T, I really enjoyed that response. The good thing about this site is the level of intelligent debate (everyone here is a MUSIC fan) and I respect all of the regular poster's opinions. I am one of those guys that kind of enjoys swimming against the tide and a lot of my defence of the the Lovester comes form enjoying winding up the blooeys. I certainly hear what you are saying about Mike's reluctance to move the band on but then I hear him patiently trying to nail the water chant on SMiLE and he was at least TRYING to participate. To be honest I am not surprised Brian abandoned SMiLE - it seems the drug of choice around that time for him and VDP was speed and when you listen to the bootlegs, it's influence is all over - the chopping and changing of ideas and limited attention span are all classic spead-freak behaviour. I also agree that the world could care less about a reunion, but it would be interesting to see who made the cut for the musical line-up. I know everyone bangs on about "what's good for Brian" but I always find it hard to feel sorry for a millionaire who ran away from every tough decision he had to make and dropped friends like yesterdays papers throughout his life as the mood suited him....the beat goes on.
On Nov 2, 2:46 pm, t bedford <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Bri, you keep telling me how good the current BB's are.....I > certainly can't dispute it (haven't seen 'em), but I don't think I've > said (here or on the Blooey, only 2 places I post) that they aren't. > My problem with Love isn't as a performer. > > 2. You certainly don't have to explain his role early in the band, as > chief lyricist. He was great for the car/girls/sufing songs, but > seemed unable (or maybe just unwilling - from a commercial standpoint) > to go beyond this, causing Brian to find other collaborators, people > that were willing to "flesh out" his vison of a song (or project - ala > Pet Sounds). This of course, was a pay cut for ML, adding to the > tension, and causing him to claim equal share DECADES LATER, for songs > to which he may or may not have contributed half.....did he complain > at the time (and if not, why not)? This is a personal opinion of mine, > and Mike's winning the case has not changed my mind, so take that for > what it's worth. To put it very simply....I think he took candy from a > baby. > > 3. In a world where a town that fancies itself as the "rock and roll > capital" (do I have to name names?)...couldn't fill 3,500 seats for > (the legendary) SMiLE, a BB's reunion is gonna draw a big collective > yawn...but not as big as the yawn than the vast majority of anyone > younger than 40 or so is gonna have. Die hard fans care...but would a > BB's reunion actually sell beyond them? As Rob points out....the Beach > Boys never broke up! Anyway, Brian doesn't need the Beach Boys to > celebrate 50 years in the music business....he's done that with or > without them. > > 4. I absolutely agree with Rob: Mike + Brian = Bummer for Brian. Carl > and Dennis are gone, and nothing can change that. Mike & Bruce don't > want Al in their band. Brian doesn't want Mike & Bruce in his. What > would be the point of a reunion, really? Would decades of animosity > between the parties involved suddenly vanish? No. Would they all > somehow magically live happily ever after? You decide, knowing what > you already know.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diamond Headz" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/michaellenz?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
