VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[guitarfool2002]

The description of the effect the phone call from Brian asking Van to come to the studio and the subsequent confrontation comes from Van Dyke himself.

He came and went several times during Smile.

He is specifically on the record saying he came back to work *after* this confrontation regarding the lyrics, but did stay away for awhile immediately after.

This discounts the later March date as he never returned.

And he also says when he did return, the mood wasn't the same as it was in the fall, before the phone call. He felt unwanted, he felt like someone else wanted his job, and he also felt like he got duped and dropped into a situation by Brian that was unfair, and for which Brian chose to stay out of it rather than back him up.

And that was one of the red flags. But he says *specifically* he returned to working on Smile after this, despite walking out.

This could explain why he's not mentioned at all in the Inside Pop reel notes, as that happened mid-December. If they filmed a studio session, it stands to reason he would have been there, but he is noticeably absent from any records of the filming in December.

If this confrontation did happen on December 6th, that would make sense.

If the phone call came in March, and the issue of a song that had been on the shelf for three months without a single day of sessions on it was what he was confronted with, it would not make sense...especially since after this late date he simply didn't come back.

No one is debating or doubting he left and came back, no one is doubting he and Brian had squabbles and falling-outs between them, no one is doubting anything of the sort.

But what continues to irk me is how you have the guy who was actually DIRECTLY involved in the incident thinking enough of the phone call that he remembers it as a turning point in the story decades later, and recalls exactly what and how he felt after he returned to work following that incident, yet it's still being challenged if not disregarded in favor of "witnesses" who have not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken specifically about this "crow cries" incident.

If anything, Anderle and Vosse mention both the tension between Brian and Van Dyke at times and more often the tension between Brian and Mike and the other Beach Boys, who they both report as challenging and confronting Brian in the studio to the point Brian would walk out as Van did and simply leave the studio during these incidents, which he privately complained about to guys like Anderle and Vosse.

Let's get it all on the table rather than cherrypicking a point here or there, re-read both Anderle AND Vosse interviews from 1967 and 1969 respectively, along with Siegel, and really put the big picture concept at work. See how often the confrontations in the studio between Brian and the band are mentioned, alongside the squabbles between Brian and VDP and Brian and Murry.

And, of all things, try to put at least some value in what Van Dyke himself says about this particular incident if we're going to try to see all angles. To not do so, to dismiss Van Dyke's words/memories and then to try to argue the point that's not even in dispute is dishonest, at best. I just don't get it.

[CenturyDeprived]

And, of course, Van Dyke's answer - "I don't know" - must've been a really satisfying response.

Well, I figure that VDP was as keen on explaining his lyrics to a person that he probably viewed comparatively as an intellectual simpleton, as Jackson Pollack would be keen to explain the meaning behind one of his paintings, you know? I realize it’s an apples and oranges comparison, but the point being is that the author saw his lyrics (or at least some of his own lyrics) as strictly art, and not something that needs to be explained when it the lyrics were being directly challenged (in a probable highly smug manner).

[Mr. Cohen]

It's typical for any successful group in "showbiz" to get big egos. If anything, that's what really killed the Beach Boys. Everyone had a monster ego. Hell, even Al has a big ego. They were rock stars and acted like it. People say Brian was mentally ill, but damn, if a mentally ill person can produce Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, and Friends within a roughly half-year span, than I want to be mentally ill. I think he was eccentric and the drug use created situations that eventually led to mental illnesses. Anyone staying up for days on end on amphetamines working on million dollar creative projects with immediate deadlines is liable to crack  (allo while smoking weed and perhaps taking psychedelics, too). But he seems extremely high-functioning to me during the Smile time period and the year or so afterward.

Think about this. The pressure of being a Beach Boy was so intense that Mike Love supposedly had a breakdown in 1970. He was even allegedly put in a straightjacket at one point. These guys were built up like Gods in the music world and then torn down by a fickle public. Their egos just couldn't handle it.

[guitarfool2002]

Again, those who think they have it all sussed out about Mike's right to ask about lyrics, read the full account of the story from Van Dyke, and see what he felt about it and more importantly, what he thinks of it with decades of time passed to reflect on it.

Tell me how many phone calls are that important in any of your lives to remember it and what happened after it 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later?

Not fucking many, I'd say emphatically. I can remember the big events like deaths, births, breakups, all of that...but that's the big stuff that left an impression which never faded. I don't remember many inconsequential calls.

