Al just added a bit of a cryptic post to his Instagram account, that would seem to indicate new music is coming from him soon! Just a pic with him at the keyboards, with the cryptic commentary! That would be awesome, fingers crossed!!!
He's putting the finishing touches on those 2011 songs?
Yes, I would love some new music from him.
]]>
Tony Asher has said that ML's addition to the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" credits is a joke. Adding "good night, sleep tight" (hardly an original rhyme) to the outro during the vocal sessions shouldn't have merited songwriting credit. George and Ringo both commented many times that they added various lines to Beatles songs credited solely to Lennon-McCartney. Did they sue?
I can understand, I guess, how the "Sea of Tunes" issues are interesting to scholars of the band, but I really don't think they're as interesting to casual viewers of Disney documentaries as Mike Love and Frank Marshall apparently do. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even I, a hardcore fan, have never lost a minute of sleep over the fact that Brian, Mike and their various wives and ex-wives aren't even richer than they are because Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss allegedly ate their lunch, courtesy of Murry's antics.
When I saw Marilyn in the doc incredulously lamenting that Murry unloaded SoT to AlMo in 1969 for $700,000, chump change, right? But the erstwhile corporate finance student in me is thinking.... "Hmmm, $700k in 1969, invested in the S&P 500... average annual return since then of 10.5%... in 2024: $169 million... not terrible.]]>
Very short but we can see snippets of "Do it again" and "Wouldn't it be nice". ]]>
I would like to bring up the point of the Mike Love songwriting lawsuit and it's considerably larger role in the documentary than what some fans may have expected.
First, are there opinions that Mike's song credit lawsuit took up more time than expected in telling the story of the Beach Boys with this documentary? Do you think it was handled evenly or was it slanted more toward Mike's narrative of the whole situation?
I ask because I went back to a lot of research I had done in 2013, and to discussions on this forum from that time, after thinking how many fans watching this documentary came away knowing more than a surface level summary of the lawsuit. I don't think many do know the deeper details and context, and wonder where they would find such info.
The takeaway I got was "Mike got screwed on these credits, sued and won" and whatever else follows from there.
Do you think enough time was devoted to the fact that Brian also got screwed out of money and credits he deserved, and had to also file multiple lawsuits in order to win that back? Starting a long time ago, Capitol did not pay money due to Brian regarding his production credits and "points" on Beach Boys records. Brian eventually won that settlement to the tune of over a million dollars, and I'm not sure on the exact year that was decided, but in today's money it is a massive amount. So Capitol withheld that money, and Brian had to file suit to get it back. Brian and the band also sued Capitol over non-payment due to the label trying to exploit a "breakage clause" in their standard contracts involving returned product, and the band's win in that case led directly to the formation of the Brother Records label in '67. Brian also won a settlement against Irving-Almo, A&M, and whatever other corporate interests were involved in the sale of Sea Of Tunes in 1969, based on a handful of legal issues and claims of fraud and other misdeeds by the lawyers involved dating back to the inception of Sea Of Tunes when Brian was still legally a minor (i.e. unable to enter into a legal contract agreement) when Murry established the company originally.
That was filed in 1989, and eventually decided in June 1992. In July 1992, Mike filed his lawsuit against the 10 million dollar settlement Brian received, only to the tune of filing a 50 million dollar suit against Brian's 10 million judgement award. The number of songs in question dropped from Mike's original claim of over 70 songs, which got reduced to 48 by July 1992, then reduced further to 35 songs for which he received credit in perpetuity. Mike's suit also hinged on the claim that an agreement was made between their legal teams that Mike would receive 30% of Brian's 10 million settlement, which never happened. The agreement reached in December 1994 was for 5 million and future royalties.
Then in September 1995 Brian filed his own suit against the legal teams representing him during that time, and the lawyer acting in the conservator role for him since December 1991, basically controlling his money and what he could do with it in a legal sense. The suit alleged a variety of misdeeds and violations.
There is much, much more to this, which I will link to for anyone interested, but I wanted to give a surface level take on the case which is featured somewhat prominently in the documentary to show how much more there really is to the story, and how the narrative or takeaway some might see that "Mike got screwed out of money, sued and won" is only the tip of the iceberg. Brian also got screwed out of money (potentially more than Mike considering the production points), sued, and won, quite a few times since the 1960's. Do you think that aspect of the story was or was not highlighted enough in the documentary?
