Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[filledeplage]

Care to elaborate and particularize that, including whom "they" are?

And, I'm looking at time lines and incorporation dates, and actual promo (which was "illusory" - both for Pet Sounds and Smiley.)  Not the "installment" version of "at home with..."

But, I still have seen not promo spreads or national TV variety show dates or videos for either albums.   

The EMI and Capitol cabal. They didn't promote Pet Sounds because they needed Brian out of the public eye. He knew too much.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_LaBour

Author of the article...

[The_Holy_Bee]

Things REALLY changed after December when GV hit number one. I'm really believing it was a huge factor. It could even be as simple as Brian feeling vindicated that he still had it, by scoring a huge number one, that he then did not care if .....

The album was behind schedule
Parks wanted to be more involved
He spent a crazy amount of time and money producing GV
Parks wants this...Mike wants that...the label wants this... the Guys want that.....I know what I'm doing and if I have to re-tinker and rethink this whole Smile album.... so be it.

For me - and all further reading, viewing, listening and discussion about 'what happened' only strengthens this - it's clear that the crucial point in any discussion of 'SMiLE' (until 2004, at least) centres on the divide between December '66 and January '67. I'm not sure I've ever laid it out so plainly before, but here's my thesis:

May-July ("first love") - Brian, disappointed by Pet Sounds' comparatively low sales but bolstered by the reaction from critics and - especially - his pop contemporaries, decides to make a Definitive Statement. (In album form, at least - his production masterpiece, "Good Vibrations", is already well under way.) He requires a lyricist both adept and - crucially, considering recent history - willing to be a subordinate. He finds one. Together, they create an extraordinary run of songs, without having to think too closely about how they fit together.

Aug-Oct ("country love")  - Their efforts bear bountiful musical fruit. Into the studio go our gallant pair - a good half of the key SMiLE tracks are instrumentally recorded. The 'Boys' are, largely, away. Conceptual ideas are bounced around.

Nov-Dec ("mike love, not war") - The 'Boys' return. Some are not thrilled by, or at least confident in, what they hear when they get back. Recording continues along the originally planned lines - however, Brian starts to meet resistance. From the band, from the label. Usually - as in PS - he'd struggle through. But some of what they have to say strikes an internal chord. The lyrics he's commissioned are not, like Tony Asher's eight months before, erudite expansions on his own feelings. They're a whole other thing. He can't defend them. Maybe he doesn't like them all that much. He's not sure. His collaborator refuses to clarify, to enter a melee not of his making. Pressure is applied. 'You can't say "no" to Brian.' It's easier to think of one song, the required (for the spankin' new Brother Records) upcoming single. He can sort out the rest of it later.

Jan '67 - late 2003: For various, largely good reasons - he doesn't.

[filledeplage]

Things REALLY changed after December when GV hit number one. I'm really believing it was a huge factor. It could even be as simple as Brian feeling vindicated that he still had it, by scoring a huge number one, that he then did not care if .....

The album was behind schedule
Parks wanted to be more involved
He spent a crazy amount of time and money producing GV
Parks wants this...Mike wants that...the label wants this... the Guys want that.....I know what I'm doing and if I have to re-tinker and rethink this whole Smile album.... so be it.

For me - and all further reading, viewing, listening and discussion about 'what happened' only strengthens this - it's clear that the crucial point in any discussion of 'SMiLE' (until 2004, at least) centres on the divide between December '66 and January '67. I'm not sure I've ever laid it out so plainly before, but here's my thesis:

May-July ("first love") - Brian, disappointed by Pet Sounds' comparatively low sales but bolstered by the reaction from critics and - especially - his pop contemporaries, decides to make a Definitive Statement. (In album form, at least - his production masterpiece, "Good Vibrations", is already well under way.) He requires a lyricist both adept and - crucially, considering recent history - willing to be a subordinate. He finds one. Together, they create an extraordinary run of songs, without having to think too closely about how they fit together.

Aug-Oct ("country love")  - Their efforts bear bountiful musical fruit. Into the studio go our gallant pair - a good half of the key SMiLE tracks are instrumentally recorded. The 'Boys' are, largely, away.

