Has Mike Expressed Remorse On Whatever Role He May Have Played in Smile's Demise

[runnersdialzero]

david leaf cancelled pleasure island

[clack]

Mike had been Brian's lyricist, and now had been pushed aside yet again despite just providing he lyrics for the BBs biggest hit yet. He had to have been hurt and resentful. So would I, so would you, so would anyone. So he grumbled a little. He didn't quit the band, or boycott the sessions, or throw a tantrum, or do anything other than work hard to make the project a success, despite his hurt and his misgivings.

In many ways, it was Mike's finest hour.

Brian didn't finish Smile because he couldn't. He needed digitalization to come along.

[guitarfool2002]

First, thank you rockandroll for the kind words, I appreciate that.  

And I'll respond to the other comments as well by saying *no*, it is not enough when things that are blatantly false, distorted, or an oversimplification of known events and hard facts are being presented as an argument or a counterpoint to a discussion about these facts.

I'm sorry, as someone who is very interested in history being at least as accurate as can be expected given the available sources, some points being made and thrown around in this thread are simply wrong and need to be disputed if anyone here gives a damn about having an accurate record of what happened.

I don't care if we got Smiley Smile, that means nothing if we're discussing and dissecting the history of how Smile unfolded. It's like saying why don't we not discuss the years 1939-1944 when we're talking about World War Two because the war was over in 1945. You're missing the most vital parts of the whole story in order to skip ahead to the ending. No, that doesn't work for me.

Just consider one fact: The accusation that those around Brian during Smile were hangers-on. That one struck me as so blatantly wrong and a deliberate attempt to distort the history. It's the same bullshit that the "American Family" tried to present, and it still amazes me how so many people signed off on such a poor attempt at portraying history as fantasy, where even Van Dyke Parks was portrayed as a troublemaker and interloper. Again, that doesn't work for me.

Here's the facts, and if anyone wants to dispute them, fire away.

Brian first met with Michael Vosse who was hired to write an article and interview him for Teen Set, arranged by the Beach Boys' publicist Derek Taylor. They had not met before, however the mutual acquaintances at that time included Van Dyke Parks, who was being managed by Anderle, Danny Hutton, who was also being managed by David Anderle, and Vosse was a friend of Anderle and was sharing an apartment with David and his wife. Prior to freelancing, Vosse had been involved with television production, what we'd call a production assistant in today's world.

Brian and Michael Vosse met for the interview, and the conversation turned to films and filmmaking. They shared a common interest, and "hit it off" in a way. After Van Dyke had begun working with Brian, he told Anderle and Vosse about what was going on.

Remember, all of these people knew one another through the music business and personal friendships.

So eventually Brian starts calling them up, inviting them over, having the dinner parties, playing things like Good Vibrations before it was released, auditioning various tracks he and Van Dyke had been working on, the whole deal.

Eventually the offer was made to Vosse to help do some publicity and writing among other chores because Derek Taylor was not only about to leave for England to cover press and advances for the BB's tour in the UK, but there was also some tension between him and the band (and Brian). So someone needed to fill in, in a way, for Derek and do the work at home with Brian in his absence. As Vosse had already interviewed and written about Brian, he was offered the job.

With Vosse's background in the trenches of television production, specifically related to projects involving rock bands like the Byrds and others getting them to appear on shows and planning similar projects, Brian later offered him the job which would be created in his plans for the BB's "new" company, which would be Brother Records. And within Brother was to be a film division, slated to be called "Home Movies", which is what Vosse would be involved in starting and operating within the proposed company.

There was not yet a formal structure for Brother, it was in the planning stages. The BB's own corporation was dealing with accounting issues, looking around for various representation, all of that, even before they could go forward on Brother, again still on the drawing board as an idea.

Vosse would be the point man for films at Brother, they still needed someone to help bring it all together. Anderle wooed them as a manager - through Brian, he and Vosse went to the band members and various associates with the plans, goals, and tried to get them on board. Which they did. One of Anderle's bargaining chips was the deal with Capitol, where it had been discovered the Beach Boys stood to collect a bunch of money owed them due to Capitol's shady accounting practices regarding sales and returns on records sold. With Anderle, Nick Grillo, and their mutual contacts at a law firm, that part would come later.

