Demise of the Pet Sounds Mailing List
Brad Elliott
For those of you who might be members of the Pet Sounds mailing list and
haven't heard:
On Friday morning, list administrator Leon Lively posted to the list
that, due to an immediate problem, the PSML would be down all weekend.
On Saturday, Leon posted the following message on Mike Wheeler's Message
Board. I have confirmed with him that it is not a hoax. The Pet Sounds
Mailing List will NOT be coming back up.
> LANDLOCKED/ PETSOUNDS MAILING LIST: RIP
>
> Posted by Leon Lively on August 15, 1998 at 16:22:33:
>
> Beach Boys fans:
>
> I am sorry to say my days of hosting the Pet Sounds mailing list came to
> an abrupt halt Friday morning when I was told my job status at WCBE-FM
> (where the server borrowed some space)was changing for the worse.
>
> I guess 8 years of BS in one place makes me a little happy to move on.
> How did Carl Wilson do it for 36 years?!
>
> Anyway...thanks for all of your great posts over the past year.
>
> Leon "End of the Show" Lively
> DEFUNCT PSLA
Discussions already are underway about creating a new public list to
replace Pet Sounds. All current PS listers will be notified if and when
that happens.
Surf's down ...
Brad
Kim B Monaco
<sur...@nts-online.net> writes:
>On Saturday, Leon posted the following message on Mike Wheeler's
>Message Board. I have confirmed with him that it is not a hoax. The
>Pet Sounds Mailing List will NOT be coming back up.
[Resignation letter snipped]
>Discussions already are underway about creating a new public list to
>replace Pet Sounds. All current PS listers will be notified if and
>when that happens.
But the 50-member invitation-only BB elistists still have their own
secret mailing list, right? (It's the "Stone-Cutters" version of these
Boys discussion groups, and as I recall, Mr. E. was one of its
founders.) Man, I'd really hate to see *that* list die!
What the hell is wrong with newsgroups?? (other than the fact that
they're open to *everybody*) Good riddance to the PS list-- the months
that I was on it, it was just a mailbox-clogging nuisance.
Steve
P.S. If the stealth-list is already dead, I'm soooooo sorry . . .
Brad Elliott
> But the 50-member invitation-only BB elistists still have their own
> secret mailing list, right? (It's the "Stone-Cutters" version of these
> Boys discussion groups, and as I recall, Mr. E. was one of its
> founders.) Man, I'd really hate to see *that* list die!
What's eating your shorts today?
The Surf's Up list has never been "secret" and except for its inception,
it has never been by invitation-only. Yes, you have to be nominated by
two current members, but that was done to prevent exactly the kind of
posts that caused you to label the PS list a "mailbox-clogging nuisance."
Today, there are in fact more than 100 members of the SU list, with new
members being nominated and accepted all the time.
Your tone wouldn't have anything to do with jealousy, would it? You
couldn't find two people who were willing to nominate you? With the kind
of venom-laden post you just made, I can understand why.
Brad
Kim B Monaco
Brad Elliott originally wrote:
>>On Saturday, Leon posted the following message on Mike Wheeler's
>>Message Board. I have confirmed with him that it is not a hoax. The
>>Pet Sounds Mailing List will NOT be coming back up.
To which I replied:
>But the 50-member invitation-only BB elistists still have their own
>secret mailing list, right? (It's the "Stonecutters" version of these
>Boys discussion groups, and as I recall, Mr. E. was one of its
>founders.) Man, I'd really hate to see *that* list die!
Apparently, this did not please Brad, and he responded as follows,
beginning with the very witty rejoinder:
>>What's eating your shorts today?
>>
>>The Surf's Up list has never been "secret" and except for its
>>inception, it has never been by invitation-only.