For anyone interested, here are links to the original discussion about the lawsuit. I went into it knowing a little more than average about the details, but through more digging actually came out of it having found some additional details that made the story all the more complete and interesting too. Unfortunately the discussion gets interrupted a lot, but it's a good read from 2013 where you can see several sides of the discussion being offered.
It starts around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.msg411202.html#msg411202
And ends around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.575.html
I'm just adding all this to show how even one topic which was aired in the documentary could actually be the subject of a 2-hour documentary on its own, and would probably appeal to all those viewers who watch the legal channels and discuss previous legal and criminal cases, not to mention the band's fans who might want to dig deeper into these topics which only get a surface-level airing. And ironically, pieces of the original case Mike filed and won in December '94 are still winding through the court system, but I'll say no more about that. It's public record anyway if you know where to look. And that's not even getting into the rumors and gossip involving Rocky Pamplin, Stan Love, etc. Topic for other discussions.
It may be interesting too if viewers just read a little bit of the backstories and compare that to what was presented in the new film, and how it was presented.
This stuff is all intensely interesting to me and many here, and you've dug up some great stuff over the years on all the facets of the case. It could indeed be its own documentary.
I don't know how much of the story would ever be part of even a multi-part BB doc, but certainly there would be plenty of room to cover all the important points.
One aspect when telling the story in doc (or book) form though is how much one wants it to be a straight historical retelling, versus how much it would be driven by how the people involved feel.
I would again point people to the recent Surf's Up podcast with Howie Edelson where, while he's talking about the Genesis book mainly, they get into Mike's feelings about the songwriting credits. Howie even talks about some of the questions he's asked Mike regarding why Mike didn't say anything sooner, what resources or recourse he felt he had back then, etc. It's very interesting. And I think Howie put it well; Mike views the songwriting issue as a sort of "original sin." Putting it that way helps put into focus the last decade or so in particular of Mike continuing to hammer the issue decades after it was all rectified in his favor. And I think there's room to have understanding and empathy regarding that.
Mike's never going to get over it; there's nobody left to apologize any more than they already have, there's nobody and nothing left to "fix" it more than it has. Mike hasn't, to my knowledge, said that if, say, Brian had apologized for himself and/or on behalf of Murry or something, that that would help.
The 2016 "Ballad of Mike Love" Rolling Stone piece on Mike did a good job of conveying both Mike's insistence on continuing to make it a thing, and also the writer does a good job of conveying how he (and thus we as readers/fans) could easily be frustrated by his immovability on the issue, and of continuing to complain about the issue.
Any decent history/biography of the band should hone in on that "original sin" idea to help explain why Mike is so adamant about it. BUT, yes, it absolutely should tell the *other* parts of the story too. That Brian was cowed by Murry. That Brian never took initiative to fix it, but also that Brian never denied Mike wrote the songs, and wanted to settle rather than go to trial circa 1994, and had crappy lawyers. That Mike has been inconsistent with how much he blames Brian (sometimes it's Brian's fault, sometimes he acknowledges Brian was cowed). And yes, it should trace the genesis of the whole thing, including the Irving-Alamo lawsuit, that Murry screwed everybody over. It should point out that the timing of Mike's 90s lawsuit against Brian was not random, but rather specifically in reaction to Brian having settled the Irving-Alamo lawsuit. It should pose the fair question to Mike of why *he* waited so long to do anything about it. He likes to describe Brian as being cowed by Murry, but I don't think Mike feels like *he* was cowed by Murry. So why didn't he go straight to Murry? Why didn't he put the brakes on the whole thing in like 1966, especially after the success of "Good Vibrations", and say "Okay, this songwriting credit issue needs to be resolved, and I'm not going on stage for a gig until it is." And, in turn, Mike (or others) can offer explanations for why that didn't happen. I think some explanations are valid, maybe others aren't.
