The Smiley Smile Message Board

Was thinking, do u guys think when some of the other band members who opposed smile, heard sgt. Pepper, and its recognition think they new they missed the boat?.  Like oh, I see what Brian was doing, and f*** me, the Beatles did it and we were wrong. Take mike, he thought he was doing good by the band, but when he heard sgt. Pepper even he must of thought secretly, damm Brian was right the whole time.

I've been wondering the same. There must have been some soul searching going on, and Brian had the biggest right in music history to say "told you so". I kinda wish he took the opportunity to say it.

Yea he def did have the right, I agree

I dunno if I agree... Sgt Pepper was basically a 4x4 rock album with a bit of production flair and an unusual arrangement tossed in here and there. Smile was something else entirely and I doubt the rock obsessed music press would have gotten it.... If the Beach Boys, however, could have gotten a more produced version of Wild Honey (and not in mono) out there before Sgt Pepper: that could have kept them in the game.....

Nah, not at all. Don't forget Pet Sounds, that's as much of a grand production piece as, well...anything.

The Beatles didn't do anything on Sgt Pepper that the Beach Boys did on SMiLE, anyway (and vice versa), so that's another reason why this is a moot discussion.

Also, something else to remember, everybody and his mother were stepping up their game. There was a conscious effort in the pop music field to progress and produce and create on a bigger, more varied scale. It's not just The Beatles and The Beach Boys making ambitious pop records, and everyone else just watched and fell by the wayside. Even if they were not successful (commercially or artistically), you will find a "Sgt Pepper" or "Smile" directive in most 60s pop groups' catalogs.

I love 'Pepper' and can't deny its influence, but I don't think that it had such a colossal effect on those who "rejected" the Smile idea. Might've gotten an "Oh my god! This is an incredible album; haven't heard anything quite like it before" reaction, but I doubt there was a perception-changing "Oh, so this is how music should be created. My whole life is a lie!" kind of thing. There were plenty of albums (even songs) before 'Pepper' that had a good chance of demonstrating those people that an artistic-orientated approach should be adopted and risks should be taken.

I was about to say the same thing. Smile and Sgt. Pepper are really not very similar at all, so I doubt it caused anyone to have any regrets or questions in their decision making. I'm not entirely sure Brian would have been able to say "told you so" to anyone anyway, since it was his idea to move into the Smiley Smile/home studio direction.

You're right, but Pet Sounds didn't "rock at all (big deal)  and that's what the kids wanted no matter how else this band or that was stepping up their game,. And rocking was just about the last concern of Brians....

I wonder if Mike was sitting there thinking "Damn, we should have done a whole album of songs like Dance Dance Dance and threw some backwards tape effects in there and we'd be hailed as the second coming right now"!!...... Er, probably not.

There were a lot of progressive (pop or otherwise) records that were released in the mid to late 60s that didn't rock and were very popular with the young crowd, so I'm not sure I get where you're going with that. Most of Pepper doesn't "rock", anyway. The Monkees outsold everyone in 1967 - forget that most people dismiss them as bubblegum pop, there is some real experimentation there - but they didn't "rock" either, and the kids were fine with that.

I would agree with this sentiment when the decade turned, though.

Yeah, but the Monkees still sounded like a band! Not to make too big a deal out of it, but most of the bands your talking about still used a drum-kit and had a "beat"!  Meanwhile Brian's over there ordering Hal and Dennis not to use their cymbals..... to awesome effect, mind you. But that's not the point....

Go watch the movie "Shampoo" which is set in 1967. There's a scene at some hip Hollywood party where "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (the song) is playing, and it sounds pretty damn heavy and amazing and you can really feel what it must have sounded like at the time...

So going back to the original question, the overall consesus here seems that there were no regrets by the other members..but man, wild honey produced like pet sounds would of been something else.??

The rawness and minimal home-brew sounding production is one reason the Wild Honey album is so great.

I'm sure there were regrets, more from the Wilson Bros. than the others in the group, but your original question made it seem like they only regretted SMiLE's collapse because Sgt Pepper happened. And I don't think they are related in that sense...

As for Wild Honey a la Pet Sounds. don't think that would have worked and wouldn't want it any other way. Wild Honey is a great album with a fresh direction. He'd already done Pet Sounds -  to fall back on a sound he'd already "created" and utilised a year+ before would satisfy listeners today I think, but probably wouldn't have garnered great press (in America). Besides, those songs aren't suited to grand productions anyway.

Yea when u put it in that perspective prob right, wild honey is raw and prob not meant for a ps type production

If you look at subsequent (post-Pepper) tracks that Dennis, Carl, Al, and Bruce did - from "Little Bird" to "I Can Hear Music" to "Cottonfields" to "The Nearest Faraway Place" right on through Holland, I would say no, they weren't very affected or influenced.

I think it caused Brian to give up. I don't think he had enough energy left, physically or emotionally, to compete. I think a part of Brian wanted to fight the good fight, to "expand", to continue to create new sounds, but the drugs (prescribed or otherwise) were already taking their affect on his psyche.

One thing I am absolutely sure of. The Pepper/SMiLE period had NO EFFECT on Mike Love - because he didn't "get" it. And, if you listen to his subsequent interviews, all the way through to 2013, he still doesn't "get" it.

I think thats my problem with Mike Love in a nutshell. He just never "got" it and never will that the "formula" was stale in a changing music scene.

well...for better or worse-it pointed out a difference between the Beach Boys and Beatles.  The Beatles up until 1968 were a four headed person-they did EVERYTHING together-drugs, meditation, you name it-they were all on the same wave length for the most part-the Beach Boys from the beginning just weren't that close.  Even as early as 1965-insiders say Mike preferred to hang out with manager Duryea, Al went off with his first wife, Brian had his friends, Dennis did his thing, etc-they weren't that tight...So Brian's trip was his trip-whereas the Beatles were all involved in Pepper and all supported it. 

Two different products entirely, in my view, with different dynamics, except for the fact that each had unique and innovative features.  It's like being asked to choose between an orange and a football.  But who really knows what affect Smile would have had in 1967 on music or the band's reputation?  I bought Sergeant Pepper the month it was issued. I had nothing to compare it to from the Beach Boys.  It was a moot point. 37 years later I bought BWPS and once again had nothing to compare it to (but then again I rarely listen to any artist who wasn't around by the mid-70's so what do I know about anything).

I'm not a big Beatles fan anymore, and even I think Pepper is a much more accessible record than Smile. It's also better put together. It was finished, after all. It's also rock and roll.  Smile wasn't rock music, much. People back in those days liked the hard rocking material with crunchy guitars. I don't think Smile would have been a hit then and the Beach Boys didn't regret it. Besides which, how could they regret it? The did "Smiley Smile" instead, which included Smile songs. In many ways, Smiley is a record that fit in with times much better than Smile did, because it's more self-consciously psychedelic. It's sort of the Beach Boys' "Satanic Majesties Request."

There's a story told in 'Beautiful Dreamer' where Brian is driving around with (I think) David Anderle - they hear 'Strawberry Fields' and Brian says "They beat me to it," or something like that.