Should I post his words for those interested, or will another excuse be made to reason them away as "inconsequential" or "irrelevant"? Hmmm?

[Nicko1234]

Well, I figure that VDP was as keen on explaining his lyrics to a person that he probably viewed comparatively as an intellectual simpleton, as Jackson Pollack would be keen to explain the meaning behind one of his paintings, you know? I realize it’s an apples and oranges comparison, but the point being is that the author saw his lyrics (or at least some of his own lyrics) as strictly art, and not something that needs to be explained when it the lyrics were being directly challenged (in a probable highly smug manner).

If he really did feel like that then I think you paint a very unpleasant picture of him. VDP agreed to write lyrics for a Beach Boys album. Now as he was writing lyrics with no literal meaning he really should not have been surprised that they were questioned. If he considered the lyrics to be `strictly art` and thought that nobody would mind if they were commercial or not then he was incredibly naive. If, as you are now supposing, he felt that the group members were intellectually below him then he was a smug git.

[Sheriff John Stone]

And, of course, Van Dyke's answer - "I don't know" - must've been a really satisfying response.

Well, I figure that VDP was as keen on explaining his lyrics to a person that he probably viewed comparatively as an intellectual simpleton, as Jackson Pollack would be keen to explain the meaning behind one of his paintings, you know? I realize it’s an apples and oranges comparison, but the point being is that the author saw his lyrics (or at least some of his own lyrics) as strictly art, and not something that needs to be explained when it the lyrics were being directly challenged (in a probable highly smug manner).

You're right...it's apples and oranges. I see no problem with somebody explaining their lyrics to the singer of those words, unless you're Van Dyke Parks, who seemed to have a lot of problems with the SMiLE era.

[runnersdialzero]

Wasn't the mL/Vdp clash recorded on film by the Inside Pop camera team? I though that was the assumption based on the translation of the accompanying notes? Film lost so far, of course…

Total (baseless) speculation: maybe the film remains intentionally "lost" because certain parties involved in the clash might have an incentive for that footage (if it has an ugly clash caught on tape) from not ever being seen? In particular, the one party who has been vilified for this infamous clash for 47 years would seem to have the most incentive for this footage to never see the light of day, right?  If Mike somehow had the ability/opportunity to have this footage destroyed, he'd probably do just that, no?

This unlikely (yet remotely possible) conspiracy theory seems to be grounded in as much truth as some of the ideas/assumptions I've read in the last couple pages of this thread.  

When has Mike ever been one to be desperate to save face over his reaction to Smile's lyrics back then?

[guitarfool2002]

And again for all of those who have it sussed out, Van Dyke felt that someone else wanted his job, and that he wasn't wanted in his that job because he wasn't backed up, two situations which he viewed as red flags, signs of cracks appearing in the dam...

...and, according to him (again), symptoms of an interpersonal, inter-family, and inter-band situation which had been boiling under the surface for much longer than he was there, and based on much more than one of his lyrics.

Anderle's interview from '67 hints at this boiling under situation at least twice, specifically.

But don't take their words for it. Or mine. Attach whatever meaning is most convenient.  

[Nicko1234]

Again, those who think they have it all sussed out about Mike's right to ask about lyrics, read the full account of the story from Van Dyke, and see what he felt about it and more importantly, what he thinks of it with decades of time passed to reflect on it.

Tell me how many phone calls are that important in any of your lives to remember it and what happened after it 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later?

Not fucking many, I'd say emphatically. I can remember the big events like deaths, births, breakups, all of that...but that's the big stuff that left an impression which never faded. I don't remember many inconsequential calls.

Should I post his words for those interested, or will another excuse be made to reason them away as "inconsequential" or "irrelevant"? Hmmm?

Sure they are relevant. But as much because of VDP`s reaction as for Mike giving his opinions in the first place. VDP chose to leave.

[Nicko1234]

And again for all of those who have it sussed out, Van Dyke felt that someone else wanted his job, and that he wasn't wanted in his that job because he wasn't backed up, two situations which he viewed as red flags, signs of cracks appearing in the dam...

...and, according to him (again), symptoms of an interpersonal, inter-family, and inter-band situation which had been boiling under the surface for much longer than he was there, and based on much more than one of his lyrics.

Anderle's interview from '67 hints at this boiling under situation at least twice, specifically.

But don't take their words for it. Or mine. Attach whatever meaning is most convenient.  

