The REAL reason Brian abandoned SMiLE?

[buddhahat]

Hasn't Brian claimed that Carl had issues with Good Vibrations?

I bet they all, at times, had doubts about certain songs. Good Vibrations, in terms of songwriting, cost, production methods/time must have pushed their trust to the limit. I wouldn't be surprised if they all expressed fears about that one, although Mike's faith in his 'relatable' hook probably helped ease any concerns he might have had at the time.

[Micha]

When it comes to why Smile didn't happen there is only one person ultimately responsible, and we all know who that was/is.

You mean Brian, but he has extenuating circumstances due to his mental problems which are not his fault - at least not entirely, as they may have kept SMiLE from happening even without the drug taking.

[guitarfool2002]

I think in terms of accuracy versus opinion after-the-fact, I think we're putting a little too much importance on Carl Wilson's role in all this in the first half of 1967. For one, and this is indisputable, we can trace the media reports of his legal issues surrounding the draft and his C.O. status. There was a dark cloud over the band's plans in general because ultimately it was up to a judge or the courts over what would happen to Carl, and the possibility of him going to prison was hanging over the plans, not to mention he could have been ordered to do or perform certain services short of being inducted that may have taken him away from the band's activities or as an active member.

We're looking at it based on what happened with the value of hindsight and knowing the history. What's crucial to trying to place him in the Smile/1967 context is to keep in mind his status was up in the air, and he didn't know if he'd end up in jail or serving in a VA hospital or anything else, the case was still actively going through legal channels.

So we can't put that much importance on what Carl did or what he felt or how he was going to deal with Smile because, putting it mildly, he had a lot of other fish to fry in 1967 that could affect his life and the band's status beyond dealing with Smile.

I just don't see Carl being a key part of the Smile story in 66-67 in terms of anything beyond what he did with Brian on Pet Sounds, and what he was already doing in terms of the live band even at that time. Was his personal and moral support important? Yes, it always was. But if Carl did or didn't "like" something it wasn't carrying the weight it would carry after Brian handed over the production responsibilities, and again Carl had a lot of other non-musical stuff going on which could radically affect the band's future depending on how a court would rule on his status.

[Cam Mott]

I think in terms of accuracy versus opinion after-the-fact, I think we're putting a little too much importance on Carl Wilson's role in all this in the first half of 1967. For one, and this is indisputable, we can trace the media reports of his legal issues surrounding the draft and his C.O. status. There was a dark cloud over the band's plans in general because ultimately it was up to a judge or the courts over what would happen to Carl, and the possibility of him going to prison was hanging over the plans, not to mention he could have been ordered to do or perform certain services short of being inducted that may have taken him away from the band's activities or as an active member.

We're looking at it based on what happened with the value of hindsight and knowing the history. What's crucial to trying to place him in the Smile/1967 context is to keep in mind his status was up in the air, and he didn't know if he'd end up in jail or serving in a VA hospital or anything else, the case was still actively going through legal channels.

So we can't put that much importance on what Carl did or what he felt or how he was going to deal with Smile because, putting it mildly, he had a lot of other fish to fry in 1967 that could affect his life and the band's status beyond dealing with Smile.

I just don't see Carl being a key part of the Smile story in 66-67 in terms of anything beyond what he did with Brian on Pet Sounds, and what he was already doing in terms of the live band even at that time. Was his personal and moral support important? Yes, it always was. But if Carl did or didn't "like" something it wasn't carrying the weight it would carry after Brian handed over the production responsibilities, and again Carl had a lot of other non-musical stuff going on which could radically affect the band's future depending on how a court would rule on his status.

Agreed and the same goes for the rest of the band.

[CenturyDeprived]

Even before he started substantially altering his mindset with substances, Brian was prone to making some very questionable decisions on very dubious or whimsical grounds, viz. the "Little Honda" tale: he was playing back the final mix and when someone passing by stuck their head into the control room, Brian asked their opinion of the band's projected next single. "Nah, don't like it" was the response, whereupon Brian canned it as a A side on the spot.

Allegedly - it may be apocryphal, but even so, serves to illustrate a point.