No doubt that Brian, if not the rest of the guys, saw they had missed out on something important. Everyone in The Beach Boys knew there was a rivalry going on between the two bands - and no doubt they heard the similar sounding psychedelic and experimental correlations between Sgt. Pepper and Smile. Of course they sound nothing alike (they're two different bands, with two very different styles), but they both carry the same ideas of experimentation and revolutionary songwriting.

I think there is evidence to the contrary about the four-headed monster that the Beatles may have resembled. They were not that close, and the cracks in the foundation began to show just after John and George had their first unplanned experience with a serious dose of LSD.

Those two - at least for a time just after that first acid trip - bonded in such a way that Paul and Ringo were left out. John and George lived closer to each other in more of a country estate existence, and Paul was more in the urban, cosmopolitan hipster art circles in 66-67. And the most ironic thing is that Paul was the Beatle who caused the big controversy by admitting to taking LSD, where John and George for months after their experience had been trying to persuade Paul to experience it, and Paul resisted until finally giving in. But that initial resistance, and the feeling that John and George had shared a deep personal experience with each other, is what kept Paul in the role of "outsider".

Onto Sgt. Pepper: There is a *huge* mythology behind this album and how it was created, namely that it was wholly and "group" effort. This is simply not the case. The last group effort was the Rubber Soul/Revolver combination.

Pepper stands as mostly a John and Paul effort, with lesser original or vital contributions from George, and with Ringo contributing a solid backbeat and one classic lead vocal but little else. The primary push and driving force behind the album was John and Paul, and they were responsible for the overwhelming majority of songwriting credits, lead and backing vocals, lead and backing instrumentals, and in general the creative force behind the songs.

As much credit goes to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, who made it all possible from the technology side, and created the type of recording studio environment which allowed the creativity to flow and develop, and not have it be said to someone like Paul or John "No, it can't be done.".

In that way - the creative team of John and Paul, plus the creative and technological team of Martin-Emerick-etc., plus the lesser but still vital supporting roles of Ringo and George, made it happen.

I'd say the template of the recording process which everyone credits to "The White Album" sessions was created during Sgt. Pepper. You had entire tracks where one Beatle member's vision and direction was the driving force, and they came to the studio with the idea without the others pitching in like the old Mop Top days. You had one Beatle coming into the studio to work on his own individual parts alone, not with the group.

And also, you had entire long stretches of studio session time where Ringo would spend most of his time playing card or table games and eating with Neil and/or Mal, not being needed for the work that was being done yet being "on call" to get behind the kit when they needed him. I've read quotes where he remembers the Pepper process most for hanging out in the corner of the studio waiting or playing games with Neil and Mal.

George's contributions or lack thereof were on a similar level. Apart from the track "Within You Without You", George contributed barely any original musical ideas, and a lot of the standout guitar solos and guitar work actually belonged to Paul McCartney. Not to say Harrison wasn't a crucial member, but on Pepper he simply was not as involved or as much of a creative presence.

The irony is that in their non-musical lives, up to late '66 and the start of the Pepper-era sessions, John and George had the tightest bond through their LSD experience(s), and Paul was the outside man. Then when the music creation started up again - fueled no doubt by the LSD - Paul and John resumed their tightest bond status and George was the odd man out.

I firmly believe the myth of the Beatles being a tight and close-knit "band" who created music together a certain way and hung out as close mates ended around Rubber Soul/Revolver, and the notion of creating albums separately rather than together began with Pepper.

And I also totally agree that the Beach Boys for all intents and purposes were never quite a band with Brian, at least when you had such a driving force as Brian Wilson responsible for the creation and sound of all their records until '67.

Pepper and Smile are closer than we might think, in that you had a driving force within the group creating and pushing the creative process while the others basically waited to be called in to do their part.

I think we tend to overrate Brian as this ahead of the times guy and that if the other Beach Boys or pressure or acid hadn't sent him off track, he'd have been either guiding the path for everyone or fitting in well with the burgeoning rock elite... Smille was not rock music, or even pop. Brian was not Frank Zappa. Brian was not going to do Lumpy Gravy (not a bad comparison to Smile) and then go do "Freak Out". He was gonna do Smile and then probably a double album of "Old Man River" or something.... This wrecking crew/studio cat thing would have kept him just outside of the hip elite no matter what.... I hate to say it, but Mike (allegedly) wanting to keep pumping out Fun Fun Funs and Carl being a Chuck Berry obsessed guitarist and Al wanting to integrate folk with pop/rock, and Dennis just being Dennis (as in: actually cool): these elements had more a chance at grooving with the times if heads had been put together.... Maybe I'm granting too much to the other Beach Boys, but why the hell not?

It seems like nobody in the band would have actually regarded Smile as a missed opportunity because it probably wasn't even seen as an opportunity to begin with.   Smile to the group represented not just a body of material but a way of working that from their perspective was untenable and unproductive - whereas the Smiley/WH was immensely productive by contrast and allowed them to get a lot of stuff out very quickly.  Regardless of enthusiasm or support for the material within the Mike/Al/Bruce/Dennis/Carl faction, it seems like Smile was just seen as something that was unfinishable and unreleasable in the absence of a clear and decisive effort from Brian, which wasn't forthcoming.  The idea that they would see Sgt. Pepper as a somehow finished/successful version of what they'd been doing with Smile - that they would then say "hey, we should totally still be doing little disconnected fragments that we don't understand how to fit together, with no end in sight" - seems unlikely.  It's easy enough from our perspective to look at the commonality between those works but I'm sure things looked different on the ground at the time.

First off, isn't it spelled SMiLE?

I think SMiLE would have been very successful in the spring of 67. People say it didn't 'rock', well no less then Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Sky, Fool On a Hill, Crimson and Clover, etc.

I think there are similarities to Sgt Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour and SMiLE. Some of John's lyrics are Van Dyke type nonsensical poetry. I believe that SMiLE would have competed with Sgt Pepper, as Pet Sounds did with Rubber Soul/Revolver. Heroes and Villains might have reached top 5 had it been ready for release in Jan or Feb.

Of course, I am talking out of my ass, since I wasn't born until 77. But Good Vibrations was #1 in late 66. Surely, the masses were ready to hear what Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys would do next. But they waited too long.

I was born in 73 and am talking out of my ass too, Strawberry Fields, Lucy In The Sky, Fool On The Hill all had Ringo on drums, thus: they rocked. Plus, Strawberry Fields has that pretty rockin ending where the drums go nuts.... Crimson And Clover is basically a soul song, thus didn't need to rock to jive with what was cool at time.... By 67, Smile (and in mono) just wouldn't have cut it.... I'm not endorsing this alternate reality. Smile blows away all the stuff I've mentioned.....

SMILE is like a piece of art, musically I think it almost has everything.  I don't think u need to necessarily rock out to be hip with the crowd in 67, but I just think it would of been hard for them to accept such a drastic change from them.  If the beach boys formed in 66 and their first album was pet sounds followed by smile I think that crowd would of loved it.  I mean look at mamas and papas, Crosby stills and Nash, Neil young. These bands did not rock but were considered to be in.  I just think that if they formed and started with pet sounds everything would been different.  Although I love the surf stuff!!

Actually, in my alternate universe Brian uses "Booker T and the MG's" with the "Memphis Horns" to record "Wild Honey"

The question assumes that SMiLE was killed due to opposition from some of the Beach Boys.  I believe that Brian killed SMiLE.  If the rest of the band had any say in the matter "Smiley Smile" would never have seen the light of day.

