|
Post by B.E. on Apr 21, 2022 22:47:35 GMT
I feel like the Brian is Back meme was used on many occasions. 1983: Brian is hooked up with Landy again, looks much healthier than he has in years, appears sporadically at BBs concerts Sort of, but I think there is a difference that is really important. There's the Beach Boys promoting themselves by using "Brian's Back," ... Sorry to chop up these posts but lonelysummer had me wondering if 1983 would really qualify as an example of "Brian's Back"? I mean, I don't doubt that the group might have promoted some of the shows by saying, "hey, Brian's back touring with us!" and playing up that he was looking much healthier, but what are we talking about...some quotes in a local paper? Besides, Brian had been touring regularly with the group since '77 only to miss about 6 months from late '82 into '83. Not much there, IMO. Edit: If you meant a few years later, then my bad.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 21, 2022 23:11:50 GMT
In addition to my earlier example...and this might be the most obvious of them all, but it's gotta be said...I absolutely think of the eras Surfin' Safari - Friends (or, actually, "Surfin'" - "Do It Again") and 15 Big Ones - Love You similarly in that these are the most "Brian" (i.e the eras in which he's most involved). And if including solo or unreleased material, that 2nd era would extend to Adult/Child and I'd probably have to include the Brian Wilson - Sweet Insanity era as well.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 22, 2022 0:30:39 GMT
1976-1978: Brian Is Back
1979-1985: Changes, changes, changes This reminds me of two opinions of mine that have changed regarding the relationship of eras based on Brian's involvement. I just posted that (roughly) '62-68, '76-77, and '87-90 were the eras that I think of as being the most "Brian". So, first, the idea that MIU is part of "Brian Is Back" is something that I once accepted but now disagree with. Yes, Brian is still involved, but he's no longer at the wheel - which was the whole point of "Brian Is Back" - and I don't believe that MIU was even promoted that way, either. I consider MIU - BB85 as the 2nd group era and I specifically liken MIU to BB85. I think they are very similar projects but instead of Mike and Al being the most involved BBs it's Carl and they traded outsider Ron Altbach for Steve Levine. Second, I never quite accepted the idea that L.A. was some sort of continuation of Holland, but these days I really think it is. I can imagine that had they continued on that path that L.A. may very well have been their album of 1979 nearly exactly how it is. It does kind of seem like a reset to '73 (or '75), but instead of bringing back Blondie they brought back Bruce.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Apr 22, 2022 3:01:06 GMT
I feel like the Brian is Back meme was used on many occasions. 1976: 15 Big Ones/Brian makes some appearances with the touring band 1983: Brian is hooked up with Landy again, looks much healthier than he has in years, appears sporadically at BBs concerts 1988: Brian Wilson solo album - the long awaited solo debut 1995: I Just Wasn't Made For These Times film and album/Orange Crate Art - Landy is gone, and now Brian is really back! 1998: Imagination/solo tours start - forget what we said three years ago, now Brian is really back! 2004: BWPS Sort of, but I think there is a difference that is really important. There's the Beach Boys promoting themselves by using "Brian's Back," and there's the Brian Wilson solo career promotion of "hey, Brian is FREE to do what he wants!"
In a way they are the same: the musical genius is back in action.
And in a way they are exact opposites: one one hand it's the prodigal son back in the fold; on the other, it's the man liberated from those who controlled him (including the Beach Boys, in this narrative).
So those last four on the list all fall into the Brian-alone version. The first ones are more about him in the group.
And each time, we were reassured "no, this is not 1976 all over again, Brian is really back this time!"
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 22, 2022 11:46:34 GMT
And that's why we should never take at face value anything artists or their publicists say. (Or any business or organization, for that matter.) Other people's statements, corroborating evidence, larger context, and mostly actions over the passage of time--that's how we find out what's really true. Not a cherry-picked quote that reinforces what we wish were true.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 22, 2022 11:50:34 GMT
Second, I never quite accepted the idea that L.A. was some sort of continuation of Holland, but these days I really think it is. I can imagine that had they continued on that path that L.A. may very well have been their album of 1979 nearly exactly how it is. It does kind of seem like a reset to '73 (or '75), but instead of bringing back Blondie they brought back Bruce. I think the main parallel between those is that they were both attempts at a contemporary sound that included very little Brian but quite a bit from the other Wilson brothers (as well as the others). And more specifically, attempts at a contemporary sound that--say, unlike the Melcher stuff--wasn't an embarrassing misfire. While not hits, they were at least relatively good fits for their progressive roots-rock and almost yacht rock ambitions, respectively.
As for differences, LA is a much, much slicker sound. In that, it more resembles Sunflower and Surf's Up than Holland.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 22, 2022 13:54:50 GMT
Second, I never quite accepted the idea that L.A. was some sort of continuation of Holland, but these days I really think it is. I can imagine that had they continued on that path that L.A. may very well have been their album of 1979 nearly exactly how it is. It does kind of seem like a reset to '73 (or '75), but instead of bringing back Blondie they brought back Bruce. I think the main parallel between those is that they were both attempts at a contemporary sound that included very little Brian but quite a bit from the other Wilson brothers (as well as the others). And more specifically, attempts at a contemporary sound that--say, unlike the Melcher stuff--wasn't an embarrassing misfire. While not hits, they were at least relatively good fits for their progressive roots-rock and almost yacht rock ambitions, respectively. Absolutely…and that’s a lot to have in common, IMO. Stylistically, they changed with the times, but like I alluded to it’s hardly a drastic departure from the more progressive roots-rock to yacht rock tinged Beach Boys (HCTN ‘79 excluded). These albums feel more mature, and calmer, but also a bit darker and/or moodier than many of their other albums, too. And now that I’m looking for more (if less meaningful) connections, how about the closers? Divisive, quirky, uptempo, and somewhat dark Brian tunes. There’s that word again: dark. Maybe it’s just me, but then again these aren’t bright, sunny, youthful sounding albums, are they? Especially in the case of L.A., I feel like I ought to listen to it late at night. Edit: And of course the openers are the Brian-penned BBs-sounding (minor hit) singles. So, the format is very similar in that it opens and closes with specific types of Brian tunes.
