VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

Not to mention that "Cassius" Love vs. 'Sonny' Wilson" seems to me to be a humorous release valve of sorts for actual, real tension, much in the way that "I'm Bugged at My Old Man" was. It seems obvious that both pieces were BW's "lighthearted" way of addressing some stuff that caused him at least some element of stress.

Do you think the psychodelic sounds skits and/or Jasper Dailey tracks served a similar purpose for SMiLE?

That's an interesting thought, actually.

While I highly doubt that those "songs" were ever even remotely considered for usage on the proposed final SMiLE product... and I think that their existence can most likely be chalked up to BW's procrastination at tackling the harder SMiLE writing/assembling issues at hand, not to metnion procrastinating/avoiding personal stress with other people/circumstances (throwing together a quick random odd assemblage or two, like the skits and Dailey tracks surely helped him put off other important things)... it does, to me, seem that the procrastination itself was an attempt at a tension release valve for BW, so in that sense I could see the tracks serving a similar purpose for SMiLE, ya know?

I think it's possible one or two could've made an appearance. The Vegetable fights and George Fell perhaps being the most likely, the later would make a cool hidden track after Surf's Up. As for the JD songs, I agree that was probably just procrastinating and trying to give the studio people a laugh.

Yeah, you may well be right about the fights/George Fell.  If they would at any point have been legitimately considered, it seems that the legitimacy of these tracks was abandoned pretty quickly. IMO. But yeah, it's a mighty cool way of looking at those early released "skit" songs as prototypes of what was to come in SMiLE, and probably not much of a stretch.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

Sheriff - that's a very good point you make, but I'd think it would be fair to say that the questions and/or pestering was more than likely at a level that would have eclipsed the questions and/or pestering on prior much less artistically divisive projects? You can still think that Brian wasn't or shouldn't have been "soooooo adversely affected" in '66/67, but the projects which you are comparing (and specifically, how resistant people likely felt about them) were quite different, that I don't think it's quite fair to equate them to one another. 

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

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

[CenturyDeprived]

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

That makes the most sense to me. And yes, drugs were a big part of this too.  
It doesn't make sense to me that Mujan's assumption can be dismissed as "foolish" or "absurd". There's logic and human nature involved in every part of it.

[Cam Mott]

Did I say dislike? He said they were too arty, not good for vocals, artistically selfish. He did not like those aspects so in a way I guess he disliked them in the same way Mike did, they recognized the art but didn't want to use them.

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

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

That makes the most sense to me. And yes, drugs were a big part of this too.  
It doesn't make sense to me that Mujan's assumption can be dismissed as "foolish" or "absurd". There's logic and human nature involved in every part of it.

Thanks. This is what I mean when I say the pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging too far the other way now. Fact is SMiLE was a different project than anything before, it was made in an especially turbulent time, with its own set of complex circumstances and Brian was melting down big time.

Just saying "Brian was boss" or "nobody cared what Mike thought" and using that to dismiss everything going on isn't helpful.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

[CenturyDeprived]

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

That makes the most sense to me. And yes, drugs were a big part of this too.  
It doesn't make sense to me that Mujan's assumption can be dismissed as "foolish" or "absurd". There's logic and human nature involved in every part of it.

Thanks. This is what I mean when I say the pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging too far the other way now. Fact is SMiLE was a different project than anything before, it was made in an especially turbulent time, with its own set of complex circumstances and Brian was melting down big time.

Just saying "Brian was boss" or "nobody cared what Mike thought" and using that to dismiss everything going on isn't helpful.

Question to Pinder and Cam: do these statements (which seem balanced and fair to me) in and of themselves make someone a "Brianista"?

I honestly wonder where Kokomaoists feel the line is drawn.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

That makes the most sense to me. And yes, drugs were a big part of this too.  
It doesn't make sense to me that Mujan's assumption can be dismissed as "foolish" or "absurd". There's logic and human nature involved in every part of it.

Thanks. This is what I mean when I say the pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging too far the other way now. Fact is SMiLE was a different project than anything before, it was made in an especially turbulent time, with its own set of complex circumstances and Brian was melting down big time.

Just saying "Brian was boss" or "nobody cared what Mike thought" and using that to dismiss everything going on isn't helpful.

Question to Pinder and Cam: do these statements (which seem balanced and fair to me) in and of themselves make someone a "Brianista"?

I honestly wonder where Kokomaoists feel the line is drawn.

No. Those statements are indeed fair and balanced... Honestly

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

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

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

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

Pinder - also, the Lovester himself has stated in some interview that I've read that he's aware of his tone being sarcastic sometimes. So I think that even Mike would admit (independently of talking about SMiLE which is probably the most defensive and touchy of subjects for him) that he can come off (or has in the past come off) as abrasive at times (or a similar adjective if "abrasive" is too negative for your tastes). I doubt he'd dispute that.

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it.

other than..... ummmm...... insecurity, power, ego, strife ....... IN A ROCK N ROLL BAND?? ...... Nope, doesn't happen. Only Michael E. Love's dealt with any of that.

Look, you have an imaginary Beach Boys movie that you've directed running in your head (as we likely all do) .... and it's your movie: you have final cut, so just let it roll.

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

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

To be able to state that it seems logical that a person, in all likelihood feeling threatened, could very likely have those feelings of theirs manifest in having their communication style come out in a perceptibly different way (with certain elements magnified) compared to how they communicated in other, relatively simpler earlier circumstances, shouldn't be too hard - this doesn't have to equate to a "broad conclusion/judgement about someone's character".  It doesn't seem like such an inconceivable stretch.

[alf wiedersehen]

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks 

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

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

To be able to state that it seems logical that a person, in all likelihood feeling threatened, could very likely have those feelings of theirs manifest in having their communication style come out in a perceptibly different way (with certain elements magnified) compared to how they communicated in other, relatively simpler earlier circumstances, shouldn't be too hard - this doesn't have to equate to a "broad conclusion/judgement about someone's character".  It doesn't seem like such an inconceivable stretch.

It's not. But don't forget you're talking to the biggest Mike apologist on this board

[CenturyDeprived]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

To be able to state that it seems logical that a person, in all likelihood feeling threatened, could very likely have those feelings of theirs manifest in having their communication style come out in a perceptibly different way (with certain elements magnified) compared to how they communicated in other, relatively simpler earlier circumstances, shouldn't be too hard - this doesn't have to equate to a "broad conclusion/judgement about someone's character".  It doesn't seem like such an inconceivable stretch.

It's not. But don't forget you're talking to the biggest Mike apologist on this board

It would seem that way.
I'm not calling the Lovester the Boogie Man. It's a human reaction that I'm sure a lot of people would've had in his shoes.

[pixletwin]

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks 

I think it's become about getting the last word in. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

To be able to state that it seems logical that a person, in all likelihood feeling threatened, could very likely have those feelings of theirs manifest in having their communication style come out in a perceptibly different way (with certain elements magnified) compared to how they communicated in other, relatively simpler earlier circumstances, shouldn't be too hard - this doesn't have to equate to a "broad conclusion/judgement about someone's character".  It doesn't seem like such an inconceivable stretch.

It's not. But don't forget you're talking to the biggest Mike apologist on this board

A Mike apologist is a silly term since all one has to do to be labeled such is ask a couple questions here and there.