The Smiley Smile Message Board

This truly isn't meant to start more ML bashing, but here's a thought that has been nagging at me for years...

I just wonder if Mike Love ever publicly hinted at even a slightest bit of an apology, or taking a sliver of tiny partial responsibility for SMiLE's demise, for not being as supportive as he should have to BW? Or even a twinge of admitting regret? Does he truly feel that all his actions at the time were 100% in the right, even with hindsight?

I feel like just a little tiny bit of genuinely admitting this would have gone such a long way.  Both in his relationship with BW, as well as in the public's perception of him.  It would show him being human. I was genuinely touched when I was just a few feet away witnessing ML's honest emotional catharsis when he was speaking about drugs/alcohol messing up his family (while in front of his family, at the California Saga concert at The Grammy Museum).  There's a video of this on Youtube. It was real.  But I can't believe that he thinks that drugs were the ONLY factor in the equation. A grain of responsibility for HIS role in it seems to be something I've NEVER heard from him. Maybe I've missed something in an interview at some point.

Again, trying to have a nuanced opinion on the demise of SMiLE... it's NOT a black & white issue, there were many factors. But even ML's biggest fans/supporters must, in their heart of hearts, believe that his attitude at the time was at least a partial (if indirect) contributing factor, even if only in a small way. I mean, ML must have had these thoughts in the past, even if just privately in his head. Complete denial is surely an easier pill to swallow. I wonder, could ML's denial be the glue that keeps/has kept him emotionally together and able to function all this time?

I realize that this would put him into a position of bearing some indirect responsibility for sending a fragile person over the edge... We don't know what has gone on/what has been said in private behind closed doors, but it just seems like something that must be said while these guys are still with us. I really hope it's not insane to think that it will happen at some point. Maybe post C50 bad-ending, it is a lost cause...

Do you really believe this thread is not going to be another Mike-bashing parade?

For Mike to admit his doubts were wrong, he would first have to be convinced they actually were wrong. I doubt the SMiLE material is as important to him as it is to you.

This is just assumption of course, but I think Mike blames drugs and Brian's entourage for the downfall of Brian, leading to a lot of recording time being wasted. That's what I think is his point of view rather than "with my unsupportiveness I contributed to the non-release of an artistic masterpiece".

I'm a consistent Mike basher but I'll certainly admit that having a life of constant travel, parties and fame will influence you in many different ways. His family was certainly impacted by this lifestyle in the form of drugs and alcohol as well as his bandmates. He didn't have an easy time trying to negotiate life with all of that going on. It's easy for us to judge based on snippets and written accounts, but impossible for us to absorbe the wholeness of his experience.

The real question is, Has, or will, Mike admit that SIP was wrong?

I don't think Mike has anything to apologise for in relation to directly nixxing Smile 67. His take on what Brian was creating was his take and he's expounded on that in recent years, with the release of TSS.

I don't think he can even be expects to apologise for the different aesthetic taste that made him unable to appreciate the lyrics of Cabinessence… guy's entitled to his opinion, and it's only wider popular opinion that denounces it as mistaken.

Even if the demise of Smile was his fault, I'd rather have him apologise for unleashing SIP unto the world.

What bandmate has ever apologized for creative differences? None that I can think of, and Mike has certainly given it praise since. To me, it seems sincere and not an attempt to save face, especially given that he's clarified a time or two what aspects he wasn't on board with and why amid the praise. I honestly don't think Mike's disapproval of some of the lyrics for the album was really a major factor in Smile's demise, despite what David Leaf coerced out of Brian (who is known to be very inconsistent with his stories and to go along with what an interviewer is saying regardless of truth, anyway) during the great work of fiction that is Beautiful Dreamer.

Above all else, Brian was just way in over his head with some of this material. Smiley Smile is a direct reaction to that, stripping the songs down to their bare elements. Smiley Smile is also proof that Mike would follow Brian to the edges of the earth in terms of following his creative decisions, as it's much more "out there" and un-commercial than any of the Smile material. He'd question, but he'd also do what he was told. Look no further than the "Cabin Essence" tag for proof of this.

In other words, I don't think Mike owes anyone an apology. Not for Smile, at least.

There is nothing for any of the Boys or VDP to apologize for in regards to SMiLE. They stuffed the very few very minor issues they had [no matter how humiliating to them] and all did their jobs and went above and beyond doing it. They cooperated fully on hundreds/thousands[?] of takes. They strongly disagreed [according to Brian in 1968] with Brian's scrapping SMiLE and then immediately fully cooperated on Brian's scrapping SMiLE. It is all on Brian.

I think it's pretty well documented now that Brian was anything but "shattered" by SMiLE. It's a lovely romantic story but it seems to me that instead natural processes and market changes meant his best wasn't commercial anymore. Happens to all Pop artists doesn't it?  [sweating, heavy breathing]

Cam a great post. I found a insane blog attacking me personally for articulating these same thoughts. It helps when others help speak an unpopular truth.

Well obviously Mike hasn't and will not apologize for his views on Smile, no matter how wrong headed they were, because Mike still feels the same way.  He even criticized Summer's Gone from the latest album as not being uplifting enough and implied it would have been better if he had written the lyrics!  Mike is nothing if not consistent.  Didn't like Til I Die, wasn't enamoured of the Pet Sounds "ego music" initially, etc etc.  

Of course he's entitled to his opinion- he and Brian are the yin and yang of the Beach Boys - but ultimately Mike was overruled on almost every creative decision, and Brian got his way.  

Did this actually happen? Mike's implied suicide hand gesture from the Rolling Stone article was very, very, very obviously a joke about how the song was sad, to me. I laughed when I read it and never imagined people would twist it into "Mike thinks 'Summer's Gone' is lousy" or him being critical of it.

Thank you.

In less than a year he knocked out 3 new albums. He had two albums finished in the half year after scrapping SMiLE. He was as prolific as he had ever been.

I'm not one for revisionist history, but even I'm 100% behind the fact that BRIAN SCRAPPED SMILE. It was solely his decision. 

Ask yourself this. If Mike was really that dead set against the direction Brian was heading, why on earth did he then help record Smiley Smile, which is way more trippy and weird than Smile ever was.

Prolific yes - but the music was not as ambitious.  Obviously that's what he wanted, or needed, at the time.

People who say Mike killed Smile are giving him too much credit.  At that time, Brian Wilson had the utmost creative authority.  Mike may not have liked the material but he sure sucked it up and sang it anyways.  His opinion didn't mean shit in those days.

It's a little ironic that Mike's biggest critics see him as this authoritative figure (like with the whole "firing" controversy) when really he has little to no control over what Brian does.  And that's the way it should be.

Having bought the vinyl, and the music having spiraled into another dimension, in terms of style in those earliest fan years of mine, and now seeing some form of the "finished product" it is easy to see (for me) that it needed to be shelved because it may have been too expansive to narrow down to a single or double LP.  Blaming Mike is a joke, although I do feel that VDP, notwithstanding his poetry skills was not the best fit for a band, whose music and imagery was anything but abstract and unavailable to the common everyday Joe or Jane.  I think from an academic standpoint, a musical opera (a metaphor) of America, with its' early vastness of space, and the journey from Plymouth Rock to Hawaii was a patriotic undertaking, on Brian's end, but, seriously, who on this planet knows what "columnated ruins domino" actually means.  Parks doesn't and it appears to be just some invented phrase to fit with a music measure.  

And not having been there, as a bystander, it seems as though Van should have sat with Mike, to try to make lyrics "available" to not only the Band, but also to the listeners.  No one was singing "columnated ruins domino" skipping down the street.  I think Parks must be a nice guy, but you'd have to be in fifth gear to keep up with him in a normal conversation.  The only justice for the listeners is that we got track samples over the years which was sort of a reward for our patience in waiting for the release.  So that when Brian did SMiLE live with his great band whom I do love, things were a déjà vue as I heard chunks of it in the released tracks.  

But I always got the impression that Parks looked his nose down on the Touring Band ( and I could be wrong) as a bunch of dummies.  I sort of think that even the most creative person has to find a way to translate the art form into something digestible and understandable.  We can all enjoy music.  I think the greatest tribute to Brian's and the Boys contribution is that the most intellectually challenged have become musically engaged as a result.  The numbers of developmentally delayed people at the shows is just staggering.  And the simplicity of some of the music and lyrics are such that they lend themselves to speech therapy, or occupational therapy for disabled people.  But the SMiLE era stuff generally doesn't.  It is always easy to teach the smart kids.  Not so, with the developmentally challenged.  You have to stand on your head to have the challenged students achieve mastery.  

And that doesn't detract from Parks' talent, only suggests that the overall project got out of hand, and might have been better done as a trilogy rather than one work, for fans to absorb.  And that his literary vision might not have been entirely (not exclusively) congruent with the musc.  It begs the question as to whether it undermined the relationship Brian had with The Band.  And, whether that was fair.  But, that is a fan's conjecture.  JMHO

I don’t know about him saying it would have been better if he had written the lyrics (I don’t recall anything directly implying that), but the whole episode reported in Rolling Stone of his “gesture” while listening to the album ending suite was not something I would characterize as a totally innocent joke. Yes, it was a joke, but much like his alleged/supposed “Brian’s a genius alright, for staying at home while we tour” joke, it’s laced with fact that he clearly has some negative feelings about the subject.

His gesture about the end suite of the new album wasn’t framed by any sort of “I think this is amazing and sounds great.” He was not saying the material was bad, but he seemed to feel disconnected from it because he didn’t write it, and his “gesture” went beyond simply stating he felt less connected to it. He didn’t co-write the song “That’s Why God Made the Radio”, he didn’t co-write “Surfer Girl”, but he hasn’t made anything approaching a negative comment about those tracks as far as I know.

I think it was a “kidding on the square” sort of thing, a clear kind of passive aggressive commentary. A lot of people do this, it’s not at all uncommon. But that sort of stuff is almost always not a 100% innocent joke.

Brian explained the lyrics at the time. This line means something about the established institutions of society crumbling.

Why the hell would Mike have to take the blame for a myth that was created by a bunch of goofs that think Brian and all things Brian are great and don't really care about the Beach Boys?

Reading crap like Mike fired the Beach Boys at C50's end by pea brains in the so called media is bad enough, but anyone posting here that still believes Mike was to blame for the Smile collapse is hopeless.

Mike ruined Smile, Mike ruined Brian, Mike fired the Boys, Mike is evil, and Neil Armstrong never even circled the moon let alone walked on it.

:lol :lol :lol

He said something about "too much cumulus for me" - i.e. too cloudy, not "sunny" enough - and implied if he had written it it would have been less gloomy.  Maybe someone with the article can quote the part in question.  Mike didn't want Til I Die on Surf's Up because he thought it was depressing and a downer.  None of this was meant as a "joke" - that's Mike's viewpoint.   He feels Brian needs him to counterbalance the melancholy of Brian's music.  get some "girl- boy" or "fun in the sun"  in there, make it more "upbeat" or "commercial.". I think most of us are glad Til I Die and Summer's Gone made it on to their respective albums.  And that Mike put some relatable lyrics into Good Vibrations?

Mike is not one to regret anything, his ego won't allow it.

The media didn't just make up the story about Mike firing Brian - they got the story from remarks made by Brian!  Yes, the facts didn't support what Brian was saying, but I guess that was his emotional response to the end of the reunion tour.

IIRC that lyric meaning was posed to Parks and his response was that he didn't know.  I never heard Brian say that and I saw the Surfs Up performance on the Bernstein special in 1967.  And it could be extrapolated to mean that but, seriously, does everyone know what that means? My point is that the music had been "available, to" all walks of life, and all levels of academic or non-academic levels of understanding.  And, in 1967, with that particular work, notwithstanding Good Vibrations as the "anchor," although there were lovely listening tracks, it didn't get the AM AirPlay to make it "available" to everyone.  

Come on, SmileBrian, can anyone comment about someone's ego if they aren't a shrink? With a medical degree.

That is a personal attack. 

You're smarter and nicer than that.  I think.  ;)

I am just saying Mike is the type of person that never regrets anything in hindsight, he sticks to his "guns" for better or worse.

Come on, everyone has regrets.  I regret the brand new Dodge Caravan I bought in 1987! A lemon!

We all regret all kinds of stuff but, what is past, is past.  We make bad job choices, but we learn from them, and grow. What I LOVE about them is that they "take the risk" even if it is a commercial failure.  They've tried just about every style.  Even if it flopped, they took a shot. Leaders and people of greatness "take a shot" and they risk failure, and learn from the process.

The only error in a bad choice is not to find the lesson, and turn it around and grow from it.   ;)

Don't know why this line has perplexed so many. Ancient Greek-type ruins (that is, ruins with columns) topple into each other and knock themeselves over like dominoes. It's a metaphor for how the counter-culture perceived the state of American institutions in the late 60's.

Still, if Mike was assigned to sing a line that he didn't understand, he would have been right to ask the lyricist what the line meant, so that he, Mike, could sing the line with the appropriate emphasis and emotion. VDP is more to blame in that situation for getting all arty-farty with that "it means whatever you want it to mean" crap.

Yup, shame on you sbfor having your own opinion! And you're not a nice person either-hold your hand out now. :p

I guess I am in trouble at ML's school of hard knocks... :lol

OSD - anyone can and should have an opinion that is within your realm.  An easy attack is always to say someone is "crazy" but, can they really back that up?   Or to say someone, as you've said about Mike is that he has a "big ego." Maybe he just doesn't "suffer fools" and dignify an attack with a return attack.