|
|
|
Post by bellesofparisstan on Apr 23, 2022 20:28:21 GMT
The parallels between the recording process for 20/20 and LA are fascinating. Both albums were exactly a decade apart. Both started around May of their respective years, 1968 and 1978 respectively. Both started with heavy Brian involvement, basically taking charge of the whole project but never being able to finish anything. With 20/20 this would include Do It Again, All I Wanna Do, Old man river, walk on by, We're Together Again, Been Way Too Long, Sail Plane Song, etc. With LA this would include Shortnin Bread (started slightly earlier), I really love you, basketball rock, bowling, Santa Anna winds, looking down the coast, California feelin, CALENDAR Girl. Both albums would have to be mostly finished by other bandmates starting around September of their respective years. Both albums would end up finishing tracks from old projects, bluebirds, time to get alone, our prayer and CabinEssence for 20/20, Good Timin, Lady Linda, Love surrounds me, Sumahama, Baby Blue and Bread for LA. Brian would (reportedly) end up in the hospital during the recording of both albums. Both albums would have parts recorded outside of California, with some work on 20/20 done in New York and some work on LA done in Miami. 20/20 would end up being their last album for Capitol for 20 years, while LA was their first for CBS. Both albums were released in Q1 1969 and Q1 1979. Both albums were moderately successful in the US, but much more successful in the UK. 20/20: #68 in the US, #3 in the UK. US singles performance: #20 (Do It Again), #61 (Bluebirds), #24 (I Can Hear Music), #103 (Cottonfields) UK Singles performance: #1 (Do It Again), #33 (BlueBirds), #10 (I Can Hear Music), #5 (Cottonfields)
LA: #100 in the US, #32 in the UK. US Singles performance: #44 (Here Comes the Night), #40 (Good Timin), didn’t chart on hot 100 but #39 on the Adult contemporary (Lady Linda), didn’t chart and wasn’t released (Sumahama) UK Singles performance: #37 (Here Comes The Night), didn’t chart and wasn’t released (Good Timin), #6 (Lady Linda), #45 (Sumahama) Both albums were big for Bruce, 20/20 had his first solo composition as a Beach Boy, LA had him listed as one of the main producers. Both albums have retrospectively been described as a collection of solo tracks. Both Albums were followed up with non-album singles, Break Away and It’s a Beautiful Day. 20/20 had some of Dennis’s first complete productions without heavy Brian involvement, LA featured his last.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 24, 2022 0:34:59 GMT
That was a really good post, bellesofparisstan. I never realized there were so many similarities between those two albums, and despite all of those similarities, neither album reminds me of the other.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 27, 2022 1:18:35 GMT
So, first, the idea that MIU is part of "Brian Is Back" is something that I once accepted but now disagree with. Yes, Brian is still involved, but he's no longer at the wheel - which was the whole point of "Brian Is Back" - and I don't believe that MIU was even promoted that way, either. I consider MIU - BB85 as the 2nd group era and I specifically liken MIU to BB85. I think they are very similar projects but instead of Mike and Al being the most involved BBs it's Carl and they traded outsider Ron Altbach for Steve Levine. Your point is well-taken. It's something I've given much thought to through the years. Outside of that Our Team video/documentary, there is very little out there about the actual M.I.U. sessions. You almost have to piece things together from various interviews with various participants, and there hasn't been much discussion or interest in M.I.U. in the first place.
I think the biggest indicator that maybe Brian was not "driving" M.I.U. is the way it sounds. The M.I.U. recordings don't sound much like Brian's 1960's productions, even though the goal was to, kind of, go back to the band's classic sound. M.I.U. also has very little in common with Brian's other 1970's compositions/productions, especially the then-recent 15 Big Ones and Love You. If anything, it does sound like a mesh of Brian/Mike/Al...and that ain't too bad actually. I like M.I.U.
If there is a main reason that Brian was significantly involved in M.I.U., it would be that his name is all over the album. He is listed as Executive Producer. Who knows exactly what that meant, but I assume he was being at least consulted during the sessions, if not occasionally having final say. Also, Brian is credited as a/the songwriter on 8 of the 14 tracks. I know, I know. We know how that worked in Brian's songwriting history. How much did he actually contribute? And while that - Brian getting too much credit - had been going on for quite awhile, I think it might've reached a then-peak with M.I.U. (it would, of course, reach new heights with his solo career). You're right about Ron Altbach. He was very involved, but I have to say that the BW-credited songs do have that Brian Wilson stamp on them, at least in places. And, there are two oldies on M.I.U., and I believe both (I'm sure about "Come Go With Me") were started - and originally produced by Brian - a few years earlier. So you have his input there, too.
One other thing...In addition to M.I.U., there were Christmas songs recorded and some Honeys' tracks recorded, too. I don't know how much Brian was involved with those. But, you know, as much as M.I.U. is criticized, it seldom gets credit for how much music was actually recorded during those sessions.
In the end, I tend to "stretch" the Brian Is Back era THROUGH the M.I.U. sessions. Is he as prominent as he was just a year or two earlier? No, but he was also more involved than he would be for a long, long time.
|
|