missed the boat?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Music has no intellectual merit, in and of itself (and even if it did, the concept is nauseating in a rock context, even a loose one). Lyrics sometimes have intellectual merit, of course. And if you think folks don't dance to records with intellectual lyrics, you haven't seen The Byrds perform The Bells Of Rhymney on Where The Action Is.

Depends how you listen. I honestly never tap my foot, so I listen to everything on a purely intellectual level. My pleasure (and it's great pleasure( is derived from analysing music. I do respond emotionally, but only in the way a mathematician will cry over a beautiful equation. The moment you start listening with your body, you lose that.
Listen to Art Of Fugue and tell me music has no intellectual merit in and of itself. It's based on the arrangement of patterns. If you think composers sit there in a state of bliss as they work, really feeling it, then your way off. 99% of it is number crunching. So for the composer, it's an intellectual exercise. I agree with you on quite a bit Ian, but not this.

When you say "arrangement of patterns" and "number crunching", that strengthens what I am saying. If the art of creating music is a mechanical one that can be learnt by anyone, then why not say that any mechanical exercise, done well, has intellectual merit? It is all based on mental faculty, right? So making a damn great sheet of cookies or being able to stack a thousand beer cans has intellectual merit.
Yeah, there is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that comes into play, of course. And one learns how to play an instrument. But after that, the genesis of a musical idea comes from a purely inspirational place, something the "intellect" cannot exactly pinpoint. The mind and fingers simply must go a certain place, in certain "patterns". This impulse to make music, has a direct correlation with the "magic" impulse and inspiration to let the body move and respond to the music.
And if one can ascribe purely intellectual motivation to the mechanics of music-making, why not ascribe same to someone who is an expert dancer? Why not watch The TAMI Show, check how James Brown knows exactly what his body is capable of doing, at the perfectly timed moment in the music, and proclaim him to be as much of a genius in his own way as George Gershwin. The perfect movement is, to the dancer, as the equation is to the mathematician. Not many modern musicians, aside from maybe Rush, would rather be compared to the latter rather than the former.
You said "listening with your body" as if that was a negative thing, when it is a perfect summation of the original purpose of music, and what music thankfully got back to in the jazz age. Yeah, there are times to sit there and ponder, in intellectual fashion, on the merits of Leonard Cohen, and to write a seriously motivated piece of "art music". But when I throw a party, A Collection Of 16 Original Motown Big Hits Vol. 7 or Endless Summer goes on the turntable and I expect to see movin' and GROOVIN' out there. And when I play a show, I don't want people sitting there soberly, considering my intellectual motivation (until I tell them it is time to do that).

I do think of listening with the body as a negative thing, and do you want to know something else? It is entirely this line of thinking I am working very hard to not pass onto my daughter. Being a father has caused / forced me to re assess a lot of my thoughts. Unthinkable! Of course responding physically to music is not a negative, or a lesser thing, and I'm happy to say that. I just happen to prefer listening with my mind, and I prefer music which can hold up to my highly critical ideals, subjecticve though they may be. So back to your original point, to me, music is solely an intellectual pursuit, but I do know I'm in a minority.

And in regard to the idea that if the creation of music is mechanical, then anyone could learn it, I again feel the opposite is true. It has been put forward quite a few times that there are only two true types of prodigy, musical and mathematical. Not everyone can do it well, far from it.
Music and maths are definitely linked. Neuroscience is also discovering that similar brain functions are being used when composing music and doing maths. Rather than being an abhorrent thing, don't you find this wonderful?
Music is the highest art form, it speaks the purest language. Certainly to me it is my window to the universe, and the closest I get to spirituality. Though I accept someone saying that the physical response to music could have the same effect, I can't help but feel it is different, a primitive understanding rather than a sentient one. Again though, highly subjective view.

[I. Spaceman]

I fall between the two of you on this, I think, because I think there are intellectual and physical or emotional aspects to music, and at different times one or the other is more rewarding. I.'d Like to Teach... (nice new name, btw.), it seems you say as much in your last few sentences--maybe contradicting yourself a little bit there? After having said there is no intellectual merit to music, that there are times to listen or write in that context?

The other thing I'd question is:

the genesis of a musical idea comes from a purely inspirational place

Sometimes I think that's true; others, not. I'm thinking of Lou Reed--an inspired creator if ever there was one--and his often stated position (based on Warhol's insistence) that sometimes you just write. If you're working for Pickwick, or you're churning out 10 songs a day lest Andy call you lazy, I don't think those are all inspired. I think the genesis of some musical ideas is not inspiration, but from craftsmanship and labor. In one or two of the ten, halfway through its creation, some seed of inspiration may sprout and produce something better, but that isn't the same as having had its genesis in inspiration, is it?

