gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
676405 Posts in 27291 Topics by 4032 Members - Latest Member: theangel August 10, 2022, 01:31:27 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 'CHAOS' The new Manson book  (Read 7911 times)
Tom
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 139



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2021, 06:50:14 PM »

Side question - when did it come to public knowledge that 'Never Learn Not To Love' was a rework of Manson's 'Cease to Exist'? Was it as late as March 1970 when 'Lie: the Love and Terror Cult' was released, and if so, how long did it take people to pick up on the connection?
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2021, 12:23:26 PM »

My recollections of the 1970-71 time frame--which are here to be corrected by those who've done a more complete dive into the many Manson source materials (I've ordered CHAOS and plan to work it into my reading shortly after it arrives)--was that the press in general really tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the band and Dennis after the Manson events broke wide. Their reviews of SUNFLOWER are glowing. They did not pick up and run with Dennis' earlier statements about his association with Manson--a few sensationalistic references, but these were kept on the margins.

But there was clearly something going on behind the scenes that Fred Vail bumped into, but may not have connected the dots at the time in terms of a "slient backlash" that involved the folks who could make or break an album commercially making sure that SUNFLOWER tanked.

Think of it as a tradeoff--you are cut loose in the industry to sink or swim based on how things play out, in exchange for not being dragged into an incredibly messy story about music biz excess and the type of FBI "sting operation" lawlessness built on destroying the political efficacy of the counterculture (which went way beyond destroying the credibility of rock stars: let's not forget their involvement in domestic political assassinations of key figures in dissent political groups, such as Fred Hampton).

Moving away from the hoary tip of the iceberg in the Manson situation, maybe we now can more clearly embrace the thinking in the Beach Boys' camp once Jack Rieley is on board, a recognition that the band had to mount an all-out counterassault on their past image AND more aggressively employ the SMiLE myth in order to dig themselves out of a hole that might otherwise have had no bottom. Adds another dimension as to why some were so adamant about resurrecting "Surf's Up." It helps to explain the rather pointed tone of VDP's quote about guaranteeing pre-sales by making "Surf's Up" the title of the LP.
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1982



View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2021, 09:06:31 PM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 09:07:36 PM by DonnyL » Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2021, 09:24:52 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.
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: 1982



View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2021, 09:40:32 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.

Yes, those are the stories I'm referring to I believe. "Boycott" is probably the wrong word- but some people seemed to hate it so much, it was semi-not released originally?
Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2021, 09:45:43 AM »

My recollections of the 1970-71 time frame--which are here to be corrected by those who've done a more complete dive into the many Manson source materials (I've ordered CHAOS and plan to work it into my reading shortly after it arrives)--was that the press in general really tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the band and Dennis after the Manson events broke wide. Their reviews of SUNFLOWER are glowing. They did not pick up and run with Dennis' earlier statements about his association with Manson--a few sensationalistic references, but these were kept on the margins.

But there was clearly something going on behind the scenes that Fred Vail bumped into, but may not have connected the dots at the time in terms of a "slient backlash" that involved the folks who could make or break an album commercially making sure that SUNFLOWER tanked.

Think of it as a tradeoff--you are cut loose in the industry to sink or swim based on how things play out, in exchange for not being dragged into an incredibly messy story about music biz excess and the type of FBI "sting operation" lawlessness built on destroying the political efficacy of the counterculture (which went way beyond destroying the credibility of rock stars: let's not forget their involvement in domestic political assassinations of key figures in dissent political groups, such as Fred Hampton).

Moving away from the hoary tip of the iceberg in the Manson situation, maybe we now can more clearly embrace the thinking in the Beach Boys' camp once Jack Rieley is on board, a recognition that the band had to mount an all-out counterassault on their past image AND more aggressively employ the SMiLE myth in order to dig themselves out of a hole that might otherwise have had no bottom. Adds another dimension as to why some were so adamant about resurrecting "Surf's Up." It helps to explain the rather pointed tone of VDP's quote about guaranteeing pre-sales by making "Surf's Up" the title of the LP.

Very interesting points. I do agree that I haven't seen nor heard of many (if any) attempts to bury artists based on a Manson connection. Not saying it didn't happen, but it doesn't seem to have any proof behind it. Like I said earlier in this discussion, both Hollywood and the music business is exactly like the stock market: Actors, directors, musicians, screenwriters, and producers are ultimately viewed and used as commodities whose value rises and falls exactly like the stock market. These commodities are invested in and traded in order to do one thing: Make money for the investors. When something threatens that, and when a lot of money stands to be lost and unable to be recouped, there are damage control plans put into place to prevent that. Investors don't like losing money. And if the damage can't be controlled, the commodity (in terms of an actual human being) is thrown under the bus and cut loose, which then leads to more damage control to remove any associations from those who are still hot moneymaking commodities.

