Setting the Record Straight, or revisionist history?

[lance]

http://smileysmile.net/index.php/setting-the-record-straight

When I first read it(about three minutes ago) I thought-- regarding his comparison of his own lyrics going to number one(Good Vibrations) and Heroes and Villains(Parks) going to, like, 50 or something-- that it was a bunch of crap.
I mean, I have always liked the lyrics to GV, but it's the music that gets me, otherworldly, ethereal, even futuristic as it is.
 But then, I t hought, maybe he's right. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a thirty-something forty years later, someone who has long since stopped caring about what tops the charts-- not from the point of view of a teenage girl/record buyer in 1967. Maybe Love's lyrics did help to push it to the number one spot and maybe Van Dykes' kept H & V from going higher?

What do you think? How much did the lyrics of GV influence it's number one slot? Do you think it would have gone to number one even with Asher's (IMO) inferior lyrics?
And was Mike as pro-Smile as he makes out?

[shelter]

I'd have preferred him to come to me and say, "Hey, let's finish the SMiLE album and pull out the original tapes"

I can't disagree with that...

[Dancing Bear]

I had the advantage of only listening to GV or H&V when I bought a copy of Made in USA. I didn't pay attention to the lyrics, and my English wasn't that good anyway.

"Good Vibrations" sounded like a hit. "Heroes and Villains" impressed me for the vocal acrobatics, but it didn't sound like a hit, with all the starts and stops and the chorus/hook wasn't as strong as it could be.

[John]

Plus, just the eight months or whatever difference was important in those days.

[Dancing Bear]

Plus, just the eight months or whatever difference was important in those days.

For the 'album of the year' race, maybe.

But that wasn't the reason why Heroes and Villains, Wild Honey and Darlin' weren't even top 10. The Beach Boys could have released any of those singles in Feb'67 and they wouldn't have charted any better.

[elnombre]

I had the advantage of only listening to GV or H&V when I bought a copy of Made in USA. I didn't pay attention to the lyrics, and my English wasn't that good anyway.

"Good Vibrations" sounded like a hit. "Heroes and Villains" impressed me for the vocal acrobatics, but it didn't sound like a hit, with all the starts and stops and the chorus/hook wasn't as strong as it could be.

I think you're right on the money.

Good Vibrations is all about the music and the harmonies - both of which are superior to the ones on Heroes And Villains, particularly in terms of mainstream hit potential.

[Mahalo]

GV is a superior song through and through, but I listen to H&V about five times as much as GV. There's only so much of the chorus "Good, Good, Good- Good Vibrations" that I can take in a day. However with H&V I can listen to the lyrics and find new meaning almost everytime I hear it. I can relate to H&V on a deeper level than GV.

GV wouldn't have been as big with Asher's lyrics, IMO. "Excitations" really contributes to the charm of the tune in a real simple way.

[Zack]

I think the In the Cantina version of H & V released in February 67, just ahead of Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, would have caused a sensation and possibly gone to number one for it's outrageous brilliance (after all the remake toned down the bold arrangement of the original).   I wonder what else was on the charts at the time?

Taken together, the new BB and Beatle singles would have "changed all the rules" (I can just hear the critics saying it) and the positive reinforcement would have shut you-know-who up, at least for the time being, and inspired Brian to finish the album before Sgt. Pepper. 

I still believe Brian would have eventually cracked up, but at least Smile would have been an official part of his original oeuvre, where it should have been (regardless of how well it sold).

[Dancing Bear]

I think that, to the average joe, the Cantina version sounds just like the released version, but without the chorus and with a weird interlude where there's people talking and laughing. I doubt it would gave done better in the charts than the official single.

[lance]

By the "In the cantina" version, are you referring to the one that's on the GV box set? It is cool, but I miss the last verse of lyrics or so...(the sonny down snuff part). But I agree, in the era of Strawberry Fields it might have gone higher because of the weird factor.

Zack, You touch on something that I was thinking about but which I'm not sure I'm articulate enough to, er, articulate. Bear with me while I attempt to say what it is I'm thinking.

On Beach Boys discussions there's often this "If only this had happened then this would have happened" theme. You see it again and again.
What if Smile had been released? What if 15 Big Ones hadn't sucked donkey dicks?

I was thinking: what if the Beach Boys history had stayed exactly the same as it is now. In other words, aborted Smile and so on...

But with one chief difference: people like Mike Love didn't pooh pooh the other stuff as much.

 He's too hung up on commerciality.  He says great things about the commercial hits. Whenver I've read an interview about something that wasn't a top ten hit, he always says something like: "WEll of course I like it MUSICALLY. It's great. And I love those kind of lyrics for their ART--but you understand, looking at it from a purely COMMERCIAL point of view, people just don't relate to those kind of lyrics. That's why Good Vibrations was a hit and Heroes and Villains wasn't" Or "Well, it's a great song, great production and harmonies, but it's a waltz and that just doesn't play on the charts."

