Surf's Up

[brianc]

Well, I only know from cross-referencing the 1964-65 sessionography that Brad Elliott did for Dumb Angel 4 versus Keith Badman's book for those years... well, there's a lot of overlap, but there's also thing each missed, and there are things that just aren't correct.

Again, I'd like to go back and re-edit Dom's "Smile" book, as well as Dumb Angel 4. The latter is completely unrealistic, as it probably already reached its peak audience. And I doubt we'll get to re-edit Dom's book anytime soon, nor would I have the time to do the kind of edit you'd see as being jutice, Ian. By that I mean going back and re-finding all of the original research myself. I just don't see the funds for that level of research ever being there, with a deadline. If it was a pleasure endeavor, with no deadline, I'm sure it could be done. But again, there are so many other projects that I personally want to do.

[brianc]

But I agree with you about the virtues of original research. I'm trying to do it with the L.A. art gallery scene on La Cienega in the '60s, and I can't believe how many variant opinions there are that pose as fact. Every book on Ed Ruscha has a slightly different tale to tell, and different facts. It's a difficult task, but we do our best to seperate the wheat from the chaff...

[TdHabib]

"Earlier in the evening the film crew had covered a Beach Boys vocal session which had gone very badly".

Oppenheim's revealing explanation on what had gone very badly:

“A film crew and I went to Columbia Records’s studios with Brian and his friends, and they were doing tiny little pieces that made no sense in and of themselves…just a few notes…also the sessions didn’t make a scene that was at all interesting…I had hoped to get Brian masterminding a recording session, but instead it was terribly spread out…Brian was a little spacy, but he didn’t seem drugged.“

That makes complete sense, and especially because most of "Wonderful" and "Cabinessence" were finished and the finishing touches could've easily been nothing much...and thus not very impressive. Can we agree on a date where Mike and Van Dyke had the bust up on "Cabinessence"?

[Ian]

By the way- I liked Dom's book on Smile as well-but I happen to like every book that I can find on the BBs (even Wouldn't It Be Nice).  I loved Dumb Angel 4 as well.  Dom is a fun writer

[brianc]

He's gonna save the world through pop culture. I admire his devotion to the '60s. He's really steeped in it.

Glad you liked Dumb Angel 4... thanks for saying so. I still feel like it wasn't design-oriented enough to really appeal to artists and designers... and conversely, it wasn't Beach Boys-oriented enough to really appeal to Beach Boys fans. It was stuck somewhere in the middle, where the artists were just kind of scratching their heads at the collector mentality of the articles, and some of the sloppy layouts. And the Beach Boys fans never seem to like surf instrumental material, for the most part. I probably went too far with all the celestial suns and Mondrian graphic design stuff, but hey, the All Summer Long album thrilled me to death and I tried to deconstruct it's time and place. I consider DAG #4, on a whole, to be a failure, because I'm a perfectionsit and wanted it to be so much better. But maybe its appeal was limited to begin with, and I just didn't know it going in.

[Ian]

Since my hobby is Beach Boys research- I liked Brad Elliot's article (I believe it was the last thing he wrote before he did his disappearing act) a lot. It has some errors (but that isn't a criticism-one builds on writers of the past.  For example he listed the BBs as playing Texas concerts in mid-June 1964-it turned out that they were in May...but I wouldn't have even thought to look for them without that article).  I also loved all the pictures..and the reprint of the LA Magazine article-which proved that Brian played the 65 Bowl show (not just the rehearsal as Keith Badman stated). I thought the magazine had a great design-loved all the posters, ads, etc. I wish you'd make another-I'd write something for it!

[John]

You sound like Jimmy Falwell, dude.

Spreading flasehoods. There are some errors in there, and some of his opinions are blatant and biased. But that's publishing for you. Some might find the actions of the parties involved with Brian through the years to be less egregious than Domenic does, but he's added up the story as best as he knows how. So, agree or disagree, but don't act like some cardinal sin was committed.