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

[KittyKat]

Maybe Capitol Records got tired of funding an artist who had a hard time completing one single and cost them tens of thousands in '60s money (Good Vibrations). Add to that the fact that said artist(s) sued their own label.  No wonder they preferred that the contractual obligation for an album be met as quickly as possible (Smiley Smile), given all the money spent on incomplete, expensive sessions. They already had "Good Vibrations" in hand for the album single, along with H & V as a middling-successful single. They had no great need for Brian to complete the Greatest Album Never Made/Completed.

[relx]

"Even before he started substantially altering his mindset with substances, Brian was prone to making some very questionable decisions on very dubious or whimsical grounds, viz. the "Little Honda" tale: he was playing back the final mix and when someone passing by stuck their head into the control room, Brian asked their opinion of the band's projected next single. "Nah, don't like it" was the response, whereupon Brian canned it as a A side on the spot.

Allegedly - it may be apocryphal, but even so, serves to illustrate a point."

Mike should have hired that guy to walk by the control room whenever Brian was mixing something he didn't like. "Hey, what do you think of Smile?" "Nah, don't like it."

[Cam Mott]

Even if this did happen, I don't think it illustrates what you fellas think it does. JMO. If you look at the whole picture, Brian is anything but fragile or indecisive. The guy just happened to agree with what Brian was already thinking, otherwise he wouldn't have asked imo.

[KittyKat]

Not to mention the fact Brian may have already been scheming to give Little Honda to the Hondells as an A-side single for them. Just to make Murry mad.

[Cam Mott]

Not to mention the fact Brian may have already been scheming to give Little Honda to the Hondells as an A-side single for them. Just to make Murry mad.

April Fools! 'Cuz we all know Brian couldn't stand up to Murry. You know except when he did or it's a convenient excuse for his behavior.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Since the rest of what we call the Smile Sessions were basically Heroes & Villains and Vegetables, and a confusing decision to start a new song after VDP already left and scrap it after a few days...can it be said that Smile was basically toast by Dec. 1966? Is 'Dada' really a Smile song? The Elements never really progressed past 'Fire' either. So many issues.

[bgas]

Maybe Capitol Records got tired of funding an artist who had a hard time completing one single and cost them tens of thousands in '60s money (Good Vibrations). Add to that the fact that said artist(s) sued their own label.  No wonder they preferred that the contractual obligation for an album be met as quickly as possible (Smiley Smile), given all the money spent on incomplete, expensive sessions. They already had "Good Vibrations" in hand for the album single, along with H & V as a middling-successful single. They had no great need for Brian to complete the Greatest Album Never Made/Completed.

Do you have ANY idea when Capitol  released GV as a single?

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

Since the rest of what we call the Smile Sessions were basically Heroes & Villains and Vegetables, and a confusing decision to start a new song after VDP already left and scrap it after a few days...can it be said that Smile was basically toast by Dec. 1966? Is 'Dada' really a Smile song? The Elements never really progressed past 'Fire' either. So many issues.

That's the conclusion I've come to as well. The album was sidelined to work on the single around the beginning of January. What should have been a comparatively simple task spiraled out of control because Brian kept remixing the song (and frankly, it was as good as it would ever get already.) Then he gives up on Heroes, tries to rework Vega-Tables as a single instead and before you know it, it's late April, the moment has passed and Pepper is imminent.

Now, I still consider up to the announcement of the cancellation to be SMiLE sessions. I consider Dada a SMiLE song. Speaking of the Elements, I believe Dada (or Second Day ie the reworked flute version) was part of the suite. The Elements was never meant to be a suite of Fire, Veggies, Wind Chimes and Dada. It was supposed to be a four part instrumental. We know what Fire was, obviously. The track was more or less scraped after December due to the whole "it caused a real fire!" scare.

Just a hypothesis, but by April, since VDP was gone for good and neither single was working out, I think Brian restarted work on the one track he thought he could get right without Van's input--the Elements instrumental. Whether Dada is water or Second Day is air in anyone's guess. I've read air was originally to be a flighty piano theme...which sounds like the outro to Wind Chimes...so my speculation is that WC would segue into (and in a sense, be part of) the elements, then Fire, then Earth (Workshop, maybe?) then Dada as water.

[Nicko1234]

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

The band members are all human beings and at this point The Beach Boys were all very young men (between the ages of 20 and 25). They obviously didn`t know the severity of Brian`s problems which they certainly can`t be blamed for. I think it`s fair to say as well that back in the 1960s issues such as mental health problems were not as understood as they are now. I think their reactions are entirely understandable, and as mentioned many times, happen in bands all over the world every day. They were worried (Mike in particular perhaps) about their careers which makes perfect sense and, in a sense, their worries weren`t entirely unfounded as the following years proved (not that I`m saying that Smile would have flopped, only that it doesn`t take long for any band to fall out of favour and out of the charts).