"Suffer fools gladly," is from St. Paul in his 2nd letter to the people of Corinth.  It urges resignation (or perhaps tolerance) of others.

Calling out the "ego of another?"  That is for an MD.  Not me, and if you don't have an MD, not you, either. JMHO

A little objectivity would be nice here;  you don't like Mike.  Most, here can get that.  And some have no tolerance for those who don't agree. 

I know most of you have read this already, but for those who haven't...this is from the Vosse Fusion article:               


  "As to the other Beach Boys at this time: Dennis and Carl, being Brian's brothers, hung out at the house a little more perhaps than anyone else...So they would be around a lot.  Mike Love and Brian, you know...disagreed and then agreed...I think they must have a very strong bond that causes them to have this kind of friction; it doesn't really destroy their relationship.  But at that time, Mike and Brian were a little on the outs because Van Dyke was doing all the lyrics - and Mike didn't really think that was where it was at...

   Finally what happened was, Capitol settled out of court 'cause they held one trump card: they knew the Beach Boys wanted...Well, Capitol told them they could be on Brother Records, distributed through Capitol - and they would get their $250,000 immediately; and I believe they got a guarantee that had to be at least a million dollars...So the Beach Boys took it, and that's when things started getting bad.

   That's when several things contributed to what I would call Brian's growing uncertainty about whether or not he could fulfill this project: Smile.  The first uncertainty, was whether or not the group could cut it.  While they were in England, Brian cut the tracks - and the tracks were just brilliant, I mean, you would have loved them.

   So all of these tracks had been done at Western, and everything was ready, and the Beach Boys returned from their triumphant English tour - and the whole thing started going nuts then.  First three sessions with the group were just full of confusion, because what Brian would do was give them a bit at a time: he didn't like teach them a song; he used them like instruments: he'd teach Mike Love one little part, and somebody else this, that, and the other...Then he'd spend about three days recording and recording and recording to get one song right; then he'd finish with it, tell them everything was fine - and two days later, he'd go back in alone, take out a voice track of say Carl which wasn't right, and he'd put his own voice in instead; and then he'd dabble with somebody else's - and before you knew it, it was almost all Brian.  Al Jardine, though, did a lot of good singing at that time - really good singing.  And Mike Love always comes through very well on what it is he does, which is pretty limited.

   Then, the guys started getting up tight about the material.  They were worried about how they'd do it in person.  Now they're orchestrated, but even then Brian was considering a full orchestra to back them up...and that sort of forestalled things a little: they thought it might be a good idea.

   Then, tension developed in the studio, because what it came down to was that Brian and Van Dyke had come up with music a little too complex for them, and which they began to resent.  A lot of the arguments that took place were between Brian and Mike Love.  And a lot of people would go off into corners together - the sure sign that a group is in trouble: where you have two over in this half, and two other there at the same time - huddling, and saying: hey, you know, this fucking thing...There was a lot of that.

   Right in the middle of this, older members of the Wilson family did everything possible to destroy the relationship between Brian and Van Dyke, Brian and David Anderle, and Brian and me.  They did it out of suspicion, and they didn't like our appearances...suspicion that the Beach Boys would dissolve the minute they...Well, I can quote Murry Wilson one night sitting down with me and astounding me, telling me what a horrible mistake it had been for Brian to put out "Good Vibrations" - because, he said, Brian's going to lose his whole audience: those kids don't want to hear that; the Boys have got to go back to what they were doing.  So that became the big argument: Are we gonna lose our image or are we gonna start a new one...

   So, in the studio, things were going off and on: the album was moving very slowly, and it missed it's Christmas release - so at that point they decided to concentrate on the single, "Heroes and Villains" - of which there must have been a dozen versions.  The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes.  It was a beautifully structured work; and Van Dyke was still very invlolved.

   To catch up on him: As schisms developed within the Beach Boys inner organization, so there developed a tendency within a family, which is what the Beach Boys basically are - to find an external object on which to place blame for whatever's wrong.  Well, of course, Van Dyke Parks was the most convenient target.

   Van Dyke Parks does have an ego, too.  He could get a little snooty with Brian, and Brian didn't like that.  Actually, they would fight every once in awhile; they would have arguments: Van Dyke would get really mad because he hated working in a subservient position where there was someone that could say no; and Brian always maintained that.  And every once in awhile, he would say no just to let Van Dyke know he could say no: and that's what really made Van Dyke mad.

   And as the Beach Boys saw there was a thing there between Van Dyke and Brian that was vulnerable, instantly the pressure started being on Van Dyke: who soon just sort of walked away from it.

   Now Van Dyke and Brian usually wrote up at Brian's house at the piano late at night: they both liked to work at night - all night sessions; and they usually worked alone.  There was no need for anyone else to be there.

   Where I saw a musical cooperation going on was definitely in the studios, and particularly when they were cutting tracks.  I mean, Van Dyke played on them.  In the studio together, they had a very happy relationship, you know.  That's the area where he had great respect for Brian, and I'm sure was influenced by Brian in instrumentation, orchestration, and producing.  So he kind of tried not to impose too much on that.  However, Brian wanted him there all the time, and when problems would develop he would call him; and the two of them in the studio together were just a joy, without the other guys around: they had a good time...They used these good musicians like Jimmy Gordon, and some of these funky old violin players that Brian would find, and cello players...Like Brian really loved the cello and the French horn as instruments, which few people used in rock records but he used all the time.  So, Van and Brian got on fine.

   I would say...half-way through the production of the single "Heroes and Villains", as things become more indecisive - Van Dyke at that time had been approached by Lenny Waronker to do this arrangement for the Mojo Men, and actually he sort of tried to get out of it - he didn't want to do it that much, but he did.  Brian, however, had wanted to sign Van Dyke to Brother Records, and produce him.  But Van Dyke knew too much at that point about what went on with the Beach Boys - and didn't want Brian to produce him because he knew the two of them could probably never get it done.

   And so Lenny called Van to help out with Harpers Bizarre, and one day Warner's really told him how much they liked him, and offered him a very good deal: I think he got a very excellent contract from them.  So he signed.
   And the day that he signed he put his head back into his own music again.
   And was less and less available to Brian.
   And Brian was less and less sure of what he was doing with the album."

I don't know. Can it be ambitious without being elaborate. Seems pretty ambitious.

To me it seems he was never that into the lyrics. You know, he liked that they were "scary" at first, he's explaining them to non-band, then he records some for national TV, then he's not so sure, then he and VDP are arguing about them being "too sophisticated", then he calls VDP to explain them to the band, then the sessions stop, then some are aired on national TV, and in a week and a half it is announced that SMiLE has been cancelled.

He also apparently told Taylor that the music was "too elaborate" and "old fashioned" which to me explains why his musical ambitions went the way they did.

Not really.  There's always another side of the coin to be looked at.  I took my time, watching the Touring Band, after Carl died and things fell apart.  Brian, whom I had seen ONCE between 1965 and 1999 and forward, (with Landy in the wings) was solo, by choice, and I was psyched to FINALLY see him, and saw him and Al, etc., every chance I could.

But, it was different with the Post-Carl Touring Band.  It was almost like going back to "square one." And, I'm a really tough critic. (I think.) As time passed, I saw more good (than the "reported bad") in the Touring Band. What I saw was work ethic, and a building process.  I felt that Mike worked hard to be worthy of the name. People will differ.  That is fine.
And, remember, Brian seemed to want to do the solo stuff.  More BB music for greedy me!   ;)

As time, about 10+ years passed, with Brian on Tour, doing his solo work, it was so cool; SMiLE, TLOS, regular shows, all good.  That doesn't mean I must hate Mike.  What is that about? We can all like as many or as few as we like.

Can people like Brian's AND Mike's Band? (And Al's?) Can't people appreciate the work of them all?

Or is that the new 11th Commandment? Picking a side?

That has always been my argument, as well. Plus, as we have been told by Linett and Boyd. It would have taken the digital age to get Smile put together properly.

The perplexing thing about Mike Love - and there are many - is that he didn't "get" SMiLE back in the day, he doesn't "get" SMiLE today, and he probably never will.

I always considered Mike to be an intelligent person, certainly sophisticated. Mike was always involved in a lot of other areas with a lot of different people, much more than the other Beach Boys. Mike was involved in other activities outside of The Beach Boys' world which helped him broaden his horizons.

But, unfortunately (?), this did not translate into shaping or advancing Mike's view of music as art. In reading several of Mike's interviews over the years, and several of them on SMiLE, Mike's view of music as an art form is very simplistic and limited. Some of this is stubborness as it applies to The Beach Boys. Mike has his view on how the group is to be perceived and what musical direction they should pursue, and it goes beyond commercialism and "giving the people what they want". There is too much "this is who were are" and not enough "this is who we could be".

There have been times when I appreciated Mike's stance, and I certainly understand how he got there. To some extent, the experimental, "non-Beach Boyish" music nearly bankrupted the group. And, Mike can - and will - point out how the good old, fun, summer-ry, girl/boy music kept the group going over 52 years. Mike just doesn't budge enough on it, or consider other realms that could complement his vision of the band. I guess you could say Mike doesn't equate "art" with the Beach Boys outside of that small window which he looks out of. And, as we know, he always uses statistics to back him up.

That being said, no, Mike doesn't owe anybody an apology. I think in 1966-67 Brian still respected Mike as a lead singer, lyricist, front man, and someone who is was in touch with the Beach Boys' audience. Mike's problems with Van Dyke Parks' lyrics might've at the very least prompted Brian to think about the words. However, Brian might've already been experiencing some doubts, I don't know. And, I'm sure Mike wasn't the only one with some reservations about SMiLE, although he's the only one who will admit it. And that was Mike's sin. He spoke up. And nobody challenges Brian Wilson - even though Mike's main problem wasn't with Brian, but with Van Dyke's lyrics. Now, some might think that Mike or anybody shouldn't have been questioning anything concerning Brian Wilson at that time in his career, but that's for another thread...

Great post all around.  It does seem like he was locked into a particular vision of who the Beach Boys were and was resistant to "blankety-blank with the formula" at times.  I am no Mike Love apologist, but I see no reason for him to accept responsibility for with regards to Smile.  As a vocalist, he was well within his rights to question the lyrics he was singing, even though I personally disagree with his assessment of Van Dyke Parks' work.  At the end of the day, Mike did his job there and did it well.  Everyone who is familiar with the story knows that Brian pulled the plug on the project all by himself for a complicated set of reasons.  Even if all of the Beach Boys had been gung ho about Smile, I'm not convinced that it would have made a difference.

As has been stated, it really doesn't matter what Mike thought about Smile. Whether he had issues or not, he fully participated in the making of Smile. He did what was asked of him to do. Brian just could not put Smile together to his own satisfaction and he shelved it.

Exactly.  More to do with the "scope of the work" than the "value judgments of the Band." Mike's (and the rest of the guys' vocals) are brilliant.  Mike did what he was asked. 

That speaks volumes about "good faith" at the very least.  Less enthusiasm would say something else.  ;)

Hindsight shows the enormity of the project and perhaps the "computer age" visualization of what was really recorded gives better comprehension of the vision of the project. Mike talks about SMiLE in the google interview, and very favorably so. That is still on YouTube for viewing.    ;)

It's been interesting to read everybody's responses on the subject.

I agree that it is a tricky subject,  I just think it would be nice for ML to at least give BW an apology for not having been supportive enough to him sometimes throughout the years.  I know this is silly, because it's none of my business of course. These are 70-year-old men who aren't gonna change, and I'm not actually trying to facilitate a real apology. This is just thoughts that I have had about an ideal, if unlikely situation.

 And yes, I realize that Mike felt at the time, as well as probably feels now, that he was justified in feeling differently about Brian's vision. But it just seems that Mike doesn't, and never did, treat Brian as the emotionally fragile person that he was and is. It's like he thinks he's a rough and tough dude who can take anything. Well BW obviously is a strong guy, but he is fragile. If there were hurt feelings, and they're obviously were, it seems that people should really recognize their role in causing each other emotional pain.

It's funny though, because part of me thinks that some of, or maybe a great deal of Mike's behavior over the years which might be considered questionable could've been a passive aggressive response to having been shortchanged on credits at the time. I know these are guys from a different era who aren't exactly open with their feelings and down-to-earth about stuff that runs deep in their  family.

The thing is, at the Grammy Museum event for California Saga, Mike said something of the effect that he knows he has made some mistakes, and he knows what people think of them. So he must obviously realized that some of the things he has done over the years in relation to the band were ill-advised. He must feel this in his heart. Which is good, because in fact some of the things he did were ill-advised.  That was a rare moment of fessing up for his mistakes... And I only see that as having been a good thing, because it seemed to be getting  closer to a healing process which never really continued. My question of course becomes, what specific mistakes are those? I feel that if Mike had gone further with that type of response, it would have been a really great thing. And who knows, maybe in private there were more apologies about specific events. Hell, I would hope BW would apologize to Mike as well for some things he has done over the years.

I guess it just kills me to see these guys being unable to resolve their issues and I wish they finally could. There are fractures within my own family between some people, and I also just wish those people could stop being so bullheaded and fess up to the crap they have done, which I think would go along way to healing things too. Sucks that some people are just plain unable to. Babbling about it on a message board isn't going to make that happen but this is just conversation of course.

