bruce question:

Did Bruce have a promotional deal with the clothing company Big Dog in the late 1980s and early 1980s?

It seems that multiple appearances on full house as well as other schlock at the time seemed to have Bruce looking like a walking billboard for the company in a manner that seems to be way too frequent to have simply been an accident.

I think it was just trendy in the 90s, especially among some celebrities.

Here's an article from a few years ago (the title of which could arguably help explain its appeal to Bruce):

"How a big dog became a symbol for white, male America" - https://theoutline.com/post/1921/how-a-big-dog-became-a-symbol-for-white-male-america?zd=1&zi=jm235zbv

Wow, truly a fascinating article. Thanks, HJ.

I still guess that he must have been paid. I don't think any celebrity could wear a giant, massive brand name on their shirt on a major television show on a TV network without it raising eyebrows and without it being cleared by network legal, etc.

But who knows…

(Big Dog Only Knows, that's who)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 03:49:31 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
startBBtoday
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 693



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2020, 04:09:51 PM »

Unrelated Bruce question:

Did Bruce have a promotional deal with the clothing company Big Dog in the late 1980s and early 1980s?

It seems that multiple appearances on full house as well as other schlock at the time seemed to have Bruce looking like a walking billboard for the company in a manner that seems to be way too frequent to have simply been an accident.

I think it was just trendy in the 90s, especially among some celebrities.

Here's an article from a few years ago (the title of which could arguably help explain its appeal to Bruce):

"How a big dog became a symbol for white, male America" - https://theoutline.com/post/1921/how-a-big-dog-became-a-symbol-for-white-male-america?zd=1&zi=jm235zbv

Wow, truly a fascinating article. Thanks, HJ.

I still guess that he must have been paid. I don't think any celebrity could wear a giant, massive brand name on their shirt on a major television show on a TV network without it raising eyebrows and without it being cleared by network legal, etc.

But who knows…

(Big Dog Only Knows, that's who)
I may not always wear you
But as long as there are dollars from you
I'll go on Full House with it
As long as that Big Dog shirt fits

Big Dog Only Knows if this shirt was free from you
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 04:12:05 PM by startBBtoday » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5508



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2020, 05:35:37 PM »

Unrelated Bruce question:

Did Bruce have a promotional deal with the clothing company Big Dog in the late 1980s and early 1980s?

It seems that multiple appearances on full house as well as other schlock at the time seemed to have Bruce looking like a walking billboard for the company in a manner that seems to be way too frequent to have simply been an accident.

I think it was just trendy in the 90s, especially among some celebrities.

Here's an article from a few years ago (the title of which could arguably help explain its appeal to Bruce):

"How a big dog became a symbol for white, male America" - https://theoutline.com/post/1921/how-a-big-dog-became-a-symbol-for-white-male-america?zd=1&zi=jm235zbv

Wow, truly a fascinating article. Thanks, HJ.

I still guess that he must have been paid. I don't think any celebrity could wear a giant, massive brand name on their shirt on a major television show on a TV network without it raising eyebrows and without it being cleared by network legal, etc.

But who knows…

(Big Dog Only Knows, that's who)
I may not always wear you
But as long as there are dollars from you
I'll go on Full House with it
As long as that Big Dog shirt fits

Big Dog Only Knows if this shirt was free from you


 LOL LOL LOL
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 897



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2020, 03:03:25 PM »

Bruce certainly seems to have had more than a dollop of passive-aggressive bipolarity in his behavioral patterns--particularly back in the '69-'72 period, when he seems to have played a strange game of chicken with the Beach Boys (and the Wilson brothers in particular). Let's not forget the tale related by Don Goldberg about how Bruce "misplaced" the master tape of "Out in the Country" in order to assure that it wouldn't make it onto what eventually became SO TOUGH. (Bruce must've been fighting for a slot on the LP, but it appears that Jack Rieley was gunning for him after SURF'S UP. Bruce wasted no time in criticizing SO TOUGH after he left the band, which suggests a nice plate of sour grapes at the time which had to be from being rejected creatively--his whitebread approach was ousted for the funk and grit that Blondie and Ricky provided.)