All I know of this list is based on the original e-mail announcing its
formation; it was forwarded to me by two different invitees who asked
me, 1) what I thought of it, and 2) why I wasn't on it. The answer to
#2 was that I'd never posted anything to the PS list, and the
invitation-only list seemed to be culled entirely from people who
posted to the existing e-mail group. (My silence on this list was quite
unlike my promiscuous and, to the humorless and thin-skinned, sometimes
irksome postings to the newsgroups and Prodigy BBs.) My answer to
question #1 was, "Not much," and in private e-mail, my correspondents
agreed with me (altho I believe they both subsequently joined its
ranks). Both admitted to disliking the PS list (these men were Beach
Boys old-timers in every meaning of the words, and you'd know their
names)-- the more diplomatic of the two called it "dumb", and the other
one cancelled his sub to the list after 3 years because he'd come to
hate it so much-- and neither expressed a favorable reaction to the new
list being formed.
(For myself, the only mailing-list postings I found remarkable were by
Jack Reiley-- his story about Brian, Carnie & Wendy, and BW's dildo was
mind-boggling-- but the insipidity of some of the people on the list
drove him away in no time.)
>>Yes, you have to be nominated by two current members, but that was
>>done to prevent exactly the kind of posts that caused you to label
>>the PS list a "mailbox-clogging nuisance."
First, that sounds like a tacit admission that the PS list (then, at
least, if not currently) *was* dull, annoying and not worth the bother.
Second, it's a bit strange, since more than a few of the names on the
original list were the very same people who made the PS list so
tedious-- the ones who could always be counted on to answer every
posting with "Me three" or "kewl", or those who thought they were
masters of the wry one-liner and weren't.
>>Your tone wouldn't have anything to do with jealousy, would it? You
>>couldn't find two people who were willing to nominate you? With the
>>kind of venom-laden post you just made, I can understand why.
Not jealousy, just dislike of this kind of invitation-only approach.
(Nice try, though, Brad.) I was off-line for quite awhile and fell out
of touch with both of these BB old-timers, but just from what I recall
of that original list of invitees, I'd have more than the two needed
letters-of-reference to join the group. But, to paraphrase Groucho
Marx, I'd refuse to belong to any e-mail clique that would have someone
like me as a member. So rest easy.
Finally, I repeat: what's wrong with the newsgroups for posting
opinions, news, etc? These days, the entire forum of the mailing list
only seems valid and worthwhile if the subject is so arcane/esoteric
that there's no n.g. for it at all-- otherwise, it seems to me to be
obsolete. Almost anybody who's on-line at all can access the
newsgroups, and I like the fact that everybody can use&read these
groups equally.
Steve
Kim B Monaco
For the more open-minded among us, there's a decent article/interview
with David Marks in the new issue of Michael Weldon's PSYCHOTRONIC
VIDEO (issue #28). Some of it's lifted from the Timothy White book, but
there are new bits of info, too, such as the three times old Lovesy
saved Dave's life, a surprising observation on Murry's role in the
studio ("He'd always be bugging everyone . . . 'More treble on the
guitars' . . . the records were clear and sharp and that was because of
Murry") and his claim that he spent close to 20 years boozing & running
around with Dennis ("If I'd have been on the boat with Dennis that day,
I'd have fallen in and drowned with him"). He also talks about the Boys
songs he's now writing-- "My songs aren't about cruising, they're about
getting stopped for drunk driving." (I wonder if Love will sue to get
his name on *that* song?)
Be warned, though: this magazine is not for everybody. There's an
interview with small-time movie-slut Liz Renay, including a nude photo,
and many of the films&videos reviewed may offend the smiley-face crowd.
But it's always interesting and has also always been very
Boys-friendly. Plus, I'm not saying which one, but one of the
advertisers sells copies of TWO LANE BLACKTOP. (I've heard they look
like shit, but they *are* complete & unedited.)
Steve
David Prokopy
>(For myself, the only mailing-list postings I found remarkable were by
>Jack Reiley-- his story about Brian, Carnie & Wendy, and BW's dildo was
>mind-boggling-- but the insipidity of some of the people on the list
>drove him away in no time.)
jack was not "driven away" by any element on the list. he left (or, at
least, stopped posting - i believe he lingered on as a subscriber for a
short period after he stopped posting) due to a simple lack of time to
read and post as much as he would have liked.
ditto for domenic priore, despite the common misconception that he was ran
off the list. these people DO have lives, you know.
