|
Post by Rick Bartlett on May 23, 2022 22:39:10 GMT -5
Look how many times SMiLE was promised and never delivered. This was hard info from the group and the labels. And nothing came of it. Later, new converts would say how could you believe SMiLE was coming out. But we were told it was. So that is how info changes on unreleased tracks. Yes, and it was also rumored that Brian burned and/or erased the Smile recordings. Well, Brian 'confessed' it himself in interviews, 'I burned them', 'destroyed the masters' or to that effect.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on May 24, 2022 6:33:23 GMT -5
Like in 1972, they held a freaking news conference to announce SMiLE. In 1995 there was a two page article in Billboard with interviews of Mark and David Leaf. So when newer fans would say we were naive, I would just send them the articles. I still vividly remember being over the moon SMiLE tracks were going to be on TEN YEARS OF HARMONY. HA!! And announced at concerts.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on May 24, 2022 6:37:50 GMT -5
I’ve always been interested in this… Warner re-pressed sail on sailor in 1975 after endless summer, and it was much more successful than it’s first go round in 1973. After it was a minor hit, why did they not do this with other singles that were previous failures in the early 70s? Marcella could’ve done quite well in 1975 if promoted properly, same with California saga California. While they were waiting around for the beach boys to deliver new product, there is A lot they could have done with the 1970-73 material that could’ve helped They never got promotion off the ground. They put no effort in, it appears. Warner.
|
|
|
Post by EST583JRX on May 24, 2022 16:01:39 GMT -5
What I should have said was, "There's no evidence that the Beach Boys recorded a cover of Working in a Coal Mine, and therefore, no reason to think they did." "No reason to think they did"? Except for a 1976 Billboard article that (supposedly) says they did. 'Pattycake' threw me for a loop, too. Turns out Leaf's book was the first and only original source for that being the title of a song, and his source was a radio interview with Brian that's out there online, in which Brian never actually talks about writing a song called 'Pattycake'. There's just an abrupt segue from discussing the gorilla called Pattycake to promoting 'Shyin' Away' that I guess Leaf must've severely misheard. This is what I mean. Speculation presented as research. Theories presented as facts. Unproven assumptions presented as evidence. Plausible explanations presented as the explanation. Now I'm going to make some of my own assumptions. Note: it's been some time since I've listened to the full Fornatale interview and read Leaf's book. And I'm going to assume there's no other existing relevant documentation for this topic. Here's all the information we got (as I understand it): 1973: Brian tells Pete Fornatale that he went to the zoo and saw a gorilla named Patty Cake. 1978: David Leaf, who had spent the previous two years conducting extensive interviews with the Beach Boys' camp, prints that Brian had written a song, Patty Cake, about a gorilla from the zoo. We don't know if Leaf heard that Fornatale interview or if Leaf was told about the song by someone else. You assume it was the former and not the latter. We don't know if Brian had written Patty Cake after that interview. You assume he would have composed it beforehand. We don't know if Brian, for whatever reason, simply did not want to reveal to the interviewer that he had written a song about a gorilla. You probably assume he wasn't coked out in that interview, and it probably didn't occur to you (or maybe you thought it was ridiculous to think) that he might have even forgotten writing the song. We don't know if Brian recorded the song after giving the interview. You assume he didn't. We don't know if Brian recorded the song, decided that it was garbage, and then wiped the tape to record something else. You assume he didn't. You have incredibly limited information regarding this extremely obscure piece of lost media that could lead you down an infinite number of plausible explanations. Your way of drawing definite conclusions despite this hindrance is not the methodology used by professional historians and historiographers. It's highly misleading and just leads to more confusion down the line if/when more information comes to light. That information could come in the form of a Billboard article that wasn't accessible to you at the time you drew your conclusions. If there is indeed an unreleased song called “Patty Cake,” which is different than the previously unreleased “The Baker Man”, then The Beach Boys are probably the only major band to have recorded two different songs containing the words “Patty Cake,” let alone both written by the same person. "Funky Pretty"/"Spark in the Dark," anyone? How about "All I Want to Do"/"All I Wanna Do"?