Of course Mike wanted to write lyrics.

Of course Brian wasn`t strong enough to back VDP up.

[CenturyDeprived]

The thing is, Pinder: It’s not just the concept that Mike simply asked what the lyrics meant… I think it’s safe to say that his probable attitude and approach had to be a major factor in why it rubbed VDP so very much the wrong way. It just doesn’t make sense that it was an isolated incident of questioning and/or hostility, and it also doesn’t make much sense that Mike would have asked the question in a respectful, mindful, and mature way. I feel safe in assuming that there was a major smugness about the question, which really cut deep.

In my observations, you seem to imply the incident as simply an isolated matter that any band member would fully be in the “right” to do. So, maybe a band member has a “right” to ask a question about a lyric, but IMO, I don’t think they exactly have the “right” to ask that question in a (probable) disrespectful way.  Nonverbal communication and tone are a BIG, BIG deal to some people, particularly if a pattern of such has been accumulating.

I’m trying to imagine a scenario where, for example, Carl asked VDP what a lyric meant, and for that single incident to have such disheartening effect on VDP that would be the tipping point for VDP to get made and take a hike –and you know what? I can’t imagine that. Because from everything we know about Carl’s personality, if he did have a question about a lyric, in all likelihood he’d have asked VDP in a very respectful way. He’d likely have gone out of his way to show respect when asking the question, and there also would most likely not have been a drop of resentment in Carl’s motivations. Underlying resentment shows on peoples’ faces and tone, and if (and I stress “if” because it’s just my educated guess) those feelings were bubbling underneath the surface of Mike’s question(s), it shouldn’t be downplayed or considered negligible to the equation.

Just IMHO.

Sure Mike will have been more argumentative than Carl would have been. But arguing is perfectly normal behaviour. I was reminded of this debate when I saw an article on the news sites about business today:

`In most workplaces, people squabble over creative differences, project ownership, and budgets – they butt heads over all manner of political issues. Generally speaking, the more people there are, the more issues they have to fuss over. It’s just a fact of life – and work. But the difference between conflict in a dysfunctional company and in a high-trust organization is how people deal with it.`

That sums up things pretty well. In every group there will be arguments but some of them can deal with it better than others. Because of Brian`s mental health problems he couldn`t deal with it.

Arguing (within a band context) doesn’t *necessarily by definition* constitute “perfectly normal behavior”. I think that some types of disagreements can be considered “normal” and others might be considered “suspect”.

Respectful dialog between two people (with whom a mutual respect, sans resentment, eye rolling and the like, etc) can probably be considered “normal”. Having personally dealt with outright disrespectful people myself in a musical environment, I can say that without question, some people can communicate in a way that is simply abhorrent – even if the question in and of itself might be ok, the manner can make all the difference. And you know - once a person has acted like that to you, there's a good chance that you're not gonna feel comfortable working with them anymore, especially if you are an outsider to begin with.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Mike has a long history of saying things publicly in a manner that could be considered disrespectful/downright offensive or worthy of most normal people saying “WTF is wrong with that guy, why does he say the things he does in the manner that he does”… his casually smug remarks about Brian/Dennis on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, as well as his infamous Rock Hall of Fame speech come to mind off the top of my head. I just think that a guy who in his mind (and nobody elses’) thinks it’s perfectly ok to talk in that way, would probably think it’s ok (especially years younger, with even less maturity) to talk to VDP in a manner that reeked of disrespect. Is that an assumption? Yes, but I think it’s an educated guess based on my own observations of a very long pattern. IMO IMO.

And yes, you are absolutely right that Brian’s mental health problems didn’t help the situation one bit either.

[CenturyDeprived]

Well, I figure that VDP was as keen on explaining his lyrics to a person that he probably viewed comparatively as an intellectual simpleton, as Jackson Pollack would be keen to explain the meaning behind one of his paintings, you know? I realize it’s an apples and oranges comparison, but the point being is that the author saw his lyrics (or at least some of his own lyrics) as strictly art, and not something that needs to be explained when it the lyrics were being directly challenged (in a probable highly smug manner).

If he really did feel like that then I think you paint a very unpleasant picture of him. VDP agreed to write lyrics for a Beach Boys album. Now as he was writing lyrics with no literal meaning he really should not have been surprised that they were questioned. If he considered the lyrics to be `strictly art` and thought that nobody would mind if they were commercial or not then he was incredibly naive. If, as you are now supposing, he felt that the group members were intellectually below him then he was a smug git.