Nov-Dec ("mike love, not war") - The 'Boys' return. Some are not thrilled by, or at least confident in, what they hear when they get back. Recording continues along the originally planned lines - however, Brian starts to meet resistance. From the band, from the label. Usually - as in PS- he'd struggle through. But some of what they have to say strikes an internal chord. The lyrics he's commissioned are not, like Tony Asher's eight months before, erudite expansions on his own feelings. They're a whole other thing. He can't defend them. Maybe he doesn't like them all that much. He's not sure. His collaborator refuses to clarify, to enter a melee not of his making. Pressure is applied. 'You can't say "no" to Brian.' It's easier to think of one song, the required (for the spankin' new Brother Records) upcoming single. He can sort out the rest of it later.

Jan '67 - late 2003: For various, largely good reasons - he doesn't.

THB - it might be helpful to have a touring schedule to see why the Boys were "away." The Rusten or even Badman books might be helpful.  It might also be helpful to look into the summer of 1966 to look at the short window as between Pet Sounds release and Best of Vol. I, with the overlapping incorporation of BRI, Inc., and the underlying reasons for the BB's "seceding from the union."  Capitol had "said no" to Brian with the nonfeasance of non-promotion as they likely had a duty to perform upon.    

There is also a very busy late fall and early winter.  There is the release of GV, in October, the chart soaring, the taping of Surf's Up for Bernstein, and early next month, the draft notice for Carl, throwing a monkey wrench in the nascent (new) company.  The GV video is from 1968 not timed to coincide with the release of the single at least 18 months prior.  

The War in Vietnam should not be underestimated.  It was the first "TV war" and every night the newscasters reported a body count number. Today we have a voluntary military but back then it was a "draft" that was mandatory, unless you got a deferment, for study or some other reason.  War protest in the cultural context of live performed music and airplay was becoming a reality.  

There are reports coming out in late Spring of 1967 that verify that "the band" as a whole is very dissatisfied with the lack of promotion that is current and timely, and not "regressive promotion" as actually happened.  For the record company to behave in that way was nothing short of malicious.  It was not innocent and in good faith.  

http://www.popspotsnyc.com/beach_boys_pet_sounds/

If you scroll to the bottom, you will see the 1964 BB photo, taken in NYC, with Brian still part of the touring operation, on the French edition of "Smiley" (albeit a reissue) from the 1990's, which is completely out of time sync.  Smiley came out in the early Fall 1967.  The striped shirts were "interred" in the Fall of 1967 around the Thanksgiving Tour.  That is a classic example of the erroneous promotional imaging that dogged them for years.  If you pull up the Youtube from Gaumont Palace, you will see a 2-part interview with the band lamenting the miserable treatment from the record company with direct relationship to the regressive promotion.  

What is this "willing to be subordinate?"  I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts.  Artists often disagree and it is part of the process.   That is a given.  

By that Nov-Dec time you mention, that twenty-something band, had "seceded from the union" and, had taken the bull by the horns, physically (Johnston for Pet Sounds) promoting the album "on foot" in the UK, in the vacuum of the record company nonfeasance, and between touring.    

Brian has an interview from the late 1970's on YouTube, where he talks about "chucking it" (Smile) for a while. Brian seems candid, credible, and forthcoming enough that I believe him.

And, I suppose Smiley was a "snapshot" of the final product, but a classic nonetheless.  Those of us who have a place in the heart for our old Smiley, always knew it was a snapshot.  The SMiLE project likely required, what was not even in existence at the time; the use of computers and music, to come up with a way of synthesizing the work.  

The record company could not digest the brilliance, the self-actualization, and what we were waiting for - Surf's Up.  They wanted Surfin' USA.      

[Micha]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

[filledeplage]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

Micha  - my context which I may have explained poorly, was the "BRI band member" context. 

[Micha]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

Micha  - my context which I may have explained poorly, was the "BRI band member" context. 

I'd never have guessed that, as holy bee used the phrase "willing to subordinate" in context with Brian's lyricist.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Micha 1, FdP 0

[filledeplage]

Micha 1, FdP 0

Haven't read Siegel, and missed whatever LLVS context holds.

Was/am dealing with the incorporation date facts, and release date and charting trail as I understand it, contained in the public domain and not interpersonal working relationships on the project, as well as public interviews in that window of time.

And, BRI members are "fellow founders, etc" as opposed to workers-for-hire, where Brian was and should have been in director's role, absolutely giving direction.