Is there a bigger WTF in rock history than "Smiley"?

The members who opposed it (mainly Mike) would never in a billion years admit that they missed the boat, but they completely did. Failing to release SMiLE is without a doubt what ended the BB as a major group. The Who dealt with a similar situation much better with Who's Next, but then again Roger Daltrey is basically Mike Love done right.

I know the whole "Mike is evil" thing is old hat, and I don't buy into it. I just think he's clueless.

That would rock my socks off it that had actually happened! And add in a vocal cameo from Otis Redding.... :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

I bet if Mike Love had his way, the would have released SMiLE over Smiley Smile any day. Mike said recently that he didn't have a say in the matter anyway.

Dennis put it best in the 76(?) interview I believe in the Australia radio station. When told that it had been reported that they didn't support Brian's music for Pet Sounds, he said (paraphrasing) "are you kidding?" "Who said that?" "Did Brian say that?" "Whoever said that is being humble?"

I think, in Brian's mind they didn't like it. There is no way for me to know this, but I bet that Mike was upset that Brian was moving away from him as a lyricist. Mike had more lyrical credits on each passing album until Pet Sounds. He seemed to disapprove of Tony Asher's lyrics even though he wrote similar kinds of lyrics on Today. With Van Dyke, he probably really didn't like the abstract lyrics. But most of all, Mike wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations which went to number one! In his mind, he must have been going crazy to be pushed aside once again. I am sure that he over criticized the lyrics to make a point to Brian. He probably feels that if he wrote lyrics for Heroes and Villains, he could have made it a number one song. Maybe he would, and maybe he wouldn't but he just did with Good Vibrations so why not? Personally, I am amazed with Van Dykes lyrics. But I sympathize with Mike.

As expressed in the BB TV miniseries, Mike felt he and Brian had a "deal" that they would write the next album after Pet Sounds together, and he was hurt when this did not come to pass.

I agree with you here. . Mike not liking the last stanza of "Cabinessence" wouldn't have stopped Brian if he believed in Smile like he did Pet Sounds. Another thing to consider is that Mike did like Brian's work on Smile, just not Van Dyke's. Even so nobody ever told Brian not to do the album. I maintain that had Brian been certain he wouldn't have let others opinions get to him. I don't blame Van Dyke because how was he to know, but his leaving the sessions did give Brian a chance to second guess him. If you read everything Brian has said on Smile over the years compared to Pet Sounds, I think you will still see some doubt in comparison. Yes he sometimes blames his decision not to put it out on "the guys" even Dennis, but that's not borne out due to all of them getting past their doubts and working hard on the sessions. Even Domenic Priore, who has skewered the band over Smile, agrees that what they did during the sessions was some of their best work vocally.

Personally I like Van Dyke's stuff with Brian and Come To The Sunshine a lot. Without Brian he's not my style in general. Just my taste I guess, but I do think at his best he was a unique songwriter. He doesn't like my view on Smile, but he's mistaken if he thinks I don't rate his work.

I need to stop making statements on memory alone. When Mike Love said that he didn't have a say in the matter, or more precisely, no authority in the matter, he was talking about the accusation of firing Brian from the Beach Boys last fall.

Of course I don't feel too bad. There are professional documentaries that blatantly take quotes out of context. Even so, I believe that Mike didn't have the power to kill SMiLE.

Here's a thought, since Brian seems to put some blame on Mike, is it possible that one of the voices in his head sounds just like Mike?  :o

If so, then Van Dyke can hear the voices in Brian's head, which would be quite something.

Personally, I have no problem believing that Mike's distaste for the lyrics played *some* part in Smile's cancellation, just as I have no problem believing that the decision was, in the end, Brian's.

Not really... that whole story is b.s. anyways.  If the Beach Boys were so against SMiLE coming out, then why did they release Smiley Smile?  It's 10X more weird than Smile!  So the album they released was far more trippy and over the top than anything Brian was trying on SMiLE, it got released, Brian produced it, recorded most of it, Mike and everybody else sang on it, etc. 

So there wouldn't have been any big revelation... because there wasn't any serious opposition to the album in the first place.   The rest of those guys at the time were CLUELESS in the studio, they put out whatever Brian wanted to put out because they didn't have any choice or any ability to do it themselves. 

Brian, Van Dyke, Marilyn, Tony Asher, and other people who were there first hand have agreed that the Boys were not entirely on board with Brian's music from that period. Mike has been honest about finding the Smile stuff too weird. So the whole story is not b.s. Did that mean they didn't want it to come out? Probably not. I'm sure they really wanted something to come out and they were probably frustrated that Brian was concentrating on creating music that seemed like it was never going to come out, and were probably relieved when they started doing the more simplified Smiley Smile, no matter how much weirder it was.

Sometimes I think The Beach Boys - all of them - wanted it both ways. I think a part of them wanted to go "out there" and be cool and trippy and be part of the hip crowd. I'm sure they were starting to feel more self-conscious about their surf & turf image than they let on. It's just that they were having so much success as "The Beach Boys", and those hit records were so recent, only two, maybe three years old.

But, no matter how much they - including Brian - changed, both personally or professionally, I think at heart they will always prefer or be more comfortable just playing good old rock and roll. They just always seem to migrate back to that.

At least some of them. Dennis and Carl may have been more reluctant.

I cant believe I read every post on the thread (and how long it took)

One thing no one has brought up is that back the 1960s we young people liked to DANCE.

The "dance-ability" factor was high in most hit songs... and I don't mean the fast dances - we liked
to slow dance too ya know.  Any LP released in 67 with no singles you can dance to would have
struggled in the market no matter know well received by the "hipsters" and in-crowd elite. I think
it would be Mike Love saying I told you to stick to the formula.

That's a good point.  My girlfriend at the time, late 60's, early 70's, now my wife for almost 41 years, grew up in a "dancing" family, mostly country-western.  I was in college at the time at Berkeley, and brought over the first Electric Flag album and Super Session once when her aunts and uncles were all gathered at her parents' house for a get-together, and when I finally got a chance to put it on, the response was, "what the heck is that and how can you dance to it?" We still seem to have that question unresolved.  As a musician of sorts, I've always been interested in the music itself, but other folk like to dance. Dancing to Smile would have been a real challenge.

Who needs music you can dance to when we have music you can eat vegetables to? Music you can set fire to a town with, music you can waltz to - hell, music you can even domino columnated ruins to? This question of 4/4 dance appeal is just the sort of constrained, backwards thinking Brian was hemmed in by at the time. It wasn't just the Beach Boys that didn't get. Almost no one could.

Even The Doors and Velvet Underground were dance bands. It was the 1960's.

I guess he just wasn't made for these times. That's why he shelved Smile. It was ahead of its time.

He needed another year.

I'm just saying, Brian was enlightened. If we had more enlightened people, we wouldn't be so fixated on dance music. We'd understand that there is a time and place for it, but that it needn't dominate the entire spectrum of radio waves.

Are you advocating the mass consumption of LSD, hash, and birthday cake?  :)

Even the enlightened folks who would attend the acid parties in New York, California, etc were not sitting around in a circle listening to the bands play - they were moving and dancing to the music. Plenty of film exists - in most of them, you see dancing.  :)

If you wanted the other side of that coin, you could go to where the intellectuals were checking out free-form jazz and remnants of the beat clubs, and those other jazz and or folk clubs where signs were posted telling the patrons dancing wasn't allowed.

