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

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

CD, I'm out. If people have something to apologize for they should apologize. You seem to suspect Mike has done something he owes Brian an apology for, I don't.

I wish you could just answer the actual question that I posed to you. I'm not asking you to agree with me or for us to see eye-to-eye.

You're talking to the guy who's convinced against all evidence to the contrary that Mike cowrote Vega-Tables and challenged me to pester VDP about it when I told him that was madness.

[Cam Mott]

CD, I'm out. If people have something to apologize for they should apologize. You seem to suspect Mike has done something he owes Brian an apology for, I don't.

I wish you could just answer the actual question that I posed to you. I'm not asking you to agree with me or for us to see eye-to-eye.

You're talking to the guy who's convinced against all evidence to the contrary that Mike cowrote Vega-Tables and challenged me to pester VDP about it when I told him that was madness.

Well there's your problem, we were talking only about Mama Says, a section which moved from H&V to Veg to a stand alone track. Hypothetical apology accepted.

[Cam Mott]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

[Cam Mott]

 "A film crew and I went to Columbia Records’ studios with Brian and his friends, and they were doing tiny little pieces that made no sense in and of themselves….just a few notes…also the sessions didn’t make a scene that was all that interesting…I had hoped to get Brian masterminding a recording session, but instead it was terribly spread out…Brian was a little spacey, but he didn’t seem drugged." David Oppenheim

No drama there and Oppenheim was down for controversy and documented it on the Strip or wherever. Also do we really think Siegel would not cover a controversy in the group, especially if Brian was the target? Didn't happen.

Pretty sure Siegel said he didn't witness any infighting but he didn't have all that much contact with the Boys either as I remember.

[Cam Mott]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

Your last sentence speaks the truth, from what I gather about it all. He says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. In the span of one year he went from Brian's right hand to just a good singer in a band full of good singers. It had to hurt, I'm sure he felt threatened, and I don't blame him for it.

The production race was in full swing '66-'67 so Mike had to know what Brian was doing musically wasn't the wrong way to go. If he had had any doubts, I'm sure GV's success alleviated them. I believe he either honestly thought the lyrics weren't right for a BBs album, he was jealous Brian hadn't asked him to contribute his own as had always been done, or both.

You're right, I doubt he thinks he ought to apologize (and technically, no he doesn't) but I don't think even Mike thinks he was saving the band by criticizing the project. I think he just wanted Brian to change his mind about using VDP's lyrics and/or get Brian off drugs and away from the people who were offering them.

In Mike Love's perfect world, SMiLE comes out with Brian's music, his lyrics (I guess Can't Wait Too Long instead of Wind Chimes and things like that?) and no drugs. I'd really love to read more about the Smiley sessions and what he thought about those. He went along with them, presumably because he was back as the BBs #2 guy. But did he really think THAT was the way to go? Did he really think She's Going Bald would top Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

Know what? Even though I don't agree with some of it, this is a really great post that gets us closer to a unified inkling of what the truth is.... Thank you, Mujan.

She's Going Bald is no less silly than Maxwell's Silver Hammer.... Anything The Beach Boys did in that period could top anything by The Beatles. The Beach Boys had those voices, and therefore trumped them all on that department.

The Beatles would always win no matter what because they were a tight unit/band and knew how to rock. The kids will always groove on something that rocks. They always have and always will.

[KittyKat]

Love means never having to say you're sorry. I can't imagine apologizing to a family member who felt slighted decades ago, in a business situation, especially if I didn't feel I had much to apologize for and there were other factors involved as to why they didn't complete some bit of business. I doubt Brian ever gives it a thought. I'm sure they've moved on to other things that p**s each other off by now.  As for Mike needing it to make the fans feel better, the only fans who care about it will never like Mike no matter what he does. Why cater to them when he plays to thousands of fans every year who don't care about it.

[Cam Mott]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

 OK, so no offense was intended but they would apologize because someone took offense anyway. So I guess you would apologize. Is that the answer you were looking for?

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

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

 OK, so no offense was intended but they would apologize because someone took offense anyway. So I guess you would apologize. Is that the answer you were looking for?