I made the specific point in my prior post above to mention that at only *some* of his lyrics (ie. a line or two here and there) were probably intended by VDP himself to be considered completely 100% abstract... I don't think that he set out to write (nor do I think that he actually did write) a bunch of abstract drivel with no meaning, but that a line here or there might border on abstraction, which could not at any point be properly "justified" or "quantified" by the author.  To think that each and every word in an entire lyric on every single song that a band would sing simply *had* to have some justifiable deep "commercial" meaning is kinda sorta absurd thinking, IMO. If VDP delivered an entire album's worth of utter incomprehensibility and rubbish, I could maybe see it a bit differently.

 

[Nicko1234]

I made the specific point in my prior post above to mention that at only *some* of his lyrics (ie. a line or two here and there) were probably intended by VDP himself to be considered abstract... I don't think that he set out to write (nor do I think that he actually did write) a bunch of abstract drivel, but that a line here or there might border on abstraction, which cannot be properly "justified" or "quantified" by the author.

Abstract or not. They are obviously uncommercial and he should have expected them to be questioned by somebody. He was naive if he didn`t.

VDP was a relatively inexperienced songwriter at this point. He may have considered himself to be an artist but the rest of the world will not have seen it like that. You can bet your life that when Jackson Pollack was starting out he had people telling him that his work was bilge. That`s a part of life and something that people have to deal with.

[CenturyDeprived]

I made the specific point in my prior post above to mention that at only *some* of his lyrics (ie. a line or two here and there) were probably intended by VDP himself to be considered abstract... I don't think that he set out to write (nor do I think that he actually did write) a bunch of abstract drivel, but that a line here or there might border on abstraction, which cannot be properly "justified" or "quantified" by the author.

Abstract or not. They are obviously uncommercial and he should have expected them to be questioned by somebody. He was naive if he didn`t.

VDP was a relatively inexperienced songwriter at this point. He may have considered himself to be an artist but the rest of the world will not have seen it like that. You can bet your life that when Jackson Pollack was starting out he had people telling him that his work was bilge. That`s a part of life and something that people have to deal with.

All of those are absolutely valid points, but again I don't believe that a simple mere question or two were the entire picture. It really makes no sense to think that.

There was this monster of a long-gestating family interpersonal squabble going on too. The lyric thing was just the tip of the iceberg, methinks.

The other thing, is that when VDP took the job, he expected (naturally, and like you said, perhaps naively) to be dealing with BW as the guy with whom he'd be collaborating with... and I think if any questions that got flung at him came directly from BW (and that if VDP sensed that those questions were actual questions that originated in the mind of BW, not questions of others that were being funneled to VDP via BW himself asking them and posing them as BW's own questions), that whatever level of strife would have been significantly less, and would likely, possibly not have led to him "walking".

I think that when Mike was asking questions of VDP, that VDP probably thought to himself "I signed up to write an album with the likes of BW, and to have the BBs utilized as singers - I didn't sign up to collaborate artistically in that same collaborative manner with ML).  And I can absolutely understand how VDP probably thought that way, particularly since the prior album (despite the Hang on to Your Ego snafu - and who knows how much of that incident VDP was aware of at the time he signed on to SMiLE) was vastly the product of just BW + outsider Tony Asher doing their thing (granted, doing a much more easily digestible and understandable "thing").

Ultimately, aside from the unarguable effects of drug use and mental illness, it's the specific factors of the specific VERY different personalities involved and how they rubbed against each other and pushed each others' buttons in particularly wrong ways. Maybe we could consider VDP as being "too sensitive to criticism", and the same of BW; while those factors can both probably be deemed accurate, I think it's also fair to assume that Mike himself was "too" (something else)... you can fill in the blank with whatever adjective you deem appropriate here, but in my mind, he was probably too pushy/hostile/controlling/bitter, or had elements of those emotions that when combined with the "too sensitive to criticism" thing, as well as the unarguable effects of drug use and mental illness, all caused the situation to play out as it did.

[Nicko1234]

All of those are absolutely valid points, but again I don't believe that a simple mere question or two were the entire picture. It really makes no sense to think that.

There was this monster of a long-gestating family interpersonal squabble going on too. The lyric thing was just the tip of the iceberg, methinks.