Not saying Brian was or wasn't somehow affected by some restriction of popular music, but notice that for his big planned Smile single he lifted a driving Phil Spector beat and rocking groove that would, in fact, get people up and moving for at least a decent portion of the record, that is if Heroes had been released in early '67 as scheduled. At some point, just like on Pet Sounds and other BB's releases, you could have music to move with and music to listen to and contemplate existing on the same album.

I didn't realize being born after the fact by a few years just how much of a dancing song "Heroes" really is or was until I saw the crowd in New York grooving and moving like mad to the driving beat of the song when the American Band doc had that live clip of them playing it outdoors, and the crowd is moving, clapping, and bopping along like crazy. Before that I think I assumed it was one of Brian's listening trips rather than a groove-along crowd pleaser...it was both.

Exactly. Enlightened people like dancing too. Just look at Allen Ginsberg.

"H&V" could certainly move in a live context, but I find the chorus of the single to be too baroque. And just so you know, this whole line about being able to dance to a single is an argument against "H&V" put forth by the inestimable Bruce "Short Shorts" Johnston.  The question was: do you want to be a leader, a legend- or dare I say it? - a revolutionary? Or Mr. 5,000th dance song?

One of the top songs of '67 was "To Sir With Love". Not too many are waxin' rhapsodic about it these days.

You forsee a time in the future when people don't like dancing anymore? Has the town from Footloose taken over the world?

Murry Murry Murry - check out YouTube Heroes and Villains, "ripperdingo"  and see if the back-in-the-dayers knew how to boogie! 
And the retro shorts were real shorts.  They wear culottes now! (basketball shorts) :lol

:lol :lol :lol

That is an incredible, moving song.

Plus, it ties in with an incredible, moving film. People still wax poetic about that these days.

B-side is really good, too (I prefer it) - "The Boat That I Row"

Right on, I love that song too.

I'd love to live in that footloose town.
If I was in charge I would take it several stages further and have people sent to interment camps for listening to the wrong sort of music.
You tap your foot, you lose that foot.
People who created dance music would be executed.
In my mind I am the charismatic leader of the National Tonalist Party
It would be great.



****And as I lay in bed this morning, with both sides of my brain working, last nights post turned into a groovy poem********

Hey, you buncha Mike Loves! I'm only saying that it's ridiculous to stymie or criticize someone's artistic output because you can't dance to it.  It's a dumb criteria, whether or not it was the prevailing pop trend or not.

What the f*** does that even mean? Get outta the muso basement and have some fun.

Got to check out "the Boat That I row" then; I LUV Lulu and To Sir!!

That is an incredible, moving song to slow dance to.  ^-^

I had a crush on Lulu when I was eight.  :o

(http://theereatta.8thman.com/i_carlandlulu.jpg)

Have some fun? Sonny, I once performed cunnilingus to 7 girls at the same time during the chorus of "Cabinessence". That's fun. Who rode the iron horse?, indeed. You just don't like me calling out the intellectual shallowness of your quote unquote "position".

Wow, that's really something! Your tongue musta been real sore after that.

I'l call your teeth outta your head. Get on the dancefloor, or take your dead ass home, whitey.

See, I just don't get where you guys are getting all this from. What, because I said Smile is as valid as dance music? Because I pointed out - correctly - that dance music often has less intellectual merit from a purely musical perspective? Of course, intellectual merit isn't always that important. I think variety on the airwaves is good. Or do you disagree?

Music has no intellectual merit, in and of itself (and even if it did, the concept is nauseating in a rock context, even a loose one). Lyrics sometimes have intellectual merit, of course. And if you think folks don't dance to records with intellectual lyrics, you haven't seen The Byrds perform The Bells Of Rhymney on Where The Action Is.

Don't quite see how you think I'm disagreeing. When it comes to music I'm so right wing I'm hanging off the edge by one fingernail. Respectfully of course.

Depends how you listen. I honestly never tap my foot, so I listen to everything on a purely intellectual level. My pleasure (and it's great pleasure( is derived from analysing music. I do respond emotionally, but only in the way a mathematician will cry over a beautiful equation. The moment you start listening with your body, you lose that.
Listen to Art Of Fugue and tell me music has no intellectual merit in and of itself. It's based on the arrangement of patterns. If you think composers sit there in a state of bliss as they work, really feeling it, then your way off. 99% of it is number crunching. So for the composer, it's an intellectual exercise. I agree with you on quite a bit Ian, but not this.

Looks like you're arguing about three different things:

1. Must good music be danceable  (no)
2. Must a big hit song be danceable (probably yes)
3. Would there have been any songs you can dance to on "Smile"? (yes: H&V, worms, vega-tables, Love to say dada, and don't forget Good Vibrations)

I'm guessing there's something called "dance music" as a genre.  I'm too old to know that for sure. I was simply thinking of songs you can dance to like we did in the 60's. It has nothing to do with music intellectualism or musical depth or artistic merit or anything. 

You're about two decades late there. That was in Bebop clubs in the '40s, a reaction to Big Band/the emergence of Swing.


I would argue that Heroes is the antithesis of a dance record, it's a train wreck in that regard--all the sudden stops and starts, the jarring edits, the different (slow) sections that bring the music to various halts--because it toys with the listener/dancer. Rather than being an obvious, flat-out undanceable song, it's ostensibly danceable, the opening verse masquerades as a dance record, but then it goes all over the place at breakneck speed, so it's misleading, which fucks with people. It's a frustrating thing when all you want is for the record to just play so that you can dance, but the damn thing keeps stopping and starting and it's got these long stretches of head-scratching music. It's a tease, almost as if the dance crowd is being mocked or taunted. On the other hand, if you knew a song was just a non-dance song, some real "arty" thing with no beat, etc., then you could just sit that one out altogether, instead of frustratingly standing there on the dance floor, starting and stopping over and over, maybe looking a bit foolish, trying to figure out when the beat's gonna pick up again. I imagine people would've just thrown their arms up and given up. That gray area in the middle is a dangerous place to be.

When you say "arrangement of patterns" and "number crunching", that strengthens what I am saying. If the art of creating music is a mechanical one that can be learnt by anyone, then why not say that any mechanical exercise, done well, has intellectual merit? It is all based on mental faculty, right? So making a damn great sheet of cookies or being able to stack a thousand beer cans has intellectual merit.
Yeah, there is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that comes into play, of course. And one learns how to play an instrument. But after that, the genesis of a musical idea comes from a purely inspirational place, something the "intellect" cannot exactly pinpoint. The mind and fingers simply must go a certain place, in certain "patterns". This impulse to make music, has a direct correlation with the "magic" impulse and inspiration to let the body move and respond to the music.
And if one can ascribe purely intellectual motivation to the mechanics of music-making, why not ascribe same to someone who is an expert dancer? Why not watch The TAMI Show, check how James Brown knows exactly what his body is capable of doing, at the perfectly timed moment in the music, and proclaim him to be as much of a genius in his own way as George Gershwin. The perfect movement is, to the dancer, as the equation is to the mathematician. Not many modern musicians, aside from maybe Rush, would rather be compared to the latter rather than the former.
You said "listening with your body" as if that was a negative thing, when it is a perfect summation of the original purpose of music, and what music thankfully got back to in the jazz age. Yeah, there are times to sit there and ponder, in intellectual fashion, on the merits of Leonard Cohen, and to write a seriously motivated piece of "art music". But when I throw a party, A Collection Of 16 Original Motown Big Hits Vol. 7 or Endless Summer goes on the turntable and I expect to see movin' and GROOVIN' out there. And when I play a show, I don't want people sitting there soberly, considering my intellectual motivation (until I tell them it is time to do that).