Park's standard response since he walked off the project. It could be they mean nothing. Or it could be his feelings are still hurt by having his lyrics questioned.

If Brian respected Mike's opinion, and I think he did, then it did matter. We'll never know just how much it mattered because the parties have been reluctant to discuss the various SMiLE issues in depth, and/or they have a problem at times telling the truth. But, even if Mike's negative opinion of Van Dyke's lyrics had just a little bit of an influence over Brian's SMiLE psyche, then it was significant. Nothing to apologize for, just significant.

Sounds to me like you started this thread so everyone would rip Mike to shreds. Didn't happen, because as stated, it didn't matter what anyone thought about Smile. Every Beach Boy participated and did what was asked of them to get it completed. Again, you know all the pieces involved here. Smile was like Humpty Dumty, it was in so mamy pieces that it couldn't be put together again. Look how long it took Linett & Boyd to do it digitally, let alone how long it would have taken Brian to do it manually. To me, it makes sense that it was shelved when it was.

Mike has always had praise for SMiLE, even in 1966/67. He wasn't a huge fan of the lyrics [neither was Brian], he asked for an explanation of one lyric he was to sing, didn't get one, sang it anyway.

I'm always so argumentative. Anyway. I can't see where assembly would have stopped anything. Brian, Taylor, Britz, musician always say he came to the studio prepared. He knew what everything was and how it went to together and he called it out and labeled it as such when he got to the studio. I just can not see Brian recording this stuff without knowing how it went together and how he would technically achieve it. I believe it wasn't not knowing how or what to do but just plain that he didn't feel it when he did have it and he felt it less and less as he had it more and more.

Mike has stated over & over that he loved the music. I doubt Brian felt all that threatened by Mike's issue with the lyrics, especially after he went in and sang them beautifully. Brian's psyche was not Mike's issue. Back then, I doubt they really knew how fragile he was starting to become. It would be years before anyone fully understood all of Brian's issues. I've seen nothing to suggest that Brian was none other than Commander in Chief in the studio.

I think he respected people's opinions but in the studio if they didn't serve his already thought out plan he ignored opinions. You hear it on the tapes. Somebody will have an opinion or suggestion, he will listen, he might even try it, he might accept it, but if it isn't in his zone he will dismiss it out of hand. He only did what he wanted, so Mike nor any of the Boys, or Capitol, influenced Brian to do anything he didn't want. Jimmy Lockert confirmed this to me.

Parks is a public person, whether as a child actor, or musician or lyricist. And a pretty smart dude. I respect that.  But, even he knows, that when anyone who works in the public arena, whether as a politician, or actor or musician, you are subject to critics and it is part of the job. If you don't have a thick skin, working under the public microscope is not a good fit.  Challenged? You bet they merited a challenge.  It was a 180 degree turn for a band, who had been around for 7 years, which is a long "shelf life" for a rock band, as many don't last more than a quick blaze of glory and go on to fizzle out.

There was an emerging growth which was indicated with Warmth of the Sun, or Please Let Me Wonder, or the other more introspective work.  And it went from varied subject matter such as surf/glrls/school/cars to personal reflective.  Then to historical epic.  I think of the Band as the "laborers in the vineyard."  From that vantage point, I can see their perspective.  

And people are quick to forget that in this vortex of time and touring was the "main voice" of Carl facing jail.  Those are difficult working conditions, at best, for all of those band members, jet lagged and earning cred in Europe, while the US wondered what was up with this album.  Europe had the luxury of enjoying the artfulness while the US youth (males, anyway) had the same sword of Carl overhead.  Context, is key, here.  

One of the best analysis I've read so far in this board. Thank you, Sheriff

Mike has said some good things about the music many years after the fact. Was he saying those same things at the time in question - 1966-67? Like I said, based on what has been said and more importantly, what hasn't been said over the ensuing 46 years, it's hard to tell how much Mike's "issues" with the lyrics affected BRIAN'S EVOLVING OPINION OF THE LYRICS AND SMiLE. Didn't Van Dyke Parks say in some interviews (not that I trust every word HE says either) that Brian eventually started to question some SMiLE "things", which contributed to Parks' leaving. I do know that Brian has repeatedly said that he didn't think the public was ready or accepting of SMiLE at that particular time. Do you not think that Mike's (and other dissenting) opinions didn't play ANY part in Brian feeling that way? Brian could be as stubborn as anybody, but I also read that he was very influenced by what others thought about his music. There are several examples of him not wanting to release certain songs because he was unsure about them or their acceptance by the public.

I agree with you regarding Brian ignoring opinions and dismissing them and sometimes accepting them. But that is why I am making my point. Up to that point - 1966-67 - Brian did that, he did what he wanted, regardless of others. But with scrapping SMiLE, was he NOW listening to others, including Mike, and being influenced by their opinions? And we know there were others who weren't totally on board. Weren't some of the other Beach Boys, while not confronting Brian, having some of their own doubts? I read that Murry was making comments. How many others in the Beach Boys' circle were thinking or saying WTF? Ultimately Brian had his doubts, too. Did those doubts come completely from Brian's heart and soul, or were those doubts a product of who was talking and what were they saying? In my opinion, I think it is a no-brainer that Brian was having serious doubts and because of his need for approval (and many people have said that Brian needed approval), Brian was influenced by the people talking, at least to some degree.

Agree that Brian was unusually sensitive to criticism and it created doubt for him.  He almost gave the song Good Vibrations away.  We don't know what effect Mike's questioning AND Van Dyke's unwillingness to defend his lyrics had on Brian's view of the appropriateness of the Smile music.

To me the ironic thing is that Mike and Van Dyke cast some doubts on the project in Dec 66 with the recording of Cabinessence.  Then Brian has doubts and focuses on the single.  If Brian had stayed true, Mike would have come around - by May/June they all wanted Smile to be finished and released EXCEPT for Brian who decides to junk it.  Mike apparently objected to "sunny down snuff" in December, but was singing it gladly in June.  As others have pointed out, Smiley is just as much of a departure into weirdness as Smile, maybe more so.  Music was evolving rapidly and even Mike was on board for experimentation.  Bt the moment was gone.

You ever hear the When I Grow Up sessions? "Does this sound like a hit?" The man was insecure, no doubt about it.

All I know is what is in the interviews [including Britz] and tapes and what Jimmy Lockert told me. I mentioned Lockert because he was speaking of the period at the end of SMiLE and through the next 3 albums.  Also if they were pushing Brian to do this and that or not do this or that, why would they [according to Brian] object so hard to Brian's scrapping of the thing they were not happy with and I suppose why Smiley?

If it is so hard to tell exactly what Mike or anyone was thinking then, why try to put words in his mouth now. You know nothing more about it than anybody else. Taking from what we do know, Brian was still the man in the studio and the guys were following along, planning to release Smile, good or bad.

How would anything the Boys thought effect SMiLE if they were doing it anyway?

I think you are looking in the wrong place for that kind of influence. I think the place to look for that is between the co-creators, actual arguing is described by Vosse and Anderle with Anderle saying specifically the significant thing was the two fighting over the lyrics being to sophisticated and the music not sophisticated enough. Still VDP did his job to his best and Brian did it his own way.

Why are people still so hung up on Mike and Smile? He had next to nothing to do with its being abandoned.

If we're talking regrets and abandoned BB projects, it was Carl who was responsible for the mid-90's Paley/Don Was album not coming to pass. Brian had some great songs imo, but it was Carl, reportedly, who pulled the plug because he felt that the material was not commercial enough. Imagine the crap he would be getting if it were Mike, not Carl,  who pulled the plug because the songs weren't commercial.

Brian was apparently highly enthused (and rightly so) about his 1st post-Landy project. If Mike hurt Brian's feelings over doubts about Smile, how did you think Brian felt about Carl rejecting Brian's labor of love?

Just curious if people think that Brian is still as determined and headstrong today as he was in 1967 when he pulled Smile without any influence from anybody.

I think he might be. He might deliberately delegate lots of the work but still uses the hammer when he wants or doesn't want something in the studio ie. his shut down of Al's persistence during TWGMTR.

In that case, do you disagree with this statement from runners:

You're assuming way too much, here. I'll admit maybe I did too saying it was "obviously a joke", but not nearly to the extent you have, here.

It's never been said Mike didn't want "Til I Die" on Surf's Up (as always, his voice is on the song!), just thought he was likely the unnamed band member who called the song a "downer". Never said he disliked it (again, he's on it, basically as the lead on the tag), never said he wouldn't work on the song, just that it was a "downer", which, in a way, it is. It's too good to depress me much, it's nice in terms of being able to relate to from time to time, but still.

You assume he didn't want it on the album, you assume you know exactly the context of the gun-motion-thing, you assume he'd write "fun in the sun" lyrics to "Summer's Gone", a piece which doesn't call for anything of the sort (let's remember this guy co-wrote "The Warmth Of The Sun" with Brian), and then you assume Mike didn't want "Summer's Gone" on the new album.

I don't get this kind of stuff. Mike has done enough bullshit over the years. The Hall Of Fame speech, donating to the PMRC, the total cheeseball appearances on sh*t like Baywatch, thinking Summer In Paradise was releasable, some of the circumstances surrounding the end of the C50 tour, etc. There's really no need to invent and assume more things to throw on the fire, the guy has done enough.

While we're at it, have we all forgotten that Mike's "let me explain to you how I'm kind of an asshole, but not as much of an asshole as you might think" press letter last year directly quoted "Summer's Gone" in a positive light? What does that tell you?

I don't mean to criticize you, sorry if it seems like it, I just don't understand.

When will Brian or Van Dyke apologize or show regrets about anything concerning Smile? NEVER. Why should Mike?

I have no idea if David Leaf coerced Brian but as I said earlier I believe any minor complaints from the Boys didn't change anything about SMiLE that Brian wanted .

Groups don't always see eye to eye, but I really look at what the Beach Boys did as a whole from 1961-73. I still think they had an unbeatable creative run they should all be proud of. That run will provide people with joy and great music for all time. What else can an artist ever ask for? 

Three pages in and there's still no answer for the op at the top of the thread. Mike contributed to Smile's demise. Anybody who denies it clearly hasn't read up on its history.

Maybe somebody should ask Mike the question point blank.  More than likely his answer will be negative.

I'll answer and say no. Why? Because he doesn't need to. Brian shelved it, nobody else.

The real question that should be asked is: Has Brian Wilson ever taken a tiny bit of responsibility for SMiLE's demise? To that I'll also say no. He has used all kinds of excuses, but he really never took responsibility.

“I threw it away. I junked it. I thought it was inappropriate music for us to make.”

I'd say when he's not being prodded by David Leaf saying "REMEMBER BRIAN. REMEMBER HOW MIKE BULLIED YOU AND THREATENED TO POKE YOU IN THE EYE AND CALL YOU A NITWIT IF YOU DIDN'T CANCELL SMILE AND PUT OUT 'STILL SURFIN' USA' INSTEAD", Brian will generally say "It was too advanced", too much drugs, or that he junked it because was worried people wouldn't like it, which is basically copping to it being his fault.

He lied. Smiley Smile was way more inappropriate than Smile. That's what I meant by the excuses.

It depends what he means by inappropriate. If he means that the Smile songs were too overblown, bombastic, and not oriented towards the strengths of the group members, then Smiley as a more simplistic album recorded by the band, would be way more appropriate.

I'd have to disagree, Brian regularly and openly took the responsibility at the time and after, no big whoop. He himself had a long list of his reasons for scrapping it and none of them were because of the Boys, just the opposite. Not sure why it is so hard to accept Brian's own words on the subject.

Except, of course, when he blames Mike Love.

Well, I meant more like "The Truth". He did a lot lying like burning the tapes, etc. I mean the Mike part of this whole Smile drama is mostly fan myth. Even all the stuff that Brian said just added to the myth. The truth of it all is only finally coming out in drips and drabs.

Yep, except for that one time 40 years later.

You are right about the meaning of inappropriate. On the other hand, I don't find Smile to be all that overblown when compared to Pet Sounds or any of the Wall of Sound productions that came before. You have to admit that except for Party, the simplistic approach was more non-Beach Boys than Smile. Also, the vocals are just as beautiful on Smile as on Smiley Smile.

Will Mike take SIP with him??   >:D

Not in the same way.

Would the Brian in 1966 have agreed to release GIOMH?

Seriously, DrBB, the way I read Brian's comments in the Smile Sessions notes is that he (Brian) did take responsibility for the failure to complete Smile.  Remember how he says "my artistic heart was broken", etc.  He sure had major regrets anyway.

Just wondering also ... I'm not sure what "responsibility" he was "supposed" to take for the project's failure at the time, in your or anyone's view?

I mean, they picked up the pieces, and carried on, with some pretty incredible albums, in my opinion.  What else should they have done?

I'm not trying to put words in Mike's mouth. I have no idea where you're going with that or why you would write that.

I don't know anything more than anybody else - and neither do you. So why would you make that comment? Excuse me if I speculate on a rock and roll message board.

I never said Brian WASN'T the man in the studio. I don't know why you would say that in reference to my post. I also never said that the guys WEREN'T following along. I don't know why you brought that up in relation to my post. I did say that Mike's objections over the lyrics COULD'VE influenced in some way. I don't see why that would be so hard to accept, or, in your case, understand.

