VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Not sure why Van thought that his lyrics were thrown away, but.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6JwCmTIEw

I call bullshit on VDP here because he stands there and insinuates that The Beach Boys/Mike had nothing but "surf" "hang 10" lyrics until he arrived...

[CenturyDeprived]

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

Well I am glad (honestly) to hear you say the part I bolded in your last post.

I sometimes think, from some of the posters on this board, that some people here hold the opinion that Brian is simply, outright wrong in feeling how he feels. I'm glad to know you don't feel that way (no sarcasm here, just so you know).

[KittyKat]

I'm not sure Van Dyke is the most reliable source for information. For example, in the interview initially referenced in this thread, he claims that he brought his (now conveniently dead) brother Carson's song "Something Stupid" to the Sinatra's attention. I'd never heard/read that before, and in fact, Carson had more "ins" in the music industry than Van Dyke at that point in time, including helping Van Dyke get into the industry. Van Dyke has always claimed to have named both Three Dog Night and Buffalo Springfield, and neither band has ever said that they got their name from Van Dyke Parks' suggestion. Van Dyke is very talented, but I'm not sure I'd take his word as the last word on anything.

[Catbirdman]

I wish someone would just write a book, and I mean it! Guitarfool should write a book about THAT PHOTO!! The one taken in the LAX terminal. Make it sort of an oral history via all the living folks in the pic and go back a bit before the pic was snapped and then trace each person's story from there, all the while telling the story of SMILE as well ..... I think that would be fascinating....

That's actually a fascinating idea, and you've picked the perfect author. Speaking to Guitarfool2002 directly: I'm constantly amazed at your energy level, and the deliberation and sheer joy of the subject matter that fuels your writings here, and it's a shame it's all wasted in such a temporal medium. Posts on a message board are here today, gone tomorrow, searchable maybe but so hard to find wheat amongst chaff...

It's really my loss, but I find myself skimming over 80% of what you write (a better ratio than most other posters though!) because, right or wrong, I just can't approach internet forums with serious consideration: way too much bickering and too much of a time suck into things that are distracting me from what really matters in life (note: that was meant to sound pompous - making fun of my own attitude there). But man, if you wrote a book.......I would spend TIME and THOUGHT reading that...

[Sheriff John Stone]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

[Nicko1234]

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

A great post.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I call bullshit on VDP here because he stands there and insinuates that The Beach Boys/Mike had nothing but "surf" "hang 10" lyrics until he arrived...

I'm not sure Van Dyke is the most reliable source for information. For example, in the interview initially referenced in this thread, he claims that he brought his (now conveniently dead) brother Carson's song "Something Stupid" to the Sinatra's attention. I'd never heard/read that before, and in fact, Carson had more "ins" in the music industry than Van Dyke at that point in time, including helping Van Dyke get into the industry. Van Dyke has always claimed to have named both Three Dog Night and Buffalo Springfield, and neither band has ever said that they got their name from Van Dyke Parks' suggestion. Van Dyke is very talented, but I'm not sure I'd take his word as the last word on anything.

I'm glad somebody else said it before me. Putting aside any talent the man may have, I will never understand why he gets a free pass and Mike gets roasted alive. Although Mike has been a dick frequently over the years, truth be told so has VDP (as we all have been in our lives, including me).  How hypocritical to criticize the lyrics written before he came along and how he 'didn't speak that language', yet get butthurt because Mike didn't get HIS lyrics! There's a REASON why Brian has run hot and cold with him over the years. There's also this (recent)nugget...

I don’t listen to “pop” music much. I didn’t in “the sixties” and I have less time for it now (at age 70). I view “pop” music as intolerably “first world”; self-absorbed, whining, and boring. I get my kicks from music outside the box, from the disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd worlds. This is beyond the confines of the (self congratulating) Grammys and usual playlists.

So he can criticize things he feels is beneath him, but God forbid somebody question HIM.

[CenturyDeprived]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). Since these people are in the public eye, however, and we are all major fans of their art, we all do get more involved, for better or worse.