I fall between the two of you on this, I think, because I think there are intellectual and physical or emotional aspects to music, and at different times one or the other is more rewarding. I.'d Like to Teach... (nice new name, btw.), it seems you say as much in your last few sentences--maybe contradicting yourself a little bit there? After having said there is no intellectual merit to music, that there are times to listen or write in that context?

The other thing I'd question is:

Sometimes I think that's true; others, not. I'm thinking of Lou Reed--an inspired creator if ever there was one--and his often stated position (based on Warhol's insistence) that sometimes you just write. If you're working for Pickwick, or you're churning out 10 songs a day lest Andy call you lazy, I don't think those are all inspired. I think the genesis of some musical ideas is not inspiration, but from craftsmanship and labor. In one or two of the ten, halfway through its creation, some seed of inspiration may sprout and produce something better, but that isn't the same as having had its genesis in inspiration, is it?

As I'm typing this, I'm listening to Wilson Pickett's The Exciting... ... on a wholly intellectual level, of course.  ;D

I do think of listening with the body as a negative thing, and do you want to know something else? It is entirely this line of thinking I am working very hard to not pass onto my daughter. Being a father has caused / forced me to re assess a lot of my thoughts. Unthinkable! Of course responding physically to music is not a negative, or a lesser thing, and I'm happy to say that. I just happen to prefer listening with my mind, and I prefer music which can hold up to my highly critical ideals, subjecticve though they may be. So back to your original point, to me, music is solely an intellectual pursuit, but I do know I'm in a minority.

And in regard to the idea that if the creation of music is mechanical, then anyone could learn it, I again feel the opposite is true. It has been put forward quite a few times that there are only two true types of prodigy, musical and mathematical. Not everyone can do it well, far from it.
Music and maths are definitely linked. Neuroscience is also discovering that similar brain functions are being used when composing music and doing maths. Rather than being an abhorrent thing, don't you find this wonderful?
Music is the highest art form, it speaks the purest language. Certainly to me it is my window to the universe, and the closest I get to spirituality. Though I accept someone saying that the physical response to music could have the same effect, I can't help but feel it is different, a primitive understanding rather than a sentient one. Again though, highly subjective view.

Thanks for chiming in here, Luther, I hoped you would. I recognize the contradictions, those were probably more in the realm of misstatement on my part. I love lyric-centered, "serious" modern music, and programmatic classical works as much as anyone.
I know what you're saying about Lou and the factory/Factory approach. Funnily enough tho, that assembly-line approach often leads to the type of music that inspires the listener, more than the writer. I don't think that is a bad thing.

Thanks for the dialogue on this subject, I greatly appreciate it.
Would you say that music created from that standpoint is most likely to appeal to others who share those same views? As "Mathematical" prog-rock often appeals to those who carry pencils in their pocket, and figure out mathematical equations for fun?
If every musician and artist spoke in the same way about the artform as you and Frank Zappa, I would be inclined to agree on the subject. But some of the best musicians I know, who could barely string two sentences together, could come up with some of the most beautiful, original note/chord clusters I have ever heard. And for them, there is nothing intellectual about it. You know, the "lick my love pump" syndrome.
I gotta think inspiration goes hand in hand with learned ability/technique, and the same for the listener's mental/physical reaction. I know Brian Wilson, the dumb angel, would agree!
But again, thanks for a very illuminating trip to go on.

No one here in this thread has once criticized "someone's artistic output because you can't dance to it." Rather, some of the posters are accounting for what the public reaction to Smile might have been in 1966/1967. You seem to be missing this crucial distinction.

This privileging of the intellect over the body is wrapped up in such a problematic history that I really have a great deal of difficulty with this. As a father of a two-year old daughter, there is nothing that I enjoy watching more than seeing her have fun by dancing to some "primitive" and anti-intellectual rock and roll music.

It is fun to imagine a lost Poe short story: "THE MAN WHO COULDN'T TAP HIS FOOT".

All love to ya, Stephen, really, all in fun.

Conversely, history to-date has shown that "serious" intellectually based music tends to be more inspiring to the composer than the listener: think (for example) Schoenberg. Now, don't get me wrong, I can enjoy some Schoenberg now and again. But realistically, his decision to create a system of intellectually based music outside of the context of what that type of music's audience had previously enjoyed (i.e., western tonality) led to the near abandonment of serious music outside of academia. That doesn't mean it isn't hugely enjoyable and rewarding to the composer or even the student ... but the typical listener, not so much. This isn't just an opinion, this is the documented reality over the past 110 years or so.

That kind--or other difficult kinds--of music can bring me great enjoyment, but it's more like a crossword puzzle than a good f***. I like crossword puzzles, but I like fucking, too. I think they're both worthwhile.

Which brings us back to Zappa!

Great post, man.

Actually, even Zappa would have disagreed with Stephen. Just look at how much he loved Louie, Louie and early doo-wop.
I also think he's wrong about Bach -- yes, you can't dance to The Art Of Fugue very easily, but when I listen to something like the third Brandenburg Concerto I respond physically as well as intellectually. I find myself tapping my feet, air-conducting and playing table harpsichord without even really noticing I'm doing it, and I could definitely see someone being able to dance to it. There's a pulse and a liveliness there that practically demands movement.

I tend more towards the intellectual than the physical myself (partly because I don't throw parties because I don't have many friends), but both are valid (and I also do solve equations for fun, sometimes). There's great music it's very hard to dance to -- I suspect anyone trying to dance to much of, say, Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart would look like they were having a seizure -- just as there's great music that's designed only for dancing and that doesn't survive thirty seconds' thought. But to my mind, the very best music, whether it be Bach, the Beach Boys, Stravinsky, the Kinks, Gottschalk, Van Dyke Parks, Duke Ellington or whoever, evokes a physical/emotional response on initial listening, but also rewards intellectual analysis.

The reason I love music above all art-forms is that, for me at least, it's the only one that combines the visceral and the intellectual in that way. Take either out and my life would be infinitely poorer.

Yeah, I was going to go into that, but the post was already too long! That is one of the most interesting things about him, that war between the intellect and pure emotion. He was always suspicious of the latter, reducing everything to electrical impulses, but his record collection tells a different story. In a few interviews in the early 70's, when asked if he liked any contemporary music, he repeatedly mentioned Neil Young's After The Gold Rush. Imagine Frank sitting around listening to Only Love Can Break Your Heart! Shortly before his passing, Frank went with his wife to the opera and found himself in tears, and Gail said he was cursing himself for allowing his emotions get a hold of him in that way.
Zappa's music rides that see-saw.