Eh. I'm not sure who Jerry Fallwell is, but "spreading falsehoods" wasn't supposed to be a super-serious comment. I could've said "spouting crap". But my point still stands. I'd rather have correct info than "eight parts that aren't Brian on Pet Sounds", stuff that obvious sets the whole book at an untrustworthy angle for me.

Sorry I hurt your field, mister.

[brianc]

I wish you'd make another-I'd write something for it!

I'd like to also, but the bar was set a tad too high with the colour pages, and I'm afraid that the business was run so terribly that we broke even, even though we sold beyond what we needed to, in order to get in the black. Besides not having the exact right team to make it fly, long-term... we really did party away the ability to make another issue.

[onkster]

Was anybody else here on the Pet Sounds mailing list in the 90s?

Dom was on there, and treated a lot of people very rudely, mainly for harboring opinions that conflicted with his, or for not happening to have as much information as he did.

I considered myself a fan of his before that, but less so now.  Plus, his claims got ever more outrageous.

[brianc]

I was on the Pet Sounds mailing list. And I remember Dom's rants all too well. I suppose I held the same sentiment about him before I met him, and maybe he's toned it down some in recent years, maybe my skin has gotten thicker, or maybe email and message boards are just more of a cold interface for conversation... some people come off like lambs and others like lions.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's a matter of record that, for close on 20 years, Dom & I didn't get on in the biggest way and never passed up the chance to take a pop at each other. Last summer I met him at Susan's CT BB bash (and again a few weeks later at the UK Stomp Convention), and we got on famously: apologies were exchanged, ruffled feathers smoothed and a good time was generally had by both. He's a nice guy, and I recommend unreservedly his Sunset Strip book. I know full well that I can come across as condescending and arrogant at times and as Brian says, what can seem amusing when tapped out this end can emerge as less than charming. In person, I'm a nice guy, no, honestly...

[Fun Is In]

Oppenheim's revealing explanation on what had gone very badly:

“A film crew and I went to Columbia Records’s studios with Brian and his friends, and they were doing tiny little pieces that made no sense in and of themselves…just a few notes…also the sessions didn’t make a scene that was at all interesting…I had hoped to get Brian masterminding a recording session, but instead it was terribly spread out…Brian was a little spacy, but he didn’t seem drugged.“

Would you characterize the above as a vocal session that "went very badly?"  Uninteresting, spacey, disjointed, yeah - but not very badly.  Makes me think SOMETHING else happened.  Not a fight necessarily, but maybe the band members couldn't sing what Brian wanted to sing, and questioned what the hell are we singing here, and Brian gave up in frustration.  I just don't get a very badly from Oppenheim's explanation.

This seems to boil down to an irresolvable debate over whether it was "Cassius Love vs Sonny Wilson" (if I got that right) or was "Our Favorite Recording Sessions".  Both are meant to represent recording sessions that went very badly.

[John]

I never thought of them like that. Very cool.

[MBE]

I got along with Domenic too, he even said I wrote some interesting things about Mike, and the Flame etc. Some of the stuff he prints or says is a little extreme, but I got to admit when he is good (like the piece he wrote for Denny Remembered) he is very good. 

[The Shift]

Maybe it's getting late in the day but the original query's been lost along the way, and I'm interested enough to know whether there's a definitive answer!

As a reminder... and edited reminder, that is...

[an author] stated in [a book] ... that a finished version of 'Surf's Up' from early 1967 does exist but ... has not been released.  Does anyone know if this is true?

[Surfer Joe]

No, I think he meant that it's better to have a point of view.

[brianc]

Sorry to take things off-track, Wee Helper. I think I was trying to give some insight into the publishing process of Domenic's book. To answer the question again...

No, as far as I know, no full version of "Surf's Up" exists, as it would have been mixed in 1967.

[Cam Mott]

I wouldn't doubt that there was/is a "finished" version of Surf's Up from 1966, or at least some sort of rough cut or comp, but I also wouldn't doubt that there wasn't/isn't.