I think most everyone can understand that distinction. I guess the better question is: why should Mike have to apologize to anyone about anything regarding Smile?

I never said that that the guys "were pushing Brian to do this or not do that". You did. I also didn't even address why they objected so hard to Brian's scrapping of SMiLE. You did. I didn't address that issue. What I did address was that Mike's "problems" with Van Dyke Parks' lyrics COULD'VE planted some doubt in Brian Wilson's mind and led to his scrapping SMiLE. Also, there is a big difference between SMiLE and Smiley Smile, including a majority of the lyrics, which Brian scrapped.

Actually, does he even blame Mike in BD? Or does he say something like "Mike hated it." Anybody remember?

Yes, he does. Among other things I think.

Who said you did?

I'm following on this: "But with scrapping SMiLE, was he NOW listening to others, including Mike, and being influenced by their opinions? And we know there were others who weren't totally on board. Weren't some of the other Beach Boys, while not confronting Brian, having some of their own doubts? I read that Murry was making comments. How many others in the Beach Boys' circle were thinking or saying WTF? Ultimately Brian had his doubts, too. Did those doubts come completely from Brian's heart and soul, or were those doubts a product of who was talking and what were they saying? In my opinion, I think it is a no-brainer that Brian was having serious doubts and because of his need for approval (and many people have said that Brian needed approval), Brian was influenced by the people talking, at least to some degree."

Guess I'll have to watch it again.

There you go.  On the money.  

Mike has admitted that he didn't like the lyrics.  He confronted Van Dyke with it.  He's never apologized to Van Dyke, Brian, or anybody else for that. Even on that plane ride Mike and Van took from Big Sur to L.A. back around 1980 or whatever it was.

But why should he have to apologize for something he had basically no say in and a venture where he was little more than an employee?

If I mentioned to the president of my company that I didn't like the robo-flushing mechanisms they installed on the toilets, and then months later he dissolves the company: does this mean I'd have to apologize for the next 40 years and counting?

And what of Mike, which this thread is about? This whole exercise is frankly, dumb. What's Al's responsibility? Bruce's? I agree with you that they did pick up the pieces and carry on. Again, my question was posed in response to this thread. I think the poster was trying to rouse the anti-Mike sentiment.

Yeah!  I think you're right!  Let's get 'im!!!

Good analogy, but I think Mike DID have a say, didn't he?

Peace and love, Mikie. I'm gonna make myself feel like I am meditating when come in here.

I've always said the same thing too. Agree

I'm surprised VDP doesn't get me flack for his reaction to Mike's questioning of the Cabinessence lyrics.

Why was he so bothered by Mike wanting an explanation of what he was singing

Because art speaks for itself and if you can't understand that then you shouldn't even be in the business of making it.

Disagree completely. Mike's biggest problem seemed to be the bombastic nature of the material and furthermore, as has always been the case, he laments his lack of involvement in the creative process. Smiley Smile mostly gave up the pretentious literary lyrics, the complex and challenging music, and allowed Mike and the boys to play a bigger role in creating the music.

that's something fans will really only be caught saying,,,,, It's a bit different in the boiler room

Well, let's see, what have I learned through 4 pages of posts? Nothing! Same ol', same ol'. Like every other thread in here, Brian vs Mike.

No, no. I meant that to be good natured. I'm just trying like you to establish a logical reason why Smiley Smile (not necessarily as music but as a project) might have suited Mike's needs more than Smile

Mike got to write lyrics, but at what price? Even if Smile wasn't a total success, it would have sounded more like a Beach Boys album than Smiley did. If Brian could have completed Smile, it would have been released without any objections from Mike or the rest of the band. It was the planned release until Brian shelved it. So, we come full circle back to Brian.

Can we all cut the bullshit and acknowledge the real enemy, here? The one who really ensured the collapse of Smile?

Al Jardine. There, I said it.

Quite right. But Mike is in the band and he has every right to question lyrics he's being asked to sing. He shouldn't just have to shut up and sing.


Al Jardine. The snake in the grass.

Not really any reason why Mike couldn`t have contributed lyrics to unfinished Smile stuff or changed some of the existing lyrics to get credits though.

Because he wasn't asked to and had no control over the issue.....

No, but I don't think the perceived pretension had to just be about the lyrics. I could see why Mike might like a song like Wonderful. It's complex, certainly, but not over the top, musically. I might suggest that songs like Cabinessence and Surf's Up and even the ongoing Heroes and Villains vocal experiments were veering into the realm of, not necessarily, weirdness, but self-importance.

I don't think Van Dyke Parks would agree with that. I don't think Harry Nilsson would agree with that. Not even sure Brian Wilson for a good amount of career would agree with that.

Question them? Maybe ask a question about them. But if you're hired to be an actor in a Shakespeare play, is it really your business to question the lines or make the playwright defend what they have written (and here, I am using Van Dyke's own understanding of the exchange).

really????

Or I should ask: If Shakespeare himself was busy writing a play and was asking the lead actor who was also his cousin to recite the lines as he was writing them: you think it would be outlandish for this actor to ask what a line or two meant??

Brian had problems directly with his co-author and with his co-author's lyrics. Yet some don't think that was the significant thing? Some think Mike's one request for an explanation of a lyric he had actually already recorded was the significant thing? Yet I'm denial guy. Sure.

Goof up. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Bands across the globe have arguments about lyrics and music. Nothing new about that.

If Brian had hired session singers to record the vocals then you may have a point. But Mike had just co-written their biggest hit. Of course he was within his rights to question the lyrics.

Mike says he simply asked what the lyrics meant in a civil manner. Most other sources (more on Brian's side of things) claim it was much more aggressive. I think the difference here is very important. Is anyone sure which it was?

Because he onde said that Mike Love's lyrics were all basically about "sex in the back of a truck" (paraphrasing). How would you feel if you were asked to explain your lyrics to someone whose work in the same field you considered so mediocre?

But they weren't sitting down and writing a song together. Mike was in the band in question and was being asked to sing these lyrics. VDP should have had enough respect for the situation if not Mike himself and he should have explained to his ability....

This issue is beyond tiresome. Bands fight all the time, usually much more aggressively, and with much harsher words, and more often with fists, but somehow The Beach Boys are the only band in history where is matters....

Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to understand where Van Dyke Parks' head was in 66/67.


The Lifetime Project was a complete failure - Who's Next was a bestseller though - yet you never see Townshwnd blaming the rest of the band or management.

Two key factors on why this is the subject that just won't die,
1) The overwhelming hate some 'fans' have for Mike Love,
2) The insane overhyping of the Smile project.

Leaf's misinterpretation of the Anderle/Williams interview didn't help imo.

Here's Carl : “A lot was said about Mike not liking the Smile music. His main problem was the lyrics were not relatable. They were so artistic, to him, airy-fairy and too abstract. Personally, I loved it.”

Mike in 1998 : “I didn’t resonate well with what was going on at that time – he was writing these songs under the influence of various substances, and it didn’t make any sense to me!”

And VDF, recounting a 1995 meeting with Mike : “For the first time in 30 years,[Mike Love] was able to ask me directly, once again, ‘What do those lyrics — Over and over the crow flies, uncover the cornfield — mean? And I was able to tell him, once again, ‘I don’t know.’ I have no idea what those words mean. I was perhaps thinking of Van Gogh’s wheat field or an idealized agrarian environment.”

Mike did contribute lyrics to unfinished Smile stuff.  He Gives Speeches, to be exact, which he helped turn into She's Goin' Bald.  One of my favorite songs on SMiley.  I would have liked to see what Mike would have done with Worms, or Holidays, or Look.  I think at this time Mike would have done some interesting things.

Well, but like I suggested, that wasn't quite Van Dyke's understanding of the situation. He said he felt he was being made to defend his lyrics. In other words, when he was asked, "What do these lyrics mean?" it was not simply a case of, "I just want to know what I'm singing about" it was "I don't think these words mean anything" (and indeed, Mike's "acid alliteration" remarks reinforce that) and "why should I be singing something that I don't think actually makes any sense." And, yes, I think it would be outlanding for an actor to make remarks like that to any playwright.

Well, if VDP doesn't know what they mean, then why get so upset with someone else when they don't know what it means? To me, VDP was acting like he was so full of himself, that how dare anyone question what I write. Think about it, up to that point in their careers, what they sang about was pretty concrete. No guessing as to what lyrics meant. Though, I wonder how Gary Usher or Roger Christian reacted if asked what "ram induction under the hood" meant? ;)

I'd imagine they'd be worried about not coming off macho enough to admit they didn't know what ram induction was.

Also, VDP is much shorter and less carburetor-oriented. I can't blame him for just leaving the room, really. Plenty of ego to go around with that crowd! He seems regretful that he wasn't strong enough to fight for it in the Leaf doc and at least admits failing on that front. What an obnoxious subject to be prodded about every time you stick your face out in public tho, huh? At one of those last record store signings the flyer made sure to specify A Q&A ON HIS POSTSMILE WORK. I think the first and last questions were about Smile. Wah wah wah waaaaaah! No wonder they all get so cranky.

If only he gave Mike a straight answer. Actually, I could very well see Mike being sarcastic and acting like a smart-ass. I always came away that VDP came off sarcastic, as well.

Yeah, I agree, to have a whole career upstaged by a few months working on Smile. Very obnoxious.

Hahaha! Hilarious illustration.

It's Lifehouse, not Lifetime, but anyways actually Townshend did blame manger and producer Kit Lambert's lack of enthusiasm for the project (as Lambert wanted to make a movie of Tommy) and he's also commented on how his bandmates didn't understand his vision. Now in his bandmates defense, Lifehouse is somewhat incomprehensible.

Ha! I'll go ask a co-worker a few doors down, who writes/directs plays, if that never ever in hell happens ........ I'll get back with you

Thanks for the correction. I just reread Townshend's essay on the 90s Who's Next remaster and he's very ambivalent about Kit's "lack of support". He certainly doesn't blame him in a Brian Wilson's "oh poor me" way. He may have commented that about his bandmates but this even more so never sounds like him pointing his finger. He basically says it was a stillborn project that couldn't be saved anyway. You see, some rock stars aren't assholes like our Beach Boys.  ;D

I think it's more like, rock stars are mostly assholes but none seem to inspire the sort of blind and irrational hero worship Brian gets, which surely would make him uncomfortable if he were aware of it .... These discussions and blame being put on Mike are basically irrational and illogical from any point of view other than being on one's knees and praying up at a huge, divine, floating head in the sky.....

he betta

There is a small minority of people who deify Brian Wilson, but they are very vocal and persistent. Not only do they deify Brian, but they feel the need to blame Mike for Brian's mental illness. I also see people posting comments on YouTube or places such as the comments section of the LA Times when the guys had their back and forth about the end of the C50 reunion. The same names posting over and over again and making the comments threads go on a lot longer if they didn't post the same thing over and over again, all defending the great Brian Wilson and vilifying Mike Love.

I used to be a pro-Brian person and "felt sorry" for him, but considering how well Brian has done for himself since over ten years ago, I can't feel sorry for him. He's fine. Brian lives in several mansions and wears Gucci shoes and drives several nice cars. I don't think he needs fans to defend him or make him feel better or to "protect" him from "evil" Mike Love.  He already has gotten plenty of praise and recognition and the press seems biased towards him, so Brian has won.

This thread is six pages of the same brouhaha that appears every time someone brings up the topic of Michael and Smile, so...again - bolded, italicized, underlined, striked-through, glowed, shadowed, marquee'd, and BLOWN UP TO HUGE PROPORTIONS -

Yes he won which is as it should be. :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:(did I say anything wrong?)

Not in the least...Brian has more than deserved the accolades he has gotten; he is IMHO the greatest American songwriter of the rock era.

Again, though, really good artistic works are not something that can be explained by the artist. If they could explain it better in other words, then they would have used those words. What Van Dyke was trying to convey could only be conveyed with "Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield." A Picasso painting doesn't become clearer when the parts are re-arranged or when Picasso steps in and says, "It's a plane." The point is that it creates an impression and that different people can take different things away from the image. That there could be one, singular, essential point "underneath" it all is fundamentally antithetical to what the actual piece of art is. That's why Van Dyke's line couldn't be explained. The only explanation would confound Mike. "What does 'over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield' mean?" "It means "over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield" or "What does it mean to you?" Van Dyke was being completely honest in his answer. He could explain the line about as much as Ezra Pound could explain: "The apparition of these faces in the crowd; petals on a wet, black bough."  It explains itself.

Nobody said Brian wasn't a great American songwriter. It's all the other crap that is the problem.

Believe me, I completely understand both sides of the argument. I was just being facetious.

I have to disagree here..... A painting is not music and the song in question was not a solo composition for piano but a "pop" (using the term as loosely as possible) song with various instruments and vocal parts that separate individuals were assigned to play. Each one bringing their own unique talents and touch (sorry, Alter Of Brain) ... Mike was not being asked to simply hum a melody but to sing words. An exercise, largely to his experience up until that point, required genuine emotion to be utilized. This was a collaborative work. Picasso never (to our knowledge) grabbed his cousin, handed him a brush and said "Hey, paint this right over here" ... Mike had every right to ask what the lyrics meant. Hell, I could explain them in a literal sense, so could VDP! ... I wonder if Brian ever asked VDP what any of his lyrics meant. If he had, I'm sure we'd all agree he'd have been in the right to ask. Not that he would have been OWED an answer (nor was Mike really) but I'm damn sure VDP coughed one up if this happened.... This is such a pointless topic to keep dredging up just in order to trash Mike..... BRIAN WON, as someone pointed out earlier. If Mike were somehow legally declared non-evil over this stupidity, it would never change the fact.

