Wouldn't It Be Nice?: My Own Story

[Julia]

Guess we just disagree 

[guitarfool2002]

My opinion is based on the Wikipedia article and its sources about the Paley sessions as well as the defensive NPP marketing, the way Wendy (or was it Carnie?) called her "M E L ANDY" (damn autocorrect keeps changing this to "Melinda" behind my back, tad suspicious) Mike and others in Brian's life saying she was heavy handed (or words to that effect) and a commentor in the main board discussing the shitty way they treated Frank Holmes. Plus just little scattered anecdotes Ive heard over the years, some from insiders I wont name along with just a general vibe I took away from Love and Mercy that they had to play up her role as the savior to appease Brian's camp and get the movie made.*

*Yes she saved him but the back and forth 60s-80s time lapses kind of hurt the movie in my opinion. It took time away from the far more interesting 60s stuff and the two stories dont come together in a narratively satisfying way, just individually fizzle out. Also, some of the "isnt Melinda amazing?!" moments felt over the top, like Landy throwing a fit in her office and shes all cool like "I think Im ready to sell some cars" as the manager just sat back and did nothing. That scene took me out of the movie and apparently the events of the 80s sequences arebased solely on her word, which I find abit sketchy. Carl's role in helping free Brian is totally omitted which also feels kinda shitty.

People can feel free to disagree or say "if she was overbearing to others it was at Brian's urging", or "we dont know what happened" (which is true) Ive seen it all play out here before a million times. Im not gonna get into a big back and forth about Brian's private life because its pointless on several counts but this is why my read on her is a bit less than the perfect saint shes often portrayed as. Not evil, but a flawed person with an agenda--like almost everyone in the bands story.

Consider the possibility that these "sources" and "insiders" you cite as references that shaped your opinions may be wrong, or spreading false information.

That scene took me out of the movie and apparently the events of the 80s sequences arebased solely on her word, which I find abit sketchy. Carl's role in helping free Brian is totally omitted which also feels kinda shitty.

And based on Brian's word too, unless you see fit to dismiss his memories entirely and call both primary subjects' word "sketchy". Regarding Carl's role, there are people who can speak directly to that subject matter but who probably won't most likely out of respect, all things considered based on what actually happened during that time. As much as you suggest there is an effort to canonize Melinda as "Saint Melinda", there are also circles who have done the same with Carl, creating a "Saint Carl" aura where he could do no wrong. Unfortunately as in most if not all human stories and actions, that's not always the case.

Maybe consider widening your sources of information, digging a little deeper and looking under the surfaces, and hopefully getting closer to the truth apart from self-edited Wikipedia entries and "insiders" who quite simply were not there and can only comment and critique from afar, many layers removed from the primary sources if they're not just telling tall tales out of school. There have been quite a few instances of that.

[Julia]

Why dont yall provide me with the definitive sources on Melinda and then I can be as enlightened in my opinion as you?

[rab2591]

Why dont yall provide me with the definitive sources on Melinda and then I can be as enlightened in my opinion as you?

Because even outside of the outrageous behind-the-back Melinda rumors, your list of what makes Melinda "heavy handed" and "misguided" makes no sense when you look at all the pieces (not just the ones you want to see to fit your viewpoint). And thus, would having some sources for just one small aspect of your list even change your opinion?

1) Wikipedia Paley Session article: the article itself says that Paley/Wilson weren't able to get a record deal with that material because no record company was interested in it. The article also says that The Beach Boys didn't see commercial appeal in the music which is why they rejected it. So, regardless of a vague statement that unnamed "observers" saw Brian coerced away from Paley (and you want a definitive source from us, but you're willing to take this as gospel?), is it really hard to believe that Brian's wife would be trying to steer Brian toward getting a record contract? Say what you want about Imagination (like I said before, even Brian disliked it), but the fact is that it helped Brian get back in the saddle of touring and it also helped him get back into the rhythm of commercial record making...which then allowed him to climb the ladder and get better record deals which then allowed him to both tour with a huge band, and also record music that was more experimental/highly-arranged (TLOS). How does wanting your music artist husband to have a successful career in music make you a misguided manager?

2) Defensive NPP marketing: even Peter Hollens had to come on this forum to defend his work due to the hate he was receiving from the Brian Wilson "fans" - are we going to fault him for defending the album, too? I'm sure when a loved one makes a record and a vocal swath of his supposed fans call it "stupid" or a music critic compares your husband's (who battles major depression and schizoaffective disorder) work to a "wheelchair bound grandpa forced to make a speech at Thanksgiving dinner" - yeah I think you have every right to be defensive.