He wanted to see what kind of person you are based on your truthful answer.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Love means never having to say you're sorry. I can't imagine apologizing to a family member who felt slighted decades ago, in a business situation, especially if I didn't feel I had much to apologize for and there were other factors involved as to why they didn't complete some bit of business. I doubt Brian ever gives it a thought. I'm sure they've moved on to other things that p**s each other off by now.  As for Mike needing it to make the fans feel better, the only fans who care about it will never like Mike no matter what he does. Why cater to them when he plays to thousands of fans every year who don't care about it.

Not only that, but he's been playing for fans who don't care about it for the intervening 50 years.... He's actually been onstage and sang SMILE stuff (Wonderful/Surfs up/H&V/Vegetables) long before BWPS or TSS were even released.... We know for a fact Brian never asked "Why are you cool with playing that stuff"? and Mike never went "Ah, I do like the stuff, Brian! Sorry if you think I didn't"? ....... Pure speculation, but we don't know..... But Mike knows he would be apologizing to a select few who could never be satisfied..... And he would also be apologizing to VDP indirectly. Someone who has a few nasty things to say about Mike publicly.

[Cam Mott]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

 OK, so no offense was intended but they would apologize because someone took offense anyway. So I guess you would apologize. Is that the answer you were looking for?

He wanted to see what kind of person you are based on your truthful answer.

Awww. That's cute.

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

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

Your last sentence speaks the truth, from what I gather about it all. He says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. In the span of one year he went from Brian's right hand to just a good singer in a band full of good singers. It had to hurt, I'm sure he felt threatened, and I don't blame him for it.

The production race was in full swing '66-'67 so Mike had to know what Brian was doing musically wasn't the wrong way to go. If he had had any doubts, I'm sure GV's success alleviated them. I believe he either honestly thought the lyrics weren't right for a BBs album, he was jealous Brian hadn't asked him to contribute his own as had always been done, or both.

You're right, I doubt he thinks he ought to apologize (and technically, no he doesn't) but I don't think even Mike thinks he was saving the band by criticizing the project. I think he just wanted Brian to change his mind about using VDP's lyrics and/or get Brian off drugs and away from the people who were offering them.

In Mike Love's perfect world, SMiLE comes out with Brian's music, his lyrics (I guess Can't Wait Too Long instead of Wind Chimes and things like that?) and no drugs. I'd really love to read more about the Smiley sessions and what he thought about those. He went along with them, presumably because he was back as the BBs #2 guy. But did he really think THAT was the way to go? Did he really think She's Going Bald would top Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

Know what? Even though I don't agree with some of it, this is a really great post that gets us closer to a unified inkling of what the truth is.... Thank you, Mujan.

She's Going Bald is no less silly than Maxwell's Silver Hammer.... Anything The Beach Boys did in that period could top anything by The Beatles. The Beach Boys had those voices, and therefore trumped them all on that department.

The Beatles would always win no matter what because they were a tight unit/band and knew how to rock. The kids will always groove on something that rocks. They always have and always will.

No prob. As I've said, not a blind Mike hater. Just want to learn the truth...that means criticizing EVERYONE for something. But it also means a more understanding and in some places, even forgiving, look at Mike. You and I lock horns often because you seem to take any criticism of him extremely personally and use it to dismiss me as a hater. That's how this started. Anyway...

In the end, it's sad that some quite understandable bad feelings on Mike's part is then blown out of proportion and used to scapegoat blame off of Brian (not that he would deserve blame--the man was dealing with more sh!t than anyone ought to) and VDP (who, it seems was also fighting with Brian and ultimately bailed for a solo album deal.)

Seriously though, has much been said about the Smiley Sessions at all or what the band thought of it?

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

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

 OK, so no offense was intended but they would apologize because someone took offense anyway. So I guess you would apologize. Is that the answer you were looking for?

He wanted to see what kind of person you are based on your truthful answer.

Awww. That's cute.

And your sarcasm speaks volumes.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Alright you two....please take it to PMs.

