Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[Andrew G. Doe]

Not Kaye: she only played guitar or bass.

OK - then is it known about whom Jules is speaking?

And if there was a female percussionist, would that mean that Hal Blaine was not there?

And this is the description of the actual (or an actual) percussionist?

Maybe non drummer, on bells, or whatever?

The personnel are listed online. It's possible Siegel is mistaking Kaye for someone else.

No Andrew - I don't agree - that is not good enough.  Nor an excuse for an article that was not proofread by someone who knew Carol Kaye was clearly not the percussionist.  You would know in 5 seconds who the only woman was and what her job was.  She was not behind a set of drums.

He reportedly or "self-reportedly" spent "months" according to Rolling Stone, in their presence, and as I see it, knew or should have know that Hal Blaine was the percussionist, which does not give him proper attribution for his work, and cleverly crafts a way to insult both Carol Kaye and Marilyn Wilson, in a gender specific way. The Rolling Stone article was adapted from the original 1967 article.

This is while Jules speaks of himself in the third person (omniscient - I do not think so)

First, Jules refers to Carol, as "one female percussionist who might have been stamped out of a sequel machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials."  I realize that she may have some inaccuracies in whether she played on this song or that, but she did not deserve this. Even in the mid-1960's.  It is a gender-based statement of intolerance.

Second, Marilyn.  "Marilyn sat nervously painting her fingernails as Brian..." Jules did not need to be in Marilyn's home, and comment about Brian's wife painting her nails as though she was a completely self-absorbed wife who did nothing else.  

There is a certain respect for privacy when you are doing a story, while you are in someone's home or whether this "female musician," (Marilyn) should have been accorded a little more respect with the backhanded observation about the wallpaper in Brian's bedroom as "red-imitation-velvet-wallpapered..." and likely was referring to a type of wallpaper, known IIRC as "flock-and-foil." Of course it was "imitation."  Real cotton velvet would be highly flammable.  Who needs to know what kind of wallpaper there is?  This is about a gifted musician who opened his door for this person.  

This board prides itself in accuracy and I find this article not only inaccurate (as corrected by GF) but lacking in a type of loyalty that should have accompanied his extraordinary "access" to this era which is precious to many of us, for this tremendous gift of music that has inspired and comforted us.  It is and was bad enough to see BB/BW criticism coming from the outside, but I find it particularly vexatious to see it coming from the inside.  

And...as regards making them "hip" - what is "hipper" than having a plane with your name on the side?    

Can we just save time and all agree that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong ? 

[guitarfool2002]

Vosse never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread, not in the Vosse article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Vosse's article does not discredit Vosse.
The only error pointed out so far in Vosse's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

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

Vosse never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread, not in the Vosse article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Vosse's article does not discredit Vosse.
The only error pointed out so far in Vosse's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

Parks, Hutton, Volman

^Any good articles with these guys I should be on the lookout for? Anything on the level of the big 3?


Anyway, I think its worth bringing this up here in this thread too. I think the big asset with the big 3 articles: Seigel, Anderle, Vosse, is the ability they have in making you feel like you were there. When it comes to events that went down in the SMiLE Era, what it was like being around Brian day to day, and the overarching goals for the SMiLE project, these are great sources of info. What Im seeing more of, and I personally think is wrong, is using them to answer sequencing questions and the structures of songs like OMP and Elements. I know this is off topic but Im bringing it up here because theyre getting hyped up in this thread and think its a good thing to remind people of. I know I compared them to the gospels myself and I take the blame for any overhyped expectations that caused...but theyre not gospel. Or at least...dont look for meaning that isnt there. Vosse described a really cool on the cuff bit where Brian played My Only Sunshine and then directly went to playing Barnyard. Thats something that happened. Im not denying that. But to then point to that and say "that means those two were one song on the album and if you dont think so youre wrong" I think is taking it way too literally and too far. I dont think Vosse even meant to suggest such a thing himself, hes merely trying to relay a particularly memorable night during the sessions when something cool happened--thats it. And then interpreting him so literally, so...religiously...that if he describes WC after Elements suddenly thats proof positive WC is an element...NO. Thats not evidence of anything--not by itself anyway. Its a coincidence, or else a very forced interpretation youre making that may or may not be true, but that alone isnt enough to claim some superior position on the subject.
TL;DR: Vosse/Anderle/Seigel are great...for understanding the big picture. Not for finding some miraculous hidden details that magically and unquestionably solve all the album's secrets. Just a disclaimer I think is necessary to point out.