The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do!

[Smilin Ed H]

Amen.

[Sheriff John Stone]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). Since these people are in the public eye, however, and we are all major fans of their art, we all do get more involved, for better or worse.

The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do!

I want to quickly (sorry) respond to your post because Goodfellas is on at 8:00 PM and Jackie Brown at 9:00 PM...

I would bet that even Mike Love would fall on that imaginary scale, albeit very low, probably in single digits. Please consider this, you are basing your opinion about Mike Love on how many interviews? A few? Were they good interviews? Was Mike full of sh--? Which stage of his life/career was he in - kissing Brian's ass or after he was scorned by Brian? Did they discuss SMiLE in depth? The way we do here? Were there any probing questions asked? Did the interviewer pursue the answers?

I sincerely believe the following - and you should to! If you or somebody or anybody really got Mike Love to sit down, just to talk, one-on-one, in a relaxed OFF-THE-RECORD setting, I'll bet you that Mike would admit that something(s) he said or did influenced Brian - to some extent (the 1-100 scale again) to scrap SMiLE. I mean, Mike WANTED to influence Brian! That's why he was speaking out about the lyrics (and music?).

As far as an apology, you might be surprised. Shocked? Hey, in the end (1967), Mike and the guys wanted SMiLE to come out. If you worded the question sensitively and appropriately, I believe even mean, old Mike Love would say something like, "I sensed my cousin Brian was having some problems. Maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was his illness, maybe it was outside contributing factors. I didn't take pleasure in seeing the old Brian fading away, in losing my cousin. If I in any way contributed to his "problems", hey, I apologize..."

Am I delusional?

[Nicko1234]

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do!

I can appreciate that CD but I think you need to see that there are two sides to every story.

For example, a few years ago I worked with a mentally ill man who ended up leaving his job after a year. Now at this point he blamed anyone and everyone for not helping him enough and not giving him enough support (even though he had been treated exactly the same way as everybody else). Now does that mean that all of his colleagues should just accept his assertions and apologize to him? Because in reality what happened was that, while it was very sad, everybody felt he had to be responsible for his own behaviour.

Now, in a similar way, Brian I`m sure genuinely does feel that Mike`s reactions had some part to play in Smile not being released. But Brian still has to be responsible for his own actions (affected as they were by his mental health problems and drug use). Mike will obviously feel that there is no good reason why Brian couldn`t have completed a follow up to Pet Sounds as the band members did behave in a similar way to thousands of other bands (having some disagreements but recording what was asked of them). Mike, in some quarters, being made wholly responsible is obviously going to make it more likely that he will respond with, `you cheeky ****ers` rather than any acknowledgment and he will go on the defensive.

As SJS hinted though, you are not going to get any closure in this thread because none of us can produce an acknowledgment or apology for you. Mike sometimes accepts phone in interviews or meets fans backstage so you could discuss this issue with him then. But you still aren`t going to get the answer that you want and threads will continue to go round in circles.

[CenturyDeprived]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). Since these people are in the public eye, however, and we are all major fans of their art, we all do get more involved, for better or worse.

The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do!

I want to quickly (sorry) respond to your post because Goodfellas is on at 8:00 PM and Jackie Brown at 9:00 PM...

I would bet that even Mike Love would fall on that imaginary scale, albeit very low, probably in single digits. Please consider this, you are basing your opinion about Mike Love on how many interviews? A few? Were they good interviews? Was Mike full of sh--? Which stage of his life/career was he in - kissing Brian's ass or after he was scorned by Brian? Did they discuss SMiLE in depth? The way we do here? Were there any probing questions asked? Did the interviewer pursue the answers?

I sincerely believe the following - and you should to! If you or somebody or anybody really got Mike Love to sit down, just to talk, one-on-one, in a relaxed OFF-THE-RECORD setting, I'll bet you that Mike would admit that something(s) he said or did influenced Brian - to some extent (the 1-100 scale again) to scrap SMiLE. I mean, Mike WANTED to influence Brian! That's why he was speaking out about the lyrics (and music?).