>First, that sounds like a tacit admission that the PS list (then, at
>least, if not currently) *was* dull, annoying and not worth the bother.
i don't think i'd call it "dull." the only real problem with the list
(both in its earlier incarnations, as now) is just a matter of a low
"signal to noise" ratio. as with ANY unmoderated public discussion group,
there's bound to be a lot of extraneous off-topic posts. but i also think
the various beach boys' mailing lists, over the years (and i've been on
every version of the list, since it's absolute beginning many many years
ago) have been an invaluable source for information and discussion for us
fans. i'm sure i would have never "talked" to people like reiley, priore,
mark linett, and brad elliott had it not been for these lists.
>Second, it's a bit strange, since more than a few of the names on the
>original list were the very same people who made the PS list so
>tedious-- the ones who could always be counted on to answer every
>posting with "Me three" or "kewl", or those who thought they were
>masters of the wry one-liner and weren't.
actually, it has been my experience that it's usually the newcomers to any
list or discussion forum (not just the beach boys lists) who typically
chime in with the empty "me too" posts.
>Not jealousy, just dislike of this kind of invitation-only approach.
again, brad is correct in his characterization that the list has never
been "invite-only" except in the beginning - and THAT was only just to get
the initial "group" of list members established.
>Finally, I repeat: what's wrong with the newsgroups for posting
>opinions, news, etc?
probably because newsgroups aren't always accessable to everyone. email,
at least for now, still remains the "lowest common denominator" on the
internet. if you're on the 'net, you at LEAST have email. not everyone
has usenet access, or access to the web, or to IRC.
i recall when these two newsgroups first appeared, and there was some
discussion about it on the list, and the consensus was that most people on
the list simply preferred having messages sent directly to their
mailboxes, rather than having to actually search them out in newsgroups.
and, believe it or not, despite the generally high amount of off-topic
banter (on the public list), you still don't run across the problem of
spam and trollings like you do on newsgroups. probably because anyone
who's on the mailing list obviously signed up because they're already
fans, as opposed to newsgroups, which are open for anyone to come along
and post whatever garbage they want.
personally, i prefer the list(s) myself. despite the fact that these two
newsgroups have been around for a couple of years now, the lists STILL get
substantially more traffic - and substantially more INTERESTING traffic at
that, despite the level of banter.
>These days, the entire forum of the mailing list only seems valid and
>worthwhile if the subject is so arcane/esoteric that there's no n.g. for
>it at all
actually, i'd venture to guess that there are newsgroups covering more
specialized topics than there are mailing lists out there.
i think the reason the mailing list idea still works for the beach boys is
that their online fanbase is still small enough that it can still be
managed by a maling list. i certainly don't think a group as popular as
the beatles could be handled in the same way. but the online group of BB
fans is still small and intimate enough that a mailing list suits it just
fine.
>Almost anybody who's on-line at all can access the newsgroups
almost, but not everyone, as i mentioned. and i'd imagine as the web
takes off, the popularity of newsgroups will eventually decline even more.
>and I like the fact that everybody can use&read these groups equally.
nothing's stopping anyone from posting anything to the current public
mailing list. and i'd imagine if that group of people were "transferred"
over to the newsgroups, the same problems that people had with the mailing
list would come up on the newsgroups, as well.
--
{ dave prokopy - pro...@iquest.net - http://members.iquest.net/~prokopy }
{ BUY THESE CDs!! http://members.iquest.net/~prokopy/CD.txt }
{ "screw you guys, i'm goin' home" -eric cartman }
Brad Elliott
Monaco) over the value of the Surf's Up Mailing List. We could debate
his points back and forth through dozens of subsequent postings and all
we'd do is bore the crap out of everybody else here.
Instead, I'm simply going to ask Steve a couple of questions and make one
comment:
Steve, you say you know why you weren't included on the SU list when it
started and that you could get on it if you wanted, but you really don't
want to and have no problem with not being on it. If all of that's
truly the case, then why are you making such a fuss about it? Is raining
on other people's parades just your thing?
To condemn something that you really don't know anything about is a sign
of a closed mind. If you really can get on the list, maybe you should,
at least for a short while, just to determine first-hand if it's
worthwhile or not. You might be surprised, especially if you thought
Jack Rieley's PS list postings were the highlight of that list.
'Nuff said,
Brad