It's hard to imagine any time when Van Dyke Parks was at a loss for words...

I agree that many artists can`t or don`t want to explain their work. But it seems from your playwright comparison that you think the conversation should have gone,

Mike: What do these words mean?
VDP: I have no idea what they mean.
Mike: Fair enough, let`s get back to work.

I don`t think that was ever going to happen and while VDP may not have wanted to explain his lyrics, he must have known when he began working with The Beach Boys that he was working on a commercial enterprise. He knew that it would have to sell and that it would have to be performed in public by the group. If he thought that they wouldn`t question his work at all then he was very naive.

To contine your play comparison. If a play had a director and cast in place and they hired a brand new writer who came up with obscure ideas which they didn`t understand or felt might be unpopular with the public then they would undoubtedly question it. It happens in movies and TV shows all the time after all.

RockNRoll, I should clarify: even though I feel the way I do about this issue in principle: I still do, just as equally, wish to God Mike had just gone "Oh, OK. I get it" and went back to work.

I work in TV and a while back, we aired that movie "The Beach" (no pun intended) by Danny Boyle, and apparently after the last shot fades out, there's like a few minutes of black with no music or anything and then music slowly fades up and the credits begin to roll.... Network control kicked it back, pissed off at QC for missing this "technical problem" .... I had to go explain to the guy that this was an artistic decision by the great auteur Mr. Boyle, to which he replied, "I don't give a flying f*uck! Take it back and cut out those minutes of black" .......

Didn't matter because the problem that mattered was between Brian and VDP. Brian had a problem with VDP's lyrics and VDP had a problem with Brian's music. Since Brian was the producer his opinion that VDP's lyrics were too sophisticated was the problem that mattered and VDP's lyrics nearly disappeared as a result.

OK, let's shake it off and focus. The Boys are a fandom red herring, Brian himself said the Boys stood against him scrapping SMiLE.  You can't stand up for it and be against it at the same time. Brian stood alone in wanting SMiLE scrapped.

Isn't that what the Boys did? All these supposedly problem lyrics for the Boys are on tape.

Like I said, no matter how bitter and resentful Mike may have felt, it didn't stop him from doing his job and singing the damn words.  And he sounds great on Cabin Essence.  So it's silly to single that out.

good point

It's possible they (the band) got their dissent and complaining out of their systems early in the game, accepted SMiLE for what it was, and gave Brian the benefit of the doubt - and the respect he deserved - ultimately doing their best at performing Brian's music in the studio. Yes, maybe they did not ACTIVELY protest or boycott SMiLE, but that doesn't mean their true feelings were questioning or even negative. One can carry out an assignment, and perform well, and still have doubts about the project. 

I still think the basic point is being missed. Yes, I believe that Brian Wilson - as the composer, producer, leader, whatever - has to ultimately accept the responsibility for scrapping SMiLE, but, part of his decision could've been based or formed by Mike's problems with the lyrics. It at least could've planted a seed.

Brian thought VDP's lyrics were too sophisticated. The two of them argued about it. Brian got rid of most of said lyrics. Fans don't seem to see that as the problem with the lyrics. Brian said at the time that he scrapped SMiLE because HE felt the lyrics were too arty. I don't get how this problem between Brian and the lyrics is still the unacknowledged 600 lb. gorilla in SMiLE. Nobody ever even mentions it [as far as I've seen].

The Boys didn't want SMiLE scrapped. They did every bit of it take after take. Brian scrapped it against their wishes. That pretty definitively let's them off of the hook to me.

People complain how these discussions don't go anywhere but actually they have moved a lot in the past 20+ years. Yes, that slow but movement.

 :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

This is my last comment on this subject (I can hear the applause echoing in my room).

Yes, Brian might've thought the lyrics were too sophisticated. Yes, Brian got rid of most said lyrics. And, yes, Brian might've felt the lyrics were too arty.

BUT HE DIDN'T ALWAYS FEEL THAT WAY. BUT HE DIDN'T ALWAYS FEEL THAT WAY. BUT HE DIDN'T ALWAYS FEEL THAT WAY.

In the beginning, Brian loved the work that he and Van Dyke Parks were creating. It was only later, much later in the project, did Brian begin to experience and express doubt about SMiLE - and the lyrics. MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE - and in my opinion probably - Brian's doubts and displeasure with the lyrics STARTED with the complaints from others - specifically from Mike. He didn't forget them. The seed was planted. Brian was sensitive to what others thought; it's part of his history.

I don't blame Mike for SMiLE being scrapped and I don't think he owes anyone an apology. Period. End of paragraph. End of my contribution to this thread.

Poor Brian :(

maybe just saying that will help??

I don't think the debate is that did someone or something help bring about Brian's decision regarding Smile or contribute to that decision. That's life. People (unless they're George W Bush: The Decider) rarely make big decisions in a vacuum. Other folks opinions and whatever way the wind is blowing or what side of bed this person got up on in the morning all play parts.... I think the debate is rather: should Mike be vilified as a the biggest asshole in the history of humanity because he outrageously asked VDP what a few lines of lyric meant.... People seem to think he owes the world a massive apology.... That's the debate.... No one always feels one way about any subject from any amount of time to another, so I don't see what point that makes to repeat over and over.

SMiLE didn't work out for one main reason: Brian's illness. It was why he didn't have the ability to focus and finish it, why he was unable to maintain control over the other members of the band and VDP, and it has nothing to do with Mike or VDP or anyone else, and it wasn't Brian's fault either. There was probably no one on Earth that could have helped with Brian's illness in those days-mental health treatment was in it's infancy then (and still is now). Had Brian been 100%, Mike and everyone else would have done whatever he asked and he would have finished it. Brian killed it because he had to. He was in no condition to finish a project of that magnitude at that time and had to have a ton of help to finish it when he did 30+ years later.

The Professor sees no reason to lament Smile not having come out in the 60s. The fact that it did not gave us its 2 incarnations in 2004 and  2012, and it likely gave us the reunion.

I think you nailed it on the head Sheriff.

And I also think people posting their theories as fact (*cough* Cam *cough*) gets kind of annoying. We weren't there. Maybe Brian got tired of Van's lyrics. Maybe Mike planted doubts in Brian's brain. Maybe Mike gave him sh*t when nobody else was around. Or maybe Mike was excited to get it out to the public. We don't know. And I especially don't appreciate people saying that THIS IS THE WAY BRIAN FELT or THAT IS THE WAY BRIAN FELT or I KNOW WHAT MIKE DID OR DIDN'T DO. We don't know we can only speculate.

‍

Just a few things I've stumbled across over the internet which are relevant to a few discussions running through this thread.

Mike's admitted to not being properly clued up on mental illness in the 1960s. "When we were younger, no one really knew what was wrong with Brian. Nobody knew about mental illness. We just had no clue about that as kids, as cousins and brothers, growing up..."

In 1975, in the heart of nostalgia-gate, Mike said he appreciated the musical form and content of "Surf's Up". He added "it has to be listened not in the context of what's number one this week, but as an extremely unique piece of music; something which is highly individual." In 2007 he said of Parks' lyrics for the song "I appreciate them for their artistry. It's like if you were to go to a modern art museum... maybe you don't understand [the artwork], but you can appreciate that it's beautiful." He has praised other lyrics from the project too, saying in 2011 "Wonderful is so beautiful and sensitive. Wonderful makes you cry. And although I didn’t agree with Van Dyke’s lyrics on every single thing, I thought he did a marvellous job on that."

On his questioning of the lyrics to "Cabinessense": "Just because I said I didn't know what they meant didn't mean I didn't like them. I have zero against Van Dyke Parks. That’s why I said, 'What the fuck does that mean?' It’s not meant to be an insult. He didn't get insulted. He just said, 'I haven’t a clue!' ... people don’t know the way I think. And they don’t give a fuck about the way I think, either.…I was just asking: What did it mean?""

We have to keep in mind that public attitudes over the years have been built using less than ideal sources such as this 1999 article from the Phoenix Times (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-12-23/music/the-forever-frown/2/) to form an understanding of the complexities in the Beach Boys saga during this period. An excerpt from that article:


One need only look at the setlist of In Concert and Knebworth to call bullshit on so many points in that paragraph but it's poorly researched, hyperbolic  journalism like this which is being used as a reference to compose the Smile article over at Wikipedia, reaching around 200,000 people a year, presenting a distorted view of the Smile era. Disturbingly it's only the tip of the iceberg in a trend of sensationalist journalism that loves to rehash the undeserving binary roles of "Heroes" and "Villains".

It's not theory in this case. This all happens to be published and comes from the people's statements and the usual eye witness sources, fans just don't acknowledge these particular parts for some reason.  It's all been there in the record for 46 years.

Sheriff, the witnesses say that Brian and Van Dyke got along and were on the same page in the beginning and then they began to argue about each others work and snipe at each other. So it was between the two of them and it was a process.

Oh James, I love you.

Will Myke apologize to Van for behaving like a Dyck? ;D

"mental illness" killing Smile seems to simple to be correct and I rather hold that Brian's decision was multi -faceted. If he was so sick in the head how did he pull off what he accomplished during the remainder of that decade? His output after Smile is nothing less than brilliant.

And I have yet to hear anything approaching a diagnosis of Wilson's alleged illness...exactly what is wrong with him? Hmmmm?

Well, for one, I don't think that that dialogue effectively explains how Mike's question was really a question that asked Van Dyke to defend his lyrics.


Then I wonder if Mike could easily explain what "You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat" meant from the #1 smash Like a Rolling Stone. If Mike and the boys thought complex lyrics meant that the song would be un-commercial then, forget naive, they were simply out of touch with reality in December of 1966.

And again, I re-state, what's there to explain? Try this: "Whoa whoa, explain this to me: 'If everybody had an ocean across the USA, then everybody'd be surfing like Californ IA.' What are they trying to say?" What would the answer be to this? Would you be actually able to provide a satisfactory answer that wasn't simply just repeating the line in the hopes that this time around they understood it? Again, you're operating with the assumption that there is some essential, underlying, and singular meaning buried "underneath" the line when the meaning is, in fact, the line itself.


Yes, especially in the worst segments of television and movies. This is why someone like Woody Allen refuses to submit his work to another director and makes deals to have the final cut on all his movies - precisely because of crap like this. And that's probably why Van Dyke thought the best thing for him to do would be to go off on his own and do it himself.

And you don't acknowledge the fact that eyewitnesses were saying Brian and Mike were having problems. Which one would assume might have something to do with SMiLE. And note, I'm not saying that Mike ruined SMiLE or anything. But you were not there. At least in all the stuff about this period I've read, I've never read anything about a Cam Mott character.

And yeah, I do think ultimately it was Brian that called curtains on the album. But if he hated Van's stuff so much, why was "Heroes And Villains" the first sing back? Why was "Vegetables", "Wonderful" and "Wind Chimes" all on Smiley Smile? Why was he recording a version of "Surf's Up" during the Wild Honey sessions? Why did he write a song with Van Dyke called "Sunflower Maiden" for Redwood?

There are a lot of moving parts in this saga, and for you to act like you got it all figured out is insulting. You weren't there. Get over it.

I thought he was the barber?  :)


I've made this point before to Cam. His response is that Brian removed the most Parksian songs. But to me, the notion that Wilson didn't like Parks's stuff just doesn't wash with the actual facts. I mean, he may have temporarily been convinced that they were inappropriate for the Beach Boys but not for long. He still used Parks's lyrics, he still worked with Van Dyke, and by the mid-70s was calling Parks his favourite collaborator. I just don't buy it.

Doesn't that also say that Mike and the rest of the Boys didn't have as big a problem with the lyrics, either? Shoot, they had to sing them twice. We're beating a dead horse here. It doesn't matter who liked or disliked what or whether people argued with each other. Everybody, except VDP stayed on board and did what was required to get Smile finished. Brian, and only Brian made the call to shelve the album and start anew with Smiley. Why is it that we have to find fault with others to justify Brian's actions?

I think it happens in 99% of television and movies. Including some of the most famous successes out there. And if VDP was any more bothered about things like that than any other writer then obviously he shouldn`t have been writing for a group.

I think to a large extent it does, yes, especially in the United States, though the television renaissance that we're in now is pretty much a consequence of it not happening as much as you suggest - as creative people have increasingly taken their ideas to places where they have more creative freedom. But just because it happens a lot does not make it right. In fact, I think it is playing a key role in the decline of civilization as we know it. And yes, this attitude has led to some achievements because at the end of it, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, one answer to that might be that the devil is in the details.

I agree with every poster here, to reduce Smile to Brian vs. Mike is SEVERELY missing the point. I think that to say that Mike is responsible for Smile's demise is as reductive as saying, "Brian junked it. That's all we need to know." Despite the near-perfection of the Smile Sessions, there is still a lot of historical mining to be done here (and while we're at it, how about some more historical mining for All Summer Long or Sunflower, or the rest of them!). And we're not going to get anywhere unless we can actually feel free to put forth conjecture and bat it around a little to see if any of it holds.