As far as an apology, you might be surprised. Shocked? Hey, in the end (1967), Mike and the guys wanted SMiLE to come out. If you worded the question sensitively and appropriately, I believe even mean, old Mike Love would say something like, "I sensed my cousin Brian was having some problems. Maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was his illness, maybe it was outside contributing factors. I didn't take pleasure in seeing the old Brian fading away, in losing my cousin. If I in any way contributed to his "problems", hey, I apologize..."

Am I delusional?

I'd *really* like to think you are not being delusional by saying that. I'm not sure that it's true, but I'd like it to be true.

I think that sadly, a big part of Mike is keeping this tough (let no cracks show, don't let down in the slightest) exterior because of his vilification that just kept increasing, year after year. One thing I didn't even realize before re-reading that Mojo 2004 Mike article, is this (I'm quoting the article's author:) "When I tried to contact him for a 1995 MOJO piece on Brian Wilson, Love's reps wanted me to sign a release stating I'd write nothing bad about him. The offer was declined."

That tells me Mike has been in MAJOR damage control mode for a VERY long time, and it's quite sad - because I think that if that "relaxed" setting you mentioned were ever possible, that it became quite implausible for it to ever occur because the guy has become defensive to the extreme. And I can understand why, and I feel bad for him that it got to that point, but I think he's only hurt himself the most with that 110% defensiveness.

Once you get to the point of basically wanting to control the media and to "force" a situation to correct itself by a predetermined manner of your choosing like that, it just is unhealthy in the extreme. Again, I truly feel sorry for the guy.

[clack]

SMiLE as finally realized (2004) is a highly complex song suite, with continuous reprises and interpolations in a composition that is over 50 minutes long. I don't believe Brian had a clear idea on how to put together all those fragments and sequences he wrote and recorded in 66/67. Must of been a daunting task with that era's editing technology to experiment with different structures, to try out possibilities and see what worked.

Mike would have been of no help. Could VDP, had he stuck around? Maybe, if he had been granted co-producer authority. But really Brian needed a George Martin to organize matters, someone with classical training, with a feel for large-scale musical structures.

Here, just for fun, is my estimation of SMiLE failure responsibility :

Mike : 2%. Marginally reduced Brian's morale and confidence. Gave VDP an excuse to take a hike (which he probably was going to do anyway). And to be clear, Mike had every right -- he had a responsibility, even -- to raise questions and objections if he thought the project was headed on a wrong track.

VDP : 8%. He might have saved the project if he hadn't left, but still -- he made the right decision for himself at the time. So responsibilty, but no blame.

Brian : 90%. He thought he could make an entire lp in the modular way he had made the GV single, but the task was too big for him.

[Nicko1234]

Once you get to the point of basically wanting to control the media and to "force" a situation to correct itself by a predetermined manner of your choosing like that, it just is unhealthy in the extreme. Again, I truly feel sorry for the guy.

I wouldn`t CD. He is a multi millionaire who spends his time jetting around the world, soaking up the adulation of thousands of people every night and having sex with women one third of his age. I don`t think he`s had that bad a time of things. 

[Cam Mott]

I don't think Brian would have really valued Mike's opinion that much. At this point, the two hardly worked together on songs like they used to.
I think I read that he even asked Van Dyke to redo Mike's lyrics for "Good Vibrations."

I would guess that Van Dyke, being his current working partner, would have a much greater impact on Brian with his departure and disparaging remarks over the sophistication of Brian's music.

Yeah, I don't get this either. Mike asked a question, not even of Brian, but we go on and on about that. Witnesses say VDP was clashing with Brian and bailing on Brian and resentful of Brian and fell out with Brian (my paraphrasing, feel free to criticize) but we can't even much discuss this eyewitness evidence that Anderle, a friend of VDP, says was the "central thing", the "critical point". 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Witnesses say VDP was clashing with Brian and bailing on Brian and resentful of Brian and fell out with Brian (my paraphrasing, feel free to criticize) but we can't even much discuss this eyewitness evidence that Anderle, a friend of VDP, says was the central thing, the critical point. 