Thanks.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

Your last sentence speaks the truth, from what I gather about it all. He says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. In the span of one year he went from Brian's right hand to just a good singer in a band full of good singers. It had to hurt, I'm sure he felt threatened, and I don't blame him for it.

The production race was in full swing '66-'67 so Mike had to know what Brian was doing musically wasn't the wrong way to go. If he had had any doubts, I'm sure GV's success alleviated them. I believe he either honestly thought the lyrics weren't right for a BBs album, he was jealous Brian hadn't asked him to contribute his own as had always been done, or both.

You're right, I doubt he thinks he ought to apologize (and technically, no he doesn't) but I don't think even Mike thinks he was saving the band by criticizing the project. I think he just wanted Brian to change his mind about using VDP's lyrics and/or get Brian off drugs and away from the people who were offering them.

In Mike Love's perfect world, SMiLE comes out with Brian's music, his lyrics (I guess Can't Wait Too Long instead of Wind Chimes and things like that?) and no drugs. I'd really love to read more about the Smiley sessions and what he thought about those. He went along with them, presumably because he was back as the BBs #2 guy. But did he really think THAT was the way to go? Did he really think She's Going Bald would top Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

Know what? Even though I don't agree with some of it, this is a really great post that gets us closer to a unified inkling of what the truth is.... Thank you, Mujan.

She's Going Bald is no less silly than Maxwell's Silver Hammer.... Anything The Beach Boys did in that period could top anything by The Beatles. The Beach Boys had those voices, and therefore trumped them all on that department.

The Beatles would always win no matter what because they were a tight unit/band and knew how to rock. The kids will always groove on something that rocks. They always have and always will.

No prob. As I've said, not a blind Mike hater. Just want to learn the truth...that means criticizing EVERYONE for something. But it also means a more understanding and in some places, even forgiving, look at Mike. You and I lock horns often because you seem to take any criticism of him extremely personally and use it to dismiss me as a hater. That's how this started. Anyway...

In the end, it's sad that some quite understandable bad feelings on Mike's part is then blown out of proportion and used to scapegoat blame off of Brian (not that he would deserve blame--the man was dealing with more sh!t than anyone ought to) and VDP (who, it seems was also fighting with Brian and ultimately bailed for a solo album deal.)

Seriously though, has much been said about the Smiley Sessions at all or what the band thought of it?

Smiley Smile fascinates me to no end! I want a "The Smiley Smile Sessions" box!!!!

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

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

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

Your last sentence speaks the truth, from what I gather about it all. He says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. In the span of one year he went from Brian's right hand to just a good singer in a band full of good singers. It had to hurt, I'm sure he felt threatened, and I don't blame him for it.

The production race was in full swing '66-'67 so Mike had to know what Brian was doing musically wasn't the wrong way to go. If he had had any doubts, I'm sure GV's success alleviated them. I believe he either honestly thought the lyrics weren't right for a BBs album, he was jealous Brian hadn't asked him to contribute his own as had always been done, or both.

You're right, I doubt he thinks he ought to apologize (and technically, no he doesn't) but I don't think even Mike thinks he was saving the band by criticizing the project. I think he just wanted Brian to change his mind about using VDP's lyrics and/or get Brian off drugs and away from the people who were offering them.

In Mike Love's perfect world, SMiLE comes out with Brian's music, his lyrics (I guess Can't Wait Too Long instead of Wind Chimes and things like that?) and no drugs. I'd really love to read more about the Smiley sessions and what he thought about those. He went along with them, presumably because he was back as the BBs #2 guy. But did he really think THAT was the way to go? Did he really think She's Going Bald would top Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

Know what? Even though I don't agree with some of it, this is a really great post that gets us closer to a unified inkling of what the truth is.... Thank you, Mujan.

She's Going Bald is no less silly than Maxwell's Silver Hammer.... Anything The Beach Boys did in that period could top anything by The Beatles. The Beach Boys had those voices, and therefore trumped them all on that department.

The Beatles would always win no matter what because they were a tight unit/band and knew how to rock. The kids will always groove on something that rocks. They always have and always will.