That see saw is conflict, and conflict--or tension--is present in all great art, isn't it? In music, it can be on a very simple level, like the tritone within a dominant chord resolving to the tonic and third of a root chord. Or it can be this higher level of from where the music is coming and for what purpose. If Zappa truly were as purely analytical as he said he was or said he wanted to be, his music wouldn't be so interesting. But pure emotion or instinct, that's of limited use as well. Even three chords: three chords is basic (western) music theory. And once you have resolution, your intellect begins understanding ways to delay it, making the kind of puzzle perfected by the likes of Bach.

Interesting discussion. While we're bringing in the serial composers, the 12-tone row, all of the sounds and musical compositions many outside of a certain circle would call "atonal", I'd like to bring up jazz as a parallel topic.

Sometimes it saddens me to see what happened to such a vibrant art form as jazz through the latter half of the 20th century. Understand, I love a lot of jazz, I listen to it and play it and teach it - It is such a liberating feeling to get together and jam on jazz, listen to jazz, etc. And to see others pick it up and develop their own tastes and playing styles.

However, I will say that the things being said about making certain styles and sounds more exclusive to, say, the intellectual crowd and less "for the people" in general is what I believe put jazz where it is today, and it is nowhere near the shared emotional and physical experience that it was during certain eras, especially the classic big band era of the 30's and 40's, going into the time when Brubeck could have a jukebox hit with an odd-metered modal jazz tune and Ellington's live band could inspire a near riot in the audience...not to mention the incredible Count Basie and his band who lent Sinatra even more cool than he already had.

Trying to elevate jazz, trying to intellectualize jazz...noble concepts, but look at what has happened in the decades since jazz became less of a music to dance and interact with and more of a music to study, dissect, and respectfully sit in your chair and listen.

I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, but when artists in some circles demanded that clubs hang "no dancing" signs for their shows, or when they decided the crowd had to elevate themselves to a certain level of musical intellectualism in order to experience the music, where exactly did that leave many listeners or potential listeners? Was it a good thing, overall, to have jazz reduced to a niche market with the stereotype of a club filled with various professors, educators, and the like rather than people coming in just to groove with the music?

That is an obvious stereotype, I know, but damn if I didn't see it.

Would there be anything wrong with people moving and grooving to whatever music inspired them to do that? Was it necessary to put up a sign to discourage it at a club of all places? What happened to the Goodman band and the Miller band filling theaters with thousands of people who would take to the isles to dance if there wasn't a dance floor? It's a beautiful thing to connect from artist to listener, in that way, so why discourage it? Why look down on elements of that rather than celebrating and welcoming it?

I know what I said there may be a bit controversial, a bit provocative, but I feel jazz would not be such a small part of the popular market today if a lot of the general public didn't feel either put off of talked down to by the jazz scenemakers in general. Don't even get me started on items like the PBS Ken Burns "Jazz" documentary - I watched it, I own the box set and related releases of the music, but I got angry watching it more often than I should have, and it felt more like a professor lecturing me as I watched instead of a celebration of some truly great artists who more people need to hear and enjoy.

Jazz is beautiful, jazz is challenging, jazz can be demanding...but jazz should also be inviting and somewhat enjoyable without restriction, and I get the feeling that people think they need to dress or act a certain way in order to go to a show or whatever...that does not appeal to me.

Listen and enjoy however it strikes you, no restrictions necessary.

Great post, guitarfool2002, and I agree entirely. I believe what happened to jazz during and after bebop is exactly what had happened in serious music a few decades earlier. While I studied jazz in college, there were those who proudly called jazz America's classical music. For better and worse, that's true, and it met the same fate.

There's a telling moment in that Burns documentary when Wynton Marsalis discusses Cecil Taylor's famous comment that since [Taylor] prepares for his concerts, his audiences should, too. And Marsalis calls bullshit. I have to agree (and I love Taylor).

What's interesting is how different the thrust behind the change was in jazz, which was at least partly (largely?) racial: musicians and composers wanted to convince the white public that they weren't just the naturally rhythmic or gifted musician stereotypes that they were assumed to be, but rather were creating and playing extremely theoretically complex and physically challenging music. The result, just as the result in serious music? They teach it in college, but nobody dances to it...

Miles and others were trying to battle that by bringing funk into it around 1970 and beyond, but the damage was largely done.

Yes, absolutely, but I don't necessarily think that it needs to be understood or thought of as such for it to be present. I think that type of bedrock musical tension/conflict is nearly a birth implant, for the listener as well as the musician. It is something that can be thought of in the most complicated or simple of ways, equally ascribed to intellectual and non-intellectual impulses. I wouldn't say that the more complicated methods of delaying resolution are necessarily on a higher artistic level than say, the simple Peggy Sue/Blitzkrieg Bop method, in terms of listening satisfaction.
I dunno. Everything is everything, I guess. We need all the methods.

Yeah, that was great, Craig. Nice follow-on too, Luther.

I put Wilson miles above the prog rockers, and everyone else of the rock era. He likes to put forward the idiot savant persona, but I think he knew exactly what he was doing. It's structure I love, and counterpoint, and beautiful, flowing chord progressions. It's perfection I love, where if one note changed it would all be wrong.  To me, I Get Around is as close to perfect as you can get. Here's where my argument falls down really, as I don't have the vocabulary to explain it. It is an indefinable thing, perfection. It's a feeling.
It's funny that the two supposed extremes, the intellect, and the emotional, are, at their most diametrically opposed, more similar than different. I like that. Does this make sense?

Absolutely, and I touched on this. I am constantly re assessing myself since becoming a father. My seven year old is the worlds biggest Spice Girls fan, and I'm now an expert on  the Spice Girls. I couldn't be prouder of her. I work very hard at not passing these attitudes on. Not because I think they're wrong, but because they can be damaging, and can shut you off from some experiences that I wouldn't want to deny her.
Absolutely, it's all just ego masturbation really.
I've loved this conversation, thank you guys. I'm always open to change my mind and at times be proved wrong. There's some smart people on this board,  the main reason I come here everyday, beats Farcebook anyway.

We agree there.

On the first bit, yeah man! Makes total sense.
On the second, that is great. Say You'll Be There is a great example of a perfect pop song.

I like your note about the slightly put-on nature of Brian's naivete, as well.

Are we forgetting how much dance music Bach composed?


That was Branford. He generally has a more uptight attitude about things (at least as it was presented in that documentary). I understand where he's coming from on that one but i didn't like his general attitude throughout a lot of the film, especially there.

Yes! With his "messengers" The Bach Boys.

Branford Marsalis is such a hypocritical windbag. From everything I have heard about him, he quite literally despises white people, yet he took that cashgrab job with Sting. His records suck too. I do agree with his comment that was cited, however.

Don't you hate white people too though?  :afro

I think little w, big W, ya know?

Sorry, that's right. That's what I get for going from memory. Anyway, I don't like the guy's music, either. But the point was right on.

Excellent post. I agree, 100%. I think the boys had to have known somewhere deep down that SMiLE's nonrelease meant they'd missed a huge movement in pop music. If not then I'd go so far as to say they were clueless. Brian definitely knew, and I think it was a major cause of his breakdown.

Are you working through the board's archive posts chronologically or at random?

Thankfully he results in such threads being locked for the good of humanity :)))

Little of both. Seeing what's been said...adding my input. That's...that's okay isn't it?