Who cares?
 Does he think that people relate to Strawberry Fields Forever, which was a top ten hit--as if it matters.

 It's almost as if everything in Beach Boys world --you see it liner notes, in interviews with all of them, even Brian--boils down to "top forty or not?" As if that was all that mattered. Somehow it seems like an integral part of their story--and it WAS. But it doesn't have to be NOW. But it still is.

Now I think Brian Wilson was a great talent, maybe a genius. He's my favorite songwriter anyway(lately). But why is it so important whether or not he wrote a song that(shudder) didn't hit the top five?

You never see bios about Jimi Hendrix where, I don't know his bassist or someone says,
Yeah, I GUESS that song was okay--MUSICALLY. But it only hit number 25. I guess people just didn't relate to Purple Haze's lyrics. I wanted him to change the title to Summer Daze, you know(sings) 'Summer Daze, in my mind, Beach and girls, you so fine' but he wouldn't listen.
Well, I guess the poor chart showing of Purple Haze has proven me right."

This is the one thing about the Beach Boys that I don't relate to.

OK, I can see how in the sixties, the Beach Boys were in competition not with Jimi Hendrix so much as the Beatles. They were in competition for the singles chart, something that seems absurd forty years later, though, who knows, P.Diddy and J-Lo or whoever's ruling the charts today probably have the same competition going. They were all a bunch of kids so I cut them some slack.

But forty years later? DWhy doesn't he just say, Damn, we did all this brilliant music for ages.

In my opinion Mike Love's attitude(as well as the oldies act he fronts) does a lot to sell greatest hits packages, sometimes(every decade or so) even selling a few million, which is nice. The Boys all make some money and maybe a bare few like me get curious enough to become major fans.

But if he--or they-- would just get behind all of it, not worry about the whether the single only hit 42 in 69 or whatever, just say it's all great and push that--hey, we're the greatest American band ever, we have TEN or FIFTEEN solid years of great music(**cough cough 'cept for Big Ones coughcough**), they might not sell a few million of one album, but they would probably sell a steady amount of ALL their albums, which would amount to the same amount of product shifted, maybe even more.

Do you see what I'm driving at? I really th nk this half-assed attitude of "Oh, I Get Around and Kokomo were great because they were commercial and artistic,while Surf's Up was artistic genius but not commercial--it wasn't a hit with the people" is doing them no favors--not as a great band deserving of respect, or even commercially.


This brings me all back to Heroes and Villains. I don't think it would have been as big a hit EVER as GV was. But that doesn't make it WORSE.(though I prefer GV)

 But it could have and would have done better if it had been pitched the same way as Strawberry Fields was. And in the End, Strawberry Fields was probably only as big a hit as it was because it was the flip side of Penny Lane. Another thing that the Beatles were better at(marketing-wise)--making singles that a fan simply had to have for the B-side/other song.

[Peter Ames Carlin]

Oh, the Hoskyns interview. I wrote a bit on that in the pac thread earlier this morning, 'cause I only just caught up with Barney's story the other day. And I was surprised to see how much slack he cut Mike, if only because Barney is a really smart guy and a brilliant writer and I absolutely loved his "Hotel California" book from '06. All that said, I think he was being willfully naive in letting Mike pretzel the facts like he does. He lets Mike do his usual subtle-to-not-so-subtle ridiculing of Brian (the bit about why Brian "can't sing like that anymore," which isn't quite true, and ignores Mike's own vocal shortcomings) and doesn't even mention Mike's post-"BWPS" lawsuit, which struck me as a nakedly hostile gesture, designed less to right an even remotely-visible wrong caused by the 04 Smile, than to pee on Brian's moment of glory.

I don't want to demonize Mike, or assert that Brian is incapable of doing ill-considered and even downright selfish and stupid things. He can be just as hostile, in his way. I thought Mike made some smart, sensitive points about Dennis's life and work, and how difficult it was to separate his art from his (rapidly-exploding) life during the mid-to-late '70s. It's also important to note that the extended Wilson/Love family is something other than a model of healthy intra-family dynamics. Oh. My. God. But any coherent story on Mike has to at least note the existence of these things. To do otherwise isn't setting the record straight, as much as it is another attempt to distort the record altogether.