Bruce had talked out of both sides of his mouth about the band over the years, and I'm sure that this fact was not lost on Carl, who was the one ultimately calling the shots in the '71-'74 time frame. That said, he's undeniably talented; Carl, Mike and Brian certainly knew that bringing him back when things were really floundering in 1978 was a way to stop the bleeding, even if it meant that career inertia was inevitable: talent does not equal creative inspiration. They settled into a marriage of convenience; and, as time went on, Mike and Bruce found many compatibilities (including politics) and y'all know the rest...  Smokin
Logged
feelintheflows
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 100



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2020, 03:21:16 PM »

The way I see it Bruce was not a founding member of that group, he joined 4 years after they formed and what 9 or 10 albums in, and dozens of hit singles later? So he really had no ground to give any sort of authority. I’m sure the others valued his input and music but he did not contribute a lot to the band, not his fault but more the fact they had Brian, Mike, Carl and Dennis doing a lot of the work.


It’s not like in the Doobie brothers where a founding member was too sick to tour   they brought in Michael McDonald and then.. well you know the rest
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 03:23:21 PM by feelintheflows » Logged
Custom Machine
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1277



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2020, 02:34:59 AM »

For a more contemporary account from Bruce, four years ago when speaking to him I mentioned the April 1973 Hollywood Palladium concert, during the time he had left the band but appeared onstage during the encores. Although I hadn’t asked what had caused his departure, he emphatically stated, “Do you wanna know why I left The Beach Boys? Drugs! I left because of drugs and the terrible effect they were having on members of the band."
Logged
phirnis
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 2463



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2020, 02:54:41 AM »

Bruce certainly seems to have had more than a dollop of passive-aggressive bipolarity in his behavioral patterns--particularly back in the '69-'72 period, when he seems to have played a strange game of chicken with the Beach Boys (and the Wilson brothers in particular). Let's not forget the tale related by Don Goldberg about how Bruce "misplaced" the master tape of "Out in the Country" in order to assure that it wouldn't make it onto what eventually became SO TOUGH. (Bruce must've been fighting for a slot on the LP, but it appears that Jack Rieley was gunning for him after SURF'S UP. Bruce wasted no time in criticizing SO TOUGH after he left the band, which suggests a nice plate of sour grapes at the time which had to be from being rejected creatively--his whitebread approach was ousted for the funk and grit that Blondie and Ricky provided.)

That's the first time I ever heard about this. What a weird thing to do! "Out in the Country" would have been a great addition to So Tough. "Brand New Old Friends", not so much I guess...
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2020, 03:15:15 PM »

For a more contemporary account from Bruce, four years ago when speaking to him I mentioned the April 1973 Hollywood Palladium concert, during the time he had left the band but appeared onstage during the encores. Although I hadn’t asked what had caused his departure, he emphatically stated, “Do you wanna know why I left The Beach Boys? Drugs! I left because of drugs and the terrible effect they were having on members of the band."

Weird, because Bruce rejoined in 1978/79 smack dab in the middle of a multi-year run where some members of the band were more off-the-rails than they were in 1972. Dennis is booted from the band for a year, Brian is increasingly withdrawn at shows due to self-medication, and both Dennis and Brian are missing gigs left and right while they *are* in the touring band, and Bruce stayed on through *all* of that.

Not saying drugs *weren't* an issue, indirectly and/or directly. But I tend to think in 1972 there were a few layers to Bruce's departure.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2020, 03:20:21 PM »

Not to overly nit-pick, but Stephen Desper made it clear on this board, that the studio was owned by the Beach Boys, not Brian. It was in his house, sure, but the studio itself belonged to the band. I can see your point though. On the other hand, do we know if this was maybe just a joke by Bruce?

That's a good point to make. However, it would probably be more accurate to say the contents of the studio were owned by the Beach Boys. If you stick your group-owned studio inside someone's house, that person can still kick you out of their house. I'm also not sure if Bruce was ever part of the group corporate structure. Did he own a stake in those studio assets? Was he part of the Warner Bros. contract?

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Sound of Free
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2020, 03:41:59 PM »

I think the guys' relationship with Bruce, like everything else, is complicated. Obviously there were troubles, but also positives.

Brian clearly liked Bruce's voice, since he made it prominent on three of the key songs they recorded in Bruce's first year with the band, "California Girls," "The Little Girl I Once Knew" and "God Only Knows." And he also sang lead on the Brian-Al "At My Window."

Bruce and Dennis may have had issues, but Bruce taught Dennis to play piano (or expanded on the training Audree had given him). He also sang on "End of the Show." And in live shows, when Dennis would sing "You Are So Beautiful," it was Dennis playing the piano, when Mike Meros could have easily done it.

And while Bruce was anti-drugs, he's there smiling with the three Wilson brothers at the "Love You" release party when he wasn't even in the band.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 12:51:58 PM by Sound of Free » Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.19 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!