[Emily]

Vosse never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread, not in the Vosse article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Vosse's article does not discredit Vosse.
The only error pointed out so far in Vosse's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

oops -  will go back and exchange "Siegel" for "Vosse" - it's the Cheetah article that I meant, correct.

[guitarfool2002]

There are quite a few video interviews with Danny Hutton available where he talks about the dynamics he saw between Brian and the other Beach Boys, but not really specific to Smile. If you search the usual YouTube circuit, you'll find some of Danny's interviews there. He was there as a friend and observer for the Smile events...so still the primary sources go back to Vosse and Anderle who were there in official capacities as well as friends and observers.

Volman of course wrote his essay for the Sessions box, and also years ago there was an interview with the old Ear Candy site where the interviewer asked about Smile, and Volman seemed to shut down and said something like he was there to talk about the Turtles, and that's what he went back to doing. I can't think of any extensive published interviews where Volman goes into more detail about Smile than he did in his box set essay.

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

There are quite a few video interviews with Danny Hutton available where he talks about the dynamics he saw between Brian and the other Beach Boys, but not really specific to Smile. If you search the usual YouTube circuit, you'll find some of Danny's interviews there. He was there as a friend and observer for the Smile events...so still the primary sources go back to Vosse and Anderle who were there in official capacities as well as friends and observers.

Volman of course wrote his essay for the Sessions box, and also years ago there was an interview with the old Ear Candy site where the interviewer asked about Smile, and Volman seemed to shut down and said something like he was there to talk about the Turtles, and that's what he went back to doing. I can't think of any extensive published interviews where Volman goes into more detail about Smile than he did in his box set essay.

Thanks, Ill try to check those out

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL35350BBCE486D776 <something I found, there may be more but this was the first promising thing that came up, in case anyone else wanted to see

[Cam Mott]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

[guitarfool2002]

One known example of what Danny was doing...Fall 1966 here he is with then-girlfriend June Fairchild at Columbia watching Brian cut Good Vibrations. Maybe more than Volman, who was a neighbor and friend of Brian's, but involved more as a close friend I think at that time rather than officially. Of course later, post-Smile, Brian was producing him with Redwood so he saw the business side of things surrounding Brian and the band.

[guitarfool2002]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

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

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Yes. No ones saying discard what they have to say. Have any of them done any in depth interviews (not for TSS I mean) regarding SMiLE? Id love to read/see them. The point is tho, they werent there until the Sessions were already in a downward spiral or just about to be. They were not privy to the day to day goings on, the inspiration and creative process, or Brian's plans. They were basically treated as instruments--something I believe is what caused a lot of the friction. So yeah, their recollections are important too, but when it comes to knowing what it was like to be there, and some insight into what Brian was doing, Ill take Vosse and Anderle over Bruce and Al anyday

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

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Exactly. Its funny how the mentality in this thread seems to be "Anderle/Vosse/VDP=biased bullies, but the Beach Boys are totally 100% objective little angels"

[Cam Mott]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

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

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Im not even sure what that means, but ignoring that, since youre not trying to take in what we're saying...its just the simple fact that they havent really wrote anything in-depth about it. Not that Im aware of, anyway. Show us an interview that goes as long and detailed as any of the big three and I'll read it and take it into serious consideration.

Arent you the one who was really pushing those 3 articles just a little bit ago?

[guitarfool2002]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Might misunderstand what? They saw what they saw, in one case when half the band huddled up in one corner and the other half in another and had an argument in the studio, that was an indication there were divisions within the band at that particular time about the music they were there to work on. You could also then say that these disputes between Brian and Van Dyke could have just been the personalities of the two men, two headstrong creative musicians, rather than indications there were conflicts beyond them being who they are as personalities. It depends on how far you want to stretch the parameters.