To be honest, the fact that Mike sang the lyrics has been mostly dealt with in a convincing way. Yes, he sang them and he did a great job but that doesn't mean that his (and maybe others) dislike of them (which Mike even admits to!) didn't plant a destructive seed in Brian's mind that eventually led to him junking the album (but I think Brian junked it for reasons other than just the lyrics, namely the fact that his desire to make the perfect record was precisely the thing that was destroying the record). I would also like an explanation why so many lyrics WEREN'T sung. How come there were no vocals that we know of put down for Surf's Up, or Barnyard, or I'm in Great Shape. How come we don't have a single Mike Love lead vocal. Surely Brian had planned for his lead singer to actually sing lead on a few of the songs. Hell, he already had Mike sharing lead on the Vegetables demo but by 1967, he was no longer in that role.

P.S. I do like how we are skeptical of sweeping arguments in this thread. I applaud everyone who stands up against the argument that "Mike Love killed Smile." The fact though that the most-oft heard retort is "and Brian did!" to me kind of undermines the anticipated nuance that I would expect. In fact, almost no one in this thread is suggesting that Mike Love killed Smile, but there is a multitude people saying Brian killed it.

I agree that mental illness isn't the only thing involved, but I do think it was the major thing. It surprises me, on a Beach Boys board, that we don't recognize the devastation that Brian's mental illness must have had.... not only on him, but on the project and those around him. Stress often triggers escalation of mental health problems, and during the SMiLE period the pressure was on to produce this masterpiece, follow up the success of Good Vibrations, deal with the problems with the record company, Carl's draft, etc. At this time, Brian was slowly unravelling and needed as much affirmation as he could get, but the project became a point of contention... with VDP, with the band, and even with his family. It overwhelmed him and he bailed.

And, before you accuse me of romanticizing things; I can understand it, because  I did the same thing. I came unglued and bailed on a project, not because I didn't believe in it, but because it was easier than dealing with the stress , anxiety and panic it was creating within me.

The funny thing about the aftermath of those kinds of stress related crashes, is that you can be productive and functional on the outside, but still be breaking down on the inside. One of my most prolific times, creatively, was in the five years following the project collapse.  I was channeling my creative energy out into other projects, but inside, I was fragile and afraid. Eventually, I started protecting the inner me, by withdrawing some from the creative process.  Now, I'm trying to work out how to keep things in balance and stay healthy without cutting myself off from the things I want to do.

All that said, you might think I'm  severely mentally ill. I'm not. I only have some mild anxiety problems. But, if I can go through that, how much more severe was Brian's experience? And, I do believe there's a Brian diagnosis out there. Schizoaffective disorder, if I'm not mistaken.

So, in the end, I do think Brian's mental illness killed SMiLE. And, I do think the contention between VDP, Mike and the band contributed to the stressors Brian was under at the time. If Brian had been healthy, I don't think Mike's comments would have made an impact. Since he wasn't, everything was magnified in his mind, including the band's reservations about the project.

Of course, that's all just my perspective.

OK. But I can only speak for British TV and say that this style of making TV has led to some of the most well loved and successful shows. As for music, I would say that some of the very worst music comes when singers just sing whatever is given to them by writers.

 Has BRIAN ever taken a tiny bit of responsibibilty for the demise of ATLANTIS RISING?

I love all the people here speaking in absolutes, when the reality is we don't know sh*t about why things went down the way they did.

Cam, you always argue that on the session tapes Brian sounds like he knows what he's doing. But could it be he only thinks he knows what he's doing?

:woot :woot :thumbsup :thumbsup. Post of the week.

Well, if the report on that is accurate, Brian refused passive-aggressively to work on Al's "Waves Of Love" - oh what a fool Brian is! (in that case)



I may have forgotten it, as I don't remember Mike referring to Summer's Gone! Where was that again?



I think Mike could have written lyrics for Cabin Essence as good as Van's, even better lyrics for Wonderful, but never anything like Surf's Up.



Well, the ones that were questioned have been recorded. But it seems they never even attempted the verses to DYLW, which are IMO the third worst lyrics to any BB songs. I think there would have been some objections, too. Like rockandroll stated, some lyrics are suspiciously missing.

I'm with the both of you, as well.

Hm, that's not sure. It could be that large chunks of good material would be missing. Would Holidays still be part of SMiLE? Would there be DYLW when the BR theme was used for Heroes? Would a 1967 SMiLE feature the Rock Me Henry version of Wonderful, which was recorded about the same time as the cantina version of H&V? That would be a worse SMiLE than the 2004 and 2011 incarnations even though those two are flawed. BWPS lacks the original recordings and the BB voices, TSS is incomplete as they didnt record the missing lyrics.

he betta

Being high on drugs and suffering a true mental disorder are two different things.

Brian was using drugs a lot, no?

This I have experienced myself and if my present persona could meet the leggo on drugs I'd think I was way crazy or...on drugs. Stress plus Drugs equal Wilson 66-onward.

I hope I didnt come off as absolute. But we do know Brian got stoned right?

That can produce pretty erratic behavior in some people. But drug use isnt mental illness the way I understand it ...can overuse of drugs cause a more permanent behavior modification? Sure but at the time of Smile I seriously doubt Brian had gone that far down the path. I know its been downplayed by people close to him back then but I'd still blame drugs before labeling the man a mental case.

Is there anyone who knows you better than your cousin?

Game, set, and match. Thread over. This is the post of the fucking millennium.

Yeah, my hairdresser.  :p

Yer brothers. ^__________________________________^

These were my thoughts too. Brian was hitting the pot and the speed hard at the time and both can cause paranoia and lack of focus in a person. His problems may have started to take root but in 1967 Brian was a millon miles away from the fat, burned out mess he would eventually become. Brian's mental problems in later years is a red herring in the Smile story. A mentally ill person could not have pumped out Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends in a year and a half period.

It seems to me there is an interview out there where Brian says something like he was into when high and then not as into it when sober. Anybody else remember that?

Yeah I'm pretty sure he said that in the past ten years. Which of course you would discount, correct?

Ya know, since he also blamed Mike in the past ten years as well, and we obviously can't trust the man himself on that one.

Uh, the further away from the event the less reliable as a rule imo. Does anyone have the quote with the date?

"Mike called me a nitwit and I said bawww and cancell the album and then I realized all my songs sucked unless I had used a paraphenelia pipe to smoke my mind into orbit." - Brian Wilson, May 19th, 1967

I'd say that date makes that statement pretty reliable

That is REALLY reliable but that's not the one I was thinking of. Here it is:

"It was just inappropriate music for the Beach Boys. We were taking drugs at the time and we weren't in our right minds. After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it. I said, that's not us."

It is from Brian Wilson, Harmonic Convergence by Howard Massey which I believe is fairly recent but don't know the date. 2000ish maybe?

So you'll take that one as gospel but not something he said three or four years later? Not that I think it's Mike's fault that the album didn't come out in the '60s. But I just wanna make sure you're not just weighing certain things more heavily when they support your points.

Maybe you missed it: "Uh, the further away from the event the less reliable as a rule imo. Does anyone have the quote with the date?".

Do you know the date for that interview?

I do not. However, I think this is something he said quite a bit during the time he was doing all the interviews promoting his solo version of SMiLE. If I can find one I'll post it though.

Had Mike made his stupid lawsuit by the time the latter comment was made? It might explain why Brian's claws were out again.

That's not "us"? So why didn't he finish SMiLE and release it under the name "Brian Wilson On Drugs"? I cannot grasp he didn't do THAT.

Sure to sell a million units.

I don't know the date of that interview yet but it sort of like his explanation to Bill Harriman in 1999 [and other years];

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it. We were taking a lot of drugs during that time and got carried away with hardly nothing."

And once again, I assume this quote means nothing to you. Since ya know, it came 32 years after the project ended. Unless of course you're going to believe Brian's assertion that Mike's objections to the project helped get it shelved.

As the original poster of this thread, I think perhaps my inquiry was misunderstood a bit. I tried to elaborate upon it in a subsequent post, but people get caught up in thinking this is a intended as a Mike-bashing thread (it's not); rather, it's just an attempt to discuss and understand how certain attitudes and or decisions that people make can play indirect roles in other events... and how Mike seems to have a non-history of fessing up to mistakes or at least admitting to a twinge of regret at various actions, which would help his own reputation (and the band's) sake.

Like I said, while Mike clearly tries to not dwell on mistakes the past (which can be a good thing, to a point), I think he just puts things out of mind and doesn't address some of the elephants in the room (and addressing these elephants would heal wounds - that's the thing, I'm approaching this from a standpoint that I wish these people could work issues out - not some blind "Mike is evil" nonsense... so please don't accuse me of thinking that way, since I don't think that, and I don't intend to stir up that sentiment - this is just a discussion of imperfect people).

Just because Mike (or some outsiders like his biggest supporters on this forum) might think that he doesn't have even a single solitary thing to apologize for (or even regret) as far as his role in behavior that may have really hurt BW's feelings, that doesn't mean that BW feels that he isn't due an apology from ML.

And that's the thing - if I inadvertently hurt someone's feelings with my words/actions (bandmate/friend/etc), but felt my actions were justified at the time, but I found out later just how hurt the person was by my words/actions, I would sincerely, deeply apologize to them. That's how I communicate and interact with people that I care about. I just wish ML could be the same way (again, we don't know what has been said between these people behind closed doors, but publicly it just doesn't seem that way).

I haven`t seen any of these guys apologizing to each other at any point and it ain`t gonna start now.

Well, I think the biggest culprit was his mental health problems, because it is the one thing that is different about him and the Beach Boys than there was about the other groups around. Other bands did a lot of drugs as well, but they were still able to finish projects, and ambitious ones too. Brian has schizoaffective disorder and auditory hallucinations as we have all heard, and although I don't have those issues personally, I have suffered from mental illness myself and it is never easy to deal with. You can go through horribly self-destructive phases-I even had my own "bed phase" a few years back.

Sometimes you can get better and get it together. Sometimes not. It's not something that you can ever cure.

Am I to assume this quote means everything to you? Since ya know, it came 32 years after the project ended?  Unless of course you're going to disbelieve Brian's assertion that Mike's objections to the project helped get it shelved. 

The further from the event, the less reliable imo. However I have to say this statement is consistent with all of Brian's explanations back to the event. It's not like this pops up one off 37 years after in a self-serving promotional video by a activist producer or something.

So, what have you learned in this thread that hasn't been written to death in the numerous other threads where this has been discussed and argued to death?

Just spread the rumor you should try and lick the cover before listening... :wink



Weeeeell... there is a 1964 live recording of "Little Honda" where Carl says quite clearly, "I'm sorry, Al"... ;D

After much "benefit of the doubt" I think Micha read it correctly, right at the outset.  Artfully crafted Mike bashing.

And, who on this planet except the "principals" knows what goes on, as the old song says, "behind closed doors" (the BRI doors!)

Too many un-credentialed armchair shrinks. 

The original project may have been overbroad, unwieldy, and unmanageable for anyone, at that time, given the "stressors" on the Band, such as Carl's draft status, the constant touring, and whether the newer music would be well received by a loyal fan base, and cultivating an englarged one.  Mike is the first one to say the vocal tracks were great, and he certainly didn't sing poorly on any of them.  If you don't like something, your performance shows that. That was "good faith effort," if there ever was.

My opinion is that it is an inappropriate question, going back to 1966-1967.  I'd hate to have to account for anything and be judged for acts and omissions from back forty years plus, as some would have a scapegoat for any and all things that ever went wrong with the Band.  And, it doesn't merit losing a minute of sleep.   ;)

Well said. [doffing my cap] [I'm a registered cap doffer]

If you had shown your true colors in the first post this thread would have lasted less pages. Or not.  ::)

I'm assuming the cap being doffed is a sweat stained hat with The Beach Boys logo?

(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/The+Henley+Festival+Beach+Boys+zQy4dE2b5sSl.jpg)

You really are hung up on Cam`s allegiances aren`t you. ;)

Oh yeah.

Does anyone believe that the reactions from the band members as Brian played them the Smile music he was working on were as positive as the band members seemed to suggest in the series of YouTube webisodes promoting the Smile Sessions box set?

At the core of at least some of this turmoil was Brian's fear that people wouldn't like what he was offering - it was what he apparently expressed to Marilyn as they listened to his final mixdown of Pet Sounds when he returned from the studio with the finished album. His fear was that people wouldn't like music that he considered as personal as anything he had done. No wonder - he grew up in a dysfunctional family where the main figure of authority in his life, his father, was on his back constantly providing negative support being masked as an attempt to instill a drive and a work ethic into a son whose talents for creating music eclipsed those of his father.

So many artists are looking for that support, that validation or confirmation, from a potential audience of millions of strangers being asked to open up to what you're offering. If an artist already dealing with issues of acceptance and validation looks to his immediate circle of friends and bandmates for that acceptance and doesn't feel like they're on board, the smallest negative reaction can be amplified into something that causes the artist to question more than just the issue at hand, and the confidence in the work itself is jeopardized. With a history as we can read this artist and this band had in the years prior to 1967, it's no wonder.

So again, can anyone believe that the band's (the family's...) reaction to this music in 66-67 was as positive and as supportive as they spoke of it in the YouTube promotions 45 years later?