[brianc]

**"Good Vibrations" sounded like a hit. "Heroes and Villains" impressed me for the vocal acrobatics, but it didn't sound like a hit, with all the starts and stops and the chorus/hook wasn't as strong as it could be.**

I feel the exact same way. "GV" is a great hook, and we go on Brian's guide vocal with the Asher lyrics as saying it became the hit that it did because of Mike Love's lyrics. I certainly give them their due... I love the lyrics to "GV." But at the same time, it's just a flat-out groovy riff, and with the proper production, it was ripe for the top of the charts. "H&V," on the other hand, just lacks the hook. It's an incredible production, and the lyrics and vocals are beautiful. But it has NEVER made me feel as alive as "GV." Just driving down the coast and hearing "GV" blaring from the radio... it's still an incredible feeling... and that's probably what makes it such a timeless song.

But is it VDP's fault that "H&V" wasn't as big as "GV"? I don't think so. It's just inferior, in terms of a pop hook. The song is still successful and groovy. But the one VDP/BW song that is as spiritual as "GV" is melodic is "Surf's Up." That may not have been a chart hit in 1967, but it was a crowning achievment all the same. Something to be as equally proud of as a big hit song.

[MBE]

Anywhere online where I can read this interview?

[brianc]

Barney's "Waiting for the Sun" and "Hotel California" were good books, and I hear he's working on a Tom Waits biography. But does he live in Los Angeles? I've always wondered the extant of his journalism, in terms of actually getting to know the place. "Waiting for the Sun" had so many glaring oversights, and was geographically off in a lot of things. It's greatest achievement was that someone, anyone, tried to tackle the mammoth task of putting a story arc to L.A.'s rock 'n' roll history.

[KokoMoses]

I just look at it in the very simple manner that....... Mike has a right to his opinions, views, ideas, ect ect ect.... He was there, contributed greatly, has good points/bad points, just like anyone else in music. He knows Brian in a way that few others do. The guy has all the same rights as anyone else to be treated fairly.

Funny thing! I have a Beatles fanatic friend who I turned onto the Beach Boys. He knew absolutely NOTHING about their story and I purposfully kept him in the dark.  All he knew were the hits. So, I gave him all my Beach Boys stuff and he got really really into it. He loves EVERYTHING!!!! He didn't even know any of the Beach Boys names, other than Brian before I told him. He loves all the Beach Boys voices, loves Mike and all his contributions. Loves his lyrics, as well as all the other lyrics.... I'm glad I pulled this little experiment because it really lends credence to the opinion that people like David Leaf, Dominic Piore, and other writers really did damage Mike's reputation and music lover's ability to approach The Beach Boys from straight ahead, and not at some skewered angle.

[Jason]

I just look at it in the very simple manner that....... Mike has a right to his opinions, views, ideas, ect ect ect.... He was there, contributed greatly, has good points/bad points, just like anyone else in music. He knows Brian in a way that few others do. The guy has all the same rights as anyone else to be treated fairly.

Funny thing! I have a Beatles fanatic friend who I turned onto the Beach Boys. He knew absolutely NOTHING about their story and I purposfully kept him in the dark.  All he knew were the hits. So, I gave him all my Beach Boys stuff and he got really really into it. He loves EVERYTHING!!!! He didn't even know any of the Beach Boys names, other than Brian before I told him. He loves all the Beach Boys voices, loves Mike and all his contributions. Loves his lyrics, as well as all the other lyrics.... I'm glad I pulled this little experiment because it really lends credence to the opinion that people like David Leaf, Dominic Piore, and other writers really did damage Mike's reputation and music lover's ability to approach The Beach Boys from straight ahead, and not at some skewered angle.

You know, that's by far the most thoughtful, pointed post I think that's ever been made here. No-one ever thought of that one.

[KokoMoses]

My friend does hate Kokomo, though!

But that's it!!!!!

[TonyW]

I just look at it in the very simple manner that....... Mike has a right to his opinions, views, ideas, ect ect ect.... He was there, contributed greatly, has good points/bad points, just like anyone else in music. He knows Brian in a way that few others do. The guy has all the same rights as anyone else to be treated fairly.

Funny thing! I have a Beatles fanatic friend who I turned onto the Beach Boys. He knew absolutely NOTHING about their story and I purposfully kept him in the dark.  All he knew were the hits. So, I gave him all my Beach Boys stuff and he got really really into it. He loves EVERYTHING!!!! He didn't even know any of the Beach Boys names, other than Brian before I told him. He loves all the Beach Boys voices, loves Mike and all his contributions. Loves his lyrics, as well as all the other lyrics.... I'm glad I pulled this little experiment because it really lends credence to the opinion that people like David Leaf, Dominic Piore, and other writers really did damage Mike's reputation and music lover's ability to approach The Beach Boys from straight ahead, and not at some skewered angle.

You know, that's by far the most thoughtful, pointed post I think that's ever been made here. No-one ever thought of that one.

I could sit down and listen to the Charles Manson album not knowing the Manson story and come away thinking the Manson was a really nice guy.