3) Carnie calling Melinda "Me-Landy": again, we don't know all the facts about this. But firstly, the fact that it's an outrageous comparison to begin with (yeah, I don't see Melinda in the same boat as the guy who nearly killed Brian by pumping him full of pills and had surf nazis following him around) makes me think that it's not a statement to be taken as gospel. I don't doubt Carnie had reasons to have a sour opinion about Melinda, but I'm also not going to judge Melinda's management based off one outrageous comparison from a family member.  

4) Mike's opinion about Melinda: Mike also publicly ridiculed Melinda for allowing UCLA doctors to prescribe Brian with medication that would help him with his schizoaffective disorder. So I will take anything Mike says about Melinda about as seriously as I take his 'Island Fever' lyrics.

5) Frank Holmes: I don't know the details - I missed the part where Melinda was directly involved in this? Maybe you could point me to that source. And even if she was directly involved, we don't know what amount of $ Frank came up with and if it was actually too high of an amount. The thing is, you and I don't see the books about touring costs, recording costs, marketing costs, etc etc. So while it's easy to be an armchair quarterback about a music release, we weren't there and have no idea about the specifics. And thus, basing your opinion of one person off of yet another vague reference, this time regarding Smile drawings, doesn't make sense to me.

6) 'Love and Mercy': What factually was incorrect about the 'Love and Mercy' film? You say yourself "Yes she saved him" then complain that they "played up" her role as his savior? And claiming this as evidence that she's a misguided and heavy handed manager is utterly ridiculous...So she's a bad manager because someone in Hollywood made her look too much like a savior? Like what are you speculating here?

And getting back to sources that would verify if any rumors/anecdotes about Melinda are true or not, I don't know specifically what rumors you are referring to. Please feel free to write out those anecdotes here and maybe some people who would actually know will reach out to you.

[Julia]

What I get from this is there are no definitive sources about Melinda or this last period in Brian's life, just scattered anecdotes and pieces of evidence up to interpretation (ie "she pushed him to finish Smile, shes good!" vs "she pushed him to work with Joe Thomas, she's bad!"). But for some reason its taboo to dare to suggest there may have been trouble in paradise or that this person who kept others from Brian's past at arms' length, including his biological children, may have had some flaws or less-than-saintly agenda. I saw this attitude in 2015 (it was a major factor in splitting the board in two), I predicted itd happen now and yall took the bait to prove my point.

Personally Im not sure why even the faintest suggestion that Melinda wasnt the perfect caretaker/manager should elicit this "oh how dare you!" level of virtue signalling white knight brigade while this forum has delved into every other member of the bands' agendas, flaws and mistakes. Is it because shes a woman, or it would mean Brian didnt get a perfect 'happily ever after' or what? 

Its not even like I started a thread to tear her down, I made a throwaway comment that she was "heavy handed and misguided in her management of Brian's career" and, when pressed with some snarky sanctimonious grandstanding, I offered some of the things that made me feel that way. If you want to be the performative hero defending m'lady's honor thats your thing, but if you dont have the guts to share your own "evidence," just tear mine down, implying Im stupid and hateful for not reading the tea leaves as you, then this conversation can serve no other purpose.

[rab2591]

What I get from this is there are no definitive sources about Melinda or this last period in Brian's life, just scattered anecdotes and pieces of evidence up to interpretation (ie "she pushed him to finish Smile, shes good!" vs "she pushed him to work with Joe Thomas, she's bad!"). But for some reason its taboo to dare to suggest there may have been trouble in paradise or that this person who kept others from Brian's past at arms' length, including his biological children, may have had some flaws or less-than-saintly agenda. I saw this attitude in 2015 (it was a major factor in splitting the board in two), I predicted itd happen now and yall took the bait to prove my point.

Personally Im not sure why even the faintest suggestion that Melinda wasnt the perfect caretaker/manager should elicit this "oh how dare you!" level of virtue signalling white knight brigade while this forum has delved into every other member of the bands' agendas, flaws and mistakes. Is it because shes a woman, or it would mean Brian didnt get a perfect 'happily ever after' or what? 