No prob. As I've said, not a blind Mike hater. Just want to learn the truth...that means criticizing EVERYONE for something. But it also means a more understanding and in some places, even forgiving, look at Mike. You and I lock horns often because you seem to take any criticism of him extremely personally and use it to dismiss me as a hater. That's how this started. Anyway...

In the end, it's sad that some quite understandable bad feelings on Mike's part is then blown out of proportion and used to scapegoat blame off of Brian (not that he would deserve blame--the man was dealing with more sh!t than anyone ought to) and VDP (who, it seems was also fighting with Brian and ultimately bailed for a solo album deal.)

Seriously though, has much been said about the Smiley Sessions at all or what the band thought of it?

Smiley Smile fascinates me to no end! I want a "The Smiley Smile Sessions" box!!!!

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

I compare SMiLE to the fall of Rome--Everyone acts like 476 AD is the end of the story and forgets the East still went on just as people draw an arbitrary distinction between SMiLE and Smiley Smile when the names, use of the same songs, use of drugs and other factors are similar. It's strangle how one carried into the other yet they're still each other's complete antithesis.

[Jim V.]

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

I'm pretty sure Bruce is on "Heroes And Villains" and "Good Vibrations", but besides those it's possible he might not be on a lot. But regardless of how much of the album he's on, I'm pretty sure that Bruce actually loves Smiley Smile, and thinks it better than SMiLE. I know he's said as much throughout the years.

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

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

I'm pretty sure Bruce is on "Heroes And Villains" and "Good Vibrations", but besides those it's possible he might not be on a lot. But regardless of how much of the album he's on, I'm pretty sure that Bruce actually loves Smiley Smile, and thinks it better than SMiLE. I know he's said as much throughout the years.

Who was it that said it's been used to help people who are having bad trips?,

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

I'm pretty sure Bruce is on "Heroes And Villains" and "Good Vibrations", but besides those it's possible he might not be on a lot. But regardless of how much of the album he's on, I'm pretty sure that Bruce actually loves Smiley Smile, and thinks it better than SMiLE. I know he's said as much throughout the years.

Who was it that said it's been used to help people who are having bad trips?,

I should put it on whenever reading such threads from now on 

[Jim V.]

Didn't Bruce sit out much of it, citing the weird vibes, or something?

I'm pretty sure Bruce is on "Heroes And Villains" and "Good Vibrations", but besides those it's possible he might not be on a lot. But regardless of how much of the album he's on, I'm pretty sure that Bruce actually loves Smiley Smile, and thinks it better than SMiLE. I know he's said as much throughout the years.

Who was it that said it's been used to help people who are having bad trips?,

Carl.

[guitarfool2002]

"A film crew and I went to Columbia Records’ studios with Brian and his friends, and they were doing tiny little pieces that made no sense in and of themselves….just a few notes…also the sessions didn’t make a scene that was all that interesting…I had hoped to get Brian masterminding a recording session, but instead it was terribly spread out…Brian was a little spacey, but he didn’t seem drugged." David Oppenheim

No drama there and Oppenheim was down for controversy and documented it on the Strip or wherever. Also do we really think Siegel would not cover a controversy in the group, especially if Brian was the target? Didn't happen.

Pretty sure Siegel said he didn't witness any infighting but he didn't have all that much contact with the Boys either as I remember.

Cam, thanks for adding this! I forgot about Oppenheim's comments, and they do shed some light on it. If we read through Oppenheim's notes that I posted on page 17 from that 12/15/66 Columbia session, it pretty much lines up with what he said in the comment. It seems pretty scattered and random, doesn't it? Considering all 6 band members were there, ostensibly for a Surf's Up session (as it's logged), they only got into what I'd call "nonsense" backing vocals for Wonderful, and even in my own opinion I *never* liked those vocal additions as much as the original stripped-down harpsichord and trumpet "Wonderful". So to an outside observer, recording yodels and nonsense syllables would seem to be less than what was expected.

BUT...after the Beach Boys left Columbia, Brian was by himself and tackled Surf's Up, the one that blew everyone away on the '93 box set. So Oppenheim was correct about the BB's work that night, we can see in the notes that nothing substantial got done, and therefore his CBS camera crew got nothing a casual viewer would "get" out of context. But Brian alone at the piano, tracking Surf's Up, I'd say that was pretty spectacular footage to capture...however, it wasn't what Oppenheim wanted to film, which was a Beach Boys session.