But even before being hired formally, it was more of a free-form organization where plans were on the books but needed to be developed and executed, so various tasks included the normal day-to-day business and operations affairs, which Anderle was heading up - and was eventually formally hired as official manager - Vosse was involved in a number of projects both administrative and organizational, and Grillo plus the lawyers were working on the finances and legal angles. Then some of the antics and hijinks would happen, since again for a few weeks at least perhaps only Vosse (still doing odd jobs) and Van Dyke were "official" employees. Then, formally, Anderle was official and got down to the real business. Which meant the antics and hijinks and hangout sessions were less common than perhaps Brian would have liked.

It was soon at a point where the main players - Anderle, Vosse, and Parks - were each working in an official capacity within the Beach Boys organization, and working under the Beach Boys to set up their own new company Brother Records, which would include multimedia, spoken-word, as well as musical projects which the Boys themselves could have full control over.

This was heady stuff for guys in their 20's. But this was also business. And unfortunately, one of the many conflicts at the time was Brian had a distaste for doing business when he was being creative. That went back before Smile was even an idea. So there were conflicts when business needed to be done, papers needed to be signed, and Brian couldn't be bothered with that. It was a pretty significant design flaw for Brother, among several.

So the business started to take Brian's focus away from his muse. His circle of friends, again people who were already friends before knowing Brian, and gathered around indirectly through Van Dyke and Michael Vosse and Anderle, became focused on being employees with a job to do rather than Brian's hang-out buddies which they were before the business became the everyday focus.

There was still an album to be done. There was a record company and a film company to be set up. There were legal issues with the old and new business, as well as legal issues with Carl being drafted and declaring himself C.O. There were family issues that included a major end-of-the-year fallout with Murry, there were tensions between Brian and Mike where they'd do a dance between agreeing then not agreeing, and pushing then pulling on issues back and forth. There was the issue of the band taking heat for their image, and not matching the sound of the records in concert, then being presented with more complex music. There was the pressure from Capitol for a follow-up to Good Vibrations. There was the interpersonal stuff between the other family members.

And there was eventually a situation where all of that started to implode, where the plans originally designed for Vosse to set up a film division for Brother were delayed until September, leaving him with no specific job to do. There was Anderle who was dealing with the current business the BB's had set up, trying to set up the one they were planning to organize, then dealing with the filing and negotiations involving a lawsuit with Capitol, whose involvement and cooperation would be *KEY* if Brother was going to be a reality. Carl could wind up in jail or in the jungle, who knew?

Van Dyke Parks did clash with Brian, there were issues of control, second-guessing, etc. Van Dyke also caught wind of how the world inside the Beach Boys organization played out, and he didn't care for it. Then he was challenged, a minor point in context, but one more issue to deal with. And his contact with the other band members was minimal.

So he walked, came back, walked again, and eventually scored a record deal as a solo artist. Not a bad deal at all.

Now, did we know that Brian at one point wanted to sign Van Dyke as a solo artist to Brother Records? Van Dyke had been managed by Anderle, he had a few minor successes but the label basically left him out to dry. So Brian wanted him for Brother, but Van Dyke went elsewhere...and a sweet offer from elsewhere helped seal the deal, not to mention his reluctance to go any deeper into the BB's turmoil.

So was he a hanger-on? He was given the role of collaborator, given quite a bit of artistic leeway on the project, including bringing in Frank Holmes for the art, then he was going to be offered a deal as a Brother artist.

Anderle and Vosse were hired officially to work for the band's interests, and Brian, and to help establish Brother. Were they hangers-on?

At the same time, Dean Torrance could live comfortably off what he made with J&D before Jan's accident, and he was a friend and musical peer of Brian's. Mark Volman's band the Turtles was still riding high on handful of hits, and were a hot band in their own right. He was a neighbor of Brian's, he'd stop in to say high and just be a normal friend down the street, essentially. He needed nothing from Brian other than friendship. Danny Hutton was releasing singles of his own, doing the usual route on the way to becoming a successful musician. He was a friend of Brian's, eventually shared a manager with Brian and Van Dyke, and knew everyone else involved. He, also, did not necessarily need to take anything from Brian other than friendship, and mutual friendship with the others. Jules Seigel - that one is a bit more tricky, but even those in the Smile inner circle never really saw him as that close, some called him obnoxious, and he was eventually cast aside. But he wrote one hell of an article that helped keep the Smile mythology alive as much as anything else published at the time.