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 24, 2022 17:07:18 GMT -5
"Spark In The Dark" bears no relation to "Funky Pretty" whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by WillJC on May 24, 2022 17:33:13 GMT -5
What I should have said was, "There's no evidence that the Beach Boys recorded a cover of Working in a Coal Mine, and therefore, no reason to think they did." "No reason to think they did"? Except for a 1976 Billboard article that (supposedly) says they did. 'Pattycake' threw me for a loop, too. Turns out Leaf's book was the first and only original source for that being the title of a song, and his source was a radio interview with Brian that's out there online, in which Brian never actually talks about writing a song called 'Pattycake'. There's just an abrupt segue from discussing the gorilla called Pattycake to promoting 'Shyin' Away' that I guess Leaf must've severely misheard. This is what I mean. Speculation presented as research. Theories presented as facts. Unproven assumptions presented as evidence. Plausible explanations presented as the explanation. Now I'm going to make some of my own assumptions. Note: it's been some time since I've listened to the full Fornatale interview and read Leaf's book. And I'm going to assume there's no other existing relevant documentation for this topic. Here's all the information we got (as I understand it): 1973: Brian tells Pete Fornatale that he went to the zoo and saw a gorilla named Patty Cake. 1978: David Leaf, who had spent the previous two years conducting extensive interviews with the Beach Boys' camp, prints that Brian had written a song, Patty Cake, about a gorilla from the zoo. We don't know if Leaf heard that Fornatale interview or if Leaf was told about the song by someone else. You assume it was the former and not the latter. We don't know if Brian had written Patty Cake after that interview. You assume he would have composed it beforehand. We don't know if Brian, for whatever reason, simply did not want to reveal to the interviewer that he had written a song about a gorilla. You probably assume he wasn't coked out in that interview, and it probably didn't occur to you (or maybe you thought it was ridiculous to think) that he might have even forgotten writing the song. We don't know if Brian recorded the song after giving the interview. You assume he didn't. We don't know if Brian recorded the song, decided that it was garbage, and then wiped the tape to record something else. You assume he didn't. You have incredibly limited information regarding this extremely obscure piece of lost media that could lead you down an infinite number of plausible explanations. Your way of drawing definite conclusions despite this hindrance is not the methodology used by professional historians and historiographers. It's highly misleading and just leads to more confusion down the line if/when more information comes to light. That information could come in the form of a Billboard article that wasn't accessible to you at the time you drew your conclusions. This is... a weirdly antagonistic post? 'Coal Mine' isn't a song that exists among the 2" 24-track tapes from the 15 Big Ones sessions (which are all accounted for, besides It's OK and Don't Fight the Sea), any 1/4" mixdown reels, or the AFM contracts (coming direct from sources with first-hand access to that information). The material recorded for the project is otherwise quite thoroughly preserved and documented. Brian did express that he wanted to record Working in a Coal Mine to Timothy White in February (as he did with a lot of things), but there isn't any physical evidence that they followed up on that, and quite a lot of reason to believe that there would be something if they did. In the context of Leaf's book, I think it's a reasonable reading that he's drawing Pattycake from the contents of the interview itself. Here's the full excerpt: At one point Brian makes a mumbled comment about "their son, Pattycake", and it sounds a lot like "the song", and he then starts talking about the new record. Maybe Leaf didn't get it from there! Maybe it came from an undisclosed private source. Maybe that was too strong a 2+2=6, that's a fair point. It wasn't my observation in the first place. I'm interested in accuracy and would very much like a Brian Wilson song about a gorilla called Pattycake to exist. At the same time, I don't think it really invites the implication that I (or any other researchers here) are on some kind of campaign to spread misinformation about the Beach Boys free of critical thinking.