A good documentary filmmaker could push through all of that in five or ten minutes. I've seen documentaries diagram out intricate business relationships with military contractors, 87 levels of mob organization, and so on. It could be done. ]]>
First, are there opinions that Mike's song credit lawsuit took up more time than expected in telling the story of the Beach Boys with this documentary? Do you think it was handled evenly or was it slanted more toward Mike's narrative of the whole situation?
I ask because I went back to a lot of research I had done in 2013, and to discussions on this forum from that time, after thinking how many fans watching this documentary came away knowing more than a surface level summary of the lawsuit. I don't think many do know the deeper details and context, and wonder where they would find such info.
The takeaway I got was "Mike got screwed on these credits, sued and won" and whatever else follows from there.
Do you think enough time was devoted to the fact that Brian also got screwed out of money and credits he deserved, and had to also file multiple lawsuits in order to win that back? Starting a long time ago, Capitol did not pay money due to Brian regarding his production credits and "points" on Beach Boys records. Brian eventually won that settlement to the tune of over a million dollars, and I'm not sure on the exact year that was decided, but in today's money it is a massive amount. So Capitol withheld that money, and Brian had to file suit to get it back. Brian and the band also sued Capitol over non-payment due to the label trying to exploit a "breakage clause" in their standard contracts involving returned product, and the band's win in that case led directly to the formation of the Brother Records label in '67. Brian also won a settlement against Irving-Almo, A&M, and whatever other corporate interests were involved in the sale of Sea Of Tunes in 1969, based on a handful of legal issues and claims of fraud and other misdeeds by the lawyers involved dating back to the inception of Sea Of Tunes when Brian was still legally a minor (i.e. unable to enter into a legal contract agreement) when Murry established the company originally.
That was filed in 1989, and eventually decided in June 1992. In July 1992, Mike filed his lawsuit against the 10 million dollar settlement Brian received, only to the tune of filing a 50 million dollar suit against Brian's 10 million judgement award. The number of songs in question dropped from Mike's original claim of over 70 songs, which got reduced to 48 by July 1992, then reduced further to 35 songs for which he received credit in perpetuity. Mike's suit also hinged on the claim that an agreement was made between their legal teams that Mike would receive 30% of Brian's 10 million settlement, which never happened. The agreement reached in December 1994 was for 5 million and future royalties.
Then in September 1995 Brian filed his own suit against the legal teams representing him during that time, and the lawyer acting in the conservator role for him since December 1991, basically controlling his money and what he could do with it in a legal sense. The suit alleged a variety of misdeeds and violations.
There is much, much more to this, which I will link to for anyone interested, but I wanted to give a surface level take on the case which is featured somewhat prominently in the documentary to show how much more there really is to the story, and how the narrative or takeaway some might see that "Mike got screwed out of money, sued and won" is only the tip of the iceberg. Brian also got screwed out of money (potentially more than Mike considering the production points), sued, and won, quite a few times since the 1960's. Do you think that aspect of the story was or was not highlighted enough in the documentary?
For anyone interested, here are links to the original discussion about the lawsuit. I went into it knowing a little more than average about the details, but through more digging actually came out of it having found some additional details that made the story all the more complete and interesting too. Unfortunately the discussion gets interrupted a lot, but it's a good read from 2013 where you can see several sides of the discussion being offered.
It starts around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.msg411202.html#msg411202
And ends around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.575.html
I'm just adding all this to show how even one topic which was aired in the documentary could actually be the subject of a 2-hour documentary on its own, and would probably appeal to all those viewers who watch the legal channels and discuss previous legal and criminal cases, not to mention the band's fans who might want to dig deeper into these topics which only get a surface-level airing. And ironically, pieces of the original case Mike filed and won in December '94 are still winding through the court system, but I'll say no more about that. It's public record anyway if you know where to look. And that's not even getting into the rumors and gossip involving Rocky Pamplin, Stan Love, etc. Topic for other discussions.