Its not even like I started a thread to tear her down, I made a throwaway comment that she was "heavy handed and misguided in her management of Brian's career" and, when pressed with some snarky sanctimonious grandstanding, I offered some of the things that made me feel that way. If you want to be the performative hero defending m'lady's honor thats your thing, but if you dont have the guts to share your own "evidence," just tear mine down, implying Im stupid and hateful for not reading the tea leaves as you, then this conversation can serve no other purpose.

I mean, feel free to actually respond to the points I raised rather than stoop to ad hominem attacks. When you write things, even throwaway comments, in a public forum, maybe expect pushback if those comments don't make sense to people? You made a claim about Melinda being clumsy and misguided in her management of Brian's career. Given the accolades I listed above, I just don't see it that way. You provided more detail, and I responded to those details in my two posts above. I don't see how providing facts and asking questions is akin to swooping in on a chandelier to defend "m'lady's honor" (I mean, really?). You have every right and opportunity to respond in civil dialogue to my points above, it would be more appreciative, and fruitful, than just making personal attacks.

but if you dont have the guts to share your own "evidence,"

Plus just little scattered anecdotes Ive heard over the years, some from insiders I wont name

[Julia]

And when youre a public figure, not everyones gonna agree with your decisions.

"Ad hominems"

I mean, youre the one acting like the very thought Melinda might notve been perfect is grounds to attack someones character. Id say thats pretty personally insulting. If youre gonna play the part of the gallant gentleman, at least own it.

As for that eye-roll "gotcha!" I say nice job cherry-picking the one vague source I listed out of several but then its not like this ever was or would be a good faith discussion.

The "points [you] raised" are just "thats not a good enough source!" / "i never saw that!" / "youre [bad quality] for interpretating it that way!" So forgive me if I dont spend a bunch of time on an internet disagreement where neither person is going to change their mind and sh*t's just gonna get needlessly personal and histrionic.

I tried to dismiss our impasse as a disagreement, i asked genuinely for sources but that doesn't seem the conversation youre gunning for. It feels like your MO is to perform for the crowd "look how much more positive and pro-Brian and tolerant I am than this person! " I dont see the point in engaging with that.

[rab2591]

And when youre a public figure, not everyones gonna agree with your decisions.

I'm not saying you have to agree with her decisions (heck, I don't agree with some of her decisions), but that doesn't mean that her entire handling of Brian's music career was clumsy and misguided. Brian had a very successful solo music career, brought smiles to hundreds of thousands of people in-concert, had a slew of albums and other accolades, and in the process his mental health was well cared for. I wouldn't call all of that the fruits of clumsy/misguided handling of his career.

"Ad hominems"

I mean, youre the one acting like the very thought Melinda might notve been perfect is grounds to attack someones character. Id say thats pretty personally insulting. If youre gonna play the part of the gallant gentleman, at least own it.

Ad hominem: refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.

I have tried to be specific and clarifying about the subject at hand, whereas you are the one saying that I "don't have guts", that I'm "virtue signaling", that I'm part of the "white knight brigade", and that I'm a "performative hero" whilst not actually responding to my points....literally the definition of Ad Hominem.

As for that eye-roll "gotcha!" I say nice job cherry-picking the one vague source I listed out of several but then its not like this ever was or would be a good faith discussion.

You are the one telling me I don't have guts to reveal a source when you yourself won't reveal your source. That was my point.

The "points [you] raised" are just "thats not a good enough source!" / "i never saw that!" / "youre [bad quality] for interpretating it that way!" So forgive me if I dont spend a bunch of time on an internet disagreement where neither person is going to change their mind and sh*t's just gonna get needlessly personal and histrionic.

Both Craig and I were merely responding to your claim/argument, and you're the one who made it personal/histrionic. If my points are so pathetic then maybe spend your time quickly refuting them rather than spending time with personal attacks.

I tried to dismiss our impasse as a disagreement, i asked genuinely for sources but that doesn't seem the conversation youre gunning for. It feels like your MO is to perform for the crowd "look how much more positive and pro-Brian and tolerant I am than this person! " I dont see the point in engaging with that.

This is a message board where people are going to debate and disagree - I don't know what else you are expecting from a forum. You are "genuinely" asking for my sources but yet you yourself are the one who initially made the vague claim stating that you yourself won't reveal your own source!...and why? Because it's utterly improper to reveal a source when you've been told information in confidence...and then you attack my character? You admit to baiting Craig and I and then attack my motives?

[Julia]

Ultimately its up to the individual to make up their own mind about Melinda in the absence of substantive, authoratative sources and about which of our positions they agree with, I guess.