|
|
sloopjohnb
Historian / Researcher
Posts: 252
Likes: 401
|
Post by sloopjohnb on May 24, 2022 17:46:16 GMT -5
Here is the quote from Leaf's book: Their on-the-air interview was filled with mostly irrelevant chatter about a visit to the zoo (Brian wrote a song about a gorilla, Pattycake, from that trip), and the maids at the Americana Hotel. Brian noted, "They'll get you in trouble every time." There was a hilarious (although perfectly serious) comment from Brian about American Spring's performing on the "Ed Sullivan Show'' (which was off the air by 1973). As he made the comment, Brian realized his mistake, and his embarrassed laughter rang out at such volume that it's echoing in the halls of WNEW-FM to this day. Brian did make one comment that was particularly revealing. "My group for the last few years has been American Spring.'' Brian said it right out. He wasn't a Beach Boy. His comment only hinted at his real feelings.”This paragraph is about Brian's interview, and seems only to discuss it. In this interview, Brian talks about a gorilla named Pattycake, and then segues very poorly into talking about a new song he's proud of (American Spring's Shyin' Away). The way it's phrased in this paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but it seems plain to me that Leaf is referencing the "irrelevant chatter" here when he mentions the alleged song. It is in parenthesis, following the topic itself, and thus, seems to be a synopsis of the "irrelevant chatter about a visit to the zoo". Of course, Leaf had access to resources, interviews, and many important people that could have told him that Brian wrote a song called Patty Cake. But none of that is mentioned here. This is a reference to Brian chatting excitedly about a gorilla named Pattycake, and an unrelated new song, nearly in the same sentence, which was misunderstood. If anyone can point me to alternate evidence that Brian wrote such a song, or if Leaf could clarify that he actually got that from a friend of Brian's, and not from the interview, that would be another story. The idea of Brian writing a song about a gorilla is so fun, that I really hope it's true. But every reference to a composition called "Pattycake" points back to this. Yes, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim - but that's not me in this case. I'm just saying I don't buy it
|
|
sloopjohnb
Historian / Researcher
Posts: 252
Likes: 401
|
Post by sloopjohnb on May 24, 2022 17:47:21 GMT -5
Jinx, Will. You owe me something now.
|
|
|
Post by EST583JRX on May 25, 2022 12:19:29 GMT -5
This is... a weirdly antagonistic post? Apologies. I don't mean to come across that way, and I certainly never meant to get into a debate about the existence/non-existence of Patty Cake. I don't even think it's unreasonable to assume that Leaf did simply mishear Brian's remarks in that interview. For the record, I think you've since done more than enough to support your theory. Maybe I haven't properly communicated the point I'm trying to make. Yes, it's highly probable that Patty Cake was merely reported in error. But it's one thing to say, "Here's my theory on what probably happened based on this evidence." It's another thing to only say, "Here's what happened." I've seen authors and journalists (*cough*Domenic Priore*cough*) make this same mistake over and over again for as long as I can remember being a fan. It's both sad and frustrating to watch it play out, still, in 2022. In the past few years, I've noticed a new pattern emerge: people who conduct their research privately ( why?) and occasionally pop in a thread (or a social media post) to contribute claims that I've never seen reported anywhere. No sources are cited, no explanations are given. I don't understand what purpose that is supposed to serve. To make oneself appear like they're " in the know"? Is it laziness, since no one ever challenges unverified claims anyway? Have we gotten too comfortable believing everything we read? Has it been too long since the last major hoax? Keith Badman's book has been discredited largely because he didn't provide citations and made guesses without saying they were guesses. And that's a really good reason to discredit a self-described "historian" or "researcher," even before it's been shown that they've made numerous factual errors. I'd like to see the same standards applied to everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by E on May 26, 2022 3:05:48 GMT -5
This is... a weirdly antagonistic post? In the past few years, I've noticed a new pattern emerge: people who conduct their research privately ( why?) and occasionally pop in a thread (or a social media post) to contribute claims that I've never seen reported anywhere. No sources are cited, no explanations are given. I don't understand what purpose that is supposed to serve. To make oneself appear like they're " in the know"? Is it laziness, since no one ever challenges unverified claims anyway? Have we gotten too comfortable believing everything we read? Has it been too long since the last major hoax? It can be a little frustrating but I suspect it's because they don't want to be compromised. It's a case of knowing who they are and, elsewhere, knowing who they aren't... There's a difference between those in the know - and you've run into some here - and those who'd like to think they are but are equally confident in their assertions...