I just don't know of or can't think of anyone connected to Manson who was thrown under the bus. Terry Melcher continued to work for his mother Doris Day and made a lot of money doing so, then got back into making records and especially in the 80's helped the Beach Boys get back onto the charts several times. I don't see Dennis' association doing any damage in terms of the Beach Boys, they had already been thrown under the bus with Capitol after their contract was up, and they were able to get a deal on Warner/Reprise to continue making records and touring. Were they blackballed because of Manson? I don't see it. Someone still thought they were a commodity who could make money.

Go down the list of other actors and musicians who were in contact with Manson - Were any of them obviously thrown under the proverbial bus? Neil Young bought Manson a motorbike and had good things to say about Charlie's music, and Neil didn't suffer at all. Mama Cass was involved with many of the players, close friends with the murder victims, and at one point was threatened with charges by the LAPD...she got a network TV show and other solo starring vehicles right after the murders. No harm there in the associations.

Roman Polanski continued to make movies, and just several years after the trial he made Chinatown, which is one of the greatest films of all time. If the contents of those Sony Porta-Pak video reels in his attic at the murder house were ever made public, he'd have been sunk long before his similar activities came to light around 1977. But in the wake of Manson and the trials, he was still working in Hollywood and making acclaimed films, and making money for those bankrolling him (including Hugh Hefner).

I think if anything, attempts were made to shield or protect those commodities in the entertainment business from any negative backlash surrounding Manson. And that goes right up to the way Bugliosi planned the prosecution strategy and the witnesses for the prosecution. He made a case, now we know some was not factual, in order to secure a conviction without getting deep into the Manson universe of people and things which could potentially lose a lot of money for a lot of people, as well as possibly blow the lid off some nefarious if not criminal activity from government agencies.

It's an interesting exploration overall, that's what keeps me interested in reading and learning more, and I sure as hell don't think writing it off as conspiracy theory nonsense is serving any purpose for recording the proper and accurate history of the case unless writing it off as tinfoil hat bullshit is another attempt to whitewash and protect certain people and narratives.

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: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2021, 09:59:55 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.

Yes, those are the stories I'm referring to I believe. "Boycott" is probably the wrong word- but some people seemed to hate it so much, it was semi-not released originally?

Most of that hate for the film seems to have been coming from the head of Universal, which was the parent company of the group that gave it the green light originally. I don't know offhand why there was so much anger and resentment toward the film from such a big player at the studio, but it's not an uncommon story with both Hollywood studios and the music biz, where the caricature is a studio head pointing a finger at an actor he didn't like and saying "You'll never work in this town again!". Tying it into another film from this same era, look at the scene in Godfather where studio head Jack Woltz blows up on Tom Hagen at the dinner table over Johnny Fontaine "ruining" one of his best actresses who he invested a lot of money into to become a star. Woltz, of course, ended up with the head of his prized racehorse in his bed, and Fontaine got the role he wanted...and all of it was a thinly veiled reference to Sinatra being cast in From Here To Eternity which was his comeback role.

It could have been something that was pure inside baseball with the people involved, but yes the film was all but sunk and pulled immediately when it was released by the parent studio who released it. Some reports said there were not even advertisements for its opening, and that's almost an open case of the studio sabotaging it by not promoting it. I'm just not sure if a Manson connection had anything to do with why the head of Universal hated the film.

It's the difference between a parent company refusing to promote something and outwardly limiting its release, and theater owners (or music DJ's and program directors) refusing to play something. One comes from within, the other is the delivery system refusing to let the public have a chance to see or hear something. The Beach Boys during this era suffered the latter.
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: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2022, 08:27:58 AM »

Just giving a shout-out to author Jim Berkenstadt who has a new book "Rock and Roll Mysteries: Case Closed" that touches on the Manson case and connections to The Beach Boys. Sounds like an interesting read beyond the Manson story, as does Jim's book on Jimmy Nicol which I'm going to seek out.