The other thing, is that when VDP took the job, he expected (naturally, and like you said, perhaps naively) to be dealing with BW as the guy with whom he'd be collaborating with... and I think if any questions that got flung at him came directly from BW (and if those questions were actual questions that originated in the mind of BW, not questions of others that were being funneled to VDP via BW himself asking them and posing them as his own questions), that whatever level of strife would have been significantly less, and would likely, possibly not have led to him "walking".

I think that when Mike was asking questions of VDP, that VDP probably thought to himself "I signed up to write an album with the likes of BW, and to have the BBs utilized as singers - I didn't sign up to collaborate artistically in that same collaborative manner with ML).  And I can absolutely understand how VDP probably thought that way, particularly since the prior album (despite the Hang on to Your Ego snafu) was vastly the product of just BW + outsider Tony Asher doing their thing (granted, doing a much more easily digestible and understandable "thing").

I think that is stretching things a little.

Obviously Mike wanted to write lyrics. Obviously he wanted them to record commercial stuff and there had been some disagreements over which direction the group would take. But nothing more than happens in thousands of other groups.

If VDP genuinely didn`t think that Mike (the lyricist on transatlantic smash Good Vibrations and the singer on some of these words) would voice his opinions then he was severely mistaken as time proved.

Anyway, I`m sure Mike was confrontational but VDP could have stayed. All of us have had arguments at work but we don`t tend to quit our jobs with immediate effect. I think it`s fair to say from all of the interviews that he gives though that VDP isn`t the easiest person to deal with either. In the very interview that this thread is based around he complains about everything and everyone and admits that this wasn`t the first time that he`d quit a project.

[Bicyclerider]

The description of the effect the phone call from Brian asking Van to come to the studio and the subsequent confrontation comes from Van Dyke himself.

He came and went several times during Smile.

He is specifically on the record saying he came back to work *after* this confrontation regarding the lyrics, but did stay away for awhile immediately after.

This discounts the later March date as he never returned.

And he also says when he did return, the mood wasn't the same as it was in the fall, before the phone call. He felt unwanted, he felt like someone else wanted his job, and he also felt like he got duped and dropped into a situation by Brian that was unfair, and for which Brian chose to stay out of it rather than back him up.

And that was one of the red flags. But he says *specifically* he returned to working on Smile after this, despite walking out.

This could explain why he's not mentioned at all in the Inside Pop reel notes, as that happened mid-December. If they filmed a studio session, it stands to reason he would have been there, but he is noticeably absent from any records of the filming in December.

If this confrontation did happen on December 6th, that would make sense.

If the phone call came in March, and the issue of a song that had been on the shelf for three months without a single day of sessions on it was what he was confronted with, it would not make sense...especially since after this late date he simply didn't come back.

No one is debating or doubting he left and came back, no one is doubting he and Brian had squabbles and falling-outs between them, no one is doubting anything of the sort.

But what continues to irk me is how you have the guy who was actually DIRECTLY involved in the incident thinking enough of the phone call that he remembers it as a turning point in the story decades later, and recalls exactly what and how he felt after he returned to work following that incident, yet it's still being challenged if not disregarded in favor of "witnesses" who have not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken specifically about this "crow cries" incident.

If anything, Anderle and Vosse mention both the tension between Brian and Van Dyke at times and more often the tension between Brian and Mike and the other Beach Boys, who they both report as challenging and confronting Brian in the studio to the point Brian would walk out as Van did and simply leave the studio during these incidents, which he privately complained about to guys like Anderle and Vosse.

Let's get it all on the table rather than cherrypicking a point here or there, re-read both Anderle AND Vosse interviews from 1967 and 1969 respectively, along with Siegel, and really put the big picture concept at work. See how often the confrontations in the studio between Brian and the band are mentioned, alongside the squabbles between Brian and VDP and Brian and Murry.

And, of all things, try to put at least some value in what Van Dyke himself says about this particular incident if we're going to try to see all angles. To not do so, to dismiss Van Dyke's words/memories and then to try to argue the point that's not even in dispute is dishonest, at best. I just don't get it.

I'm with you man.  Some want to isolate one remark or one comment from Anderle or Vosse and blow it all out of proportion.  When you look at the total picture and everything that has been said by ALL the participants, the sequence of events is pretty clear.  To me at least.

[CenturyDeprived]

All of those are absolutely valid points, but again I don't believe that a simple mere question or two were the entire picture. It really makes no sense to think that.