Also, anyone who has worked with a mentally ill person will know how difficult that is. Obviously you are sympathetic and try to help them but that doesn`t mean that you never get angry or exasperated or frustrated with them. That`s only human nature. The band members shouldn`t be judged negatively for being human.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

The band members are all human beings and at this point The Beach Boys were all very young men (between the ages of 20 and 25). They obviously didn`t know the severity of Brian`s problems which they certainly can`t be blamed for. I think it`s fair to say as well that back in the 1960s issues such as mental health problems were not as understood as they are now. I think their reactions are entirely understandable, and as mentioned many times, happen in bands all over the world every day. They were worried (Mike in particular perhaps) about their careers which makes perfect sense and, in a sense, their worries weren`t entirely unfounded as the following years proved (not that I`m saying that Smile would have flopped, only that it doesn`t take long for any band to fall out of favour and out of the charts).

Also, anyone who has worked with a mentally ill person will know how difficult that is. Obviously you are sympathetic and try to help them but that doesn`t mean that you never get angry or exasperated or frustrated with them. That`s only human nature. The band members shouldn`t be judged negatively for being human.

Nicko - I mostly agree with and pretty much totally understand what you are saying... and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now" regarding underlying elements of BW's mental state, and how maybe things could have been handled differently/delicately if they'd known more about mental issues at the time.

This is not asking him to take the fall for something, but more of display an understanding of having been even the slightest bit part of a problem. I think he's been very, very afraid at the possibility that a slight chink in his emotional armor would make him take the biggest of falls, but it shouldn't have to be that way. Mike doesn't "owe" me or anyone else that, but then again the flipside of that is that he isn't owed a universe free of haters, either.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

The band members are all human beings and at this point The Beach Boys were all very young men (between the ages of 20 and 25). They obviously didn`t know the severity of Brian`s problems which they certainly can`t be blamed for. I think it`s fair to say as well that back in the 1960s issues such as mental health problems were not as understood as they are now. I think their reactions are entirely understandable, and as mentioned many times, happen in bands all over the world every day. They were worried (Mike in particular perhaps) about their careers which makes perfect sense and, in a sense, their worries weren`t entirely unfounded as the following years proved (not that I`m saying that Smile would have flopped, only that it doesn`t take long for any band to fall out of favour and out of the charts).

Also, anyone who has worked with a mentally ill person will know how difficult that is. Obviously you are sympathetic and try to help them but that doesn`t mean that you never get angry or exasperated or frustrated with them. That`s only human nature. The band members shouldn`t be judged negatively for being human.

Nicko - I mostly agree with and pretty much totally understand what you are saying... and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now" regarding underlying elements of BW's mental state, and how maybe things could have been handled differently/delicately if they'd known more about mental issues at the time. Mike doesn't "owe" me or anyone else that, but then again the flipside of that is that he isn't owed a universe free of haters, either.

If a universe of people are going to hate Mike for their own convoluted and imaginary, fantasy, fanboy scenarios of tragic events that happened to himself and his loved ones, then this is a universe of haters Mike would be better off avoiding and ignoring all together. He doesn't need to make a public apology for s*hit.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

The band members are all human beings and at this point The Beach Boys were all very young men (between the ages of 20 and 25). They obviously didn`t know the severity of Brian`s problems which they certainly can`t be blamed for. I think it`s fair to say as well that back in the 1960s issues such as mental health problems were not as understood as they are now. I think their reactions are entirely understandable, and as mentioned many times, happen in bands all over the world every day. They were worried (Mike in particular perhaps) about their careers which makes perfect sense and, in a sense, their worries weren`t entirely unfounded as the following years proved (not that I`m saying that Smile would have flopped, only that it doesn`t take long for any band to fall out of favour and out of the charts).

Also, anyone who has worked with a mentally ill person will know how difficult that is. Obviously you are sympathetic and try to help them but that doesn`t mean that you never get angry or exasperated or frustrated with them. That`s only human nature. The band members shouldn`t be judged negatively for being human.