As I'm typing this, I'm listening to Wilson Pickett's The Exciting... ... on a wholly intellectual level, of course. 

Thanks for chiming in here, Luther, I hoped you would. I recognize the contradictions, those were probably more in the realm of misstatement on my part. I love lyric-centered, "serious" modern music, and programmatic classical works as much as anyone.
I know what you're saying about Lou and the factory/Factory approach. Funnily enough tho, that assembly-line approach often leads to the type of music that inspires the listener, more than the writer. I don't think that is a bad thing.

[I. Spaceman]

So back to your original point, to me, music is solely an intellectual pursuit, but I do know I'm in a minority.
 

Thanks for the dialogue on this subject, I greatly appreciate it.
Would you say that music created from that standpoint is most likely to appeal to others who share those same views? As "Mathematical" prog-rock often appeals to those who carry pencils in their pocket, and figure out mathematical equations for fun?
If every musician and artist spoke in the same way about the artform as you and Frank Zappa, I would be inclined to agree on the subject. But some of the best musicians I know, who could barely string two sentences together, could come up with some of the most beautiful, original note/chord clusters I have ever heard. And for them, there is nothing intellectual about it. You know, the "lick my love pump" syndrome.
I gotta think inspiration goes hand in hand with learned ability/technique, and the same for the listener's mental/physical reaction. I know Brian Wilson, the dumb angel, would agree!
But again, thanks for a very illuminating trip to go on.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hey, you buncha Mike Loves! I'm only saying that it's ridiculous to stymie or criticize someone's artistic output because you can't dance to it.  It's a dumb criteria, whether or not it was the prevailing pop trend or not.

No one here in this thread has once criticized "someone's artistic output because you can't dance to it." Rather, some of the posters are accounting for what the public reaction to Smile might have been in 1966/1967. You seem to be missing this crucial distinction.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Music has no intellectual merit, in and of itself (and even if it did, the concept is nauseating in a rock context, even a loose one). Lyrics sometimes have intellectual merit, of course. And if you think folks don't dance to records with intellectual lyrics, you haven't seen The Byrds perform The Bells Of Rhymney on Where The Action Is.

Depends how you listen. I honestly never tap my foot, so I listen to everything on a purely intellectual level. My pleasure (and it's great pleasure( is derived from analysing music. I do respond emotionally, but only in the way a mathematician will cry over a beautiful equation. The moment you start listening with your body, you lose that.

Listen to Art Of Fugue and tell me music has no intellectual merit in and of itself. It's based on the arrangement of patterns. If you think composers sit there in a state of bliss as they work, really feeling it, then your way off. 99% of it is number crunching. So for the composer, it's an intellectual exercise. I agree with you on quite a bit Ian, but not this.

When you say "arrangement of patterns" and "number crunching", that strengthens what I am saying. If the art of creating music is a mechanical one that can be learnt by anyone, then why not say that any mechanical exercise, done well, has intellectual merit? It is all based on mental faculty, right? So making a damn great sheet of cookies or being able to stack a thousand beer cans has intellectual merit.
Yeah, there is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that comes into play, of course. And one learns how to play an instrument. But after that, the genesis of a musical idea comes from a purely inspirational place, something the "intellect" cannot exactly pinpoint. The mind and fingers simply must go a certain place, in certain "patterns". This impulse to make music, has a direct correlation with the "magic" impulse and inspiration to let the body move and respond to the music.
And if one can ascribe purely intellectual motivation to the mechanics of music-making, why not ascribe same to someone who is an expert dancer? Why not watch The TAMI Show, check how James Brown knows exactly what his body is capable of doing, at the perfectly timed moment in the music, and proclaim him to be as much of a genius in his own way as George Gershwin. The perfect movement is, to the dancer, as the equation is to the mathematician. Not many modern musicians, aside from maybe Rush, would rather be compared to the latter rather than the former.
You said "listening with your body" as if that was a negative thing, when it is a perfect summation of the original purpose of music, and what music thankfully got back to in the jazz age. Yeah, there are times to sit there and ponder, in intellectual fashion, on the merits of Leonard Cohen, and to write a seriously motivated piece of "art music". But when I throw a party, A Collection Of 16 Original Motown Big Hits Vol. 7 or Endless Summer goes on the turntable and I expect to see movin' and GROOVIN' out there. And when I play a show, I don't want people sitting there soberly, considering my intellectual motivation (until I tell them it is time to do that).