As per Siegel, he did not remember witnessing any dust up between Brian and the Boys at anytime, he also did not remember having much contact with the Boys but a little more contact with Brian's two brothers. I don't think Jules was present during the recording/filming of the Boys that night [or any time] but was only present for the Brian-only recording of Surf's Up at the studio and then at Brian's home. To me, interpreting Jule's meaning of "gone badly" as anything beyond Oppenheim's complaint of what went badly is a stretch.

[Surfer Joe]

I would agree, and I'd add that it's a stretch to make any specific interpretation of the phrase "went badly" without a lot more reliable supporting information.  To rule anything in or out based on 'went badly" is absurd. 

Maybe the session itself went just fine, but the film crew picked up an annoying buzz on the audio, rendering it all unusable. Maybe Al sprouted a mutant second head, which hissed, rotated, and spewed demon curses throughout the session, creating a distraction. Maybe that's what "went badly" meant. Who claims to know?

I also think it's a stretch to assume that a film crew would have been pleased to catch negative stuff and embarrass the band on 1966 television, unless it was the future crew of Inside Edition or something.  It wasn't what they came for- they were making a documentary on the changing music scene, so who knows?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I also think it's a stretch to assume that a film crew would have been pleased to catch negative stuff and embarrass the band on 1966 television, unless it was the future crew of Inside Edition or something.  It wasn't what they came for- they were making a documentary on the changing music scene, so who knows?

Good point, but then I would have expected to see in the reel notes something to indicate that "this is not to be used", or "argument - NG".

[Cam Mott]

The Inside Pop crew did film and publicize conflict as part of the Pop scene...

Siegel points out things going very badly between he and Brian via Vosse, Brian and VDP, Brian and a movie, Brian and his father, Brian and his brothers, and Brian and Mike, but he doesn't say things went very badly between anybody and anybody in regards to the documentary filming. On the "going very badly" evidence scale I'd have to put inter-group conflict way down at the nonexistent bottom and Oppenheim's concern for audience interest way up at the corroborative top.

[Wilsonista]

The Inside Pop crew did film and publicize conflict as part of the Pop scene...

Conflict between the youth of the day versus the parental figures....

[Dancing Bear]

Why would the Cabinessence's lyrics incident be heavily recorded for history (quotes and all) and this even uglier scene be surrounded by mistery and obscureness? It doesn't make sense. Mike didn't have many fans between Brian's new circle of friends and they were certainly taking notes whenever he screwed up.

[Chris Moise]

He claims that it exists, but from what I know, it's never turned up.

Alan Boyd noted that the tape box for "Surf's Up (Part 2)" is empty. But that doesn't mean the tape was stolen. It may have been empty back in the early '70s, when Steve Desper and Carl Wilson were piecing it together for the 1971 released version. Brian said in a 1968 interview that the song briefly broke the Beach Boys up, and Jules Siegal noted a major fight during one of the "Surf's Up" sessions. Not to get all conspirtorial, but perhaps Brian did destroy that tape.

Are you sure Alan said that about Surf's Up (Part 2)? I know he posted here awhile back that there were several empty Smile era tape boxes but I don't remember him saying that specifically about Surf's Up (Part 2). I thought the current thinking was that the 1/67 Surf's Up session didn't take place or was for something other than Surf's Up?

[A Million Units In Jan!]

What's funny is that when I first read the quote about the session 'going very badly' I assumed that it meant vocally-it wasn't untill someone mentioned on the smile shop board about that being an argument did I even think that's what it meant.
I guess what I don't like about Domenic's book is that he tries too hard to chalk up SMiLE's non-release to Mike Love, which everybody seems to do, but to write half a book about it is a little extreme. I don't care for Mike Love, but I wouldn't solely put the blame on him.  However, that reminds me of a smile part in the Siegel story: Brian 'accused Mike Love of making too much money'. Not that we'll ever know, but do you think that Brian actually said that, or do you think that Jules just happened to get that sort of a vibe from Brian? The problem is all of these little passages here and there in the story that maybe forty years ago meant something different, but given the history of the band, may mean something totally different now.
I'm not making sense.