There was this monster of a long-gestating family interpersonal squabble going on too. The lyric thing was just the tip of the iceberg, methinks.

The other thing, is that when VDP took the job, he expected (naturally, and like you said, perhaps naively) to be dealing with BW as the guy with whom he'd be collaborating with... and I think if any questions that got flung at him came directly from BW (and if those questions were actual questions that originated in the mind of BW, not questions of others that were being funneled to VDP via BW himself asking them and posing them as his own questions), that whatever level of strife would have been significantly less, and would likely, possibly not have led to him "walking".

I think that when Mike was asking questions of VDP, that VDP probably thought to himself "I signed up to write an album with the likes of BW, and to have the BBs utilized as singers - I didn't sign up to collaborate artistically in that same collaborative manner with ML).  And I can absolutely understand how VDP probably thought that way, particularly since the prior album (despite the Hang on to Your Ego snafu) was vastly the product of just BW + outsider Tony Asher doing their thing (granted, doing a much more easily digestible and understandable "thing").

I think that is stretching things a little.

Obviously Mike wanted to write lyrics. Obviously he wanted them to record commercial stuff and there had been some disagreements over which direction the group would take. But nothing more than happens in thousands of other groups.

If VDP genuinely didn`t think that Mike (the lyricist on transatlantic smash Good Vibrations and the singer on some of these words) would voice his opinions then he was severely mistaken as time proved.

Anyway, I`m sure Mike was confrontational but VDP could have stayed. All of us have had arguments at work but we don`t tend to quit our jobs with immediate effect. I think it`s fair to say from all of the interviews that he gives though that VDP isn`t the easiest person to deal with either. In the very interview that this thread is based around he complains about everything and everyone and admits that this wasn`t the first time that he`d quit a project.

I agree that it seems VDP wasn't always the easiest person to deal with as well.  Not gonna argue that, because I get that feeling as well.  

But as mentioned previously in this thread, if VDP began to more and more and more feel that he "wasn't welcome", that was gonna be a nail in the coffin of the project. Not all the nails, but *a* define nail. There's a big difference with the thought of somebody being receptive (or not) to questions about lyrics, versus a probable pattern of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that made someone feel unwanted IN ADDITION to the "questions". Not just unappreciated, or unwanted, but a feeling that someone *specifically* deeply wants you the f*ck out of the picture. It was surely a compounding effect.

It's just that it doesn't seem accurate to me to not stick Mike with some (just *some*, mind you) portion of responsibility in helping usher in a series of events leading him to be rightfully considered as being a PARTIAL factor in the collapse of the project, for being confrontational in that patented (™) Mike Love way that he has repeatedly shown himself to be.

The combination of BW and VDP and ML was never, ever gonna work with those guys' personalities, egos and (in some cases) histories together. All of them share some "blame" for simply being who they were, and for that trio of personalities being incompatible on a fundamental level.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Again, those who think they have it all sussed out about Mike's right to ask about lyrics, read the full account of the story from Van Dyke, and see what he felt about it and more importantly, what he thinks of it with decades of time passed to reflect on it.

Tell me how many phone calls are that important in any of your lives to remember it and what happened after it 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later?

Not fucking many, I'd say emphatically. I can remember the big events like deaths, births, breakups, all of that...but that's the big stuff that left an impression which never faded. I don't remember many inconsequential calls.

Should I post his words for those interested, or will another excuse be made to reason them away as "inconsequential" or "irrelevant"? Hmmm?

No one's claiming to have anything all sussed out ...... You are choosing to take the side of obviously biased sources and that is not only informing your opinion but your interpretation of said events.... which is merely human nature at work ..... If someone else, like myself, is choosing to consider all sides, then that is just as valid ...... I honestly can't fathom what it is you desire to accomplish here? At this point you're like a Bible scholar endlessly going over the same old stuff and hashing out new versions/interpretations ....... Why not just admit you're yet another "fan" with a beef? ..... I am! My beef is that Mike singularly gets raked over the coals for events that transpired between a bunch of ego-maniac rocks starts and upstarts and witnessed by some hangers-on ...... If VDP couldn't handle an (even tense) event where a singer asks what his lyrics meant, then he did the right thing by leaving....... This crap only flies when people like CD rattle off cinema quality descriptions of how aggressive Mike was with his "crap" ......

