Opinons on what's false about what's written in WIBN: My Own Story

[rab2591]

If there was anyone anywhere, ever, that belongs in the Cuckoo's nest, more than you do, I'd be totally surprised.  If it doesn't fit, it's not because you could be wrong, it's obviously because the rest of the world is wrong.

This describes the mindset of the majority of the human race.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If there was anyone anywhere, ever, that belongs in the Cuckoo's nest, more than you do, I'd be totally surprised.  If it doesn't fit, it's not because you could be wrong, it's obviously because the rest of the world is wrong.

This describes the mindset of the majority of the human race.

Which is why I despise most people.

[hypehat]

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

lol...Peanuts kicked ass....

[Mike's Beard]

Nevermind the Jules article, what on earth is a naked Mama Cass spread doing in there? There are some things man is not meant to see.

Umm, YUM! That's a three pager in Full COLOR!!  I'd post it here, except I'm not taking the magazine apart to do it...

Did it take three pages to fit her all in?

[Mike's Beard]

I think that the reason the person being quoted in the Surfing Saints article is not mentioned by name is because of a request in the piece itself. The request is, "Please don't tell anyone I said that" (referring to the "finding out you really are...God" line that precedes the request for anonymity).

Compare these two quotes from CHEETAH!:

"It's physical; really Zen, right?"

"You get to understand that the surf is now. The eternal now, right?"

The first one is from Goodbye Surfing, Hello God and the second is from Surfing Saints. And at the end of both lines you have a Zen reference followed by "right?". Obviously, this will likely not be very convincing to most of you.

I would however ask the same people to consider how many people they know speak of God in such a manner. In my 50 plus years the majority of my intersection with people speaking in such terms is pretty much limited to one person, Brian Wilson.

Consider some of the following pairs of quotes. The first one will be from Surfing Saints & the follow-ups will be noted.

"A lot of people say Kahuna all the time, but that doesn't mean they really believe Kahuna is God. It's just a word, anyway. You don't need words when you know."

"If they don't get the words, they'll get the music, because that's where it's really at, in the music. You can get hung-up in the words, you know." (Goodbye Surfing Hello God)

"You don't need words when you know. And if you don't know, man, don't expect anyone to tell you."

"I can't teach you, or tell you, what I learned from taking it (LSD). But I consider it a very religious experience." (The Frenzied Frontier of Pop Music)

"That's what you really learn from surfing, that everything is always changing and time never repeats itself."

"Empires, ideas, lives, institutions--everything has to fall, tumbling like dominoes." (Goodbye Surfing Hello God)

"To come out of that wave alive, is like being reborn."

"Then the whole thing was there. I mean my whole life. Birth and death and rebirth. The whole thing. Even the beach was in it, a whole thing about the beach." (Goodbye Surfing Hello God)

"It's only happened to me once---early in the morning alone on the beach...."

"I had what I consider a very religious experience." (The Frenzied Frontier of Pop Music)

What subtlety I like most (this is a very subjective point) about the Surfing Saints article, besides the clear light claim, is that the sun was coming up very red. As you glance through the booklet meant for inclusion in the album you get the feeling of the red sky red.

But as far as the spiritual topics covered in the Surfing Saints piece go....they seem to be what was on Brian's mind following his religious experience. The intro to the piece about "the sun tanned world of bikini beach" seems straight out of the California myth.

You could knock Surfing Saints out of the discussion if you honestly think & feel it's not Brian. You can totally ignore the bio's LSD accounts if that makes you feel better. You don't have to think SMiLE is comparable to a Zen riddle: that it was meant to bring about spiritual enlightenment. It doesn't have to be the greatest album ever. Brian doesn't have to be on the genius level certain "theories" would have you believe. All the grandest claims about SMiLE don't have to be satisfied.

You can gloriously settle for the confusion kettle that all your brilliant uncreative research has wrought. Let obviousness rule.

Bill you seem to have missed one or two very important facts when you posted the above twaddle.

1/ Brian didn't surf. He hated going in the sea. Did he look like he was having a religious moment on that surfboard in the '76 special to you? If Brian was quoting cod Zen philosophy back in 1966 it was only because he was parroting what his then far out, cosmic friends were saying as they all sat around stoned. It's like a semi illiterate using big words he doesn't understand. Never forget this is the same guy who's one standout memory of France a year before was the bread.