So, once again, tell me: Out of the people I just mentioned and those in the photo, who *exactly* were the leechers, the moochers, the "hangers on", the coattail-riders, the interlopers, whatever other negative terms you'd wish to attach to their names?

The people closest to Brian were either friends or people who were eventually hired by the band to get their record label up and running. When the work dried up, when it looked like things were not going to possibly work out and the deck was stacked against them, they left.

They were as much employees of the Beach Boys in Spring 1967 as they were of Brian's, right? Damn right. Unless Brother Records was Brian's and Brian's alone...which we know is false.

Was Brian's eccentric nature part of it? Sure, as was his aversion to business affairs to the point of him ignoring and avoiding pressing business affairs. Was that the main reason why the people in that photo left? NO. Were the people around him during Smile interlopers and hangers-on? NO.

Is trying to portray these individuals as such not only unfair but totally inaccurate in light of the facts behind the history? YES. I have no connection to them, but doesn't everyone deserve at least a fair representation in history versus an image that simply is not true? Or a version of the tale for future generations which is based on inaccuracies and false perceptions?



That's my reason for the long post. If someone has something to correct, like a detail or timeline, please do. But I challenge anyone to suggest I'm writing hyperbole or fantasy as a "fan boy", or a "Brianista", or whatever other terms are used. And I challenge anyone to dispute the factual nature of what I wrote. Take that to the bank, print it, stop the presses, do whatever...including asking some of those involved or seeking out their own writings on the matter. That's the history behind the hype and legend which serves to dispute the hype and legend, and also disputes trying to blame on one rather than a variety of factors involved in everything caving in, Spring 1967.

Because the facts are the facts, Jack. I like them like Joe Friday liked them: Just The Facts.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

What does this have to do with anything?

You seem to care about Brian's" hangers-on" a whole lot more than the issue really warrants..... History has only really dealt them any ink due to their own insertion of themselves into The Beach Boys history. They were not Beach Boys and were aligned with Brian and not the rest of the Beach Boys, therefore they will (insult of all insults) be refereed to as hangers-on by some.  Some people will defend them, others won't....This has happened with the story of nearly every band, and usually to a much greater extent than The Beach Boys. Look it up.... Besides, they've all been treated pretty damn fairly begin so connected to the great Brian Wilson for all these decades. If the Beach Boys have had to weather being dissed, so can these cats.

 Some of you seem to be taking this way too personally....

The Beach Boys history does not begin and end with SMILE, BTW...... Just pointing out....

[KittyKat]

I just have serious doubts about using that airport photo as a positive sign in Brian's life. When by all accounts, including David Leaf's (as  vaguely recall reading a library copy of his book long ago), it was the beginning of the end and a rather tragic night in Brian's life. A sign that something was going terribly wrong with his mind.

[MBE]

Smile is important, and I love the music, but "what if's" always bore me. The reality of their work is so much more interesting. If Brian had stopped making great music in 1966 maybe I would care more. The fact is he never stopped making music, and some of his best work was in the five years after Smile. Smile not coming out was a symptom of his problems-not the cause.. Not saying Brian didn't have it hanging uncomfortably over his head until 2004, or even 2011, but at the time he felt happy it didn't come out. Listen to him in the 1968 J. Marks interview. Smiley seems to have saved the band and in early 1968 that still meant something to Brian.

What happened after had been happening since 1963 at least, Brian had mental issues that weren't going to resolve themselves. Blame Mike Love for not being Mr. Rogers, but bands had a lot bigger jerks than him that simply refuse to do material they don't like. Hell Dennis used to walk out off stage during some of Mike's songs and nobody beats him up for it.