|
|
|
Post by WillJC on May 26, 2022 5:54:39 GMT -5
In the past few years, I've noticed a new pattern emerge: people who conduct their research privately ( why?) and occasionally pop in a thread (or a social media post) to contribute claims that I've never seen reported anywhere. No sources are cited, no explanations are given. I don't understand what purpose that is supposed to serve. To make oneself appear like they're " in the know"? Is it laziness, since no one ever challenges unverified claims anyway? Have we gotten too comfortable believing everything we read? Has it been too long since the last major hoax? It can be a little frustrating but I suspect it's because they don't want to be compromised. It's a case of knowing who they are and, elsewhere, knowing who they aren't... There's a difference between those in the know - and you've run into some here - and those who'd like to think they are but are equally confident in their assertions... Yeah, I'd hope to not come accross that way and I completely understand that frustration. I don't tend to post much on the forums these days but like to be helpful when I can, and provide explanations wherever possible (and use the word "probably" as much as it's needed - learned the stupid way when not to make overconfident assertions on an assumption). You have to stay confidential with resources sometimes, though. Personally, anything that comes out of the blue has usually been workshopped privately (in a Slack server) with fellow session people Slowinski + Hosington + Brode, and it's for the sake of an ongoing project that'll hopefully one day be readily available. I don't get a kick out of sharing info without a background and it does frustrate me when others repeat that down the chain without citations.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 26, 2022 6:11:20 GMT -5
It can be a little frustrating but I suspect it's because they don't want to be compromised. It's a case of knowing who they are and, elsewhere, knowing who they aren't... There's a difference between those in the know - and you've run into some here - and those who'd like to think they are but are equally confident in their assertions... Yeah, I'd hope to not come accross that way and I completely understand that frustration. I don't tend to post much on the forums these days but like to be helpful when I can, and provide explanations wherever possible (and use the word "probably" as much as it's needed - learned the stupid when not to make overconfident assertions on an assumption). You have to stay confidential with resources sometimes, though. Personally, anything that comes out of the blue has usually been workshopped privately (in a Slack server) with fellow session people Slowinski + Hosington + Brode, and it's for the sake of an ongoing project that'll hopefully one day be readily available. I don't get a kick out of sharing info without a background and it does frustrate me when others repeat that down the chain without citations.That's the big problem - folk who, intentionally or not, pass off the research of others as their own by not citing their sources. These people have work at it, often for years/decades building up contacts and the thrust thereof, and it's only polite to mention where you got the info from, especially when it's glaringly obvious someone's simply cut and pasted. And yes, at times you have to keep a source private: if you don't they become a ex-source so fast your head will spin. That people don't realise this never fails to confound me. Mind, the best reveal of a source I ever saw was by David Leaf regarding his 1978 book, when Dennis rang him up in the middle of the night demanding to know the origin of something about him in the book he disagreed with. David's response was "Dennis, normally I never reveal my sources, but I'll make an exception this once: your mother told me that".
|
|
tonyw
Dude/Dudette
Posts: 93
Likes: 123
|
Post by tonyw on May 26, 2022 20:15:46 GMT -5
. Mind, the best reveal of a source I ever saw was by David Leaf regarding his 1978 book, when Dennis rang him up in the middle of the night demanding to know the origin of something about him in the book he disagreed with. David's response was "Dennis, normally I never reveal my sources, but I'll make an exception this once: your mother told me that". GOLD!
|
|
|
Post by dauber on May 27, 2022 9:47:07 GMT -5
Arright, I need to know what it was that DL wrote that caused that conversation to happen!