2/ BRIAN DIDN'T WRITE THE LYRICS FOR SMILE, VAN DYKE PARKS DID! (keep repeating this until it fainally takes root in your skull).

[Jay]

Nevermind the Jules article, what on earth is a naked Mama Cass spread doing in there? There are some things man is not meant to see.

Umm, YUM! That's a three pager in Full COLOR!!  I'd post it here, except I'm not taking the magazine apart to do it...

Did it take three pages to fit her all in?

I might be in the minority, but I always found Cass Elliot attractive. She wasn't a "bombshell" type like Michelle Phillips, but she had some good qualities. I'd like very much to see those pictures. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think that the reason the person being quoted in the Surfing Saints article is not mentioned by name is because of a request in the piece itself. The request is, "Please don't tell anyone I said that" (referring to the "finding out you really are...God" line that precedes the request for anonymity).

Bill... I contacted the editor of the magazine. He told me it wasn't Brian, that he sourced it from somewhere else.

But, as my father said, "you can't tell someone something they don't want to hear".  You've insinuated we're all too dumb to grasp this elemental truth you've uncovered, but fact is you're the one with the closed eyes and mind. We've repeatedly researched your 'findings' and uncovered some facts - not suppositions, facts - behind them that cast grave doubt, if not invalidate entirely, their credibility, yet you still argue the toss. You won't admit that some of your tenets are now discredited in the eyes of everyone here, except yourself. I can understand that, you've put a lot of time and effort into this and you don't want to look at that as wasted. Been there, in both my BB researches and my family history. Spent two, three years tracing one branch, online and physically, before it dawned on me that something was screwy - dates didn't line up. Checked it... wrong person. Did I ignore it and leave the tree as it was ? Nope, made a copy of the records (in case someone else could use it) then deleted that branch, with over 80 names in it, from my tree. That's what good researchers do - admit their errors, adjust their view in the face of new evidence, which evidence they don't take on face value but sift for themselves.

You carry on ignoring what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and press on with what you know to be true. I'm done with trying to argue in a reasonable manner with someone who is not open to anything that disagrees with his fixed stance and has grown increasingly irritating in their inflexibility. As for my researches, I'm not interested in creativity, I'm after the closest approach to what really happened, to the truth, that I can achieve and I find it sad that someone of your obvious intelligence has to stoop to denigrating my work when you have no plausible comeback. I don't like me when I get really angry and neither would you: unfortunate things would be said. I'll leave you with these observations, repeated once more, for you to ponder on, or not as you wish.

1 - Brian's so-called autobiography, except where stolen from other writers, is useless as source material. He's admitted he's never read it.

2 - The "Surfing Saints" piece is nothing to do with Brian. It's about surfing, surfers and how they relate their pastime/sport to a religious experience.

3 - Yes, Brian's mentioned Zen during the Smile era: he's also namechecked or been associated with Subud, Christianity, I Ching, astrology and numerology. His association with Zen isn't exclusive.

That's it. From where the sun now stands, I will debate with you no more forever.

[18thofMay]

P

I think that the reason the person being quoted in the Surfing Saints article is not mentioned by name is because of a request in the piece itself. The request is, "Please don't tell anyone I said that" (referring to the "finding out you really are...God" line that precedes the request for anonymity).

Bill... I contacted the editor of the magazine. He told me it wasn't Brian, that he sourced it from somewhere else.

But, as my father said, "you can't tell someone something they don't want to hear".  You've insinuated we're all too dumb to Pograsp this elemental truth you've uncovered, but fact is your the one with the closed eyes and mind. We've repeatedly researched your 'findings' and uncovered some facts - not suppositions, facts - behind them that cast grave doubt, if not invalidate entirely, their credibility, yet you still argue the toss. You won't admit that some of your tenets are now discredited in the eyes of everyone here, except yourself. I can understand that, you've put a lot of time and effort into this and you don't want to look at that as wasted. Been there, in both my BB researches and my family history. Spent two, three years tracing one branch, online and physically, before it dawned on me that something was screwy - dates didn't line up. Checked it... wrong person. Did I ignore it and leave the tree as it was ? Nope, made a copy of the records (in case someone else could use it) then deleted that branch, with over 80 names in it, from my tree. That's what good researchers do - admit their errors, adjust their view in the face of new evidence, which evidence they don't take on face value but sift for themselves.

