|
|
Post by AGD on May 13, 2021 14:03:00 GMT -5
Just bought the digital edition, and basically stopped reading at page 9 (of 132) when I got to this:
"At first the Morgans pressed the song ["Surfin'"] up on their own X Records label, Dorinda later recalled, before Hite took it to Herb Newman, who owned Candix Records...".
I don't know who Jack Watkins is, but I do know he's no great shakes as a researcher.
No, that's not fair: he's a terrible researcher. You write anything about the early days of the band, you go straight to these two books:
Becoming The Beach Boys 1961-1963 by James B. Murphy
1961-1963: The Beach Boys Inception and Conception, From Hite Morgan to Nik Venet by Stephen J. McParland
|
|
|
|
Post by nts1drums on May 13, 2021 14:42:14 GMT -5
 It’s not too late for a refund... |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 13, 2021 15:05:17 GMT -5
I may just do that once I've read further.
|
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 13, 2021 15:19:40 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs
|
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 13, 2021 15:50:56 GMT -5
The Wiki entry for "Surfin'" is more accurate than what I've quoted above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on May 13, 2021 16:17:32 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs This is always the historian's task -- to keep digging for truth, and to keep pressing despite how hard it is, and despite how "trivial" it sometimes feels. I know that many of us who spend...a lot of our free time researching Beach Boys history get frustrated about the battles we have to keep fighting. Sometimes when I think about the task of making the Beach Boys history more accurate, and better, I do often pause and think about how insignificant it all is. How can anyone make the case that what some band did 60 years ago is at all important. And sometimes it does make me feel stupid for investing so much. But then I think about how really all history is important. Every little detail goes into making the whole picture. And there are different kinds of importance. But all of human history rests on ALL of its pieces. The more we value truth in the tiny details, the more society values truth as a whole, I think. And that's why we keep writing better histories, writing letters to the editor, etc... Maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on May 13, 2021 16:45:24 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs This is always the historian's task -- to keep digging for truth, and to keep pressing despite how hard it is, and despite how "trivial" it sometimes feels. I know that many of us who spend...a lot of our free time researching Beach Boys history get frustrated about the battles we have to keep fighting. Sometimes when I think about the task of making the Beach Boys history more accurate, and better, I do often pause and think about how insignificant it all is. How can anyone make the case that what some band did 60 years ago is at all important. And sometimes it does make me feel stupid for investing so much. But then I think about how really all history is important. Every little detail goes into making the whole picture. And there are different kinds of importance. But all of human history rests on ALL of its pieces. The more we value truth in the tiny details, the more society values truth as a whole, I think. And that's why we keep writing better histories, writing letters to the editor, etc... Maybe? It is important and valued. Better to have facts that stand on their own merit; rather than a narrative that falls apart when a thread is pulled. And if any band fell prey to false narratives, it has been this band. Those false narratives could end up in music education textbooks and it is vital that it not be so. It is important work - the slog is worth it. Libraries (or where ever the research takes place) can be lonely places. You should not feel stupid, ever. Thanks for your scholarly work. 📖 |
|
|
|
Post by Al S on May 13, 2021 17:57:39 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs This is always the historian's task -- to keep digging for truth, and to keep pressing despite how hard it is, and despite how "trivial" it sometimes feels. I know that many of us who spend...a lot of our free time researching Beach Boys history get frustrated about the battles we have to keep fighting. Sometimes when I think about the task of making the Beach Boys history more accurate, and better, I do often pause and think about how insignificant it all is. How can anyone make the case that what some band did 60 years ago is at all important. And sometimes it does make me feel stupid for investing so much. But then I think about how really all history is important. Every little detail goes into making the whole picture. And there are different kinds of importance. But all of human history rests on ALL of its pieces. The more we value truth in the tiny details, the more society values truth as a whole, I think. And that's why we keep writing better histories, writing letters to the editor, etc... Maybe? What I find baffling is that AGD, Ian, Bob, Stebbins, Jim, McParland, You, Messrs Boyd & Linett, many others are able to bust the myths and get an accurate history on the table via various means, but within 5 minutes BB history is de-corrected by the recirculation of busted myths. Bizarre. To Ian’s point above re Badman book - recently on a Facebook forum a question was asked about the best reference material re the band. A fan posted the Badman book as essential, a post that was then commented by a once heralded BB tome Author as a great suggestion  (face palm). |
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 13, 2021 18:44:07 GMT -5
I will say though that the Badman book has great full page photos! A lot of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Al S on May 13, 2021 19:00:51 GMT -5
I will say though that the Badman book has great full page photos! A lot of them! LOL, perhaps they shoulda ditched the text and put it out as Visual history! |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 14, 2021 2:06:35 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs This is always the historian's task -- to keep digging for truth, and to keep pressing despite how hard it is, and despite how "trivial" it sometimes feels. I know that many of us who spend...a lot of our free time researching Beach Boys history get frustrated about the battles we have to keep fighting. Sometimes when I think about the task of making the Beach Boys history more accurate, and better, I do often pause and think about how insignificant it all is. How can anyone make the case that what some band did 60 years ago is at all important. And sometimes it does make me feel stupid for investing so much. But then I think about how really all history is important. Every little detail goes into making the whole picture. And there are different kinds of importance. But all of human history rests on ALL of its pieces. The more we value truth in the tiny details, the more society values truth as a whole, I think. And that's why we keep writing better histories, writing letters to the editor, etc... Maybe? ... and in my case, I feel that the music of Brian Wilson & The Beach Boys is so hugely important (both to me and rock history in general) that it demands to be recorded as accurately as possible. Again, on a personal level, sometimes I get it right, very rarely I make a minor discovery and now and then I screw up mightily (in one instance on such an incredible level that it went unnoticed for decades !). The things that binds all the major BB researchers/historians together is that they will revise previous opinions in the light of new evidence and not hold on to some now-disproven fact for the sake of their ego. What makes me despair is that back in the day, and especially now, getting the true gen is the work of moments via Google. That or simply ask someone like Jim, Ian, Craig or Stephen via social media. |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 14, 2021 3:39:54 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs Snag usually is, you revise the Wiki entry and seconds later someone reverses it. |
|
|
|
Post by nts1drums on May 14, 2021 4:45:37 GMT -5
It’s hard to change the narrative that is out there I find. For example my book illustrated that a lot of the info in Keith Badman’s earlier book was inaccurate but I still find a lot of people quoting him and many of his inaccurate dates. But I recognize that his book had greater budget and publicity and distribution than mine. More people own or have heard of his book so his facts are going to dominate. It requires all the Wikipedia articles and other sources to be updated to the latest research and most people can’t be bothered-especially for something considered trivial like the history of the BBs Snag usually is, you revise the Wiki entry and seconds later someone reverses it. Ah I’ve had those moments before. This is why I don’t bother editing those Wikipedia articles anymore. Last edit I did, it’s remained the same for a couple of months, but yeah usually they change it back. Also, they sometimes delete entire pieces of evidence and say “no sources” and it drives me insane when you did actually use a source. |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 14, 2021 5:47:20 GMT -5
Snag usually is, you revise the Wiki entry and seconds later someone reverses it. Ah I’ve had those moments before. This is why I don’t bother editing those Wikipedia articles anymore. Last edit I did, it’s remained the same for a couple of months, but yeah usually they change it back. Also, they sometimes delete entire pieces of evidence and say “no sources” and it drives me insane when you did actually use a source. Or worse: "what's your source ?" "an interview I did with (insert name of BB/associate here)" "can't use that, it's original research". Now, I may be off here... but at one time or another, wasn't every source "original research" ? |
|
(face palm).