So in that respect, the notion of a Beach Boys session being captured on film didn't happen as hoped, so that could be part of the "gone badly" description. What we Smile fans would consider the Holy Grail wasn't what CBS was there to film, and it didn't measure up.

Side notes, I hope to hear some comments/replies:

We have a few still photos of Brian in a red shirt at the piano in Columbia Studio A, then another of him standing on a car on the street, where the Mark C. Bloome Tires shop which was across from Columbia is in the background. The studio photo is very poorly lit, and I had to lighten it considerably to pick out the details like the girl in the mirror with the camera and some features to confirm it was Columbia. So what I'm thinking is that CBS *could have* gotten amazing footage of Brian recording Surf's Up, but the lighting was too poor to use for a broadcast. Perhaps this was one possible reason of several that they re-staged the performance at Brian's house with better lighting. At that point the concept of capturing a "Beach Boys session" was replaced by Brian playing his tune which Oppenheim featured as the finale of his documentary.

Thoughts?

Also...you mention the Sunset Strip/Pandora's Box "riots". I've heard that this was a case of very fortunate timing on the part of CBS via Oppenheim.

They were not in LA to cover the "riots" or anything about the underage limits or curfews that had been bubbling up on the Strip. Rather, they were there to film "Inside Pop", and happened to be in town with Brian and his crew. One of Brian's friends, the journalist who is also in a Smile studio shot (damn memory...Paul Robbins? Paul Williams? confused the names) was also interviewed on camera for Inside Pop, and the CBS crew there for Brian basically got word that some heavy sh*t was going down on the Strip, and took their cameras there to capture it.

And that is how CBS News came to film all of that stuff, I'd suggest if they weren't there to film and interview Brian and some folks around him, it would not have been the scoop which they got by being there to film a lot more than other crews who got there after the fact. And whichever Paul that was...he got beaten up in the melee during the "riots".

For those interested, there is a reel of unedited footage, with sound, from the "riots" which I believe came from that same CBS/Oppenheim crew. I posted a link years ago, and still have the video somewhere. Fascinating stuff, a total time capsule of 1966 LA. Incredible if you're into that kind of thing.

So even though Oppenheim didn't get a Beach Boys session as he had hoped, his cameras did get through amazing timing a look at the Sunset Strip chaos from the ground level, pretty cool.

And they also got film of Murry Wilson diving and swimming, so I guess it wasn't a total washout...

[CenturyDeprived]

I have answered your question the best I can not sharing your presumptions.

Which basically means, you are not answering the question at all, and avoiding.

I’m not asking you to actually, in your heart, share my presumptions and believe what I believe. I’m simply asking you to consider a hypothetical situation, and I’d like to know what your feelings would be in those circumstances.  

    
OK, I'll try one more time. Please give me your question in a single short sentence if possible.

Cam - I've whittled it down, sorry if it's longer than you'd prefer:

I’m trying to understand the psychology where some people do not believe an expression of regret over the unintended hurt feelings would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.
 
Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt (which I know you don’t believe, but putting your presumption aside, and assuming for a moment that he actually was deeply hurt by Mike), the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret simply be the right thing to do? (The expression of regret would be over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the original sentiment - in this case Mike feeling justified in questioning lyrics - still holding true, and Mike doesn't have to apologize for having questions).

Even if the person who did the hurting feels there's nothing they did to be sorry for, shouldn't they just state that they didn't INTEND to hurt the other person?

 OK, so no offense was intended but they would apologize because someone took offense anyway. So I guess you would apologize. Is that the answer you were looking for?

The way you flipped the wording in your response to my question by saying "So I guess you would apologize" confuses me and doesn't quite compute.

Basically, I was wondering if *you yourself* would agree that this would be a reasonable course of action for a person to do, that being showing a genuine regret for having hurt someone's feelings, even if the hurt feelings were unintentional (all still based upon the hypothetical parameters I described in my last post).

[Cam Mott]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.