Only the one's that are SMiLE related.  I think Mujan is up to over 200 in the past week... Got a ways to go yet.  Billy can't lock them all.

Yes, because you played absolutely no part in that back and forth at all... ::)

C D is on the Thread, ready to pounce!

I'm genuinely confused...is speaking my peace on some older topics I found interesting frowned upon? I mean, I wasn't here when they were initially brought up and anyone who'd rather stick to the more current discussions going on is free to ignore me. It isn't hard to just keep scrolling and click on something else.

Right, anything about Smile, he's digging up the past and pouncing all over it.  First class Smile-o-phile.  Like that's all Brian & The Boys ever did.

Yep, it's my favorite album. Lotta interest in talking about it. I never said that's all the boys ever did, just all I feel like discussing at this particular time. And frankly, you're going to look down on me no matter what I say or where I say it, so I don't particularly care whether you approve or not. You're free to, y'know, talk about the other stuff the boys did. Since you're apparently so inclined...

Do as you please: but remember: this is not the Bloo Board ..... Someone along the line might (gasp) stand up for Mike Love or betray signs that they actually are a fan of the guy (!) .... Accept this as a fact and without shock and you'll get along just fine.

And there you go again accusing me of being a Mike hater...thanks. Like, do you even *read* what I post? Actually, please don't answer. I'd really, Really, REALLY rather not get into the back and forth again. I got nothing against Mike, however he does deserve criticism on certain things. I'm not going out of my way to bring those up or bash him for them...but if they *do* come up, I *will* speak my mind. Period. Put that on the record.

What drives me nuts is how you get so offended if I criticize him AT ALL for anything...and then accuse me of hating on him for the sake of it. Just learn to relax. Please.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

Yeah? Say that again next time you accuse me of being "Mike's number one cheerleader" or my "blind devotion" to Mike, or "Mike's number one apologist" .... or a member of a Mike loving "circle jerk" ..... for merely questioning your highly inflammatory descriptions of his aggressiveness, abrasiveness, or his "crap" ...... People here are capable of doing basic math, ya know?

Wow. This is messed up, looks like I'm staying out of this one  ::)

The only thing I'll pounce upon is: I think it's pretty uncool for anyone trying to muzzle or "accuse" a poster who is politely, without sarcasm or mean-spiritedness, simply chiming in about their thoughts... and I think it's pretty uncool if it gets into some public teasing/taunting of a board member.

Actually going out of your way to take the time to make a post that solely consists of this "ready to pounce" stuff is pretty playground level, don't you think?

IMO, I've generally been pretty polite myself on this board when interacting with other members. Often times more so than the politeness I receive in return.

If someone wants to chime in with a response/question/thought on something of substance regarding what Mujan said, they have every right to of course.

"WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn .... Billy Castillo comes to lock a thread, and says......."


Oh, F*ck it!

Thanks, man. I gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed... Any chance at an actual discussion seems to be dead in the water between people like Mikie who've had it in for me since I got here and the unstoppable duo of Pinder & Cam making every attempt I make to get a conversation going into an overblown argument about Mike Love.

Y'know, I was a lurker for awhile here...I was looking forward to sharing my mix and talking about SMiLE with people who'd know enough to do so intelligently. But more and more I'm seeing that this isn't the place I thought it was. I've gotten some feedback, some very nice PMs, but I think I may have had my fill of this place.

"making every attempt I make to get a conversation going into an overblown argument about Mike Love."

Are you serious????

with threads like "Has Mike Love ever taken a tiny bit of responsibility for SMILE's demise"??????

No, you're not trying to bait the "Mike Lovers" at all..... No way.

Please don't.

Pinder: One thing I'd like to clarify - I myself, awhile back, started the "Has Mike Love ever taken a shred of responsibility for SMILE's demise" thread for one reason. My intention wasn't to bash Mike.  

I asked because I didn't know the actual answer to the question, and I was curious to know the answer, and to further my understanding on the topic.  I do have my own opinions about the matter, just like you do - but my intention in starting that thread was because I was honestly curious if there was an interview, or even a tiny off the cuff public remark that I had missed along the way. No BS. That was the reason. You may not believe it, but I *want* to find real, legit reasons to like Mike more, and I truly desire for the public at large to gain a more balanced view of him. I think the Youtube haters are nuts.

I figured the people on this board could answer the question. Some fans here have been around for decades longer than me, so I figured if anyone would know, it would be people here.

It's a touchy topic, yes. And I've gained lots of knowledge about the topic on this board - and I've also gained a deeper understanding of nuances of the time due to various topics on this board.

In other words, my feelings about Mike have improved and have become more balanced over time as a result of reading intelligent conversation on this board.

Even if we still don't see eye to eye, I would think that you would be of the opinion that this is a good thing to have happened?

I honestly wasn't. If you actually read my original reply to the thread you'd see I wasn't baiting anyone. You're just...really, really sensitive about Mike.

But, I've had enough of this sh!t, I think. Peace out, y'all.

Am I missing something, why are so many people viewing this thread right now

Smile has been released, in several iterations. I'm not sure what the point is about debating what it would have done back in the '60s, particularly by people born decades after the fact and especially those who seem to have little taste for music other than Smile or little interest in researching the musical history of that era.

There was once a board devoted to Smile. Maybe someone should start a new one if they are that interested, or write a blog about it and invite comments. It has to be understood that a lot of folks posting on this board have been reading about this for decades. There is fatigue that sets in.

I have no problems with board members using the search function and posting in old threads. I would actually prefer they do that! as for the  "Has Mike Love ever taken a tiny bit of responsibility for SMILE's demise" thread.. Well that's a leading question and if not intended to inflame and incite debate over a well worn topic then it could of been asked 400 ways in different manner.

I honestly was wondering what the answer was to that question when the question popped into my head - so I ask you the honest question: in what manner could I have entitled the thread that wouldn't be considered "leading"?

If there's a better title for that thread that's less "leading", let me know and I'll actually edit that thread's title.

Or is there no way to ask the question in any shape or form without it being considered "leading"? I really don't know that there is, but if there is I'm honestly all ears.

You could search any number of threads that touch on the topic. Or you could title the thread "SMiLE's demise Why? What? How?"

"Has Mike Ever Expressed Remorse Over Whatever Role He May Have Played in Smile's Demise?"

Has a nice ring to it.

I think it is possible that when you give a thread that title, you think Mike was largely or wholly responsible for the so-called demise of Smile. Then, when called out for that, an old thread is dug up where a new opinion is stated that the "demise" of Smile caused Brian's so-called breakdown, which actually started back in 1964. It's the old canard that Mike drove Brian crazy and is the reason he wound up  with mental problems that lasted for decades.

4 Separate threads now... 4!!!

I feel sorry for the moderators having to lock threads when there really should be no need.

A thread of that title which you suggest is very vague and general, don't you think?

Without saying that I outright should simply not ask the question, you're basically still saying that I should simply not ask the question - am I off base in saying that?

KittyKat, just so you know my own views on the matter: I do not think that Mike was either largely or wholly responsible for the so-called demise of Smile. Honestly.

I'm trying to find a way that I can communicate without pissing off people on here. I'll walk on eggshells if I have to, because I like discussion and exchange of ideas with knowledgeable people here. Sorry if my delicately worded response in actually trying to get feedback on what I can do to better not "incite" anger on here is simply annoying to you. I'm trying to have the cool head here.