Bottom line is still there were events where the Beach Boys simply were not there while others who reported on the events were not only there but involved firsthand. It's foolish to suggest Al or Mike would be better sources of info for something that played out while the BB's were playing a show in England.

[Emily]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Obviously each participant is the best source for that participant's perspective of the events that that participant participated in. Anderle, for instance, is not the best source for Mike Love's perspective, and vice versa. But Anderle is the best source for his perspective on Mike Love, and vice versa.
The most complete picture would include each participant's complete recall of their perspective. Unfortunately, we'll never have that and must take what we can.

[Emily]

They speak english in german. Unless your point is the folk song SJB is based on, the idea of cowboys, etc would be foreign to them.

Wasn't there the thought for a while though that German audiences wouldn't be receptive to non-German lyrics in songs - hence the German I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, In My Room, etc.?

Sorry to interrupt this thread but I just saw this from some pages back.
CSM - I think it was kind of the opposite. There was a really big market in Germany for US rock and roll from the 50s on. I think the special German language recordings were kind of a nod to the existing huge market, rather than an attempt to open a new market.

[Cam Mott]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Might misunderstand what? They saw what they saw, in one case when half the band huddled up in one corner and the other half in another and had an argument in the studio, that was an indication there were divisions within the band at that particular time about the music they were there to work on. You could also then say that these disputes between Brian and Van Dyke could have just been the personalities of the two men, two headstrong creative musicians, rather than indications there were conflicts beyond them being who they are as personalities. It depends on how far you want to stretch the parameters.

Bottom line is still there were events where the Beach Boys simply were not there while others who reported on the events were not only there but involved firsthand. It's foolish to suggest Al or Mike would be better sources of info for something that played out while the BB's were playing a show in England.

It is foolish and I didn't say they were but bottom line, using your words, it is equally foolish to to suggest Al and Mike or any of the Boys are not better sources for what they thought and felt about what they were involved in.

[Cam Mott]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Im not even sure what that means, but ignoring that, since youre not trying to take in what we're saying...its just the simple fact that they havent really wrote anything in-depth about it. Not that Im aware of, anyway. Show us an interview that goes as long and detailed as any of the big three and I'll read it and take it into serious consideration.

Arent you the one who was really pushing those 3 articles just a little bit ago?

Whether there is an interview or not the principle still stands.

They are still important and you needed to read them, imo, for the reasons I gave.

[Cam Mott]

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Exactly. Its funny how the mentality in this thread seems to be "Anderle/Vosse/VDP=biased bullies, but the Beach Boys are totally 100% objective little angels"

Now it's my turn, I don't understand, who said they were bullies and 100% little angels?

[filledeplage]

Vosse never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread, not in the Vosse article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Vosse's article does not discredit Vosse.
The only error pointed out so far in Vosse's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

GF - the little problem is that when anyone wants to look at whatever the "relationships" among the parties were, especially for this who have studied the BB's in a music program and want to plumb the depths of how things happened and come up with conflicting published narratives that have been given enormous credence, I think it is a problem.  I am glad that after I pulled the Jules article apart, paragraph by paragraph, there is or seems to be some conflict.  And the band was on tour with the apparent understanding that there would be tracks that they had to add their vocals to.  We know they could not be two places at the same time. 

Somewhere, I think I have that Vosse article as well, but just find it easier to read as a work document, or one republished as the Jules one was. It was easy to print and mark up.  Although I will stretch out the one linked on this site ( I already had a laugh with his comments on Arlene Dahl toward the beginning.)  In the big picture they had a lot of managers and promoters for the BB's and this group (notwithstanding the BRI involvement.)

When my kids took the history of Rock and Roll in high school and college, I would go through their text to find the history of the BB's to check for accuracy.  Often it was not.  And I would hate to see my kids read about a pioneer woman (Carol Kaye) in a "Wrecking Crew" role disparaged in that way, or the "musician/vocalist" wife of Brian Wilson, without a mention of her role in the music business, and just doing her nails. 

The tone sets a poor example for young people.  Having been in a long-time position of reviewing textbooks for race or gender bias, I find that account of Jules problematic, and not just for the BB/BW "hierarchy" issues.   

At any rate, GF,  thanks for your input while I was dealing, strictly with Jules' version of the "facts."   