You carry on ignoring what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and press on with what you know to be true. I'm done with trying to argue in a reasonable manner with someone who is not open to anything that disagrees with his fixed stance and has grown increasingly irritating in their inflexibility. As for my researches, I'm not interested in creativity, I'm after the closest approach to what really happened, to the truth, that I can achieve and I find it sad that someone of your obvious intelligence has to stoop to denigrating my work when you have no plausible comeback. I don't like me when I get really angry and neither would you: unfortunate things would be said. I'll leave you with these observations, repeated once more, for you to ponder on, or not as you wish.

1 - Brian's so-called autobiography, except where stolen from other writers, is useless as source material. He's admitted he's never read it.

2 - The "Surfing Saints" piece is nothing to do with Brian. It's about surfing, surfers and how they relate their pastime/sport to a religious experience.

3 - Yes, Brian's mentioned Zen during the Smile era: he's also namechecked or been associated with Subud, Christianity, I Ching, astrology and numerology. His association with Zen isn't exclusive.

That's it. From where the sun now stands, I will debate with you no more forever.

Mr doe this is why my family and I can call you a friend! A lot of love floating your way!
About bloody time

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mr doe this is why my family and I can call you a friend! A lot of love floating your way!
About bloody time

Love is nice. Cash is better. 

[Bill Tobelman]

Andrew G. Doe said:

But, as my father said, "you can't tell someone something they don't want to hear".  You've insinuated we're all too dumb to grasp this elemental truth you've uncovered, but fact is you're the one with the closed eyes and mind. We've repeatedly researched your 'findings' and uncovered some facts - not suppositions, facts - behind them that cast grave doubt, if not invalidate entirely, their credibility, yet you still argue the toss. You won't admit that some of your tenets are now discredited in the eyes of everyone here, except yourself. I can understand that, you've put a lot of time and effort into this and you don't want to look at that as wasted. Been there, in both my BB researches and my family history. Spent two, three years tracing one branch, online and physically, before it dawned on me that something was screwy - dates didn't line up. Checked it... wrong person. Did I ignore it and leave the tree as it was ? Nope, made a copy of the records (in case someone else could use it) then deleted that branch, with over 80 names in it, from my tree. That's what good researchers do - admit their errors, adjust their view in the face of new evidence, which evidence they don't take on face value but sift for themselves.

You carry on ignoring what everyone who disagrees with you is saying and press on with what you know to be true. I'm done with trying to argue in a reasonable manner with someone who is not open to anything that disagrees with his fixed stance and has grown increasingly irritating in their inflexibility. As for my researches, I'm not interested in creativity, I'm after the closest approach to what really happened, to the truth, that I can achieve and I find it sad that someone of your obvious intelligence has to stoop to denigrating my work when you have no plausible comeback. I don't like me when I get really angry and neither would you: unfortunate things would be said. I'll leave you with these observations, repeated once more, for you to ponder on, or not as you wish.

Have to admit, I like what Andrew said.

The pairs of quotes that connected Surfing Saints to credible Brian Wilson quotes indicate that Brian did go through something comparable to the "ultimate religious experience" described in Surfing Saints. The clear light experience is also quote common to this experience...the red sky...probably not so much. The point is that if one takes Surfing Saints out of the equation--the equation doesn't change much.

One pair of quotes I omitted was connecting "finding out you really are...God" (from Surfing Saints) with a latter day Brian quote about developing "a Jesus Christ complex" in the sixties.

One thing about the religious experience is that there is some precedent for the idea that those who have such an experience feel a strong desire to bring about that experience in others. The term Bodhisattva applies to this way of thinking. So the idea that SMiLE was about conjuring the spiritual experience is in line with this way of thinking.

If one looks up "spiritual experience" say...even in wikipedia one will find the experience throughout the religious world. So when Brian Wilson dabbled in (an was instantly hip to) various religions it was because he had the experience common to all religions. In the Tom Nolan article Brian is quite pleased with the term "the essence of all religion" and this is why that is.