Some side notes: Jim was on the Beach Boys Talk videocast last night, I watched his full interview. A few points were made that were either slightly shaded from what has been reported before, or may just need a clarification, but overall it was a good interview. One was Jim suggesting that Manson "pulled a knife" on Stephen Desper during recording sessions at Brian's home studio. Stephen told the full story here on this forum some years ago in his own words, and I'll just suggest using the phrase "pulled a knife" suggests a more violent or threatening act than what Manson did, which was more along the lines of playing with a knife, picking his fingernails with that knife, etc...and Stephen called his bluff and asked to inspect the knife. Anyway, read Stephen's own account of that episode in the archives here.

But I'd like to ask for a clarification or more info on a few things that were revealed during the show. First, one of the BB Talk hosts said something along the lines of people either warning or advising them not to take up the Manson topic. Maybe it was just an offhand remark, but since both hosts have posted here before and perhaps have their own reasons for not bothering anymore (which I'll happily entertain with either of them privately considering who was formerly more involved with their shows), I'd like to ask them who either warned or advised against discussing the Manson topic, and in what capacity this was done.

The reason why I'm posting this here is because the Manson topic is open for discussion here, as much as perhaps some interests might want to squelch those discussions or suggest anything beyond the "Helter Skelter" narrative is tinfoil hat conspiracy nuttiness. If people want to tell the story of the band and make it all "sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows" that's their prerogative, but telling a sanitized version of history doesn't serve much purpose beyond eliminating entire parts of that history.

There were a few more points made during the chat that stood out, so I'll definitely be seeking out Jim's book for more details and more comments to follow.

I just wanted to say again that if there are people within BB's circles trying to discourage fans from discussing or reading about a factual and real chapter of the band's history, and telling people who have outlets for such discussions to stay away from the topic, that's a pretty sad commentary on the flow of information about the band, and kudos to the hosts for taking on the topic. There is more to that whole story than what most have accepted as the official narrative, and it goes beyond where the court transcripts would carry it.

Logged

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

Posts: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2022, 08:58:12 AM »

For those interested in the Manson knife stories, here's the discussion from 2012, the actual story and the link to follow the rest of the discussions:

COMMENT:  Yes. He liked to clean under his fingernails with the blade. It was a switchblade knife. Things like that don't bother me. I made it plain from the on-set that I was in charge of the recording session. When he pulled out his knife, I let him clean himself a few times and then ask Manson if I could see his knife and would he show me how it works -- which he did. Then I ask him again if I could hold the knife to see how the weight was. He did give me the knife and I balanced it on my finger to check the balance. We talked a little about balance and how it affected the toss of the knife. After that he put it in his pocked and got down to the business of recording. This knife nail cleaning habit is not unusual among some would-be tough guys. I saw it practiced while in High School as a student. If it was intended to impress or threaten me; it did not -- and Manson knew it by my at-ease with this practice. In fact, Manson displayed respect for me and told me so when he did not have a light for his cigarette. I went off leaving him along in the control room, to search in Brian's house for a match. When I returned with a book of matches, Charlie thought that was really something -- that I would make such an effort on his behalf. (Actually I just did not want him wondering around Brian and Marylin's house looking for a light.) At any event it did tend to make a positive impression in him.

Please keep in mind as you read all this, that it happened a couple of weeks BEFORE the "event."  So to me he was this creapy guy I was to record playing his Guitar and singing some original songs. I treated Charlie with the same respect as anyone recording in the studio, but he started out a little pushy, or maybe that's how it impressed me. In hind sight I'd say he just had a problem with authority.  At first it was, "I'm going to do this and you record me," whereas after the first playback it became more like, "what do I do now so you can make a better recording." That is, he realized that I was running the session, not him -- that he was out of his league in the studio environment and had best trust an expert if he wanted the end product to reflect his best side. Once that was established he did farily well as an artist and things moved along.

~swd   


http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12729.msg273557.html#msg273557

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
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 622



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2022, 11:23:35 AM »

We'll never get the real truth of course, but I do find it interesting to chip away at little parts of the story to draw ones own conclusion.

Regarding the Manson letter mentioned earlier in this thread, it's so rambling, but in all these references, there would be some you can pull out as 'truths'

Curious, Manson mentions a French girl that was chasing Dennis and involved with Jimi Hendrix?
Manson says something along the lines that Dennis and Manson are at Elvis' place (assuming) and they have all these girls and Priscilla  comes home, and it sounds like Elvis kinda puts an end to the party.

Just to me , if these are ramblings of a lunatic, there is some odd references and specifics...
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2022, 07:08:33 PM »

When that Manson letter first appeared online it was a pretty jaw-dropping thing, and just as you said, it was the details and the names and places that removed the contents from being easily written off as the rantings and imagination of a lunatic. It made sense, especially for those who knew the history.