Those outside BRI members were subordinate. Not so much with corporate members who function, a little more democratically and who are not subordinate.

Maybe that did not agree with some.  It is always good to know who is the boss.    

[Andrew G. Doe]

Siegel is a canonical text, and required reading. It is the origin of the myth. Ignorance thereof  is no excuse.

[filledeplage]

Siegel is a canonical text, and required reading. It is the origin of the myth. Ignorance thereof  is no excuse.

Andrew - only "ignorance of the law" is not an excuse.  

In the USA.  

I'll keep my eyes open for it, upon your informed recommendation.  

Found an excerpt.  If someone has a link to the entire article, it would be much appreciated.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/goodbye-surfing-hello-god-brian-wilsons-tortured-effort-to-finish-smile-20111103

My analysis...much unchanged.  All this overwhelming in-your-face "pomp and circumstance" for The Fab 4, (in the wake the void of zero for Pet Sounds) an arrested and fearful Carl (and band members) hip-ly obnoxious dinner guests who should have been off their hip arses to help their hostess, Marilyn, get a meal on the table rather than seated like a entitled members of a defunct monarchy.

Working business models don't change overnight, striped shirts, even public promo imaging which might have been changed sooner, by the record company, had the record company had the BB's "best interest" and fulfilled their duty of loyalty.  It was their job. Just as an example, I saw Peter Noone, (Herman's Hermits) fairly recently and noted that they were wearing their "uniforms" which were part of their publicly recognizable personas.  The "shirts" had been part of their trademark look.

In the grand scheme of things, what maybehappened?  They "blinked." Not unlike a prize horse getting "spooked."  People tend to do that when they are overwhelmed and betrayed by those who are entrusted with their business interests and promotion. It is a temporary (hopefully) diminution of confidence.  They don't get a pass from me.

In trying to put myself as a human in their shoes and look at this from what they (the band members) might have been wondering with the universal betrayal from the corporate level, "domination" does not even have a place on my radar. The music business, not unlike the entertainment business is not a good one for those who cannot take direction and some level of criticism.  Overnight, they become uncool, irrelevant and passé?  Shirts were not the problem.  They had Pet Sounds in their wake. Shame on those pseudo intellectuals who disparaged them. Even now.   

Any one who worked with, and consequently learned from Brian's techniques, however unconventional, and there are many who witnessed as much, such as Leon Russell; it was their privilege.     

JMHO of course 

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Nothing to add, other than: I love when people start geeking on Smile!!!! This is what made me fall in love with this board. Carry on 

[zosobird]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

YES

Here's the "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" article
https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview

Also, from the article: "Earlier in the summer, Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks, a super-sophisticated young songwriter and composer, to collaborate with him on the lyrics for Smile. With Van Dyke working for him, he 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 darlings of the hip intelligentsia."

"Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian."

Along with the Siegel article that, as AGD stated, should be required reading! so should the Vosse (fusion) and Anderle interviews (LLVS)..both share a similar sentiment about BW/VDP's relationship and include a few nuggets of SMiLE insight that for some reason get overlooked in discussions on this board

[filledeplage]

Siegel is a canonical text, and required reading. It is the origin of the myth. Ignorance thereof  is no excuse.

Andrew - only "ignorance of the law" is not an excuse.  

In the USA.  

I'll keep my eyes open for it, upon your informed recommendation.  

Found an excerpt.  If someone has a link to the entire article, it would be much appreciated.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/goodbye-surfing-hello-god-brian-wilsons-tortured-effort-to-finish-smile-20111103

My analysis...much unchanged.  All this overwhelming in-your-face "pomp and circumstance" for The Fab 4, (in the wake the void of zero for Pet Sounds) an arrested and fearful Carl (and band members) hip-ly obnoxious dinner guests who should have been off their hip arses to help their hostess, Marilyn, get a meal on the table rather than seated like a entitled members of a defunct monarchy.

Working business models don't change overnight, striped shirts, even public promo imaging which might have been changed sooner, by the record company, had the record company had the BB's "best interest" and fulfilled their duty of loyalty.  It was their job. Just as an example, I saw Peter Noone, (Herman's Hermits) fairly recently and noted that they were wearing their "uniforms" which were part of their publicly recognizable personas.  The "shirts" had been part of their trademark look.