[shelter]

You never see bios about Jimi Hendrix where, I don't know his bassist or someone says,
Yeah, I GUESS that song was okay--MUSICALLY. But it only hit number 25. I guess people just didn't relate to Purple Haze's lyrics. I wanted him to change the title to Summer Daze, you know(sings) 'Summer Daze, in my mind, Beach and girls, you so fine' but he wouldn't listen.
Well, I guess the poor chart showing of Purple Haze has proven me right."

Excellent point...

[KokoMoses]

I could sit down and listen to the Charles Manson album not knowing the Manson story and come away thinking the Manson was a really nice guy.
[/quote]



Ok, that's a very cheap shot, but since you brought it up:

No, I don't think you'd come away with that opinion. Charlie's voice and lyrics are enough to put anyone on edge even though there's nothing exactly threatening in his lyrics. But then again, it's impossible to know because we only know of Manson as a guy in prison for ordering the murders of innocent people. I certainly can't make the claim that I'm able to listen to "Never Learn Not To Love" without thinking immediatly of Manson. It's a pretty song, great production. Of course my thoughts regarding the song would be very different were I to have no idea that Charlie wrote it. See this is my point exactly!!! Manson's album has several good songs. Good lyrics. Good melodies. And he has an interesting voice. Should one be able to listen to his album and like it in spite of knowing all they know about Manson?....... Certainly!..... Why not?

Should one be able to love the Beach Boys and not pay any real attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where?...... Of course! If someone wants to let David Leaf and others color their opinions based upon 40+ year old recollections and argued upon occurances/opinions....... they are more than free to do so.

[TonyW]

I could sit down and listen to the Charles Manson album not knowing the Manson story and come away thinking the Manson was a really nice guy.

Ok, that's a very cheap shot, but since you brought it up:

No, I don't think you'd come away with that opinion. Charlie's voice and lyrics are enough to put anyone on edge even though there's nothing exactly threatening in his lyrics. But then again, it's impossible to know because we only know of Manson as a guy in prison for ordering the murders of innocent people. I certainly can't make the claim that I'm able to listen to "Never Learn Not To Love" without thinking immediatly of Manson. It's a pretty song, great production. Of course my thoughts regarding the song would be very different were I to have no idea that Charlie wrote it. See this is my point exactly!!! Manson's album has several good songs. Good lyrics. Good melodies. And he has an interesting voice. Should one be able to listen to his album and like it in spite of knowing all they know about Manson?....... Certainly!..... Why not?

Should one be able to love the Beach Boys and not pay any real attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where?...... Of course! If someone wants to let David Leaf and others color their opinions based upon 40+ year old recollections and argued upon occurances/opinions....... they are more than free to do so.


[/quote][/quote]

I said "I could" - not "I have", "I would" or even that "I would want to" and it doesn't matter if its Manson, Maddona or the Monkees, the point was that my post was as simplistic in its assumptions as were the previous ones. Whether we like it or not, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, The Bangles or whoever come with baggage that we all have to deal with - ignoring it will not make it go away.  Part of the charm of all these bands is that they come with the baggage which enhances the story. That baggage colours opinions and without opinions we would all be a bloody bland lot - kind of blueboardish - eeerrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhh!!!!! (okay - so that might have actually been a cheap shot)...

[Dancing Bear]

Should one be able to love the Beach Boys and not pay any real attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where?...... Of course! If someone wants to let David Leaf and others color their opinions based upon 40+ year old recollections and argued upon occurances/opinions....... they are more than free to do so.

It's also possible that the Beach Boys saga, which any music fan has a basic notion of, attracts the kind of people who'll pay more than a bit of attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where.

The chicken and the egg.

[Peter Ames Carlin]

There's music and then there's personalities. And while I'd encourage your friend to find and enjoy Mike's better contributions to the Beach Boys, I'd caution him, or anyone, from forgetting the offstage machinations that helped diminish so much of what would come later. The Beach Boys' failure to go on creating the lovely music they made between 1962 and 1973 (with a few rare exceptions) can be traced to a vast catalogue of failures and problems. But Mike's role can't be overlooked, and the choices he made following "BWPS" are a primary example. Yes, there are far too many problems to go around. It's like an Agatha Christie mystery, everyone has a motive and a weapon. And Mike is in the middle of the whole mess.

[Rocker]

Anywhere online where I can read this interview?

I think they're talking 'bout this:

http://smileysmile.net/index.php/setting-the-record-straight


Should we mention that H&V was no.12 and not, as Mike notes, something around #50.... ?

[MBE]

Thanks Rocker I read that I was looking for the whole article because Peter mentioned it's longer

Peter I understand and in some ways agree with you about the role Mike played in the decline. However from 61-73 he deserves an artistic defense, and the lack of credit for that work is part of what made him so difficult later. I think your book actually is pretty fair to him especially compared to Leaf or Priore.