It may be interesting too if viewers just read a little bit of the backstories and compare that to what was presented in the new film, and how it was presented. ]]>
And the rest of this is a reply to Hey Jude. Whether 10,000 or 10 million people see this, there are a couple worrisome things relating to this doc:
1) that the research team did their homework and came up with this tabloid-esque overview of the band (is this viewpoint held by so many people that it has become gospel now? or that there is never any official pushback on this lazy narrative that it was given the green-light due to being the easy way to put their story into an hour and a half movie? either way, it's worrisome that this narrative is what was put in a "definitive" documentary)
2) it upholds the viewpoint/understanding that SO many casual fans have about this band, so it's only going to bolster that false viewpoint. Especially when it calls itself "definitive". Regardless of it not going viral, it is now exclusively on a platform with 149 million subscribers (and growing), and from hereon when any casual person watches this film on there, they will walk away with the idea that this is THE official story. To someone who'd just like to have a truthful/beautiful documentary made, that is worrisome to me.
I will say, as Zenobi said above: the music will triumph over all this garbage. But in the meantime it's sad that our outlook is "in 200 years this won't matter" when in an alternate universe we're all on this message board talking about how great the new 5 part unbiased Beach Boys documentary series on PBS is. Sigh.
I agree with all of that. It's not a high water mark for this type of documentary to go out to a zillion worldwide subscribers.
But I've also spent a lot of time in non-Beach Boys areas of work/study looking at the media/streaming/cultural landscape, and what I was trying to say in a previous post is essentially to try to be optimistic in pointing out that not only is the doc not seeming to catch on as a pop culture centerpiece, but also that pop culture/entertainment moves *much more quickly* now than it did even ten let alone 20-30-40 years ago.
That things are HUGE and then drop off the face of the earth very quickly these days is not a good thing for some people (e.g. people looking for career longevity), but it might just be an inadvertent fringe benefit when there's something that you want to kind of just go away as quickly as possible.
Also, I think it's worth noting that a lot of fans, a lot of people on this board surely, probably delved into the Beach Boys with books/videos/articles that were not always accurate or fair. The vast majority of people who become legit *fans* who want to dive into all of the music and learn the whole story usually will find their way to the correct information.
I bow to nobody in my desire and in many cases effort to "guard" the band's legacy as much as any fan can. I've spent tons of posts/threads explaining why I think the Stamos/Full House connection had a definite *downside* to the band's perception/legacy, I have a zillion posts delving into the injurious things Mike (and others) have done to other members, fans, and the band's legacy over the years.
But we also should be able to *not* have to carry that on our backs all the time either. I could spend hours and many pages poring over how hard this Disney doc biffed it, and I probably will do so at some point. But I've lived through many other similar scenarios, and I think we'll all survive and we won't find "Mike Love is a Genius" buttons on sale on Etsy five years from now.
We survived the 2000 Stamos ABC TV movie miniseries (which was far more egregious than even this doc, and may well have been watched by more people in 2000), so I think the story/fandom will survive and thrive, so long as the authors/historians/researchers and the audio archive team we have right now continue to do the great work they do. Actual legit, true fans that want to delve in and learn more about the band, who actually have the attention span to close TikTok and go get some real books and *seek* information out, will be able to find a better, fair, correct narrative.
]]>
I had the same thoughts about that interview, quite strange in tone and perspective. He didn]]>�<![CDATA[t sound particularly enthusiastic about his role, which is perhaps understandable if you]]>�<![CDATA[ve been in its orbit via family for so long. I think there]]>�<![CDATA[s more evident joy and enthusiasm from (for example) Wendy and Carnie playing with Al, or from some of the non-family band members of previous eras.
Perhaps more disturbing was hearing John Cowsill]]>�<![CDATA[s comments (from a different podcast) on being let go from the band last year (which I only heard today):
]]>�<![CDATA[I got the call that they]]>�<![CDATA[re going in a new direction and its basically Stamos]]>�<![CDATA[ Beach Boys, and he found a new drummer for the band that he likes]]>�<![CDATA[
I know what the touring band is and what Mike values, I think, but it]]>�<![CDATA[s pretty disturbing and depressing to hear that phrase (Stamos]]>�<![CDATA[ Beach Boys) from someone pretty close to it all. I fear what happens to the license when Mike finally retires!
I think the kind of unspoken subtext is that Christian Love probably just took the gig because his Dad gave him the job, and it probably pays pretty well.