This is why trying to explain SMiLE by comparison to Zen alone is wrong. I made this mistake many years ago but have been trying to correct it more recently. But if there is to be a simple explanation....saying "it's something COMPARABLE to a Zen riddle" is about as concise as it gets. Unfortunately this gets taken for "is a Zen riddle" which is not exactly correct. I still think the idea of Zen riddles is an important concept for SMiLE because SMiLE is done in this spirit.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious I'm getting a little too creative here. There is no proof that SMiLE is what I'm asserting it is. That's correct.

Just as with spiritual enlightenment itself...it take a little creative leap to get there.

Art seems like a different animal than genealogy. What an artist is trying to say & what is perceived can be two entirely different things, multi-level, accidental, the shallowest of shallow & the deepest deep. Genealogy may require a judgment calls along the way but it is still based upon a set reality of genetic path. Art invites interpretation & re-creation which are creative processes.

[Mike's Beard]

Get a haircut hippie!

[Bill Tobelman]

You guys were right about 'Surfing Saints' and my hunches about the article are incorrect. The article now seems a collection of various surfer's comment regarding the spiritual surfing experience.

Later today I will remove all 'Surfing Saints' references from my webpage (the Out-Of-Sight one) but will leave my original Zen page as is as it's meant to show my warts.

[The Heartical Don]

Get a haircut hippie!

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

You guys were right about 'Surfing Saints' and my hunches about the article are incorrect. The article now seems a collection of various surfer's comment regarding the spiritual surfing experience.

 

[18thofMay]

"Peace in our time!"

[Bill Tobelman]

This is an approach thing (at least regarding SMiLE).

Believe it or not, I agree with AGD 99% of the time.

Have a peaceful evening all.....

[Bill Tobelman]

The best is yet to come. I promise.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

You guys were right about 'Surfing Saints' and my hunches about the article are incorrect. The article now seems a collection of various surfer's comment regarding the spiritual surfing experience.

Later today I will remove all 'Surfing Saints' references from my webpage (the Out-Of-Sight one) but will leave my original Zen page as is as it's meant to show my warts.

I always have the utmost respect for someone who admits when they are in error. And I've found a lot of your ideas interesting and worth thinking about, but have to say I don't agree with the Zen interpretation.

The nicest thing about this board, and why I have kept returning, is the high level of intelligence here.

I've read a lot of stuff I've disagreed with, and a lot of stuff written in anger / defence. But nothing stupid.

Which is why I try to constantly lower the tone......

[smokeythebear]

You guys were right about 'Surfing Saints' and my hunches about the article are incorrect. The article now seems a collection of various surfer's comment regarding the spiritual surfing experience.

Later today I will remove all 'Surfing Saints' references from my webpage (the Out-Of-Sight one) but will leave my original Zen page as is as it's meant to show my warts.

I always have the utmost respect for someone who admits when they are in error. And I've found a lot of your ideas interesting and worth thinking about, but have to say I don't agree with the Zen interpretation.

The nicest thing about this board, and why I have kept returning, is the high level of intelligence here.

I've read a lot of stuff I've disagreed with, and a lot of stuff written in anger / defence. But nothing stupid.

Which is why I try to constantly lower the tone......

I agree, admiting mistakes makes us grow. I can understand the need to read in deeper things into Brian´s creations. Yes he said that the only thing he remembers about france is the bread, at the same time we get a quote that "That´s symbolism right? god can not be concieved of there for we give him a literal meaning, he is in the sky you know?".  But a thought out Zen riddle, the whole of smile? naah...

[37!ws]

I did find it suspicious when I noticed that a good deal of Brian's life is kind briefly addressed, then when Landy comes into the picture in 1975 suddenly it's an extremely detailed, practically minute-by-minute account....then Landy is fired circa 1977, then the next few years are discussed in very vague descriptions, then in 1982 when Landy comes back into the picture it's suddenly another minute-by-minute account....

I'm about 600 miles away from my copy of the book, but off the top of my head there are two photos with glaringly wrong captions:

1) There's a picture of Brian with a bass, obviously taken at the 1967 Hawaii gig, and the caption claims it's Brian "laying down some tracks on Pet Sounds."

2) There's a picture circa 1964 or 1965 of Brian with a dog that's very obviously NOT a beagle, but the caption says it's Brian and Banana.