I do think of listening with the body as a negative thing, and do you want to know something else? It is entirely this line of thinking I am working very hard to not pass onto my daughter. Being a father has caused / forced me to re assess a lot of my thoughts. Unthinkable! Of course responding physically to music is not a negative, or a lesser thing, and I'm happy to say that. I just happen to prefer listening with my mind, and I prefer music which can hold up to my highly critical ideals, subjecticve though they may be. So back to your original point, to me, music is solely an intellectual pursuit, but I do know I'm in a minority.

And in regard to the idea that if the creation of music is mechanical, then anyone could learn it, I again feel the opposite is true. It has been put forward quite a few times that there are only two true types of prodigy, musical and mathematical. Not everyone can do it well, far from it.
Music and maths are definitely linked. Neuroscience is also discovering that similar brain functions are being used when composing music and doing maths. Rather than being an abhorrent thing, don't you find this wonderful?
Music is the highest art form, it speaks the purest language. Certainly to me it is my window to the universe, and the closest I get to spirituality. Though I accept someone saying that the physical response to music could have the same effect, I can't help but feel it is different, a primitive understanding rather than a sentient one. Again though, highly subjective view.

This privileging of the intellect over the body is wrapped up in such a problematic history that I really have a great deal of difficulty with this. As a father of a two-year old daughter, there is nothing that I enjoy watching more than seeing her have fun by dancing to some "primitive" and anti-intellectual rock and roll music.

[I. Spaceman]

It is fun to imagine a lost Poe short story: "THE MAN WHO COULDN'T TAP HIS FOOT".

All love to ya, Stephen, really, all in fun.

[the captain]

I know what you're saying about Lou and the factory/Factory approach. Funnily enough tho, that assembly-line approach often leads to the type of music that inspires the listener, more than the writer. I don't think that is a bad thing.

Conversely, history to-date has shown that "serious" intellectually based music tends to be more inspiring to the composer than the listener: think (for example) Schoenberg. Now, don't get me wrong, I can enjoy some Schoenberg now and again. But realistically, his decision to create a system of intellectually based music outside of the context of what that type of music's audience had previously enjoyed (i.e., western tonality) led to the near abandonment of serious music outside of academia. That doesn't mean it isn't hugely enjoyable and rewarding to the composer or even the student ... but the typical listener, not so much. This isn't just an opinion, this is the documented reality over the past 110 years or so.

That kind--or other difficult kinds--of music can bring me great enjoyment, but it's more like a crossword puzzle than a good f***. I like crossword puzzles, but I like fucking, too. I think they're both worthwhile.

[I. Spaceman]

  I like crossword puzzles, but I like fucking, too. I think they're both worthwhile.

Which brings us back to Zappa!

Great post, man.

[AndrewHickey]

If every musician and artist spoke in the same way about the artform as you and Frank Zappa, I would be inclined to agree on the subject. But some of the best musicians I know, who could barely string two sentences together, could come up with some of the most beautiful, original note/chord clusters I have ever heard. And for them, there is nothing intellectual about it. You know, the "lick my love pump" syndrome.

Actually, even Zappa would have disagreed with Stephen. Just look at how much he loved Louie, Louie and early doo-wop.
I also think he's wrong about Bach -- yes, you can't dance to The Art Of Fugue very easily, but when I listen to something like the third Brandenburg Concerto I respond physically as well as intellectually. I find myself tapping my feet, air-conducting and playing table harpsichord without even really noticing I'm doing it, and I could definitely see someone being able to dance to it. There's a pulse and a liveliness there that practically demands movement.

I tend more towards the intellectual than the physical myself (partly because I don't throw parties because I don't have many friends), but both are valid (and I also do solve equations for fun, sometimes). There's great music it's very hard to dance to -- I suspect anyone trying to dance to much of, say, Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart would look like they were having a seizure -- just as there's great music that's designed only for dancing and that doesn't survive thirty seconds' thought. But to my mind, the very best music, whether it be Bach, the Beach Boys, Stravinsky, the Kinks, Gottschalk, Van Dyke Parks, Duke Ellington or whoever, evokes a physical/emotional response on initial listening, but also rewards intellectual analysis.

The reason I love music above all art-forms is that, for me at least, it's the only one that combines the visceral and the intellectual in that way. Take either out and my life would be infinitely poorer.