In the interview they ask about how he joined the touring band, and he talks about how his Dad had wanted him in the band to play bass, but Christian didn't want to play bass, and eventually he was brought in on guitar. But he doesn't say why *he* (Christian) *wanted* to be in the band. He says why his Dad wanted him. But it's kind of just implied that if you're not doing anything else and your Dad is Mike Love and he wants you to join the band, you just do it.
It sounds like either Christian didn't pursue it, and just took the gig because "why not?", or he's leaving out that he pursued the gig at some point or points (which might have, I'm just *guessing*, amounted more to someone asking their parent for a job because they need the paycheck).
He didn't discuss in the interview that he actually left the band before the reunion tour started, and I think it was a couple/few years before he returned again. I think it was after Mike hired Eichenberger away from Brian's band, but then after a year or two Eichenberger left. I'd have to look up the specific timeline.
Somebody at some point said Christian was into tournament beach volleyball (kind of implying he was *more* into that than playing with the Beach Boys), and that's maybe why he left for awhile.
I appreciate the guy's honesty to the degree he's offering it, and I don't expect everybody that comes through the band to be an uber expert, but it was kind of weird that he specifically went out of his way to say he's not familiar with the band's back catalog. He's obviously familiar with some songs. But I think it's VERY strange and disappointing if someone plays in a band for DECADES and has never gotten around to familiarizing themselves with that band's whole catalog?
I dunno. Does Rusty Anderson know all the songs on "Press to Play?" Maybe not. ]]>
So I'm curious why they couldn't explore keeping Totten as musical director and playing guitar even if he didn't sing at all or as much. Does the new guitarist in the band even sing in the harmony stack?]]>
I think Scott Totten is being extremely gentlemanly (as usual). Not saying that John is a not a gentleman, but he is surely a more direct guy.
No wonder that that talentless exploiter does not appreciate them. What a travesty.]]>
Perhaps more disturbing was hearing John Cowsill]]>�<![CDATA[s comments (from a different podcast) on being let go from the band last year (which I only heard today):
]]>�<![CDATA[I got the call that they]]>�<![CDATA[re going in a new direction and its basically Stamos]]>�<![CDATA[ Beach Boys, and he found a new drummer for the band that he likes]]>�<![CDATA[
I know what the touring band is and what Mike values, I think, but it]]>�<![CDATA[s pretty disturbing and depressing to hear that phrase (Stamos]]>�<![CDATA[ Beach Boys) from someone pretty close to it all. I fear what happens to the license when Mike finally retires!
I don't know if this was covered elsewhere, but I was just listening recently to an episode of the "Surf's Up" podcast with an interview with Christian Love, and they ask Christian about the departure of Totten and Cowsill.
I was surprised that Christian was relatively direct about it. He said Scott Totten had started having trouble singing, and that's why he stepped down. As for Cowsill, Christian said something along the lines of "sometimes he can be a nice guy, and sometimes he can be difficult."
Obviously not firm answers to all the questions one might have, but there's some more context for you. I'm not sure if he was saying Totten had trouble singing and volunteered to step down, or if it was still Mike's decision. I'd still think the latter is more likely, as Totten and Cowsill both played their last show on the same night. Either that, or Totten chose to step down and Mike used that as the moment to also let Cowsill go.
The Christian Love interview was, erm, interesting. The guy has a really particular demeanor, I'll say that. He might be the least enthusiastic interview I've ever heard regarding someone in or around the Beach Boys that *isn't* angry or grumpy or grinding any axe. His answers are all just kind of neutral and matter of fact. He just really doesn't have much to say, and doesn't sound bored, but doesn't really sound like he has a lot of passion for being in the band either. It's just kind the thing he does, and he's generally content about it.
I appreciate the moments where he's just very straighforward and forthcoming, though. Like, he's asked about Brian, and he just flat out says he's *never* really had a conversation with Brian. He said Brian has been nice to him, but they don't actually really talk.
Does he like the other Beach Boys children? Sure, he's got nothing bad to say about them. He works with some of them, he'd be fine working with any of them. Is he excited to do so? I dunno, not really? Does he have anything else to say about working with Matt Jardine other than he did work with him? Naw, not really. Does he get along with Al? Sure, Al's always been nice to him. Is being friendly with people his Dad doesn't get along with a problem? No, I guess. He just stays out of it.