[guitarfool2002]

Vosse never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread, not in the Vosse article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Vosse's article does not discredit Vosse.
The only error pointed out so far in Vosse's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

GF - the little problem is that when anyone wants to look at whatever the "relationships" among the parties were, especially for this who have studied the BB's in a music program and want to plumb the depths of how things happened and come up with conflicting published narratives that have been given enormous credence, I think it is a problem.  I am glad that after I pulled the Jules article apart, paragraph by paragraph, there is or seems to be some conflict.  And the band was on tour with the apparent understanding that there would be tracks that they had to add their vocals to.  We know they could not be two places at the same time. 

Somewhere, I think I have that Vosse article as well, but just find it easier to read as a work document, or one republished as the Jules one was. It was easy to print and mark up.  Although I will stretch out the one linked on this site ( I already had a laugh with his comments on Arlene Dahl toward the beginning.)  In the big picture they had a lot of managers and promoters for the BB's and this group (notwithstanding the BRI involvement.)

When my kids took the history of Rock and Roll in high school and college, I would go through their text to find the history of the BB's to check for accuracy.  Often it was not.  And I would hate to see my kids read about a pioneer woman (Carol Kaye) in a "Wrecking Crew" role disparaged in that way, or the "musician/vocalist" wife of Brian Wilson, without a mention of her role in the music business, and just doing her nails. 

The tone sets a poor example for young people.  Having been in a long-time position of reviewing textbooks for race or gender bias, I find that account of Jules problematic, and not just for the BB/BW "hierarchy" issues.   

At any rate, GF,  thanks for your input while I was dealing, strictly with Jules' version of the "facts."   

Those are comparing two separate formats - Having also taken similar "History of..." courses and read many (no joke) similar textbooks whether it was rock, jazz, blues, country, or whatever else, and having done a lot of work on rock/pop history as well with the necessary source material both published and unpublished, it's a safe conclusion to say the more formal textbook formats do indeed fall short many times, and in some cases are just plain lazy preferring a brief overview rather than a decent summary with details. And the accuracy often gets sacrificed for the convenience of previously published assumptions rather than in-depth accurate explorations of the details.

I understand why - Textbooks aren't offering the platform nor the necessary space on their pages to really go in depth. It speaks a lot about those compiling any given textbook to see how correct they got their overviews versus which tried and true sources they used to create a hit-and-run summary that falls short. Ultimately in a textbook situation, it comes down to the teacher or professor holding the responsibility of presenting and analyzing the material for their students.

I don't compare Jules Seigel or Michael Vosse's articles to school textbooks, or even the typical rock history overviews as sold in any bookstore. One group is focused solely on what was essentially less than a year of events in 1966 into 67, the other is trying to compress over 60 years of history into a relatively small format of available space.


Onto Jules and Michael Vosse's specific pieces.

Again I ask - having done considerable research, writing, dissection, analysis, etc of all this stuff - Is there something specific in the Vosse article that can be pointed to and shown to be wrong? In the Jules article, is there something specific in there that can be pointed to and shown to be wrong? And by that, I'm not referring to things like the percussionist issue, but rather the details that are specific to what happened and what Jules and Vosse observed.

Understand too, I'm coming into this having seen many years' worth of efforts to cherrypick, or selectively extract certain passages of these interviews, articles and other eyewitness sources of info while blatantly ignoring or dismissing others in order to back up an opinion or add fuel to a debate position. It's been done, and it's easy to spot miles away even with a cracked pair of eyeglasses in a dense fog.

So what specific points were made or what events were described in either Vosse or Seigel that are incorrect, historically or factually?

[filledeplage]

GF - I  am referring to the Atavist reprint.  I am reading from a printed up copy.  Here are some problems as I see them.  They may be value-judgments, or in conflict with what you have posted. I don't have all day for this so will pull out a few toward the beginning that beg the question, for me, as to why there was this whole effort to have a Brian Wilson/ Beach Boys "makeover."  Boomers were raised in some measure to "not judge a book by it's cover."   We can discuss.  