Good question and I would answer, of course, no. I suppose that was part of my point above that as near perfect as The Smile Sessions is, the politics that were going on at the time it was produced ensured that there is still a lot more digging to be done that can tell us a lot about the album, how it developed, how it collapsed, etc. I still think it is noteworthy that the 1966 comment from Brian about Mike that they used in the box set itself is edited to take out the part where Brian actually criticizes Mike.

I think that by simply saying, "Mike is responsible" or "Brian junked the album. Period," we are essentially working to prevent any serious analysis that could lead us all to some very interesting conclusions.

Which quote are you speaking of?

DEMiSE

I wonder if these special promotions are a good guide, you probably only get part of what they had to say and it is so far from the events now. However, I think Brian and the Boys have been pretty consistent all the way back to the event in their both praise of and reservations with SMiLE. They have all had both praise and reservations. So if we get only praise or only reservations from any of them, we aren't getting the whole story.

Of course not, but how do we know how well Brian explained the songs and project to the band? For decades they talked about "fragments and pieces". With 20/20 hindsight, hundreds of boots and two box sets down the road it's easy to say that we, the hip fans, get Smile and that the band was a bunch of squares who resisted changes. But I'm not sure Brian was making it easy for his bandmates back in the day.

The quote is the following:


It was truncated in the box set to the following:


In all fairness, though, he also says this:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/smileairport1.jpg)

These people didn't seem to have as much of a problem getting excited about and supporting what Brian was doing as he would play them acetates and tapes of his progress in the studio, including several musicians with a handful of hit records of their own between them, a future arranger-artist-producer of note, a handful of journalists present and absent from that photo, managers, that mystery producer who heard "Fire" as it was being recorded in the studio and was amazed by what he heard...and Dennis Wilson for one wasn't shy about praising the music both at the time and in later years. His approval was a constant, along with this group of friends and associates.

Did Brian explain it in a better or more clear way to these people than he did the other band members?

Which, of course, was horse s#!t and proven to be when people finally confronted Al Jardine about it at a fan conference a few years ago. He started off with the same line too about it being just pieces until audience members told him about just how complete the project actually was and he eventually capitulated to essentially saying, "Oh, well, I guess the project had a lot of complete stuff..."

They had heard Wonderful, they had heard Wind Chimes, they heard Our Prayer. In about a year's time they could easily connect Cabinessence for release. The "it was just pieces" nonsense is damning to me - proof that they didn't want to understand what Smile was even when it was staring them in the face.

Thanks, Cam - for your kind words... ;)

And to sweetdudejim - that cap is a "tie-die" model - a fabric-based sixties artform where no two wearable items would be the same.

Doesn't look sweaty to me.

And, these allegations against Mike are nonsense.  Had he wanted to sabotage the project, his vocals would have been awful.  And they aren't.  In business, and he is/was in BRI, it would be not in his interest to perform sub-par, and he didn't.  

It is counter intuitive to suggest that he would perform poorly to compromise his own, and the band's income.  It seems that they put forth their best efforts, and why the BB vocals SS Box set was greeted with such delight after four decades of anticipation. Because they were outstanding.

Pure, foolish debate.  

Who has suggested that he "wanted to sabotage the project"?

A lot of people, most of whom do not post here.

Let's not get sidetracked into "sabotage" issues where it's not being discussed. Consider that the perpetual conflict Brian had to deal with was with his father, and like so many father-son relationships looking for that unqualified approval.

Flash back to fall 1966, up to Christmas 1966. Who was hotter in the pop music business than The Beach Boys? They had an international #1 record, they were greeted like musical royalty in the UK on the strength of Brian's "ego music" like Pet Sounds and the weird single "Good Vibrations".

Would that serve as a kind of vindication if not validation that Brian may have been onto something special, he as a writer and producer had caught lightning in a bottle and as every artist knows, those moments in time are fleeting at best. But at the least, having this kind of success, I'd go as far as to call it universal success, with the working methods used to create that music throughout 1966, wouldn't that equally earn a level of trust that we (the band) can feel secure in following this route because it has led us to worldwide success this year, and earn a level of respect from those like Murry whose approval may have been one of those demons Brian had been chasing and fighting all along?

No, instead of that you have documented accounts of Murry Wilson going around to friends, associates, bandmates, and sometimes Brian himself planting seeds of doubt about these "new sounds", openly bad-mouthing a current top-10 single which had been garnering praise both public and within the music industry as a groundbreaking piece of music, and suggesting it was a fluke, or it was the wrong direction, or it would lose their core fans, and any number of slights he chose to mention to those around Brian.

So who exactly was sabotaging whom? Leave Mike out for a second, and consider what impact the man's father deliberately bad-mouthing and criticizing what everyone considered an unqualified success had on that man's psyche. You buck the trend, create something unlike anything else, spend tons of money working on it, only to see everything you did and fought for justified and accepted...yet your own father can't give you a bit of praise, and instead bad-mouths the whole thing? Classic manipulation.

Maybe not an apology, but a little extra support from the circle of bandmates would have been warranted, and maybe a little less questioning would have helped in this case. "Brian, you know, your efforts in 1966 gave us what we're enjoying as the year comes to a close, thank you for all of it. And even though we may have questioned some of these decisions along the way, we trust your judgement enough to be along for the ride."

What choice did they have other than to sing those parts, too? Consider that Carl as a producer at that time could only manage a Brian/Smile soundalike track as a producer, Dennis' skills weren't yet developed enough and his efforts sounded like Smile-lite, and the best the group of them could produce as a complete song without Brian throughout 1967 was "How She Boogalooed It".

It's not outright sabotage from the ranks of the band, I don't get where that idea came from here. But I will suggest Murry knew exactly what he was doing and what would push certain buttons in Brian that even his cousin Mike and buddy Al didn't know went so deep and had such an effect. And perhaps even as a gesture of gratitude, they could have perhaps been a little more open to those odd ideas and "strange" music than it appears they were, at least based on almost all accounts up to those YouTube videos in 2012, in light of the way Brian's "ego music" and weird psychedelic single had them hailed as heroes that fall in Europe and the US.

None of those people were in The Beach Boys and none of them were to sing ( or more accurately: spend endless hours in the studio slaving over) on the tracks or then go and (prospectively) perform them. Also, these folk idolized and fawned over Brian in a way his brothers and cousin and high school friend never would and never could even if they wanted to or tried.

I doubt it. Brian probably showed them an acetate or two. Is Michael Vosse all that knowledgeable about Smile in that 1969 interviw? Remember that he had the benefit of listening to Smiley Smile and 20/20 in the meantime.

Should I feel sorry hearing how they slaved over these tracks that brought them fame and fortune in their teens and early 20's, not to mention worldwide public success and respect from their peers in the music biz? Was Brian right with Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, or not?

Poor guys.   :)

Sometimes folks just don't realize where they are until they step outside the bubble and can see things from the outside. Maybe the people around Brian, all those idolizers and fawners and whatever other false and negative imagery of them you'd want to borrow from the "Beach Boys: An American Family" cartoon-like version of 1966 and 1967, saw things from outside all the family issues and backstories and judged the music for what it was and how it affected *them*.

Opinions are fine, they're a dime a dozen, but let's not turn the likes of Dean Torrance and Mark Volman and Van Dyke Parks into fawners, idol-worshippers, and interlopers out to ride Brian's coattails to make a point about the Beach Boys.

Yeah, those bastards. They just wanted to make Brian go back to writing fun and surf and cars hits.  ::)

The band IN 1966/67 worked their vocals chords off rerecording snippets of lines and vocals for months. Variations, try-outs, remakes. Yes, they were lost between all those sessions and didn't know what went where. After all those months they had the impression that most of it was a bunch of fragments. They didn't have teh benefit that we have to sit down with a studio sessionography and hours of sessions and GET where Brian was going.

I don't believe for one minute that we fans or Brian's then circle of friends are more capable of getting Brian's music than Carl, Al, Mike, Dennis or Bruce. Do you?

Man, c'mon! I didn't mean slaving as in puttering around in anger while waiting for the workman's comp papers to go through! I meant slaving as in working their asses off. You think it's easy to sing and sing well and to get good stuff down on tape for BRIAN WILSON???

Thanks for making my nuanced (agreeing with it or not) opinion black n white. I really am sick to death of this board......... At least The Beach Boys part.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me that only Mike Love has ridden Brian's coattails!

Ridiculous fan boy claptrap.

An acetate or two? Seriously, haven't you heard of the regular listening parties and invites to the house to listen to Smile tracks as the work was being done? Read Volman, Vosse, Anderle, Seigel...it was far more than one or two acetates (?), heck even the Seigel article describes one specific night where Brian auditioned a stack of acetates for the guests, and according to Volman he'd be at Brian's house sitting around the table listening to the works in progress on a regular basis.

And yes, in the "Fusion" article, Vosse is specific and mentions specific details about Smile tracks that had not been heard nor reused on other albums since the original project was scrapped in 1967. Very specific, especially on certain parts of Wind Chimes and Heroes which he'd ask Brian to play over and over, and those tracks were buried in the vaults in 1969 where no one outside the innermost circle had ever heard them. Until the Smile bootlegging explosion in the 80's no one had heard them...and as we listen now, Vosse's descriptions from 1969 were spot-on correct. Which would make sense since he was with Brian more than Al and Bruce combined during the Smile era.

Yes, and the actual word demise, means "to send away" (Latin - dimittere, or demettre -French) one might infer context of sabotage and that is the constant harangue.  

Maybe guitarfool2002 introduces the Murry factor.  Plausible.  

But, water under the bridge.  Brian's "Love and Mercy" is all about forgiveness and love.  If Brian can get beyond this, can't fans?  It isn't a fan grudge match.  Or, is it?

Darn! All Brian had to do was fire the Beach Boys and have Vosse, Seigel, etc etc sing SMILE and it would have been a billion seller and all would be well in Brian-worshiper fantasy land!

I'm sure VDP could have worked the tambourine as well as Mike! And who would have been the new Dennis? Anderle, of course!

If you're looking for a reaction and a conflict, look elsewhere. Just don't marginalize what's been said as "ridiculous fan boy claptrap" unless you're prepared to prove it. And if your evidence is anything like the bit where I somehow suggested Mike has ridden Brian's coattails, since I didn't write that here, I won't bother waiting for it.

If only those guys in Brian's listening parties had kept those acetates... We'd be able to fill in all those holes that exist to this day in Smile. Damn!  :-D

Better question is why throw around words like "prove" into such "discussions"? Only proof we have of anything is The Beach Boys gorgeous vocals on Smile fragments (and now an official release) .... All else is hearsay and a whole lot of after the fact bitterness.... The only one who seems to have moved on is Brian, God bless him.

Reaction and conflict on the SmileySmile board????? Never....  >:D

If Brian would rather have the company of the likes of Vosse - more than Bruce and Al combined, as you say - I don't see why he'd care about their opinions (or Mike's, Carl's and Dennis') about Smile. Wow. We don't have a dead horse to beat anymore. We made it!

 ;D  That's a great point, actually the legend of Smile acetates made them more essential than what the actual acetates seem to be in terms of filling in the gaps or finding missing parts! That's kind of a letdown versus the legend of these being the missing links. Jules Seigel described the acetates Brian played that night so they appeared to be the mixes we got on the '93 box set and assorted boots. Vosse describes sections and fragments we're familiar with *except* for one version of Wind Chimes that knocked everyone out at the time, and that the description seems just a shade different from the versions we all have heard. Then there was the "Durrie Parks Acetates" auction within the past year, where the legendary stash of discs turns out to contain material that we already have, with no major revelations at least on the surface. The acetates in general may not have been unique as speculated through the years, with a few exceptions like Barnyard and of course Teeter Totter Love.

I think it was Cam who said Brian gave Jules a stack of these acetates but they were lost? Or destroyed?? Cam????  :)

THANK YOU!!!!!

Wait...how do you draw that conclusion? Vosse simply happened to be around as Brian's assistant more than Al or Bruce during the Smile era, that's a fact. In part, the Beach Boys were on tour and simply not there, that's a fact. How does that reach the conclusion that Brian would rather have the company of Vosse over anyone else when the other two guys for weeks at a time weren't even in the same country?

Brian also went bowling regularly on weekends with the Rovell family during the Smile era, can we tie that into the collapse of Smile and Mike Love's influence on the process? Maybe Mike was secretly loading the bowling pins with weights so Brian could never roll a strike, and that helped break his confidence in the studio...yeah, that's the ticket! Logical conclusion.  :-D

you might be onto something. In the least Mike got future fashion ideas from such outings:

(http://s21.postimg.org/ch9a34x2b/mikebowl.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/ch9a34x2b/)

Ok then, tell me exactly who was legally a "partner" in the Beach Boys in early 1967, and whether outside members could be brought in and labeled band members and existing members fired on a whim.

A hint: Al Jardine even by 1967 was still not a full member of the corporate structure behind the Beach Boys...It was all guys named Wilson or Love.

Whether Brian wanted to work with Vosse or Brother Julius or Sidney The Wonder Dog rather than Bruce or Mike or anyone else, there was a business and legal structure in place that defined "The Beach Boys" under contract, and you couldn't randomly pick and choose who would become official members no matter how great of a B.F.F. that person was at the time.

He'd care about their opinions because they were bandmates and in the case of Mike and his brothers: Bandmates, business partners, and family. Period.