(And I can just imagine Denny hung his head like a guilty puppy afterwards. I mean, who would refute Audree?)
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 27, 2022 9:56:48 GMT -5
Arright, I need to know what it was that DL wrote that caused that conversation to happen! (And I can just imagine Denny hung his head like a guilty puppy afterwards. I mean, who would refute Audree?) According to David, he yelled down the phone "she's old, man, she lies" then burst into laughter. And no, I have no idea what it was.
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 27, 2022 12:58:37 GMT -5
Historical research is an interesting topic. When Jon and I did our book, I did most of the interviews (Jon had, however, done numerous interviews for his previous books) and it was very interesting -there are, however, obvious drawbacks to any interview: just because someone remembers something in a certain way does not make that memory foolproof and memories are very subjective and sometimes embellished over the years. For example a guy told me about meeting Brian in 1964 in the studio and how he was wearing a bathrobe. I don’t doubt that he met Brian but it would not surprise me if he hadn’t embellished the story in the telling over the years based on Brian’s later publicized eccentricities. The other thing about a book is that you often have to make choices. I literally tried to research every listing in the book but sometimes I accepted a fact that Keith Badman had placed in his book-some of these facts were inaccurate but all authors have to build on previous authors and a book is only as accurate as it’s sources. Often we place too much trust in faulty sources-example wilkipedia is used by most students these days but sometimes is not accurate. Funnily enough-when I collaborated with AGD on the gigs/sessions part of his site, a lot of other concert databases on the web literally took all our info and pasted it in their sites. The thing is that we have continued to research and update those listings when new info comes along. We’ve updated those pages a thousand times but the websites that copied our info have not ever copied our updates so they have the same info we had in 2008 and the inaccuracies we have since corrected.
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 27, 2022 13:27:04 GMT -5
Actually it reminds me of another story-when John L did his famous Rolling Stone interview in 1971 he stated that the Beatles had all smoked pot in the "loo" when at Buckingham Palace in 1965 to get the MBE. But in the Anthology, George H said this was false and that they only smoked cigarettes in the loo because they were nervous. He suggested that John embellished the story because in 1971 he was trying to be as provocative as possible and really smash the Beatles image as "lovable moptops" and show that he'd always been a rebel, etc. So that story creeped into subsequent books-but is the author wrong to trust John Lennon himself!! What would you do? And-in the end-while I believe George more-it does not mean that he is more accurate-as we were not present to witness it.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on May 27, 2022 14:43:14 GMT -5
Funnily enough-when I collaborated with AGD on the gigs/sessions part of his site, a lot of other concert databases on the web literally took all our info and pasted it in their sites. The thing is that we have continued to research and update those listings when new info comes along. We’ve updated those pages a thousand times but the websites that copied our info have not ever copied our updates so they have the same info we had in 2008 and the inaccuracies we have since corrected. Ian is, as ever, being characteristically modest: for every new piece of info I discover, he must have found twenty or more: yes, it's my site, but without his contributions and those of Craig it would be but a pale shadow of what it is now... and they're not alone: unless requested otherwise, I've credited every contributor since the site started back at Christmas 2001. I started it, but these days I'm more the curator. The thing is, it's about the most accurate and reliable resource out there, and that's our aim.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Bartlett on May 27, 2022 21:14:54 GMT -5
Getting off topic here....
The John Lennon story above reminds me so much about another, Johnny Cash, who was very similar to building his own character and this 'Man in Black' mystique, which a lot of it was BS, but it was a great persona.
Later in life in an interview, he said he sometimes twisted his stories and made up things just 'to make it a better story'. 'I'm a storyteller, that's what I do'. There's a famous story Johnny tells of Kris Kristofferson, a struggling songwriter, landing a helicopter in his backyard just to give him a
demo tape of 'Sunday Morning Coming Down', which then started Kris' own career and boosted Johnny's TV show at the time.