Nicko - I mostly agree with and pretty much totally understand what you are saying... and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now" regarding underlying elements of BW's mental state, and how maybe things could have been handled differently/delicately if they'd known more about mental issues at the time. Mike doesn't "owe" me or anyone else that, but then again the flipside of that is that he isn't owed a universe free of haters, either.

If a universe of people are going to hate Mike for their own convoluted and imaginary, fantasy, fanboy scenarios of tragic events that happened to himself and his loved ones, then this is a universe of haters Mike would be better off avoiding and ignoring all together. He doesn't need to make a public apology for s*hit.

No, Mike doesn't need to make a "public apology". I never used those words, and I think it's absurd scenario to insinuate. Speaking personally, I do not hate Mike. I do have some issues due to my observations of some of his actions and non-actions, yes. There are truckloads of outright, blind haters who aren't well informed on the nuances of the actual history. The only people who can truly, truly quantify the scenarios in question as being "imaginary", "convoluted", or "real", are the people who lived them: the band members themselves + VDP - not you or I.

I've only insinuated that the people's feelings/interpretations of what happened at the time are "real to them", not that some specific unquantifiable emotional event should be heralded as "fact"... while you imply that anyone who doubts the actual people in question's own recollections (BW/VDP, etc) are drawing "their own convoluted and imaginary, fantasy, fanboy scenarios".  That doesn't make sense to me.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

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

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

He's saying Mike ought to have expressed more regret/empathy/understanding of Brian's issues and how his behavior during PS/SMiLE may have contributed to his downward spiral if even just a little. And for the love of God, no, for the millionth time, it's not that Mike "owes" an apology. It would just be a nice gesture is all.

Not saying Mike has to call up all the papers, set up a live web chat and hold a press conference about it. Just that in all the times he's been asked it might have reflected better on him if he had expressed such sentiments.

I really don't understand why this is such a radical, offensive idea to some of you people, or why you're still splitting hairs over this...

[CenturyDeprived]

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

When you state the term "public apology", it by definition conjures up a press conference of sorts, where the specific matter at hand is discussed, dissected, etc, on its own. Almost some sort of fallen-from grace CEO or politician scenario. I'm saying that the right thing would have been for perhaps a paragraph or two in an interview or two over 47 (!) years to discuss the elephant in the room of his role in this saga - a primary reason why truckloads of people have issues with him.

Just a little bit of easing up on the emotional stonewalling, and easing up on starting off every single friggin interview (including the recently-uploaded-to-Youtube "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous") by mentioning that the Wilsons had life issues due to substance abuse. It's like he thinks the more he can keep mentioning that unfortunate factor all the time like a mantra, it will deflect any possible questions/topics that he seeks to avoid answering. Keep mentioning it, Mike. Every. Time. Please - we want to be reminded again  

This ideal scenario is not necessarily a "public apology", although it could be considered one, if you somehow want to peg/pigeonhole it as such.

And the reason I doubt it has been said in private is because I'd think that IF Mike would be willing to have a balanced enough perspective to sincerely speak those words privately, he'd be wise enough to realize that a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum would very likely earn him a lot of respect, understanding, and humanizing. I know Mike wants to be loved and for the haters to go away. I bet if he could press a button and trade a couple million bucks for all the haters to vanish, he'd do it.

Of course, there's also the IMO irrational fear that such a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum could snowball into people wanting to ask more questions, take some giant fall for other things, etc. I think this is a major reason why it hasn't happened on either the public or private front. IMO IMO IMO.

[KittyKat]

Maybe Capitol Records got tired of funding an artist who had a hard time completing one single and cost them tens of thousands in '60s money (Good Vibrations). Add to that the fact that said artist(s) sued their own label.  No wonder they preferred that the contractual obligation for an album be met as quickly as possible (Smiley Smile), given all the money spent on incomplete, expensive sessions. They already had "Good Vibrations" in hand for the album single, along with H & V as a middling-successful single. They had no great need for Brian to complete the Greatest Album Never Made/Completed.

Do you have ANY idea when Capitol  released GV as a single?