[Bill Tobelman]

Brian said he wanted to promote vegetables & health because "health is an important ingredient in spiritual enlightenment."

Michael Vosse has stated that Brian believed that through humor & laughter one could bring about a spiritual experience.

The demo recording for "Vega-Tables" includes a laugh track which puts both health & laughter together (two ingredients for spiritual enlightenment).

Brian's favorite book, Arthur Koestler's The Act Of Creation, outlines the logic behind laughter and lays out how achieve art which gets the desired result. Epiphanies are possible.

The SMiLE project employs the tools set forth by Koestler: from the pun, the visual pun, through animal impersonations, and a child's word for father "dada".....it's all there.

If Brian was working on an album to inspire the spiritual experience then all of the glorious claims for the project were well founded....and Brian's claims that he was making witchcraft music are also vindicated. The album's abandonment is understood in greater depth & Brian's insistance that it was innapppropiate music also has a sound foundation. Lastly all of the above would reveal SMiLE as something similar to a Zen riddle, with the ability to prompt spiritual enlightenment.

I must be a jerk to not be able to get this idea across (13 years I've been at it).

[Andrew G. Doe]

I did find it suspicious when I noticed that a good deal of Brian's life is kind briefly addressed, then when Landy comes into the picture in 1975 suddenly it's an extremely detailed, practically minute-by-minute account....then Landy is fired circa 1977, then the next few years are discussed in very vague descriptions, then in 1982 when Landy comes back into the picture it's suddenly another minute-by-minute account....

I'm about 600 miles away from my copy of the book, but off the top of my head there are two photos with glaringly wrong captions:

1) There's a picture of Brian with a bass, obviously taken at the 1967 Hawaii gig, and the caption claims it's Brian "laying down some tracks on Pet Sounds."

2) There's a picture circa 1964 or 1965 of Brian with a dog that's very obviously NOT a beagle, but the caption says it's Brian and Banana.

My fave was "Gene & Mike write the lyrics for "Male Ego" in the studio in 1986".

Bit late, guys...

[Mike's Beard]

Brian said he wanted to promote vegetables & health because "health is an important ingredient in spiritual enlightenment."

Michael Vosse has stated that Brian believed that through humor & laughter one could bring about a spiritual experience.

The demo recording for "Vega-Tables" includes a laugh track which puts both health & laughter together (two ingredients for spiritual enlightenment).

Brian's favorite book, Arthur Koestler's The Act Of Creation, outlines the logic behind laughter and lays out how achieve art which gets the desired result. Epiphanies are possible.

The SMiLE project employs the tools set forth by Koestler: from the pun, the visual pun, through animal impersonations, and a child's word for father "dada".....it's all there.

If Brian was working on an album to inspire the spiritual experience then all of the glorious claims for the project were well founded....and Brian's claims that he was making witchcraft music are also vindicated. The album's abandonment is understood in greater depth & Brian's insistance that it was innapppropiate music also has a sound foundation. Lastly all of the above would reveal SMiLE as something similar to a Zen riddle, with the ability to prompt spiritual enlightenment.

I must be a jerk to not be able to get this idea across (13 years I've been at it).

At last I agree with something you post.

[Matt H]

I did find it suspicious when I noticed that a good deal of Brian's life is kind briefly addressed, then when Landy comes into the picture in 1975 suddenly it's an extremely detailed, practically minute-by-minute account....then Landy is fired circa 1977, then the next few years are discussed in very vague descriptions, then in 1982 when Landy comes back into the picture it's suddenly another minute-by-minute account....

I'm about 600 miles away from my copy of the book, but off the top of my head there are two photos with glaringly wrong captions:

1) There's a picture of Brian with a bass, obviously taken at the 1967 Hawaii gig, and the caption claims it's Brian "laying down some tracks on Pet Sounds."

2) There's a picture circa 1964 or 1965 of Brian with a dog that's very obviously NOT a beagle, but the caption says it's Brian and Banana.

My fave was "Gene & Mike write the lyrics for "Male Ego" in the studio in 1986".

Bit late, guys...

Back to the Future was released in 1985, so Flux Compassitors were invented by this time which allowed Mike and Gene to travel through time and take the "Male Ego" lyrics back to late 84/early 85 so they could be on the '85 record.