Kris denies that story, and said I did land my chopper in his backyard, but delivering the 'golden goose' song didn't happen that way.
Moral of the story, the artists are not always the best source to tell the truth either.
|
|
|
Post by John Manning on May 28, 2022 3:53:38 GMT -5
There's a famous story Johnny tells of Kris Kristofferson, a struggling songwriter, landing a helicopter in his backyard… ”struggling songwriter… lands helicopter”? Oh to be a struggling songwriter! I prefer the story about “struggling magazine editor marries Playboy beauty then buys entire Beach Boys tape archive along with Yosemite mansion in which to store it and goes hiking a lot…” but I just haven’t committed the funds yet.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Bartlett on May 28, 2022 4:26:13 GMT -5
There's a famous story Johnny tells of Kris Kristofferson, a struggling songwriter, landing a helicopter in his backyard… ”struggling songwriter… lands helicopter”? Oh to be a struggling songwriter! I prefer the story about “struggling magazine editor marries Playboy beauty then buys entire Beach Boys tape archive along with Yosemite mansion in which to store it and goes hiking a lot…” but I just haven’t committed the funds yet. Kris Kristofferson has a very interesting story too... He was a full fledged Army Colonel who flew choppers, a Rhodes Scholar too, and gave it all up, at his parents disgust and dis owned him,
moved to Nashville to become a janitor at Columbia Records studio.....where Cash recorded.... Talk about chasing your dreams... It's a great story.
|
|
|
Post by craigslowinski on May 28, 2022 9:59:46 GMT -5
”struggling songwriter… lands helicopter”? Oh to be a struggling songwriter! I prefer the story about “struggling magazine editor marries Playboy beauty then buys entire Beach Boys tape archive along with Yosemite mansion in which to store it and goes hiking a lot…” but I just haven’t committed the funds yet. Kris Kristofferson has a very interesting story too... He was a full fledged Army Colonel who flew choppers, a Rhodes Scholar too, and gave it all up, at his parents disgust and dis owned him,
moved to Nashville to become a janitor at Columbia Records studio.....where Cash recorded.... Talk about chasing your dreams... It's a great story.
And, in his role as Columbia Studios janitor, ended up playing cowbells on Bob Dylan's hit "Lay Lady, Lay". Or so the story goes (I've no reason to doubt it).
|
|
|
Post by dauber on May 28, 2022 11:03:12 GMT -5
Here is the quote from Leaf's book: Their on-the-air interview was filled with mostly irrelevant chatter about a visit to the zoo (Brian wrote a song about a gorilla, Pattycake, from that trip)...
That the thing about this likely nonexistent song is in parentheses implies that DL didn't get that from the radio interview, but more like he was saying, "Oh, by the way, while he was there in New York, he happened to write a song about that gorilla." At least, that's how I interpret that. Part of me wants to think that David Leaf could possibly read this and clarify it, but another part of me is realistic: that book came out 44 years ago -- what's the likelihood he'd remember such an obscure detail?
Actually it reminds me of another story-when John L did his famous Rolling Stone interview in 1971 he stated that the Beatles had all smoked pot in the "loo" when at Buckingham Palace in 1965 to get the MBE. But in the Anthology, George H said this was false and that they only smoked cigarettes in the loo because they were nervous.
Ringo, about that same topic: "I was too stoned to remember."
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 30, 2022 9:40:14 GMT -5
Right-well as we said earlier-people embellish stories over the years in the telling-making them funnier or more dramatic or making them look better but Johnny Cash giving an interview to a journalist was not under oath to tell only the truth
|
|
|
Post by Malc on May 31, 2022 2:36:35 GMT -5
Right-well as we said earlier-people embellish stories over the years in the telling-making them funnier or more dramatic or making them look better Too true. I fell victim to that when interviewing Del Ramos for my biography on The Association. Later editions had to be corrected...
|
|