As far as my hands-on experience, just as example, post-Master's in Education, around 1980, I had done a project post-grad work in a course, on two identical book company books; a classroom music text, which I used every day, a great anthology of sorts, which had "colored-in" white children to represent that they were non-white, same page, same song.  Late 1970's; very offensive.  Then, annually reviewing publishers "sample" books, to do an annual book order, for inclusive family themes, and gender bias. And, going through existing textbooks for every single subject, for indicia of discriminatory race-based themes which eventually extended to include gender-based discriminatory themes in the 80's and 90's.  So this is my teacher hat.  

This whole treatment of the issue of Carol Kaye and Marilyn just jumps off the page for me. Jules' article, after having had that decades long experience in the educational context, made my head explode.  I see things in that article with a context I could never have as a teen, pre-womens movement, and race movement in the States.   Would he write that same article in 2016?  I don't think so.  

Paragraph 4  - "Among the hip people he (Brian) was still on trial, and the question discussed earnestly among the recognized authorities on what is and what is not hip was whether or not Brian Wilson was hip, semi-hip or square."

Paragraph 8 - "...Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks...to collaborate on the lyrics for Smile...had a fighting chance against John Lennon whose literary skill and Liverpudlian wit had been one of the most important factors in making the Beatles the darling of the  hip intelligentsia."

Paragraph 9 - "...star of the evening...was Van Dyke Parks's (as written) manager, David Anderle, who showed up with a whole group of very hip people."

Paragraph 11 - "His appeal to Brian was simple:  everybody recognized David Anderle as one of the hippest people in Los Angeles.  In fact he was something like the mayor of hipness as far as some people were concerned.  And not only that, he was a genius."

Paragraph 12 - "Within six weeks, he was working for the Beach Boys;..." A new Beach Boys record company was set up, brother Records, with David Anderle at its head and simultaneously, the Beach Boys sued Capitol records in a move to force a negotiation of their contract with the company."

So there are five.  From Jules.  
 

[guitarfool2002]

Each of those quotes, I don't see an issue with relating to what Jules saw and reported on regarding Smile and Brian. For the events he described - some in very specific detail - he reported what he saw and it lines up across the board with what we've either heard via audio, or have seen reported (or confirmed) by others who were there. If he injected his own opinions into the article, that's par for the course, but saying things about David Anderle being hip do not give the grounds to write off his entire piece, especially since most of the facts he reported are actually the facts of what happened, not just as he witnessed them.

The whole idea of hipness and what was hip versus what (or who) was square - That is a topic for either a semester-long course or a full book analyzing what that whole scene comprised. Just one example - There was "New York Hip" versus "LA Hip", and going through the machinations of what that was or what those definitions were would take at least a full chapter of a book.

What I will say, and what I have been saying for some time, is Brian Wilson in 1966 was ahead of the curve, and people who were keyed in to the bigger picture knew this, and were watching and listening to what he was doing with a very keen ear. As far as "hip" or hipness as a description, that's up to whoever was deciding that in their own perspective at that time. But there was an entire movement happening which the mainstream either ignored or tried to hide that encompassed everything from music, to fashion, to advertising, to the most basic ways of talking and dressing.

It all came out eventually via the bandwagon of the mass media when they latched onto "scenes" and started labeling them, most egregiously the Summer Of Love in 1967 as some kind of benchmark.

There had been many musicians, artists, writers, etc doing more than that label would ever imagine for years, and in terms of 1966, Brian Wilson happened to be one of those who was at the forefront. So when a writer like Jules Seigel gets into more hyperbole and hype than may seem appropriate in retrospect, it just happened to be the scene he was observing, a scene which a year later would turn into a mass media feeding frenzy that missed most of the point and went for the hit-and-run short attention span instead of digging deeper.

David Oppenheim saw it as he came to LA with a CBS News film crew to see what Brian was up to. Good timing or something else, it coincided with the Pandora's Box demonstrations (aka Sunset Strip Riots) that saw major media news crews capturing kids marching through the streets of LA, a year before the caricature of the bearded, robe-and-sandal-wearing flower children became the symbol used to characterize such demonstrations. It was big - Brian and his new music just happened to be there before most people knew what was going on.