Why is that constantly overlooked?! That's kind of a big thing....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway.

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). Since these people are in the public eye, however, and we are all major fans of their art, we all do get more involved, for better or worse.

The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do!

I want to quickly (sorry) respond to your post because Goodfellas is on at 8:00 PM and Jackie Brown at 9:00 PM...

I would bet that even Mike Love would fall on that imaginary scale, albeit very low, probably in single digits. Please consider this, you are basing your opinion about Mike Love on how many interviews? A few? Were they good interviews? Was Mike full of sh--? Which stage of his life/career was he in - kissing Brian's ass or after he was scorned by Brian? Did they discuss SMiLE in depth? The way we do here? Were there any probing questions asked? Did the interviewer pursue the answers?

I sincerely believe the following - and you should to! If you or somebody or anybody really got Mike Love to sit down, just to talk, one-on-one, in a relaxed OFF-THE-RECORD setting, I'll bet you that Mike would admit that something(s) he said or did influenced Brian - to some extent (the 1-100 scale again) to scrap SMiLE. I mean, Mike WANTED to influence Brian! That's why he was speaking out about the lyrics (and music?).

As far as an apology, you might be surprised. Shocked? Hey, in the end (1967), Mike and the guys wanted SMiLE to come out. If you worded the question sensitively and appropriately, I believe even mean, old Mike Love would say something like, "I sensed my cousin Brian was having some problems. Maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was his illness, maybe it was outside contributing factors. I didn't take pleasure in seeing the old Brian fading away, in losing my cousin. If I in any way contributed to his "problems", hey, I apologize..."

Am I delusional?

Wasn't the MOJO article CD's referring to entitled "Is Mike Love Satan"?

Sorta makes the mere fact that Mike consented to the interview an act of "damage control" doesn't it?

[Cam Mott]

No, the clash still makes the most sense in December - from what I can tell there were no lyrics written by Van for Brian after that date!  So what was there to clash about?  All they were recording was Heroes (and in April Vegetables but Van had left and I guess Brian rewrote the lyrics to be less sophisticated).  Maybe Brian was bugging Van to rewrite the lyrics, though this possibility has never been reported by anyone at the time or later.  Van did leave again late Feb (actually after the March 1-2 intro sessions).  I suspect Anderle knew there were clashes about the lyrics, and then he left for good off the Smile scene March 1-2, so that might explain Anderle's February remark?

Or you can't be out of the project and still in it which Anderle believed VDP still is in it in February. Siegel says VDP "had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian", he seems to believe VDP was still involved through his return.  VDP is documented as at sessions on February 15 and 28 unless c-man turned different info. Brian and VDP are clashing leading to VDP quitting in around February according to Anderle. VDP quit soon after Mike's question according to VDP. It seems to me there is not really any evidence for the early date but pretty good witness for the late date.

[Bicyclerider]

No, the clash still makes the most sense in December - from what I can tell there were no lyrics written by Van for Brian after that date!  So what was there to clash about?  All they were recording was Heroes (and in April Vegetables but Van had left and I guess Brian rewrote the lyrics to be less sophisticated).  Maybe Brian was bugging Van to rewrite the lyrics, though this possibility has never been reported by anyone at the time or later.  Van did leave again late Feb (actually after the March 1-2 intro sessions).  I suspect Anderle knew there were clashes about the lyrics, and then he left for good off the Smile scene March 1-2, so that might explain Anderle's February remark?

Or you can't be out of the project and still in it which Anderle believed VDP still is in it in February. Siegel says VDP "had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian", he seems to believe VDP was still involved through his return.  VDP is documented as at sessions on February 15 and 28 unless c-man turned different info. Brian and VDP are clashing leading to VDP quitting in around February according to Anderle. VDP quit soon after Mike's question according to VDP. It seems to me there is not really any evidence for the early date but pretty good witness for the late date.