One of the most boring, flatline, yet interesting interviews.
I'm sure part of it is just his personality; he's a reserved dude and it's hard to tell sometimes where "reserved" ends and "bored" begins.
I'm not concerned in the least about the Disney doc having a Mike Love spin to it. We've got several documentaries devoted specifically to telling Brian's story. Did the Love fans complain about those docs having a BW spin to them? Probably.
Brian Wilson is loved and revered the world over as the genius behind the music of the Beach Boys. He's worshipped for the sonic goods he bestowed upon us from 1962 to 1966 - especially 1966. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to change that. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to rob you of the pleasure you got seeing Brian tour as a solo artist from 1999 to 2023; his solo shows were universally praised as musically brilliant, unlike the traveling jukebox Mike leads.
If the result of the Disney doc is that Mike gets a little more credit, how does that take away from Brian?
'He's worshipped for the sonic goods he bestowed upon us from 1962 to 1966 - especially 1966. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to change that.' No but it could have enlarged upon that. And rather too much emphasis IMO on the fact that Pet Sounds didn't do that well (in the US) commercially at first. It got to No 2 in the album charts in the UK. And it's shouldn't just be about how well it sold either. ]]>
FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.
Carol is being subjected to enough character assassination in the Inclusive Board.
Let's try to be better people and not join in Carol-bashing. It's ugly.
She is a 87 old lady who managed to become a legend in a man-dominated environment. She says some questionable things now and then, so what? Just give her a break.
I said something very similar about Mike, some weeeks ago. As I am no "historian", don't apply two standards.
Some of what Carol has done is steal credits from James Jamerson who is not alive to refute her claims. It]]>�<![CDATA[s the BB version of Bernard Purdie claiming to have played on the Beatles records.
Ok, I know that very well. That's not my point. My point is that two wrongs do not make a right. The behaviour of some people (in the Inclusive Board) to Carol is totally obnoxious.]]>
Brian at that beach meeting has that look of defeat knowing Mike]]>�<![CDATA[s got control over everything]]>�<![CDATA[.
Brian looks miserable in every photo of video I've seen of him in recent years.
Suggest you check out his Instagram when he was at the Lakers game in April, he looked quite happy then. Especially with everything going on in his life lately, it's nice to see a smile on his face.
I knew I would get this kind of reaction, because to say that Brian looks unhappy implies that his handlers are tormenting him, it's all Melinda's fault, etc.
IMO, Brian is probably in a lot of physical pain these days, and losing his wife isn't going to put a smile on his face, either. But I said what I said, and you can take it anyway you want.
Jeesh man, I wrote ]]>�<![CDATA[especially with everything going on in his life lately, it]]>�<![CDATA[s nice to see a smile on his face.]]>�<![CDATA[ - as in his horrendous back issues, that he]]>�<![CDATA[s now gotta use a walker/wheelchair, that so many of his friends and close associates are dying all around him, his wife dying, etc - ie acknowledging that he HAS looked really down lately.
I was merely saying that if you really hadn]]>�<![CDATA[t seen an uplifting picture of him recently that you should check out the Lakers game photo, because ]]>�<![CDATA[it]]>�<![CDATA[s nice to see a smile on his face]]>�<![CDATA[. All the best to you, Lonely Summer.
There is no hope, Rab. Some people can't help seeing EVERYTHING through the "Beach Boys politics" lens.
That was the main reason for my extremely long, and I guess just as useless, post about Mike Love. Trying to get away from that narrow and self-defeating mindset.
But, as I said, there is no hope. You show normal human decency to Brian Wilson, so you must be a Brianista. Shame on you!]]>
Brian at that beach meeting has that look of defeat knowing Mike]]>�<![CDATA[s got control over everything]]>�<![CDATA[.
Brian looks miserable in every photo of video I've seen of him in recent years.
Suggest you check out his Instagram when he was at the Lakers game in April, he looked quite happy then. Especially with everything going on in his life lately, it's nice to see a smile on his face.