[I. Spaceman]

If every musician and artist spoke in the same way about the artform as you and Frank Zappa, I would be inclined to agree on the subject. But some of the best musicians I know, who could barely string two sentences together, could come up with some of the most beautiful, original note/chord clusters I have ever heard. And for them, there is nothing intellectual about it. You know, the "lick my love pump" syndrome.

Actually, even Zappa would have disagreed with Stephen. Just look at how much he loved Louie, Louie and early doo-wop.

Yeah, I was going to go into that, but the post was already too long! That is one of the most interesting things about him, that war between the intellect and pure emotion. He was always suspicious of the latter, reducing everything to electrical impulses, but his record collection tells a different story. In a few interviews in the early 70's, when asked if he liked any contemporary music, he repeatedly mentioned Neil Young's After The Gold Rush. Imagine Frank sitting around listening to Only Love Can Break Your Heart! Shortly before his passing, Frank went with his wife to the opera and found himself in tears, and Gail said he was cursing himself for allowing his emotions get a hold of him in that way.
Zappa's music rides that see-saw.

[the captain]

That see saw is conflict, and conflict--or tension--is present in all great art, isn't it? In music, it can be on a very simple level, like the tritone within a dominant chord resolving to the tonic and third of a root chord. Or it can be this higher level of from where the music is coming and for what purpose. If Zappa truly were as purely analytical as he said he was or said he wanted to be, his music wouldn't be so interesting. But pure emotion or instinct, that's of limited use as well. Even three chords: three chords is basic (western) music theory. And once you have resolution, your intellect begins understanding ways to delay it, making the kind of puzzle perfected by the likes of Bach.

[guitarfool2002]

Interesting discussion. While we're bringing in the serial composers, the 12-tone row, all of the sounds and musical compositions many outside of a certain circle would call "atonal", I'd like to bring up jazz as a parallel topic.

Sometimes it saddens me to see what happened to such a vibrant art form as jazz through the latter half of the 20th century. Understand, I love a lot of jazz, I listen to it and play it and teach it - It is such a liberating feeling to get together and jam on jazz, listen to jazz, etc. And to see others pick it up and develop their own tastes and playing styles.

However, I will say that the things being said about making certain styles and sounds more exclusive to, say, the intellectual crowd and less "for the people" in general is what I believe put jazz where it is today, and it is nowhere near the shared emotional and physical experience that it was during certain eras, especially the classic big band era of the 30's and 40's, going into the time when Brubeck could have a jukebox hit with an odd-metered modal jazz tune and Ellington's live band could inspire a near riot in the audience...not to mention the incredible Count Basie and his band who lent Sinatra even more cool than he already had.

Trying to elevate jazz, trying to intellectualize jazz...noble concepts, but look at what has happened in the decades since jazz became less of a music to dance and interact with and more of a music to study, dissect, and respectfully sit in your chair and listen.

I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, but when artists in some circles demanded that clubs hang "no dancing" signs for their shows, or when they decided the crowd had to elevate themselves to a certain level of musical intellectualism in order to experience the music, where exactly did that leave many listeners or potential listeners? Was it a good thing, overall, to have jazz reduced to a niche market with the stereotype of a club filled with various professors, educators, and the like rather than people coming in just to groove with the music?

That is an obvious stereotype, I know, but damn if I didn't see it.

Would there be anything wrong with people moving and grooving to whatever music inspired them to do that? Was it necessary to put up a sign to discourage it at a club of all places? What happened to the Goodman band and the Miller band filling theaters with thousands of people who would take to the isles to dance if there wasn't a dance floor? It's a beautiful thing to connect from artist to listener, in that way, so why discourage it? Why look down on elements of that rather than celebrating and welcoming it?

I know what I said there may be a bit controversial, a bit provocative, but I feel jazz would not be such a small part of the popular market today if a lot of the general public didn't feel either put off of talked down to by the jazz scenemakers in general. Don't even get me started on items like the PBS Ken Burns "Jazz" documentary - I watched it, I own the box set and related releases of the music, but I got angry watching it more often than I should have, and it felt more like a professor lecturing me as I watched instead of a celebration of some truly great artists who more people need to hear and enjoy.

Jazz is beautiful, jazz is challenging, jazz can be demanding...but jazz should also be inviting and somewhat enjoyable without restriction, and I get the feeling that people think they need to dress or act a certain way in order to go to a show or whatever...that does not appeal to me.