Had the Beach Boys run of commercial success continued, had Brian not declined , I honestly don't think Smile would have become what it did. That's nothing to do with the great music, just public perception of what it was. The thing I want to know is why people still think Brian was driven insane and stopped working because of what Mike Love liked or not? I can tell you one thing, Smile is made such a turning point for the band and Brian because the story is then easier to tell. The reality was both more simple, and more complex.

Again does Brian missing shows and gaining weight as early as 1963 not tell you all something? His fate was his fate Smile or no, and today I think we should know enough about mental illness to realize that Brian could have had the best family (or band mates) on earth and still been ill. When or how may have differed but read Tim White's research on Buddy Wilson and his issues. It makes you really wonder about cause and effect on mental illness.  Marilyn once told me that though it was very rare, even in 1962 Brian would have days were he would shut down completely. She said all that happened is that eventually the very rare days became those that he could function. That says all too much about what really happened. I wasn't there but she was, nearly everyday for sixteen years.

[Micha]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

[Micha]

God in heaven!!!! Who cares!? As it turns out, we also got Smiley Smile. If you want to live in a world where Smile came out in 67 and Smiley Smile, BW's Smile, and the Smile sessions never did come out, then get yourself a damned time machine and change history.

Shht, don't give them bad ideas!

[Micha]

Thank you guitarfool for your long post with lots of info I didn't know yet.

I've never spent any thought about who was a hanger-on and their importance in the SMiLE saga or what that term means. I just thought about it and found there's really no point thinking about whether these "hanger-ons" if there were any had any role. But the info you supplied was very interesting!

If someone has something to correct, like a detail or timeline, please do.

It's "Siegel", not "Seigel"...

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[Sam_BFC]

I thought hangers on were people like Loren rather than the Vosse Posse.

[drbeachboy]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

[Micha]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

[filledeplage]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.
"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

There is a concept called the "totality of the circumstances" when, "taken as a whole" can lead one to a sort of conclusion. It means generally that there is "no single factor" but, a whole host of facts, context, etc., which can enlarge one's reasoning for a certain consequence.  Here, in the case of SMiLE, many learned, and non-speculative posts, who are not "finger-pointing" and playing the "scapegoat" game, can draw an inference, based on objective facts, and not speculation or wishful thinking.  

I learned a lot in this thread. GF2002, TM, (and many others,) helped put some objective facts out there, to clear up misconceptions.  the professor (intentional lower case) nailed it.  No one can go back to 1966-1967.  TM and others can give a personal reflection, which should have credibility, because some of us bought the plain wrapper Gettin' Hungry, and Smiley "in good faith." IIRC, it came out after Best of Vol. 2.  Way to go, Capitol.  I'm not going to speculate that Murry or Mike killed it or even "modified it" to fulfill contractural commitments to Capitol.  To shut them up.  Those guys, ALL of them sung their hearts out, in an empty swimming pool.  If that is not "good faith" in the project, I don't know what is.

And, while Dennis and Carl are not here, they might have had much good to say about the release of THEIR BB vocal sessions.  And, no matter that Brian's great bandmates (and they are great musicians) helped and the sound guys who got the well-merited Grammy, via the grand digital aged audio file configurations, to bring some completion to the project.

Was it finished with Brian's original vision? NO ONE KNOWS BUT BRIAN. And, I would guess that he can live with it, as released, and with great appreciation of all of those who helped, whether it was his "band brothers" consisting of Mike, Al, Dennis, Carl and Bruce, who did the vocals "as directed."  And those great guys, named Bennett, Gregory, Sahanaja, Bragg, D'Amico, Mertens, Wonder, (not Stevie)  etc., who helped resurrect the legendary project which did not come to fruition in 1967, because of the "totality of the circumstances" with perhaps no SINGLE causative factor.  Disharmonic non-convergence.  Ya, I made that up.  

Bring it on.  

[drbeachboy]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

Because it is simply a matter of fact that we are social animals that are shaped by our social atmosphere which means there are always many factors at work that influence our every decision.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Was it finished with Brian's original vision? NO ONE KNOWS BUT BRIAN.

And probably not even Brian.

[guitarfool2002]

What does this have to do with anything?