Oct. 66. But since it didn't make the cut for Pet Sounds, it was always on tap for Smile whether it fit the theme or not. It wound up on Smiley Smile. Albums were built around singles back then, usually a single or two, surrounded by filler material, so including GV would have been a key selling point for both Smile and Smiley Smile, as far as Capitol was concerned. The fact the Beatles and other bands were changing the importance of albums as more than singles plus filler didn't necessarily sink in that well with the guys at the top. The Beach Boys were due to put out an LP in a certain amount of time and they were overdue. Brian had to put out something. If he didn't have that obligation, he might never have put out Smiley Smile at all. He could have taken more time to complete Smile if albums were made the way they were later, when bands could take three or more years between albums, and the entire album was considered important and not just a way to re-package/re-sell singles in an LP form with surrounding filler tracks.  

[KittyKat]

I really have to say I don't get the Mike apology thing. At all. Mike could be the biggest jerk in the world, but he's entitled to his opinion. Brian being sensitive is Brian's problem. Men are men. Look at the Jonathan Martin case in the NFL if you want to see how men in this world view any type of softness. Read the comments in articles about that case. Even if they agree Richie Incognito was being a jerk, it's a man's job to stand up for himself, not the jerk's job to say he's sorry.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

He's saying Mike ought to have expressed more regret/empathy/understanding of Brian's issues and how his behavior during PS/SMiLE may have contributed to his downward spiral if even just a little. And for the love of God, no, for the millionth time, it's not that Mike "owes" an apology. It would just be a nice gesture is all.

Not saying Mike has to call up all the papers, set up a live web chat and hold a press conference about it. Just that in all the times he's been asked it might have reflected better on him if he had expressed such sentiments.

I really don't understand why this is such a radical, offensive idea to some of you people, or why you're still splitting hairs over this...

We're splitting hairs over it because you guys keep repeating your wish over and over and over.....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

When you state the term "public apology", it by definition conjures up a press conference of sorts, where the specific matter at hand is discussed, dissected, etc, on its own. Almost some sort of fallen-from grace CEO or politician scenario. I'm saying that the right thing would have been for perhaps a paragraph or two in an interview or two over 47 (!) years to discuss the elephant in the room of his role in this saga - a primary reason why truckloads of people have issues with him.

Just a little bit of easing up on the emotional stonewalling, and easing up on starting off every single friggin interview (including the recently-uploaded-to-Youtube "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous") by mentioning that the Wilsons had life issues due to substance abuse. It's like he thinks the more he can keep mentioning that unfortunate factor all the time like a mantra, it will deflect any possible questions/topics that he seeks to avoid answering. Keep mentioning it, Mike. Every. Time. Please - we want to be reminded again  

This ideal scenario is not necessarily a "public apology", although it could be considered one, if you somehow want to peg/pigeonhole it as such.

And the reason I doubt it has been said in private is because I'd think that IF Mike would be willing to have a balanced enough perspective to sincerely speak those words privately, he'd be wise enough to realize that a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum would very likely earn him a lot of respect, understanding, and humanizing. I know Mike wants to be loved and for the haters to go away. I bet if he could press a button and trade a couple million bucks for all the haters to vanish, he'd do it.

Of course, there's also the IMO irrational fear that such a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum could snowball into people wanting to ask more questions, take some giant fall for other things, etc. I think this is a major reason why it hasn't happened on either the public or private front. IMO IMO IMO.

But what I've quoted from you in yellow is THOSE PEOPLE'S problem! A bunch of fanboys!

Mike has moved on. Brian has moved on (or has at least received artistic validation at the level few mere humans see in their own lifetimes) ..... If a bunch of angry fanboys can't get over a guy asking what some lyrics meant, 50 years ago, then maybe they shouldn't be give a single morsel.... Maybe they should just be free to suffer this massive issue forever and ever..... They sure seem happy to suffer it endlessly for men who've long since grown up and taken it to the bank.

[CenturyDeprived]

I really have to say I don't get the Mike apology thing. At all. Mike could be the biggest jerk in the world, but he's entitled to his opinion. Brian being sensitive is Brian's problem. Men are men. Look at the Jonathan Martin case in the NFL if you want to see how men in this world view any type of softness. Read the comments in articles about that case. Even if they agree Richie Incognito was being a jerk, it's a man's job to stand up for himself, not the jerk's job to say he's sorry.

Using that logic, is any type of bullying behavior considered ok, so long as it doesn't end in fisticuffs? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and that line's placement is dictated by the person who felt bullied. 

I firmly suspect that Mike had then and has now a "men are men/ no apologies or acknowledgements come hell or high water" attitude too.