In the grand scheme of things, what maybehappened?  They "blinked." Not unlike a prize horse getting "spooked."  People tend to do that when they are overwhelmed and betrayed by those who are entrusted with their business interests and promotion. It is a temporary (hopefully) diminution of confidence.  They don't get a pass from me.

In trying to put myself as a human in their shoes and look at this from what they (the band members) might have been wondering with the universal betrayal from the corporate level, "domination" does not even have a place on my radar. The music business, not unlike the entertainment business is not a good one for those who cannot take direction and some level of criticism.  Overnight, they become uncool, irrelevant and passé?  Shirts were not the problem.  They had Pet Sounds in their wake. Shame on those pseudo intellectuals who disparaged them. Even now.   

Any one who worked with, and consequently learned from Brian's techniques, however unconventional, and there are many who witnessed as much, such as Leon Russell; it was their privilege.     

JMHO of course 

Thanks, very much...for that link...I found an excerpt from Rolling Stone...and linked it above. 

[Micha]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

YES

Here's the "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" article
https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview

"Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian."

Oh dear, I switched around the words "being" and "constantly" - very bad quoting!

[filledeplage]

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

YES

Here's the "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" article
https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview

"Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian."

Oh dear, I switched around the words "being" and "constantly" - very bad quoting!

Micha - your English is excellent.  Don't be so hard on yourself.

What blew my mind is that the original article was slated for The Saturday Evening Post, which is an old favorite of mine, in large part because of the work of the American artist Norman Rockwell, whose work was often the cover art work for it. 

It came as no surprise that the article did not appear there, as it is/was a very conservative "motherhood and apple pie" publication and perhaps they were looking for the Surfin' USA Beach Boys.  And, hardly what anyone could call a "hip" publication.     

[Micha]

Oh dear, I switched around the words "being" and "constantly" - very bad quoting!

Micha - your English is excellent.  Don't be so hard on yourself.

I usually am, but this time I was only kidding. Hence the Smiley.

[Paul J B]

Also, from the article: "Earlier in the summer, Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks, a super-sophisticated young songwriter and composer, to collaborate with him on the lyrics for Smile. With Van Dyke working for him, he 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 darlings of the hip intelligentsia."

Yikes..."hip intelligentsia"...thanks but no thanks!

Is it any wonder things did not go well with Parks and Brian? Brian is and never was a guy that would meld with folk of that ilk. Asher came up with accessible lyrics to Brian's cohesive concept of Pet Sounds. In my view, Parks lyrics were a step too far. Some of the text in that article above I think supports this. Then 40 plus years later we get tweets from Parks such as "Brian Wilson's buffoonery" concerning Smiles collapse.

Again, its after GV with Mikes hip enough lyrics that Brian and Parks part ways....just saying

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

What is this "willing to be subordinate?" I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts. Artists often disagree and it is part of the process. That is a given.

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

YES

Here's the "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" article
https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview

Also, from the article: "Earlier in the summer, Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks, a super-sophisticated young songwriter and composer, to collaborate with him on the lyrics for Smile. With Van Dyke working for him, he 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 darlings of the hip intelligentsia."

"Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian."

Along with the Siegel article that, as AGD stated, should be required reading! so should the Vosse (fusion) and Anderle interviews (LLVS)..both share a similar sentiment about BW/VDP's relationship and include a few nuggets of SMiLE insight that for some reason get overlooked in discussions on this board

On the contrary, while I suggest everyone read those too, I was actually shocked at how much of them Id already seen parroted on this board. Vosse was certainly a fascinating read, and it was great to see so much of my feelings on SMiLE canonized in one place by someone we all acknowledge is a good source. But again, I already "knew" almost everything he said, by seeing the same tidbits here and elsewhere online. I was only able to read the first and third parts of Anderle and found it far less interesting or helpful by comparison. Id love it if someone could point me towards the second part, which Im hoping is more about SMiLE, because those were more about music as a whole in '67 and '68. Also, If I recall correctly, he criticizes Wild Honey in the first part but then praises it in the third. I know people change their minds on art, but such a big one eighty in just two months on that calls his recollections into question for me.