You seem to care about Brian's" hangers-on" a whole lot more than the issue really warrants..... History has only really dealt them any ink due to their own insertion of themselves into The Beach Boys history. They were not Beach Boys and were aligned with Brian and not the rest of the Beach Boys, therefore they will (insult of all insults) be refereed to as hangers-on by some.  Some people will defend them, others won't....This has happened with the story of nearly every band, and usually to a much greater extent than The Beach Boys. Look it up.... Besides, they've all been treated pretty damn fairly begin so connected to the great Brian Wilson for all these decades. If the Beach Boys have had to weather being dissed, so can these cats.

 Some of you seem to be taking this way too personally....

The Beach Boys history does not begin and end with SMILE, BTW...... Just pointing out....

Your motives for coming here and posting in this thread are more clear now. And that's sad.

Therefore, feel free to wallow in whatever delusions, fantasy, and perceptions you choose, because a discussion of the facts as it relates to the bigger picture of this time period is NOT what you're interested in discussing, learning, or even considering.

You instead like to push buttons, to marginalize, to throw opinions based on false assumptions around a discussion in order to provoke...

In short, have fun with that.

If anyone here does not wish to discuss this time period in a historical way, and would rather throw random bullshit around just to provoke, then at least make your intentions known so those who are here for an actual discussion and sharing of the history can avoid getting drawn into this crap.

It's a far cry from where the original intent to start a board like this, or any board related to this bigger topic, came from. And that's sad. But maybe it's indicative of a new breed of fans who prefer to work hard at being a pain in the ass rather than discussing the facts, hashing out opinions, and having an old fashioned bull session around the history of this stuff as has happened for centuries among historians and history buffs and the like.

At least the players in the game can better be identified, those who are genuinely interested versus those who want to incite, provoke, or deliberately post bullshit in order to provoke.

So let the facts stand on their own, but try not to spread your bullshit so thick that others start to believe it's something other than bullshit. Deal?

And if you have nothing else better to do than to post such a shitty reply to what was intended as an attempt to fill in some of the history with information that doesn't get reported nor shared nor posted online all that often, but which is part of the bigger picture of the Smile era in general, in combination with your saying that you're sick of this board, then consider taking it elsewhere. Plenty of places out there to discuss music online, and sometimes you'll encounter those folks who are more in line with the type of posts in this thread.

"What does this have to do with anything?" was the exact line.

You could have told me to f*** off and it would have had the same effect. So take that to the bank. It's not welcome here.

[drbeachboy]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

Because it is simply a matter of fact that we are social animals that are shaped by our social atmosphere which means there are always many factors at work that influence our every decision.

It's more than that. I grew up when you were taught take responsibility for your own actions. Today, we make excuses for what we or other people do. I have no issues with finding out what really went down with the decision making process. It is fascinating stuff, but BLAMING Mike or other people for Smile's demise is just plain incorrect. Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

[filledeplage]

Was it finished with Brian's original vision? NO ONE KNOWS BUT BRIAN.

And probably not even Brian.

Interesting. Wow. Was it the concept "of another?"

[Cam Mott]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

Because it is simply a matter of fact that we are social animals that are shaped by our social atmosphere which means there are always many factors at work that influence our every decision.

Brian was the Producer.

Again, the theory anybody else's opinions or actions had any influence on Brian's decision to scrap SMiLE seems outside the evidence to me. Because someone else threw a hissy or disparaged the sophistication of his music or thought GV should have been danceable isn't evidence that Brian's mind was changed by any of it.

To me the bottom line is Brian's given a set of consistent reasons beginning from the event [he's also given a very few reasons that are not consistent recently] and the consistent reasons haven't had anything to do with any of it, they are all about him. I think that is as close as we will get: Brian's earliest reasons that have remained consistent through out.

[guitarfool2002]

Smile is important, and I love the music, but "what if's" always bore me.

Me too. So do most fanmixes. That's why I at least attempted to get not a bunch of "what if's" into the discussion, but rather actual facts about some of what was going on, for anyone interested.

It's sad. It really is sad when as early as last decade there were some people out there encouraging folks interested to explore more of the history *surrounding* these issues like Smile, rather than focusing on the speculations, the perceptions, and the pinning-down of an exact cause or reason for its collapse.