Listen and enjoy however it strikes you, no restrictions necessary.

[the captain]

Great post, guitarfool2002, and I agree entirely. I believe what happened to jazz during and after bebop is exactly what had happened in serious music a few decades earlier. While I studied jazz in college, there were those who proudly called jazz America's classical music. For better and worse, that's true, and it met the same fate.

There's a telling moment in that Burns documentary when Wynton Marsalis discusses Cecil Taylor's famous comment that since [Taylor] prepares for his concerts, his audiences should, too. And Marsalis calls bullshit. I have to agree (and I love Taylor).

What's interesting is how different the thrust behind the change was in jazz, which was at least partly (largely?) racial: musicians and composers wanted to convince the white public that they weren't just the naturally rhythmic or gifted musician stereotypes that they were assumed to be, but rather were creating and playing extremely theoretically complex and physically challenging music. The result, just as the result in serious music? They teach it in college, but nobody dances to it...

Miles and others were trying to battle that by bringing funk into it around 1970 and beyond, but the damage was largely done.

[I. Spaceman]

That see saw is conflict, and conflict--or tension--is present in all great art, isn't it? In music, it can be on a very simple level, like the tritone within a dominant chord resolving to the tonic and third of a root chord. Or it can be this higher level of from where the music is coming and for what purpose. If Zappa truly were as purely analytical as he said he was or said he wanted to be, his music wouldn't be so interesting. But pure emotion or instinct, that's of limited use as well. Even three chords: three chords is basic (western) music theory. And once you have resolution, your intellect begins understanding ways to delay it, making the kind of puzzle perfected by the likes of Bach.

Yes, absolutely, but I don't necessarily think that it needs to be understood or thought of as such for it to be present. I think that type of bedrock musical tension/conflict is nearly a birth implant, for the listener as well as the musician. It is something that can be thought of in the most complicated or simple of ways, equally ascribed to intellectual and non-intellectual impulses. I wouldn't say that the more complicated methods of delaying resolution are necessarily on a higher artistic level than say, the simple Peggy Sue/Blitzkrieg Bop method, in terms of listening satisfaction.
I dunno. Everything is everything, I guess. We need all the methods.

[I. Spaceman]

Yeah, that was great, Craig. Nice follow-on too, Luther.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Thanks for the dialogue on this subject, I greatly appreciate it.
Would you say that music created from that standpoint is most likely to appeal to others who share those same views? As "Mathematical" prog-rock often appeals to those who carry pencils in their pocket, and figure out mathematical equations for fun?
If every musician and artist spoke in the same way about the artform as you and Frank Zappa, I would be inclined to agree on the subject. But some of the best musicians I know, who could barely string two sentences together, could come up with some of the most beautiful, original note/chord clusters I have ever heard. And for them, there is nothing intellectual about it. You know, the "lick my love pump" syndrome.
I gotta think inspiration goes hand in hand with learned ability/technique, and the same for the listener's mental/physical reaction. I know Brian Wilson, the dumb angel, would agree!

I put Wilson miles above the prog rockers, and everyone else of the rock era. He likes to put forward the idiot savant persona, but I think he knew exactly what he was doing. It's structure I love, and counterpoint, and beautiful, flowing chord progressions. It's perfection I love, where if one note changed it would all be wrong.  To me, I Get Around is as close to perfect as you can get. Here's where my argument falls down really, as I don't have the vocabulary to explain it. It is an indefinable thing, perfection. It's a feeling.
It's funny that the two supposed extremes, the intellect, and the emotional, are, at their most diametrically opposed, more similar than different. I like that. Does this make sense?

This privileging of the intellect over the body is wrapped up in such a problematic history that I really have a great deal of difficulty with this. As a father of a two-year old daughter, there is nothing that I enjoy watching more than seeing her have fun by dancing to some "primitive" and anti-intellectual rock and roll music.

Absolutely, and I touched on this. I am constantly re assessing myself since becoming a father. My seven year old is the worlds biggest Spice Girls fan, and I'm now an expert on  the Spice Girls. I couldn't be prouder of her. I work very hard at not passing these attitudes on. Not because I think they're wrong, but because they can be damaging, and can shut you off from some experiences that I wouldn't want to deny her.

Conversely, history to-date has shown that "serious" intellectually based music tends to be more inspiring to the composer than the listener:

Absolutely, it's all just ego masturbation really.

It is fun to imagine a lost Poe short story: "THE MAN WHO COULDN'T TAP HIS FOOT".