[filledeplage]

Each of those quotes, I don't see an issue with relating to what Jules saw and reported on regarding Smile and Brian. For the events he described - some in very specific detail - he reported what he saw and it lines up across the board with what we've either heard via audio, or have seen reported (or confirmed) by others who were there. If he injected his own opinions into the article, that's par for the course, but saying things about David Anderle being hip do not give the grounds to write off his entire piece, especially since most of the facts he reported are actually the facts of what happened, not just as he witnessed them.

The whole idea of hipness and what was hip versus what (or who) was square - That is a topic for either a semester-long course or a full book analyzing what that whole scene comprised. Just one example - There was "New York Hip" versus "LA Hip", and going through the machinations of what that was or what those definitions were would take at least a full chapter of a book.

What I will say, and what I have been saying for some time, is Brian Wilson in 1966 was ahead of the curve, and people who were keyed in to the bigger picture knew this, and were watching and listening to what he was doing with a very keen ear. As far as "hip" or hipness as a description, that's up to whoever was deciding that in their own perspective at that time. But there was an entire movement happening which the mainstream either ignored or tried to hide that encompassed everything from music, to fashion, to advertising, to the most basic ways of talking and dressing.

It all came out eventually via the bandwagon of the mass media when they latched onto "scenes" and started labeling them, most egregiously the Summer Of Love in 1967 as some kind of benchmark.

There had been many musicians, artists, writers, etc doing more than that label would ever imagine for years, and in terms of 1966, Brian Wilson happened to be one of those who was at the forefront. So when a writer like Jules Seigel gets into more hyperbole and hype than may seem appropriate in retrospect, it just happened to be the scene he was observing, a scene which a year later would turn into a mass media feeding frenzy that missed most of the point and went for the hit-and-run short attention span instead of digging deeper.

David Oppenheim saw it as he came to LA with a CBS News film crew to see what Brian was up to. Good timing or something else, it coincided with the Pandora's Box demonstrations (aka Sunset Strip Riots) that saw major media news crews capturing kids marching through the streets of LA, a year before the caricature of the bearded, robe-and-sandal-wearing flower children became the symbol used to characterize such demonstrations. It was big - Brian and his new music just happened to be there before most people knew what was going on.

GF - reasonable minds can differ.  I saw Surf's Up when presented in 1967, had the same "bench warmer" 3/4 coat, that Carl wears on the Pet Sounds cover, like most mid 60's kids wore, alongside their Mondrian shirts, pea coats with epaulets, flower-powered everything, but I look at that as only "cosmetic" stuff.   

Brian wrote Surfer Girl, Surfer Moon, LCD, Don't Worry Baby, Warmth of the Sun, Little St. Nick, Please Let Me Wonder, And Your Dream Comes True, California Girls, among a slew of others, so I guess I don't get the need for a "make-over." 

It would be interesting to drop that article in the hands of a class of Women's Studies students, in the post-Title XI world of education, with long-fought for parity in sports and other areas, and wonder if the students would identify the stereotypes that I find to be so blatant.  Beach Boys music is "people" music, not just guy's music.  You are correct that it would be a whole semester of teaching, on 60's era music.  I always expect the BB music to occupy more page space than it does. 

And, I guess what I find troubling is that after all that global travel they did before Brian came off the road, in Europe and elsewhere, they all had their eyes opened as to what was happening in the world, going to art galleries, and international monuments, learning about global cultures, and how it may have directly affected their work product.  Certainly they had the wardrobe commensurate with that extensive travel while on tour.  Travel, itself is an education.

They were photographed all over the world.  And that was pre-1966.

So I guess we can agree to disagree.  It is fine. 

[Emily]

FdP, I agree that most people, or at least most women and a lot of men, reading Siegel's article now would find his comment about the "percussionist" (probably Carol Kaye) offensive; and as with many articles from that time, domestic scenes (in this article Marilyn and the "wives and girlfriends" in the kitchen), probably stand out as big culture difference to most contemporary readers, as well as the lack of women in the professional scenes.
I also think that Siegel uses the word "hip" a little too much.
But, as with the Rocky Pamplin thread, despite some issues with the author (not that I think Siegel is remotely similar to Pamplin) some factual information and a sense of atmosphere, motivations and relationships can be still be garnered.