I havent read the GSHG article (I know, I know) but I plan to today or tomorrow since I have some time. When I do, Ill post my indepth analysis on the "Your SMiLE Mix, for the fun of it" thread, since thats where I posted my reactions to Vosse and Anderle's articles too. If anyones interested. Hopefully theres some new stuff in there I never considered, but if not at least itll be a great read, Im sure.

[Bicyclerider]

My understanding is that the Sat Evening Post rejected Siegel's article because it was too laudatory of Brian and his music ` it's unclear if they had prejudged this new rock music and wanted a critical piece or if they felt GSHG was too unbalanced in it's praise of Brian. 

As for choosing Van Dyke Parks - Siegel was on the money, Brian was listening to Dylan (Highway 61) and Lennon (Revolver) and knew he had to up his lyrical game to take the music to the next level.  Parks had clearly been listening to and influenced by Dylan but he was no Dylan, who used a plethora of surrealistic stream of consciousness images in his music, but always wrote in a conversational vernacular that anyone could understand - every line was understandable and made sense on its own, but when you put all the lines together the meaning became more obscure.  Parks' s lyrics had lines that often made questionable sense and used big words that were not in the common vernacular. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

As for choosing Van Dyke Parks - Siegel was on the money, Brian was listening to Dylan (Highway 61) and Lennon (Revolver) and knew he had to up his lyrical game to take the music to the next level.  Parks had clearly been listening to and influenced by Dylan but he was no Dylan, who used a plethora of surrealistic stream of consciousness images in his music, but always wrote in a conversational vernacular that anyone could understand - every line was understandable and made sense on its own, but when you put all the lines together the meaning became more obscure.  Parks' s lyrics had lines that often made questionable sense and used big words that were not in the common vernacular. 

I agree that Dylan and Parks have a different voice. However, I would say that what you say about Parks was pretty much true of Dylan around the Blonde on Blonde era. There, for the most part, he seems quite content to abandon "meaning" altogether in favour of word imagery ("Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when she's trying to be so quiet" for example). Even more that he would have song titled that flat out didn't make sense (It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry...)

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

As for choosing Van Dyke Parks - Siegel was on the money, Brian was listening to Dylan (Highway 61) and Lennon (Revolver) and knew he had to up his lyrical game to take the music to the next level.  Parks had clearly been listening to and influenced by Dylan but he was no Dylan, who used a plethora of surrealistic stream of consciousness images in his music, but always wrote in a conversational vernacular that anyone could understand - every line was understandable and made sense on its own, but when you put all the lines together the meaning became more obscure.  Parks' s lyrics had lines that often made questionable sense and used big words that were not in the common vernacular. 

I agree that Dylan and Parks have a different voice. However, I would say that what you say about Parks was pretty much true of Dylan around the Blonde on Blonde era. There, for the most part, he seems quite content to abandon "meaning" altogether in favour of word imagery ("Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when she's trying to be so quiet" for example). Even more that he would have song titled that flat out didn't make sense (It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry...)

^Agreed. VDP wasnt trying to make literal sense. Something like Cabin Essence was all about creating a mood, a scene, with words. Wonderful and Surf's Up are like spoken word surrealist poetry set to music. The real strength in those tracks, especially Wonderful, is the lyrics and their obscurity. The various interpretations Ive seen here are a testament to the fact that Parks succeeded with what he was trying to do. The lyrics from Worms are more straightforward, but even they have some double ententes with Rock Rock Roll Plymouth Rock Rollover which is a callback to rock and roll and the idea that we're looking under the foundations of America to the more disagreeable foundations of it. Under the rock is worms, etc. The worst lyrics on the album are Wind Chimes, which is on Brian (although VDP claimed credit in BWPS, I dont believe he wrote those lyrics personally). Heroes and Veggies are weaker than those other songs I listed, but even they have some really clever wordplay like Dude'll do referencing a rooster and the allusion to smoking a blunt in Veggies. Personally, Id say Heroes still needed some work in the lyrics department, and Brian should not have scrapped the cornucopeia lyrics in Veggies. The lyrics for everything else we have, even throwaway pieces like He Gives Speeches, are fantastic. I know VDP disowns HGS, but we all know those are his trademarks all over that.