This board is turning into a festering cesspool. I'm quite frankly sick of people not treating each other with respect. Don't have to agree, but quit being pissants towards each other, for f***'s sake.


In an attempt to get back on a topic without people getting pissy...I think your last two sentences  in what I quoted were spot-on.

I'm down with that title. That's cool with me.  

I just changed that old thread's title (though I literally had space limitations so I had to edit the title down a bit more from your suggestion for it to fit).

I'm doing this as a gesture of goodwill. Honest.
Maybe this won't be good enough for some people... I dunno.
If the title is still "leading", and if someone else wants me to change the thread title again, I'll do it.

I only ask for respect in return, and a ceasing of sarcastic playground level nonsense.

Thanks Billy.

I think your intentions were great. It's a very good question and something I didn't know the answer to either.

A lot of people are more "close minded" about Mike and aren't willing to perhaps think that he isn't the villain that he's so easily made out to be. He's an easy scapegoat for all the band's troubles and that's unfortunate - he really doesn't deserve a lot of the crap that's thrown at him. He's just a person, and - like all other people - has made some mistakes, and it doesn't help that he's been around and in the spotlight for sixty years. It seems like people are starting to come around more and not just blindly disparaging Mike because he's the easy target.

However, when the thread was made, a lot of bickering over Mike was happening - which probably isn't surprising. It was sort of hijacked and turned into yet another avenue for people to argue about the same goshdarn thing over and over again. Whether intentional or not, the thread did sort of invite that conversation, but it's not really your fault, as that sort of thing cannot be helped.

Anyway, did you ever find your answer?

Well said Bubbly. The whole 'Brian and the Five Assholes' thing (tm Leaf) is so out of line that it's downright ludicrous to an unbiased observer. Truth is, they ALL have been assholes at some point. Well, except Dave, who is a righteous dude by all accounts.

The closest thing I got to an answer is the "being related has allowed us to be crueler than otherwise", or something like that. As far as I've heard in the replies to my question, that's as close as I've been made aware of a public expression of possible regret (which could be interpreted by the reader/listener as being about SMiLE, or possibly other things - I don't know the context of the quote).

Either way, I believe it is possible for someone to not hate the man, nor think he's a horrible human being, to believe that he isn't either largely or wholly responsible for the SMiLE situation, and to still ask questions about him having some degree (even small) of a contributing factor role... or for us to hypothesize/discuss about what role his bandmates think he had... or for us to hypothesize/discuss about what the man himself thinks his role was (or what he thinks about when seeing his own name being called out on Beautiful Dreamer, for example) - and to still NOT be accused of inciting blind hatred.  

Maybe we are crazy in trying to get into the motivations of people who we don't know. But then again, it's just discussion and exchange of ideas. Nobody is on trial here, nor do I want to be for having a polite discussion. Many people here have a knee-jerk reaction when perhaps they shouldn't. I don't think I'm a jerk for asking people on this board (with whom I disagree with) questions about what makes them feel they way the do, either. I'm curious, is all. There's especially nothing wrong about it if we are talking to each other respectfully.

It's a discussion, and we should all keep a Cool Head and Warm Heart here. I'm trying my very best to.

I'm very happy to see this coming around a bit..... I know I haven't particularly helped, but I'm liking this.

As to the "missed the boat question"?

..... IMHO it's the rest of the world that missed the boat. Not The Beach Boys.

You seem like a respectable fellow. With all these "the mods are gonna delete this!" posts, I wasn't sure we'd be on the same page or not. As a newcomer who's just been trying to talk...I have to agree, unfortunately. I wish the atmosphere here was a bit more respectful. As it is now, I have to agree with CenturyDeprived. I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around here lest I be chewed out for the silliest things like not including Good Vibrations on a SMiLE mix or genuinely sharing my two cents on older threads.

Not trying to be all "woe is me" about it, but I gotta say aside from some really supportive PMs from a couple people this forum has been very unwelcoming so far and I gotta say that's a damn shame.

As I've said before, I've been a lurker (guest?) for awhile before I started posting and this board has been a great reasource on SMiLE and the Beach Boys in general. Like century, I too have gained a more nuanced view of Mike reading some of the topics here. Apparently not nuanced enough for some people, but whatever.

Anyway, it's a real shame those good aspects of this board are compromised by people like Mikie who's been harassing me since I got here, and kittykat whose last post towards me I'd like to address. (S)He said:


Without getting personal, I just have to say I think it's pretty rude of you to assume I haven't "researched the musical history of the era." I love late sixties music especially Psychedelic rock. Who are you to claim otherwise? What do you even know about me aside from the fact that I've been posting the last few days here, mostly regarding SMiLE? What does the fact that I was born decades later have to do with anything? Ok, so you're implying you've been reading about the album for decades...I envy you. I really do. I wish I could've been alive in the 80s collecting the first bootlegs, seen BWPS live and be a part of that triumphant conquering of the music once and for all, known what it was like to finally open the boxset after almost 50 years of waiting...

But I can't. What I can do is discuss the material, share my love of it with other people who do (or claim to, at least) and so on. It has to be understood on *your* part that not everyone has had the chance to discuss this for decades and some of us are new to it and would've been interested to hear what people like you, who were there back then had to say. If I were in your shoes, I'd have been happy to pass on such knowledge to the new fans. I'd have been happy to see a new generation fall in love with the same beautiful music I did. Not been condescending and dismissive of their desire to learn more. But that's just me.

Billy, to address you once again--thanks for not locking this thread on my account. I hope genuine discussion on this and other threads I've posted on can continue. Whether I'll choose to be part of it after all this bullsh!t lately...I don't know.

"You know how they say 'It's been a pleasue?' It hasn't."

No, the `being related` comment certainly wasn`t about Smile.

Your above post is absolutely fair enough but (and I mean this in a genuine way) I don`t think you are ever going to get the answer that you are looking for on this board. While Pinder was doubtless being sarcastic about writing a letter to Mike, contacting the man himself is probably the only way that you might get the sort of answer that you are looking for.

Mike gave an interview about Smile to a UK magazine (maybe MOJO?) about 10 years ago where he gave his recollections which the interviewer felt were sincere from Mike`s perspective (not necessarily entirely accurate but just that Mike believed what he was saying). VDP the next month refuted Mike`s comments. You may wish to seek out that interview for more info on how Mike feels about that time but I don`t think it will satisfy you (again meant sincerely).

Sorry if you feel anyone has been disrespectful to you on this forum Mujan.

I do think here though that some do get annoyed when there are multiple threads about the same subjects (you can look at the comments about people disliking the number of polls as evidence of that).

Having 4 threads all about pretty much the same aspects of Smile at the same time was bound to produce comment unfortunately. Now that certainly isn`t entirely your fault because the question that you asked on the VDP buffoonery thread was entirely legitimate. But, as you saw, all it takes is one (in this case false) `it was Mike`s fault` response and suddenly you have a legitimate thread about Brian and VDP being turned into another thread on the same subject as all of the others.

This may be the most sensible thing I've read on here in a while.

mike love etc


lets listen to SMILEY SMILE and forget about this smile thaaaang we got Pet sounds anyway!!!  :smokin