Yeah Van Dyke left soon after the questioning about the lyrics - that pegs the leave to December.  He left, came back, left again - late Feb/March (he was at the intro sessions) to pursue his own album.  Makes sense and is consistent with all the accounts.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What if Mike started questioning VDP because the latter was having issues with Brian? What if rather than giving Brian sh*t, it was his way of sticking up for him (albeit in the wrong manner?) 'Brian, why the f*** are you hanging around this guy? He acts like you're beneath him, you're high all the time, and what the hell do these lyrics even *mean*? Hey, Van Dyke, I need to talk to you privately about some of these lines...'.  VDP leaves for good, Brian starts losing confidence in the project, Smile collapses.

Just a thought. Could be completely wrong, but it would actually fit the timeline.

[Cam Mott]

What if Mike started questioning VDP because the latter was having issues with Brian? What if rather than giving Brian sh*t, it was his way of sticking up for him (albeit in the wrong manner?) 'Brian, why the f*** are you hanging around this guy? He acts like you're beneath him, you're high all the time, and what the hell do these lyrics even *mean*? Hey, Van Dyke, I need to talk to you privately about some of these lines...'.  VDP leaves for good, Brian starts losing confidence in the project, Smile collapses.

Just a thought. Could be completely wrong, but it would actually fit the timeline.

There's never much discussion of this topic for some reason.

The early date does make sense but…..

VDP said “Soon I was fired, that is I resigned, that is I dissolved my relationship”. The late date makes sense too but has the benefit of the witness of VDP and Brian in relationship in the studio in February and an eyewitness date of “around February” for when VDP ended his songwriting relationship with Brian.

Also Vosse said VDP was involved in his writing partnership with Brian still after Christmas, and still when he signed with Warner, which was January 6, and still on after the Warner signing. But probably most telling is Vosse says “Van Dyke was still very involved” with the “the Aside B side version lasting about six minutes” of H&V which would seem to put him still “very involved” with the songwriting at least from January 5 through potentially March 2.

The late date seems like it to me. I agree with Billy that it would put a whole new spin on things.

Vosse's Fusion interview has some info about the problems between VDP and Brian also.

[Cam Mott]

Yeah Van Dyke left soon after the questioning about the lyrics - that pegs the leave to December. 

I don't think it does. We know Mike sang the lyrics early because they are on tape. We know he didn't understand the lyrics when he sang them because they were never explained to him. So the fact that he asked to know what they meant could have been early or late. He could have asked before or at the time he sang them or he could have done as he was told early and then asked later, even much later, still wondering what they meant. For all the witness for late date and the none witness for the early date I am feeling pretty certain that Mike asked in late February or early March long after he had sung the lyric.

Anyways....no one else is interested in exploring this relationship between VDP and Brian? Anderle says it was a central and critical point in the collapse of SMiLE. Resistance.

[Micha]

Putting aside any talent the man may have, I will never understand why he gets a free pass and Mike gets roasted alive. Although Mike has been a dick frequently over the years, truth be told so has VDP (as we all have been in our lives, including me).  How hypocritical to criticize the lyrics written before he came along and how he 'didn't speak that language', yet get butthurt because Mike didn't get HIS lyrics! There's a REASON why Brian has run hot and cold with him over the years. There's also this (recent)nugget...

I don’t listen to “pop” music much. I didn’t in “the sixties” and I have less time for it now (at age 70). I view “pop” music as intolerably “first world”; self-absorbed, whining, and boring. I get my kicks from music outside the box, from the disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd worlds. This is beyond the confines of the (self congratulating) Grammys and usual playlists.

So he can criticize things he feels is beneath him, but God forbid somebody question HIM.

With that quote you managed to make VDP unsympathetic to me...