The clincher for me was the mention of the Sony PortaPak videotape systems, and what the wealthy and famous were doing with them...since very few could afford them in 1968. Remember Brian got one from Sony in late 66 or early 67 (more 66 I believe), and he would record mock Johnny Carson show skits with his Smile crew and videotape various scenes around LA. Dennis later got one and apparently gave it to Manson, and in the letter Manson describes what was done with these setups and who was doing it.

So another jaw-dropping moment was when Tom O'Neill did the Joe Rogan interview, and revealed a secret which Bugliosi had told him about the Ceilo Drive house...and what Roman Polanski immediately went looking for after he was taken there by the LAPD detectives.

That's pretty strong evidence that - again as you said - there may very well be truth within that letter Manson wrote. Such coincidences might happen by chance but it's usually more than coincidence.
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
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 622



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2022, 10:30:26 AM »

Totally fascinating, and the video stuff is a bit disturbing but makes sense. The tapes were almost secured by the fact nobody had players to watch them with.

These little bits of info that aren't directly related to the murders, but make you question things. Like Olivia Hussey was living at Cielo, a month after the murders, and claims Terry was pretty much back living there as well....huh? Might mean nothing on its own, other than seeming like an odd choice, but then if you start to look at this whole Vince-Rudi-Terry triangle, you wonder.

Never ever gonna convince me that Charlie and the family weren't terrible humans.... But you could definitely convince me that Charlie got screwed when it comes to the justice system.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9874


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2022, 08:48:08 AM »

Totally fascinating, and the video stuff is a bit disturbing but makes sense. The tapes were almost secured by the fact nobody had players to watch them with.

These little bits of info that aren't directly related to the murders, but make you question things. Like Olivia Hussey was living at Cielo, a month after the murders, and claims Terry was pretty much back living there as well....huh? Might mean nothing on its own, other than seeming like an odd choice, but then if you start to look at this whole Vince-Rudi-Terry triangle, you wonder.

Never ever gonna convince me that Charlie and the family weren't terrible humans.... But you could definitely convince me that Charlie got screwed when it comes to the justice system.

The last sentence is, I think, very important to consider. When discussing these topics, bringing out new points or evidence, or even disputing the official Bugliosi narrative (and challenging the court case and transcripts of the case directly), some try to equate that with defending or even championing Charles Manson himself, and that's simply not the case. It's already been discussed earlier in this particular thread, but why do you think there is such a strong reaction to either challenging the official narrative or even discussing lesser-known elements of the case overall? Right away there are reactions like calling people conspiracy nuts, writing off the entire history by saying Manson was a nutcase and a piece of garbage and that's the final word, and even calling the topic overall "toxic" and trying to avoid it entirely.

Just consider why that's the case. It's too much to go into, or maybe not, but that reaction on a broader level well beyond the Beach Boys gets into some pretty high level agencies, distraction and disinformation tactics, and public relations campaigns to sell certain ideas or conclusions over others. How many reasons can be considered for totally ignoring a pretty strong case for prosecutorial misconduct at the very least, where witnesses were coached and lied in testimony, and where evidence was withheld in order to make stronger case for conviction (and later a national narrative about the scenario overall), and outright criminal activity at worst among those involved in these intertwining court cases. It's easy to make Manson the ultimate boogeyman or manifestation of all evil in the 60's, and of course he was a terrible human along with those around him, but that doesn't excuse such blatant attempts to twist the justice system however is necessary to win convictions and promote a narrative, especially when there were so many moving parts involved in these cases.

In various school of law, an exercise is often done where landmark trials or cases are revisited and retried in the classroom. Has anyone in that capacity ever reopened and re-enacted the State versus Charles Manson trial? If so, I find it hard to believe the same inconsistencies or outright misconduct would not come out in the process.

But that's getting too deep into the purely legal aspects. The fascination for many music fans of the 60's and 60's culture in general is how this guy, a classic con-artist and hustler, managed to enter and navigate what some might consider a few of the more elite circles of 60's rock stardom and celebrity, and how he managed to do so while not bathing, and literally being fresh out of prison where he had spent the majority of his life since his teen years. It's still mind-blowing to consider who he really was and how he got an all-access pass to some very elite circles. And all of the threads that led to and from Charlie into those circles are some of the same points that got left out of the trials, and which exist only in books like O'Neill's Chaos book, and then O'Neill gets tagged as a conspiracy nut for bringing them up.

So discussing the case or finding inconsistencies is not the equivalent to defending or championing Manson. And people are not tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts for taking a scholarly interest in the details. That's basic logic that gets sadly lost too often.