I knew I would get this kind of reaction, because to say that Brian looks unhappy implies that his handlers are tormenting him, it's all Melinda's fault, etc.
IMO, Brian is probably in a lot of physical pain these days, and losing his wife isn't going to put a smile on his face, either. But I said what I said, and you can take it anyway you want.
Jeesh man, I wrote ]]>�<![CDATA[especially with everything going on in his life lately, it]]>�<![CDATA[s nice to see a smile on his face.]]>�<![CDATA[ - as in his horrendous back issues, that he]]>�<![CDATA[s now gotta use a walker/wheelchair, that so many of his friends and close associates are dying all around him, his wife dying, etc - ie acknowledging that he HAS looked really down lately.
I was merely saying that if you really hadn]]>�<![CDATA[t seen an uplifting picture of him recently that you should check out the Lakers game photo, because ]]>�<![CDATA[it]]>�<![CDATA[s nice to see a smile on his face]]>�<![CDATA[. All the best to you, Lonely Summer. ]]>
The RIAA awards:
Beach boys white matte RIAA gold award for Good Vibrations presented to the Beach Boys
Beach boys white matte RIAA gold award for All summer long presented to the Beach Boys
Beach boys RIAA gold award for I get around presented to Capitol records
Beach boys RIAA gold award for Surfin USA presented to Capitol records
Beach boys RIAA gold award for Spirit of America presented to Carl Wilson
+ BPI award for Smile, presented to Nonesuch records(for 100 000 copies sold)
The singles/EP collection
Highlights; approx. 900 ex, including Candix Surfin, X-record Surfin, Italian Surfin USA w/ rare cover, Japanese Caroline No, promos etc etc.
The collection will be auctioned later this year. But feel free to PM me if interested in some of this:)
Anders]]>
We are currently exploring whether we can organize a Dutch fan meeting this fall. The location will most probably be Baambrugge (where else?), possibly in the local village hall. However, the number of available data is limited. The only possibility is Saturday October 19th 2024 (a week earlier the Stomp Convention is planned).
We are currently making an inventory of how many Dutch fans can be present. We want to keep the costs for hall rental as low as possible. The starting point is a minimum number of 20 fans and we aim for an entrance fee of ]]>�<![CDATA[10 (excluding refreshments ]]>�<![CDATA[ there is a bar).
Of course foreign fans are also welcome. That's why I'm also checking this message board to see if there are any fans who would like to make the trip to the Netherlands and have a nice afternoon and evening with us. We can imagine this might difficult if you have to come from far away. But suppose you are planning to go to the UK Stomp on the 12th... how nice would it be it to extend your trip/holiday by a week and make a small detour through Baambrugge before you go home?
We don't have a set program yet. For the small fan base here it is difficult to arrange special guests. But it is guaranteed to be a lot of fun. And we already have several ideas to fill the afternoon and evening. Think of documentaries that we can show, a quiz, and/or sing-a-long. There is room for exchange or sale of BB music or memorabilia. Of course we will try to arrange a visit to the site of the former BBC2 studio. And in between there is lots of opportunities to catch up with friends and fans.
So are you interested? Let me know (a response in this topic, or through PM). And do you have questions because you are dependent on public transport or want to know what is convenient in terms of overnight accommodation? I will think with you about the possibilities.
Greetings,
Klaas
]]>
FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.
Carol is being subjected to enough character assassination in the Inclusive Board.
Let's try to be better people and not join in Carol-bashing. It's ugly.
She is a 87 old lady who managed to become a legend in a man-dominated environment. She says some questionable things now and then, so what? Just give her a break.
I said something very similar about Mike, some weeeks ago. As I am no "historian", don't apply two standards.
Some of what Carol has done is steal credits from James Jamerson who is not alive to refute her claims. It]]>�<![CDATA[s the BB version of Bernard Purdie claiming to have played on the Beatles records. ]]>
Them doing the original tracklist live would actually be cool.
And next year will be the 50th anniversary of Spirit of America and Good Vibrations - Best of the Beach Boys. Plenty of gems there to add to the show - The Little Girl I Once Knew, Add Some Music to Your Day, Surf's Up, Salt Lake City, Spirit of America, Please Let Me Wonder.]]>