Here, just for fun, is my estimation of SMiLE failure responsibility :

Mike : 2%. Marginally reduced Brian's morale and confidence. Gave VDP an excuse to take a hike (which he probably was going to do anyway). And to be clear, Mike had every right -- he had a responsibility, even -- to raise questions and objections if he thought the project was headed on a wrong track.

VDP : 8%. He might have saved the project if he hadn't left, but still -- he made the right decision for himself at the time. So responsibilty, but no blame.

Brian : 90%. He thought he could make an entire lp in the modular way he had made the GV single, but the task was too big for him.

If I may slightly and humbly disagree - I think that of those 90% for Brian at least 60 or rather 70% go to his mental illness, granting Brian only 20% responsibility myself.

Furthermore, I don't think that the modular approach was the reason at all. I mean, we have all those snippets and switch them around and try out different orders, but I think when Brian recorded those segments he had a certain spot in the running order in mind. It was only when he edited them together he found it didn't sound that good after all. I guess it was insecurity amplified by his mental problems that made him record segments instead of full songs like on previous albums.

What if Mike started questioning VDP because the latter was having issues with Brian? What if rather than giving Brian sh*t, it was his way of sticking up for him (albeit in the wrong manner?) 'Brian, why the f*** are you hanging around this guy? He acts like you're beneath him, you're high all the time, and what the hell do these lyrics even *mean*? Hey, Van Dyke, I need to talk to you privately about some of these lines...'.  VDP leaves for good, Brian starts losing confidence in the project, Smile collapses.

Just a thought. Could be completely wrong, but it would actually fit the timeline.

That's a very interesting thought, wouldn't have thought of that myself.

[guitarfool2002]

I could go on for a long time on this, but will try to keep it shorter (yeah right! ) . Please bear with me...

Just to say this first: I'm taking this from *a lot* of sources, so it's a summary short of copying and pasting the actual texts, which I cannot do at this point. But please trust that all of this is on the record, and I'm not out to copy or plagarize anyone else's work or words, if it should look that way.

Also - If c-man isn't reading this thread, could someone tip him off that his expert opinion is needed for a question about specific session dates which he researched and published? Something isn't adding up, I could speculate but I'd rather get the word straight from the source first. Thanks!

Onto Billy's theory. It is a very interesting take, and thanks for posting it, but it's being taken a bit too far IMO in subsequent posts, and I don't think the theory behind it lines up with what happened, or the dates.

Here's the summary of what happened, if anyone can find issue or faults with what I'm about to write, please chime in! Seriously, I'm condensing a ton of reading and research from over a decade+ of reading into a few paragraphs here, trying my best to give the best account I can.

The situation between VDP, Mike, and Brian over "crow cries" happened at a vocal session for "Grand Coulee Dam", at Columbia studios. It was a typical Beach Boys vocal session, following the Pet Sounds model, where they would lay vocal tracks over the existing instrumental parts. Which means not many outsiders or even musicians except the BB's would have any reason to be there.

Here's the version of exactly what led to it.

They're going to track that section of Cabinessence, where "have you seen the Grand Coulee..." is answered by "over and over the crow cries."

Mike apparently did not want to sing the words, until he heard a rundown of what they meant before he sang them from the guy who wrote them. Brian obviously couldn't answer that way, only Van Dyke could, so it leads to Brian calling Van Dyke.

Key, *huge* issue in this: Brian calls Van Dyke and asks if he could come down to the studio to help Mike with some of the lyrics. he presents it to Van Dyke as something other than it was...Brian's fault, and a deliberate omission. Brian could have prepared Van Dyke for what was going down, where Mike was for whatever reasons, and according to reports, pretty fired up about this and demanding a translation before he laid down the vocal.

So Van Dyke heads off to Columbia, under the impression he was going there to help Mike on vocals, without that sense of stepping into a heated situation where he'd be stuck not only in the middle of a tense situation, but also in the middle of defending not only his lyrics, but getting in between a family and group conflict that had been raging for months if not years.

So Van Dyke shows up, thinking one thing but soon experiencing another, and immediately Mike comes to him demanding a translation for the lyrics, and again according to some not in a normal conversational way.