And maybe that's what made me raise an eyebrow when one of the Beach Boys Talk hosts mentioned in Tuesday's webcast that they had been warned or advised not to tackle the Manson topic. What's happening with that, and why is a topic relevant to the band's history being tagged as a topic to avoid?
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
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 622



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2022, 11:03:50 AM »

Totally fascinating, and the video stuff is a bit disturbing but makes sense. The tapes were almost secured by the fact nobody had players to watch them with.

These little bits of info that aren't directly related to the murders, but make you question things. Like Olivia Hussey was living at Cielo, a month after the murders, and claims Terry was pretty much back living there as well....huh? Might mean nothing on its own, other than seeming like an odd choice, but then if you start to look at this whole Vince-Rudi-Terry triangle, you wonder.

Never ever gonna convince me that Charlie and the family weren't terrible humans.... But you could definitely convince me that Charlie got screwed when it comes to the justice system.

The last sentence is, I think, very important to consider. When discussing these topics, bringing out new points or evidence, or even disputing the official Bugliosi narrative (and challenging the court case and transcripts of the case directly), some try to equate that with defending or even championing Charles Manson himself, and that's simply not the case. It's already been discussed earlier in this particular thread, but why do you think there is such a strong reaction to either challenging the official narrative or even discussing lesser-known elements of the case overall? Right away there are reactions like calling people conspiracy nuts, writing off the entire history by saying Manson was a nutcase and a piece of garbage and that's the final word, and even calling the topic overall "toxic" and trying to avoid it entirely.

Just consider why that's the case. It's too much to go into, or maybe not, but that reaction on a broader level well beyond the Beach Boys gets into some pretty high level agencies, distraction and disinformation tactics, and public relations campaigns to sell certain ideas or conclusions over others. How many reasons can be considered for totally ignoring a pretty strong case for prosecutorial misconduct at the very least, where witnesses were coached and lied in testimony, and where evidence was withheld in order to make stronger case for conviction (and later a national narrative about the scenario overall), and outright criminal activity at worst among those involved in these intertwining court cases. It's easy to make Manson the ultimate boogeyman or manifestation of all evil in the 60's, and of course he was a terrible human along with those around him, but that doesn't excuse such blatant attempts to twist the justice system however is necessary to win convictions and promote a narrative, especially when there were so many moving parts involved in these cases.

In various school of law, an exercise is often done where landmark trials or cases are revisited and retried in the classroom. Has anyone in that capacity ever reopened and re-enacted the State versus Charles Manson trial? If so, I find it hard to believe the same inconsistencies or outright misconduct would not come out in the process.

But that's getting too deep into the purely legal aspects. The fascination for many music fans of the 60's and 60's culture in general is how this guy, a classic con-artist and hustler, managed to enter and navigate what some might consider a few of the more elite circles of 60's rock stardom and celebrity, and how he managed to do so while not bathing, and literally being fresh out of prison where he had spent the majority of his life since his teen years. It's still mind-blowing to consider who he really was and how he got an all-access pass to some very elite circles. And all of the threads that led to and from Charlie into those circles are some of the same points that got left out of the trials, and which exist only in books like O'Neill's Chaos book, and then O'Neill gets tagged as a conspiracy nut for bringing them up.

So discussing the case or finding inconsistencies is not the equivalent to defending or championing Manson. And people are not tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts for taking a scholarly interest in the details. That's basic logic that gets sadly lost too often.

And maybe that's what made me raise an eyebrow when one of the Beach Boys Talk hosts mentioned in Tuesday's webcast that they had been warned or advised not to tackle the Manson topic. What's happening with that, and why is a topic relevant to the band's history being tagged as a topic to avoid?


Rock Solid, Guitarfool...

Yes a really interesting concept about a mock retrial...wouldn't this be television gold? Everything Manson related seems to draw ratings. It would be a great way to introduce a lot of the O'Neill findings into 'evidence'

And yes, that bigger question about Charlie in Hollywood. I think maybe Charlie (and Terry) answer it for us...girls and sex, as simple as that. Charlie makes a point in his letter, (and it's telling when you read the interviews of many of the girls as to why they were attracted to Charlie) as to his ability to bring out feelings and dispel fears in these girls(carefully targeted ones, no doubt)

Neil Young said it, the girls were totally into Charlie, over whatever Rock Stars or Actors were present. Terry protested and said why would he want those girls when he could have Models and Actresses....we know why.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.414 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!