I certainly remember some serious fights in bands from 20+ years ago, and my ego is still bruised be some of it, and if someone were to ask me about it every 5 minutes, then that would certainly help me remember....

And whatever, VDP's been vindicated (as with Tony Asher) when BWPS came out with Asher's lyrics replacing those of big bad Mike.....

And once again, if no one is arguing that Mike didn't play a part in SMILE's demise, or that Brian wasn't experiencing tensions with the band, and that VDP leaving didn't help either ...... then what is the point of keeping this going and going?

BTW, Brian having tension with the band to the point where sessions were halted/Brian walking out ........ do we know exactly what these tensions were? Why assume it was them not liking the material? It's not like vocal sessions (or any kind of sessions) with bands under pressure don't go through serious ups and downs.

[Cam Mott]

Here's my take: at the first "Cabinessence" vocal session, Mike sees the lyric for the first time and asks WTF it all means. Think about it - why would Mike - or anyone - suddenly start questioning the lyric to a different song that they'd already sung weeks previously ? Seriously, in the middle of, say, an "H&V" session, would you ask, out of the blue "Brian - what does "over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield" mean ?". And if you did, I'm betting the answer would be along the lines of "you've sung it already, it's nothing to do with what we're doing now, so STFU". I would.

It all makes sense but so would he sung it early because he appreciated it for the reasons he has said he appreciated it and his Producer told him to and then later as the album was imminent he wished he knew what it meant. We know he would sing it without knowing what it meant because he did.

[Nicko1234]

I agree that it seems VDP wasn't always the easiest person to deal with as well.  Not gonna argue that, because I get that feeling as well.  

But as mentioned previously in this thread, if VDP began to more and more and more feel that he "wasn't welcome", that was gonna be a nail in the coffin of the project. Not all the nails, but *a* define nail. There's a big difference with the thought of somebody being receptive (or not) to questions about lyrics, versus a probable pattern of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that made someone feel unwanted IN ADDITION to the "questions". Not just unappreciated, or unwanted, but a feeling that someone *specifically* deeply wants you the f*ck out of the picture. It was surely a compounding effect.

It's just that it doesn't seem accurate to me to not stick Mike with some (just *some*, mind you) portion of responsibility in helping usher in a series of events leading him to be rightfully considered as being a PARTIAL factor in the collapse of the project, for being confrontational in that patented (™) Mike Love way that he has repeatedly shown himself to be.

The combination of BW and VDP and ML was never, ever gonna work with those guys' personalities, egos and (in some cases) histories together. All of them share some "blame" for simply being who they were, and for that trio of personalities being incompatible on a fundamental level.

With this quote though I think you are pinning your allegiances to the mast.  

Mike obviously had a problem when Brian wrote with other lyricists which is understandable. Let`s not pretend though that Mike cannot get through the day without confrontation. He`s argued with some people but got on fine with plenty of people as well.

Anyway, how many people are saying that Mike was 0% responsible? Maybe Cam alone so I`m not sure there is any need to go over old ground.

[Cam Mott]

I'm confused too. Or forgetful.  Can you put up the quote where VDP , or anyone actually around at the time, says it was a CE session he was called to or where he gives a time cue for the event.

Are you confused about Anderle's witness about VDP and Brian's songwriting relationship and the date of around February as the date VDP ended that relationship? Is Vosse's statement that VDP was very much involved during the 2 part H&V? Those dates are January through early March with VDP in the studio at those specific sessions with Brian twice at least in February. Those seem pretty unambiguous to me and from not only people involved and on the scene but also friends of VDP's and working with Brian.

You know that Van Dyke left twice, right? The first time because of the lyric thing with Mike and the second time because of his solo album.

Right, Siegel said that, not sure if we are accepting his witness. However if you leave and come back your relationship with the Beach Boys isn't ended until you've left the last time. Anderle and Vosse didn't think his relationship/involvement was over until February or March it seems to me.

[guitarfool2002]

Again, those who think they have it all sussed out about Mike's right to ask about lyrics, read the full account of the story from Van Dyke, and see what he felt about it and more importantly, what he thinks of it with decades of time passed to reflect on it.

Tell me how many phone calls are that important in any of your lives to remember it and what happened after it 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later?

Not fucking many, I'd say emphatically. I can remember the big events like deaths, births, breakups, all of that...but that's the big stuff that left an impression which never faded. I don't remember many inconsequential calls.

Should I post his words for those interested, or will another excuse be made to reason them away as "inconsequential" or "irrelevant"? Hmmm?