[guitarfool2002]

Why dont yall provide me with the definitive sources on Melinda and then I can be as enlightened in my opinion as you?

Logic would suggest the definitive source would be Melinda herself, but in a previous post you've already said you find her word "a bit sketchy". So that removes her as a possible source to consider. Then I suggested (and factually too) that regarding the L&M movie, Brian was the other primary source since he and Melinda were often the only ones there in the scenes being depicted, but if you have issues with his reliability as a source, does that remove him too?

If you remove Brian and Melinda, whose word you find "sketchy" regarding events that actually happened to her and her husband, who is left?

I reposted the link to the tribute Jean Sievers wrote for Brian, and you seem to have ignored it (or haven't had time to read it). Jean was Brian's manager since the late 90's, working directly and daily for and with Brian, and doing the heavy lifting along with her co-workers to actually make things happen in Brian's career. And she did a phenomenal job...does her word count?

Here's the link again: https://news.pollstar.com/2025/07/23/in-her-own-words-jean-sievers-on-managing-the-late-great-music-genius-brian-wilson/

Then that leaves people who were Brian's and Melinda's personal friends, people who had their personal phone numbers and could call anytime and receive calls too. That's a very short list, but do we discount their word too because they're too close to be unbiased in their observations?

Regarding things like the L&M movie, NPP, BWPS, Smile art, and all of that - There are very large teams and crews in place with each of those projects, including record labels, production and distribution operations, screenwriters, marketing teams, accounting and budget teams, the works. Beyond personal management from people like Jean. "Budget" can be the key term, it's not as if Brian himself could have cut a check and cover all the costs and not have labels and film companies have their own interests and limitations in place. Should those various people be considered a valid source as well?

And maybe after all that, we're left with various people who claim "insider" status, and proceed to spread gossip and rumors to fans online or in fan clubs or whatever. People who may carry personal grudges, or perhaps have a history of putting out gossip and innuendo for whatever reasons they may have, gossip that has often been proven false. Do we weigh or even value the word of people like that over the actual individuals who were the subject of these events and happenings?  

If weighing a personal bias or grudge against someone being talked about factually is a factor, consider how many people in these fan communities have a history of bashing, criticizing, gossiping about, and using ridiculous nicknames for Melinda Wilson like "Missy", "the wifey", "hiswifeandmanagers", "his handlers", and the "me-landy" chestnut, and consider the validity of what they're saying. Does it come from a source of factual information, or rather hearsay and personal grudges?

Food for thought, that's all it is.  I think the classic saying is "consider the source".

[guitarfool2002]

I predicted itd happen now and yall took the bait to prove my point.

So your posts were "bait" and not a genuine attempt to have a discussion?

[Julia]

I predicted itd happen now and yall took the bait to prove my point.

So your posts were "bait" and not a genuine attempt to have a discussion?

Ugh. If thats the only thing you took from everything Ive said in this and my other 134 posts, yeah sure. Whatever makes me seem worse. Attack the nonbeliever.

If youll recall, I wasnt even the one who brought up Melinda and just because I was expecting backlash doesn't mean it was necessarily my intent to cause it. But again I dont think either of you are really operating on good faith right now or interested in a meeting of the minds so much as playing to the crowds so Im sure any idiom or unflattering phrase I use here is going to be presented in the worst light possible.

[rab2591]

But again I dont think either of you are really operating on good faith right now or interested in a meeting of the minds so much as playing to the crowds so Im sure any idiom or unflattering phrase I use here is going to be presented in the worst light possible.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop assuming my motives here. You claim that I am not here to have a meeting of the minds, yet you are the one who tried to stop this conversation after just my second post in this thread! Who is trying to avoid a conversation here? You claim I am not operating on good faith? I am literally just disagreeing with a negative critique you initially made about Melinda. You are the one who is making up this story in your head that I'm operating on bad faith and then using it as an excuse to avoid a real discussion. I feel like I have been very clear in my reasoning for why I think Melinda wasn't clumsy or misguided in her management, maybe try just rebutting my arguments in a civil manner rather than making up stories and motivations of the people you are conversing with?

Speaking of making stuff up, to give you an idea of the level of idiotic rumors that are leveled at Melinda, one of the rumors floating around behind-the-scenes about her was that she was the poster SMiLE Brian here on the SS forum...A poster who I have met personally and who is still posting here after January 30, 2024. So this is what Craig and I mean, that when an 'insider', or someone close to Brian's camp, has made a claim, don't take it for gospel because chances are it's bunk from people with an ax to grind.