There were fans who would reach out, online and through other means, to interested fans and share the kind of info that wasn't reported, that wasn't regularly discussed or reprinted, and present some other angles on the same old stories and legends in order to think further about the big picture.

Some of those fans have died, some simply faded away for whatever reasons and don't post, some...who knows.

But if that kind of spirit isn't welcome here, or is met with outright hostility or ignorance, or idiotic comments, then it may say a lot about the kinds of fans who are engaging in that versus those who may be genuinely interested in discussing, sharing, and learning.

So yeah, Mr. Eder, the speculation and "what if" mentality I think is a load of fucking bullshit as well, a steaming pile of bullshit to be exact, especially when it's offered having been based on false assumptions and untruths.

But it's even more of a steaming pile of fucking bullshit when you have people who are misinformed, who don't know nor do they care about the actual history and facts, trying to pass off a series of "what if" scenarios as the hard facts, and presenting opinions and speculations as the truth, as the way it is and the way it should be told. Then when a factual challenge is presented, it gets personal. There are better forums and boards for that stuff.

So everyone, read a few blogs online and the like, pick and choose a few random opinions, and go out spreading the word about whatever case or point you're trying to make.

Buy the deluxe Smile box set and watch a few YouTube webisodes on Smile, BAM!!! you know the whole story, you know all you need to know in order to "understand" and interpret what happened. Brian killed it, period. That's the ticket. All that's needed to tell the story.

Fucking sad, totally fucking ignorant of the events surrounding that time, totally missing the bigger points and history, but that seems to be the order of the day. Make it easy, make it a convenient talking point that would fit on a Tweet.

"What if?"...those folks actually bothered to look a little deeper into the issues and the history? They might learn something new or interesting, but I doubt that's the goal anyway.

What if, indeed.

[filledeplage]

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

Because it is simply a matter of fact that we are social animals that are shaped by our social atmosphere which means there are always many factors at work that influence our every decision.

It's more than that. I grew up when you were taught take responsibility for your own actions. Today, we make excuses for what we or other people do. I have no issues with finding out what really went down with the decision making process. It is fascinating stuff, but BLAMING Mike or other people for Smile's demise is just plain incorrect. Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

Dr. BB - there is something not being looked at, here.  And, I think it might be whether Brian would need to decide with his fellow BRI members or, whether he had final music and artistic control, and whether, also, if the actual brother band members let Brian decide, whether they yielded to company pressure to release "something."

There are more questions than answers, much of which falls under the "nunya" category.  As in "business."

Who had ultimate control was likely spelled out, contractually.  We don't know that. Or, the guys had so much faith in Brian, that they gave him the final word.  Which would mean there would be, "No apology, necessary" for Mike.

And, that this legend of blame game, has all been a fabrication of people outside of the actual voting members of BRI.  And, it is none of our business.   And, if I had to guess, it is "totality of the circumstances" and the voting members, and perhaps corporate. Nothing more, nothing less.

The other corporate (Capitol) factor was playing favorites. Had Lennon and Macca written SMiLE it would have been a different story.  Full backing, support, etc.   And what is ironic in all of this, is that these musicians gravitated towards one another, on other levels, and became friends despite the politics of the record company.  

So now, what we have here, is a group of BB/BW fans fighting each other, and for what? Instead of looking at this in context, for what it really could be.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

Yes, I agree, though I'm not sure anyone here is arguing otherwise. Certainly not at this point.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Was it finished with Brian's original vision? NO ONE KNOWS BUT BRIAN.

And probably not even Brian.

Interesting. Wow. Was it the concept "of another?"

Oh, no, I'm not saying that. But you know, memory being what it is, and the general fluctuation of the project (what was Look? what was Holiday? why re-record the same parts over and over?) seems to suggest to me that it would be impossible for anyone to know for sure what they were thinking at the time. For instance, I can't believe that Van Dyke didn't, say, write a lyric to Child is Father of the Man. Maybe he just didn't. But it seems so likely that he must have! And yet his lyrics on BWPS are good but also very Van Dyke circa-2000s.