EDIT: The frustrating thing about SMiLE, aside from knowing there are awesome pieces of music we'll never hear, is the pendulum of public opinion. It used to be Brian and VDP were buddy-buddy geniuses and big bad Mike ruined everything. Now, it seems like most are taking a sympathetic view to Mike, saying he only wanted to ask an innocent question once and thats it. And VDP's lyrics arent very good and he and Brian never liked each other. The truth is in the middle. Mike was aggressively antagonistic but in no way killed SMiLE. Brian and VDP respected each other but didnt work well together because of clashing egos. VDP's lyric style was very commendable and IMO suited the music very well, but its also understandable Brian would have second thoughts with the massive success of GV which used the simpler Mike Love approach. He obviously still liked at least some of VDP's work and his approach, because he knew since at least '66 that he needed a more mature lyrical approach and he did use at least some of VDP's lyrics in Smiley. I think his second thoughts were more about the whole Americana and epic symphony to God. But he still liked a lot of the music and the idea of humor elements so thats what he stuck with. Im not sure if the more simple arrangements was due to his supposed breakdown or a deliberate artistic choice or partly both. My guess is somewhere in the middle, again. I think it was partly a desire to be different than everyone else--who were just catching up to the Pet Sounds level of production in Summer '67, and partly because this thing had to get done FAST and part of the BBs complaints was they wanted something simple so he obliged--either genuinely or spitefully no one can say.

[Cam Mott]

We will see what you think after finishing the 3 canonical witnesses to the era. 

I would suggest the more balanced view has been there in them all along but has just been ignored in favor of a sort of more one sided view.

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

We will see what you think after finishing the 3 canonical witnesses to the era.  

I would suggest the more balanced view has been there in them all along but has just been ignored in favor of a sort of more one sided view.

Ive read 1.666 of those 3, and soon itll be 2.666 and this is with all the other interviews/articles Ive read as well  

And thats actually what Im basing this on. Both Anderle and Vosse mention feuds with Brian and VDP as well as with the other Beach Boys. It wasnt any one person responsible, it was the collaborators didnt gel as well as he had with Asher and others, the band was very unsupportive, and all the other various issues we all know about. I dont see how much more balanced an overview is possible. To deny that either feuds happened--that is, with Brian/VDP and Mike/VDP--is contradicting these primary accounts.

EDIT: Still hoping someone can show me where to find the second of the three parts of the Anderle interview online

[zosobird]

We will see what you think after finishing the 3 canonical witnesses to the era.  

I would suggest the more balanced view has been there in them all along but has just been ignored in favor of a sort of more one sided view.

Ive read 1.666 of those 3, and soon itll be 2.666 and this is with all the other interviews/articles Ive read as well  

And thats actually what Im basing this on. Both Anderle and Vosse mention feuds with Brian and VDP as well as with the other Beach Boys. It wasnt any one person responsible, it was the collaborators didnt gel as well as he had with Asher and others, the band was very unsupportive, and all the other various issues we all know about. I dont see how much more balanced an overview is possible. To deny that either feuds happened--that is, with Brian/VDP and Mike/VDP--is contradicting these primary accounts.

EDIT: Still hoping someone can show me where to find the second of the three parts of the Anderle interview online

Do you not have LLVS?i

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

We will see what you think after finishing the 3 canonical witnesses to the era.  

I would suggest the more balanced view has been there in them all along but has just been ignored in favor of a sort of more one sided view.

Ive read 1.666 of those 3, and soon itll be 2.666 and this is with all the other interviews/articles Ive read as well  

And thats actually what Im basing this on. Both Anderle and Vosse mention feuds with Brian and VDP as well as with the other Beach Boys. It wasnt any one person responsible, it was the collaborators didnt gel as well as he had with Asher and others, the band was very unsupportive, and all the other various issues we all know about. I dont see how much more balanced an overview is possible. To deny that either feuds happened--that is, with Brian/VDP and Mike/VDP--is contradicting these primary accounts.

EDIT: Still hoping someone can show me where to find the second of the three parts of the Anderle interview online

Do you not have LLVS?i

Not on me, no. I own it, but its not at my apartment. I was able to find scans of Vosse, Anderle and a write up of GSHG here: https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview but the place I found the Anderle article did not have the issue with the second part of the interview. Honestly, Im hoping thats the part that talked about SMiLE, because the 1st and 3rd mostly stuck to Brian as a person, the situation as a whole, the state of music in 1968, and where Brian might go next.