All love to ya, Stephen, really, all in fun.

I've loved this conversation, thank you guys. I'm always open to change my mind and at times be proved wrong. There's some smart people on this board,  the main reason I come here everyday, beats Farcebook anyway.

[the captain]

Yes, absolutely, but I don't necessarily think that it needs to be understood or thought of as such for it to be present. ... I wouldn't say that the more complicated methods of delaying resolution are necessarily on a higher artistic level than say, the simple Peggy Sue/Blitzkrieg Bop method, in terms of listening satisfaction.

We agree there.

[I. Spaceman]

It's funny that the two supposed extremes, the intellect, and the emotional, are, at their most diametrically opposed, more similar than different. I like that. Does this make sense?

 My seven year old is the worlds biggest Spice Girls fan, and I'm now an expert on  the Spice Girls. I couldn't be prouder of her. 

On the first bit, yeah man! Makes total sense.
On the second, that is great. Say You'll Be There is a great example of a perfect pop song.

I like your note about the slightly put-on nature of Brian's naivete, as well.

[monicker]

Are we forgetting how much dance music Bach composed?

There's a telling moment in that Burns documentary when Wynton Marsalis discusses Cecil Taylor's famous comment that since [Taylor] prepares for his concerts, his audiences should, too. And Marsalis calls bullshit. I have to agree (and I love Taylor).

That was Branford. He generally has a more uptight attitude about things (at least as it was presented in that documentary). I understand where he's coming from on that one but i didn't like his general attitude throughout a lot of the film, especially there.

[I. Spaceman]

Are we forgetting how much dance music Bach composed?

Yes! With his "messengers" The Bach Boys.

Branford Marsalis is such a hypocritical windbag. From everything I have heard about him, he quite literally despises white people, yet he took that cashgrab job with Sting. His records suck too. I do agree with his comment that was cited, however.

[monicker]

Branford Marsalis is such a hypocritical windbag. From everything I have heard about him, he quite literally despises white people, yet he took that cashgrab job with Sting. His records suck too. I do agree with his comment that was cited, however.

Don't you hate white people too though? 

[I. Spaceman]

Branford Marsalis is such a hypocritical windbag. From everything I have heard about him, he quite literally despises white people, yet he took that cashgrab job with Sting. His records suck too. I do agree with his comment that was cited, however.

Don't you hate white people too though? 

I think little w, big W, ya know?

[the captain]

Are we forgetting how much dance music Bach composed?

There's a telling moment in that Burns documentary when Wynton Marsalis discusses Cecil Taylor's famous comment that since [Taylor] prepares for his concerts, his audiences should, too. And Marsalis calls bullshit. I have to agree (and I love Taylor).

That was Branford. He generally has a more uptight attitude about things (at least as it was presented in that documentary). I understand where he's coming from on that one but i didn't like his general attitude throughout a lot of the film, especially there.

Sorry, that's right. That's what I get for going from memory. Anyway, I don't like the guy's music, either. But the point was right on.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

I bet if Mike Love had his way, the would have released SMiLE over Smiley Smile any day. Mike said recently that he didn't have a say in the matter anyway.

Dennis put it best in the 76(?) interview I believe in the Australia radio station. When told that it had been reported that they didn't support Brian's music for Pet Sounds, he said (paraphrasing) "are you kidding?" "Who said that?" "Did Brian say that?" "Whoever said that is being humble?"

I think, in Brian's mind they didn't like it. There is no way for me to know this, but I bet that Mike was upset that Brian was moving away from him as a lyricist. Mike had more lyrical credits on each passing album until Pet Sounds. He seemed to disapprove of Tony Asher's lyrics even though he wrote similar kinds of lyrics on Today. With Van Dyke, he probably really didn't like the abstract lyrics. But most of all, Mike wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations which went to number one! In his mind, he must have been going crazy to be pushed aside once again. I am sure that he over criticized the lyrics to make a point to Brian. He probably feels that if he wrote lyrics for Heroes and Villains, he could have made it a number one song. Maybe he would, and maybe he wouldn't but he just did with Good Vibrations so why not? Personally, I am amazed with Van Dykes lyrics. But I sympathize with Mike.

Excellent post. I agree, 100%. I think the boys had to have known somewhere deep down that SMiLE's nonrelease meant they'd missed a huge movement in pop music. If not then I'd go so far as to say they were clueless. Brian definitely knew, and I think it was a major cause of his breakdown.

[The Shift]

Are you working through the board's archive posts chronologically or at random?