And what played out was what we've all heard and read *so many times*, it's all out there for anyone's analysis or opinion.

A few things to note, Van Dyke felt like he was called there under a false pretense, not expecting to be challenged as he was. Brian simply didn't act on his behalf, or anyone's actually, and watched as the debate unfolded pretty much docile and uninvolved, like he wanted the battle to happen between his own two "directions" that were tapping his creative muse, whether to go commercial or to go artistic, and here you had probably the two main figures representing the "sides" of that issue, Mike versus Van Dyke, in the same studio having the debate Brian has had within his own mind, and which he himself had argued and debated on his own.

But this scene was different, and unfortunately I don't think he prepared Van Dyke enough as a collaborator or a friend for what was really brewing that day in the studio, and Van Dyke came in totally off-guard.

Van Dyke, as a result, walked out after saying a version of what we've all heard him say regarding junking the lyrics. "I have no explanation" was one answer he was said to have told Mike before leaving.


Key points, in asterisks:

***Van Dyke DID return to continue work, BUT...he has said the whole mood and vibe had changed noticeably, not only overall but on specifics like how Brian was withdrawing more and was less of the "creative Brian" from the earlier days of their work. Something changed, and now Van Dyke felt more like an outsider as he wasn't in the same position as earlier, and felt even more removed from the BB's family and Brian in general.

***Van Dyke, again there is at least one source where he said these things, felt like he was no longer wanted. Not only by the BB's structure which had questions about Brian's new gang taking over *their* scene but also by a situation which had become more aloof. He didn't want to be where he felt people didn't want him to be, so he basically didn't come around as much. And directly or indirectly, it came to a point where his creative activities surrounding the Beach Boys stopped entirely and he was off on his own projects.

***The timeline of Billy's theory, again as interesting as it could be, does not back it up because Van Dyke was still working on the project, it wasn't a case of bailing out after this confrontation and not coming back.

It feels like work tried to continue on schedule, but in the wake of the "crow cries" confrontation it feels like Van Dyke thought he was left out in the cold, and even he admits ***there was more to Mike challenging him than a few lines of lyrics***, as if he was stepping into a very hot situation which had as much to do with the family and the band (and their career direction) as it did with his words. He DID feel underrepresented by his collaborator, if not feeling a bit like Brian set him up without warning to fight a battle he had no business entering, he DID carry that baggage with him, but it was not a case of simply cutting all ties and bailing out immediately.

He did continue working, but the situation had changed noticeably and Van Dyke felt it.

For C-Man:
In the session details of Cabinessence, there are "Grand Coulee" and "Crow Cries" vocal session listed at Columbia from early October 1966 and a few in December 1966, including one in the last week of 12/66.

If this showdown - which has been reported pretty clearly as happening at Columbia - happened at any point, wouldn't it make sense to have happened at the later December sessions? Simply because that exact time period, in the wake of Inside Pop and everything else, matches up with reports of major falling-outs and disputes between Brian and Murry, Brian and other band members, and a general shift in the flow of the Smile sessions in general leading into the new year 1967.

But listed too is a "crow cries" session from the first week of October 1966...still early in the process...did Mike sing the lyrics that night, then come back a few months later and challenge them in December for something like a 'fix" or a re-record? If the lyrics were such an issue to cause a confrontation that has been as often reported as anything else in the Smile story, what exactly happened at that October 66 session where the notes suggest the lyrics which led to the showdown were recorded? Or was it Brian himself back in October laying down his demo vocals which Mike would replace in December?

Sorry for the rambling, again, but the difference between October and December 1966 in Smile is massive.

And again, the timeline and other accounts suggest there was more going on that day than the lyrics being challenged. And the reports to me point to December 1966, short of figuring out what happened in October, but definitely not March.

[Cam Mott]

Which witness said it was a CE related session? Isn't that just a fan presumption? It could have been any session with Mike in attendance as far as I know.