No one's claiming to have anything all sussed out ...... You are choosing to take the side of obviously biased sources and that is not only informing your opinion but your interpretation of said events.... which is merely human nature at work ..... If someone else, like myself, is choosing to consider all sides, then that is just as valid ...... I honestly can't fathom what it is you desire to accomplish here? At this point you're like a Bible scholar endlessly going over the same old stuff and hashing out new versions/interpretations ....... Why not just admit you're yet another "fan" with a beef? ..... I am! My beef is that Mike singularly gets raked over the coals for events that transpired between a bunch of ego-maniac rocks starts and upstarts and witnessed by some hangers-on ...... If VDP couldn't handle an (even tense) event where a singer asks what his lyrics meant, then he did the right thing by leaving....... This crap only flies when people like CD rattle off cinema quality descriptions of how aggressive Mike was with his "crap" ......

I certainly remember some serious fights in bands from 20+ years ago, and my ego is still bruised be some of it, and if someone were to ask me about it every 5 minutes, then that would certainly help me remember....

And whatever, VDP's been vindicated (as with Tony Asher) when BWPS came out with Asher's lyrics replacing those of big bad Mike.....

And once again, if no one is arguing that Mike didn't play a part in SMILE's demise, or that Brian wasn't experiencing tensions with the band, and that VDP leaving didn't help either ...... then what is the point of keeping this going and going?

BTW, Brian having tension with the band to the point where sessions were halted/Brian walking out ........ do we know exactly what these tensions were? Why assume it was them not liking the material? It's not like vocal sessions (or any kind of sessions) with bands under pressure don't go through serious ups and downs.

Why don't you read both the Vosse and Anderle interviews from the late 60's, read what they said with your own eyes, and get caught up with what's being referenced here before jumping in, making assumptions, and trying to impugn what I've written along with telling me my own motivations for writing it?

Deal?

[Cam Mott]

He is specifically on the record saying he came back to work *after* this confrontation regarding the lyrics, but did stay away for awhile immediately after.

This discounts the later March date as he never returned.

And he also says when he did return, the mood wasn't the same as it was in the fall, before the phone call. He felt unwanted, he felt like someone else wanted his job, and he also felt like he got duped and dropped into a situation by Brian that was unfair, and for which Brian chose to stay out of it rather than back him up.

And that was one of the red flags. But he says *specifically* he returned to working on Smile after this, despite walking out.

Let's get it all on the table rather than cherrypicking a point here or there, re-read both Anderle AND Vosse interviews from 1967 and 1969 respectively, along with Siegel, and really put the big picture concept at work. See how often the confrontations in the studio between Brian and the band are mentioned, alongside the squabbles between Brian and VDP and Brian and Murry.

And, of all things, try to put at least some value in what Van Dyke himself says about this particular incident if we're going to try to see all angles. To not do so, to dismiss Van Dyke's words/memories and then to try to argue the point that's not even in dispute is dishonest, at best. I just don't get it.

I'm afraid you will have to supply these quotes of VDP's you mention because I don't seem to be familiar with them, where are they from? You keep saying I dismiss VDP's words, what specifically are you talking about? Please quote the words you mean because I am at a lose.

As I said before, I'm not cherrypicking, I'm sticking to topic. If you want to start a thread on Anderle and the Boys, I'm sure I'll join in.

[Cam Mott]

Well, you don't need to supply those quotes.

Van Dyke just e-mailed me that he pursued his own recording career after he left the Smile project.

That was easy.

[guitarfool2002]

And let me say this too, those who think the confrontation was solely about Van Dyke's lyric on Cabinessence are either naive, haven't read enough and/or talked to enough people, or simply don't want to go beyond a basic, gut-level response to what they perceive happened, maybe in fear that perception's validity will be challenged.

Let me put it more direct, there was more at play than questioning lyrics at this point in time, on all sides. There were a lot of pent up, personal frustrations from Brian and Mike, from all band and family members and associates actually, and Van Dyke happened to get duped into stepping into the existing issues as a convenient scapegoat.

It went deeper than a few lines of lyrics.

And if citing Van Dyke's own words and thoughts on this is "believing a biased source" or some other nonsense, point me in the direction of a better source for what Van Dyke Parks felt at that time than Van Dyke Parks himself.

And in the meantime, mix me a can of polka dot paint...(Three Stooges reference)