[Julia]

Maybe i just wasnt interested in having a discussion about it, lol. Like at least to me, not every disagreement needs a winner or a consensus. Sometimes the whole "big epic debate" thing isnt worth the hassle, especially when the other person is very emotionally invested and determined to "win" at all costs, which is the vibe I perceive from you. You can feign outrage about me "assuming your motives" but Id say anyone that writes like ten ornery paragraphs in responce to "lets just agree to disagree" is kinda not worth engaging with. Just seems like I could say anything right now and youd take it in the worst possible way.

Like i dont actually enjoy the self important pearl clutching outrage thing so i tried to kindly say "hey id rather we just let it go." Is that allowed? Does that make me a bad person too? Would you still be speaking to me the same way you are now if we were in person or PMs? If so, yikes, if not my assessment was totally warranted.

I think Melinda was heavy handed and misguided. You dont. I gave my reasons, you dont agree. The end. The funny thing is nobody's prodding Lonely Summer for also being, lets say, skeptical of Melinda. Why am I always singled out for having a heterodox opinion and pressured to write an essay defending it on-command? (And then when I do, I get criticized for being "long winded" lol.)

[Steve Mayo]

I predicted itd happen now and yall took the bait to prove my point.

So your posts were "bait" and not a genuine attempt to have a discussion?

Ugh. If thats the only thing you took from everything Ive said in this and my other 134 posts, yeah sure. Whatever makes me seem worse. Attack the nonbeliever.

If youll recall, I wasnt even the one who brought up Melinda and just because I was expecting backlash doesn't mean it was necessarily my intent to cause it. But again I dont think either of you are really operating on good faith right now or interested in a meeting of the minds so much as playing to the crowds so Im sure any idiom or unflattering phrase I use here is going to be presented in the worst light possible.

Spot on. That didn’t take long.

👍👍😂😂

[rab2591]

Maybe i just wasnt interested in having a discussion about it, lol. Like at least to me, not every disagreement needs a winner or a consensus. Sometimes the whole "big epic debate" thing isnt worth the hassle, especially when the other person is very emotionally invested and determined to "win" at all costs, which is the vibe I perceive from you. You can feign outrage about me "assuming your motives" but Id say anyone that writes like ten ornery paragraphs in responce to "lets just agree to disagree" is kinda not worth engaging with. Just seems like I could say anything right now and youd take it in the worst possible way.

Like i dont actually enjoy the big self important pearl clutching debate thing so i tried to kindly say "hey id rather we just agree to disagree." Is that allowed? Does that make me a bad person too? Would you still be speaking to me the same way you are now if we were in person or PMs? If so, yikes, if not my assessment was totally warranted.

I think Melinda was heavy handed and misguided. You dont. I gave my reasons, you dont agree. The end.

I feel like if someone makes a negative accusation about someone, it's fair game to discuss those accusations. If you don't want to discuss, fine. If you actually wanted to end the conversation, why follow up and ask Craig and I a passive-aggressive followup question regarding that very conversation? You say I'm not worth engaging with and claim a big epic debate isn't worth the hassle, yet here you've written how many paragraphs in four posts in the past day that have nothing to do with the original topic?

[rab2591]

The funny thing is nobody's prodding Lonely Summer for also being, lets say, skeptical of Melinda. Why am I always singled out for having a heterodox opinion and pressured to write an essay defending it on-command? (And then when I do, I get criticized for being "long winded" lol.)

It's a message board. You can ignore or respond to anything you want. If you make a claim, expect interaction from others regarding that claim. I and others have had plenty of back-and-forth over the years with Lonely Summer.

[Julia]

Cool. Anyway...

I actually revise my rating of WIBN for the record. After coming to the SMiLE chapter it became really obvious that Brian wasnt writing/dictating or consulting in any meaningful way. There were embellishments in the story I couldn't find elsewhere in some cases (the bookstore incident, giving VDP mice, Diane snusnu in 66, raping the third Rovell sister) and others that come from Gaines but almost certainly aren't accurate (first Fire mid-Nov 66 with VDP before the actual 11/28 that was logged, etc). The author clearly wasnt familiar with the SMiLE sessionography or music. The supposed third trip is never talked about in depth just "finally saw God" (well...tell us about God then, what was that like??).

Id give it a generous 2 not a 3.