Brian was known to wear bowling shoes as part of his everyday clothes, add to that Mike's fashion sense, I think the real key to understanding Smile is bowling. No doubt.  ;D

The older I get, the less reverence I hold Brian's hangers-on from the "Smile" period. Maybe it's just me.

BUT . . . for people who thought Brian's Laurel Way buddies were much more hip than the Beach Boys and "got it" and were supposedly with Brian all the way and supporting him and "Smile" completely -- you do realize every one of those people in the airport photo left Brian in the next few months and couldn't deal with his behavior anymore, either?

It's not about showing reverence at all, it's a case of who was in the inner circle at this time and who was involved in the day-to-day affairs from business (Anderle and Vosse), to music and collaborations (Parks), to pure friendship (Hutton, Volman, Torrance, etc).

These "hangers-on" were actually doing official, paid work for the Beach Boys. How can you term someone like Anderle a "hanger on" when he was their official manager who along with Nick Grillo was setting up Brother Records, dealing with the lawsuit, going to all the meetings with Capitol, and handling the plans for the new record company and corporation? And Vosse came into the fold with Anderle, and was acting as Brian's de facto assistant and was soon to be involved with the proposed film division of Brother.

Did you realize one of the job duties Vosse was given involved the film division of what was to be Brother Records? Or that he was also involved in some of the daily administrative work setting up Brother? When things started to get more complicated around the Spring of '67 along with the lawsuit and Carl's draft/legal issues, they told Vosse he wouldn't be needed to do anything with the film work until September 1967. So he had within a few months been given a job involving Brother's proposed films, then told not to do anything until the fall. In his own words, he was left with little or nothing to do as an employee. So he left. And as everything else was imploding, including Van Dyke leaving, then returning, then leaving again, Anderle followed suit as what he was charged with doing in a business sense started to conflict with the group's activities and issues.

To try to simplify it into saying these people simply packed up and left because they couldn't deal with Brian - and suggest that as the catch-all answer behind the history - ignores the details of how everything played out, and all the other factors that contributed to it.

Which, coincidentally, both Vosse and Anderle have added that the family tensions and interpersonal family issues of the Beach Boys during this time were contributing factors. Not the sole factor, but a factor to be considered along with a variety of others.

So let's not rewrite or revise things into saying Brian was acting bizarre and it made everyone leave his company, and that was the driving force. Because it is far more involved than that. I thought that was common knowledge by now, in 2013.

The fact that Brian had so many of his friends summoned in the middle of the night to drive all the way to the airport just to pose for a photo with him says a lot about his mental state back then.  Although they did it, I'm sure it gave just about all of them pause. Also, what about Brian paranoid freak-out over David Anderle's painting of him? Anderle said their personal relationship never recovered from that. Brian was flat out acting weird to the people he knew and loved best, his personal friends as well as the Beach Boys.  A lot of people were alienated from Brian on a friendship level, and not simply a business level.

I'm pretty sure Anderle says in the Williams interview that he and the non-band members [some in the LAX photo presumably] around Brian were sometimes doubters and resisters. Then sometimes they weren't. And then he also says VDP was criticizing Brian's music and dominance and then sometimes he wasn't. The Posse might not have had as much contact with the Boys as you think.

On the other hand, Anderle says the Boys were working hard and beautifully on SMiLE. That the most antagonistic situations between Brian and the Boys weren't even really antagonistic. A lot of love there. I agree that the only real evidence is on the tapes and do not support the critical opinions of the group.

Brian would have to care about the Boy's/Capitol's opinions toward the album first and I don't see any evidence for that, in fact I see evidence of the opposite.

Jules Siegel told me his acetates were stolen or lost, can't remember. I think I remember Vosse said his were also lost or stolen.

Guitarfool, you are remarkable here in this thread. I am astonished at the kind of remarks your thoughtful posts are getting. Once again, the "Brian junked it. Period" crowd are trying to move mountains in order to put words in your mouth in order to have something to argue against.

OK, but who is it that keeps these conversations spiraling into a never ending whirlpool?

How many folk from the "Brian-Junked-It-Crowd" do you see putting up posts every 5 minutes asking when that bastard Brian will ever apologize for dropping SMILE? Or however many different permutations of the same question? You don't.... Most people have moved on from the issue....

And I wonder why, if we're going to get into the business of (further) canonizing Brian's hip, SMILE era supporters/encouragers: no one's asking why they didn't effectively embolden Brian toward finishing his work. He has all this great support yet all it takes is Mike asking what a couple lyrics mean? If we're going to harp forever and ever on the effect a bit of negativity had on Brian, why not harp on the lack of effect a whole lot of positivity managed as well?

Again, you are manufacturing an argument that no one else is arguing.

No..... Rather, anyone in the opposite camp is free to discuss/dissect/flog to death the issue until their fingers are raw from all the typing, but a "Brian-Junked-It" guy chimes in and he's "manufacturing an argument"? ......

But you're right in that, even to discuss this issue at such length is basically one big example of manufacturing an argument, regardless of what "side" you're.

As long as we admit that he did act bizarre at times... And we know that everyone did leave his company, except for his family, the band and maybe Hutton.

Does it mean that Brian must take ALL RESPONSABILITY FOR KILLING SMILE? No. Neither must Mike, Murry, Parks, Korthoff, Grillo....  :)
  

God in heaven!!!! Who cares!? As it turns out, we also got Smiley Smile. If you want to live in a world where Smile came out in 67 and Smiley Smile, BW's Smile, and the Smile sessions never did come out, then get yourself a damned time machine and change history.

Enough.

The Professor

Where's David Leaf? I'd love to hear his take on all of it after all these years and seeing how it all played out in the end. Oh, I forgot, he's alienated from Brian, too. That seems to be a pattern, going all the way up to David and Andy Paley.

david leaf cancelled pleasure island

Mike had been Brian's lyricist, and now had been pushed aside yet again despite just providing he lyrics for the BBs biggest hit yet. He had to have been hurt and resentful. So would I, so would you, so would anyone. So he grumbled a little. He didn't quit the band, or boycott the sessions, or throw a tantrum, or do anything other than work hard to make the project a success, despite his hurt and his misgivings.

In many ways, it was Mike's finest hour.

Brian didn't finish Smile because he couldn't. He needed digitalization to come along.

First, thank you rockandroll for the kind words, I appreciate that.  :)

And I'll respond to the other comments as well by saying *no*, it is not enough when things that are blatantly false, distorted, or an oversimplification of known events and hard facts are being presented as an argument or a counterpoint to a discussion about these facts.

I'm sorry, as someone who is very interested in history being at least as accurate as can be expected given the available sources, some points being made and thrown around in this thread are simply wrong and need to be disputed if anyone here gives a damn about having an accurate record of what happened.

I don't care if we got Smiley Smile, that means nothing if we're discussing and dissecting the history of how Smile unfolded. It's like saying why don't we not discuss the years 1939-1944 when we're talking about World War Two because the war was over in 1945. You're missing the most vital parts of the whole story in order to skip ahead to the ending. No, that doesn't work for me.

Just consider one fact: The accusation that those around Brian during Smile were hangers-on. That one struck me as so blatantly wrong and a deliberate attempt to distort the history. It's the same bullshit that the "American Family" tried to present, and it still amazes me how so many people signed off on such a poor attempt at portraying history as fantasy, where even Van Dyke Parks was portrayed as a troublemaker and interloper. Again, that doesn't work for me.

Here's the facts, and if anyone wants to dispute them, fire away.

Brian first met with Michael Vosse who was hired to write an article and interview him for Teen Set, arranged by the Beach Boys' publicist Derek Taylor. They had not met before, however the mutual acquaintances at that time included Van Dyke Parks, who was being managed by Anderle, Danny Hutton, who was also being managed by David Anderle, and Vosse was a friend of Anderle and was sharing an apartment with David and his wife. Prior to freelancing, Vosse had been involved with television production, what we'd call a production assistant in today's world.

Brian and Michael Vosse met for the interview, and the conversation turned to films and filmmaking. They shared a common interest, and "hit it off" in a way. After Van Dyke had begun working with Brian, he told Anderle and Vosse about what was going on.

Remember, all of these people knew one another through the music business and personal friendships.

So eventually Brian starts calling them up, inviting them over, having the dinner parties, playing things like Good Vibrations before it was released, auditioning various tracks he and Van Dyke had been working on, the whole deal.

Eventually the offer was made to Vosse to help do some publicity and writing among other chores because Derek Taylor was not only about to leave for England to cover press and advances for the BB's tour in the UK, but there was also some tension between him and the band (and Brian). So someone needed to fill in, in a way, for Derek and do the work at home with Brian in his absence. As Vosse had already interviewed and written about Brian, he was offered the job.

With Vosse's background in the trenches of television production, specifically related to projects involving rock bands like the Byrds and others getting them to appear on shows and planning similar projects, Brian later offered him the job which would be created in his plans for the BB's "new" company, which would be Brother Records. And within Brother was to be a film division, slated to be called "Home Movies", which is what Vosse would be involved in starting and operating within the proposed company.

There was not yet a formal structure for Brother, it was in the planning stages. The BB's own corporation was dealing with accounting issues, looking around for various representation, all of that, even before they could go forward on Brother, again still on the drawing board as an idea.

Vosse would be the point man for films at Brother, they still needed someone to help bring it all together. Anderle wooed them as a manager - through Brian, he and Vosse went to the band members and various associates with the plans, goals, and tried to get them on board. Which they did. One of Anderle's bargaining chips was the deal with Capitol, where it had been discovered the Beach Boys stood to collect a bunch of money owed them due to Capitol's shady accounting practices regarding sales and returns on records sold. With Anderle, Nick Grillo, and their mutual contacts at a law firm, that part would come later.

But even before being hired formally, it was more of a free-form organization where plans were on the books but needed to be developed and executed, so various tasks included the normal day-to-day business and operations affairs, which Anderle was heading up - and was eventually formally hired as official manager - Vosse was involved in a number of projects both administrative and organizational, and Grillo plus the lawyers were working on the finances and legal angles. Then some of the antics and hijinks would happen, since again for a few weeks at least perhaps only Vosse (still doing odd jobs) and Van Dyke were "official" employees. Then, formally, Anderle was official and got down to the real business. Which meant the antics and hijinks and hangout sessions were less common than perhaps Brian would have liked.

It was soon at a point where the main players - Anderle, Vosse, and Parks - were each working in an official capacity within the Beach Boys organization, and working under the Beach Boys to set up their own new company Brother Records, which would include multimedia, spoken-word, as well as musical projects which the Boys themselves could have full control over.

This was heady stuff for guys in their 20's. But this was also business. And unfortunately, one of the many conflicts at the time was Brian had a distaste for doing business when he was being creative. That went back before Smile was even an idea. So there were conflicts when business needed to be done, papers needed to be signed, and Brian couldn't be bothered with that. It was a pretty significant design flaw for Brother, among several.

So the business started to take Brian's focus away from his muse. His circle of friends, again people who were already friends before knowing Brian, and gathered around indirectly through Van Dyke and Michael Vosse and Anderle, became focused on being employees with a job to do rather than Brian's hang-out buddies which they were before the business became the everyday focus.

There was still an album to be done. There was a record company and a film company to be set up. There were legal issues with the old and new business, as well as legal issues with Carl being drafted and declaring himself C.O. There were family issues that included a major end-of-the-year fallout with Murry, there were tensions between Brian and Mike where they'd do a dance between agreeing then not agreeing, and pushing then pulling on issues back and forth. There was the issue of the band taking heat for their image, and not matching the sound of the records in concert, then being presented with more complex music. There was the pressure from Capitol for a follow-up to Good Vibrations. There was the interpersonal stuff between the other family members.

And there was eventually a situation where all of that started to implode, where the plans originally designed for Vosse to set up a film division for Brother were delayed until September, leaving him with no specific job to do. There was Anderle who was dealing with the current business the BB's had set up, trying to set up the one they were planning to organize, then dealing with the filing and negotiations involving a lawsuit with Capitol, whose involvement and cooperation would be *KEY* if Brother was going to be a reality. Carl could wind up in jail or in the jungle, who knew?

Van Dyke Parks did clash with Brian, there were issues of control, second-guessing, etc. Van Dyke also caught wind of how the world inside the Beach Boys organization played out, and he didn't care for it. Then he was challenged, a minor point in context, but one more issue to deal with. And his contact with the other band members was minimal.

So he walked, came back, walked again, and eventually scored a record deal as a solo artist. Not a bad deal at all.

Now, did we know that Brian at one point wanted to sign Van Dyke as a solo artist to Brother Records? Van Dyke had been managed by Anderle, he had a few minor successes but the label basically left him out to dry. So Brian wanted him for Brother, but Van Dyke went elsewhere...and a sweet offer from elsewhere helped seal the deal, not to mention his reluctance to go any deeper into the BB's turmoil.

So was he a hanger-on? He was given the role of collaborator, given quite a bit of artistic leeway on the project, including bringing in Frank Holmes for the art, then he was going to be offered a deal as a Brother artist.

Anderle and Vosse were hired officially to work for the band's interests, and Brian, and to help establish Brother. Were they hangers-on?

At the same time, Dean Torrance could live comfortably off what he made with J&D before Jan's accident, and he was a friend and musical peer of Brian's. Mark Volman's band the Turtles was still riding high on handful of hits, and were a hot band in their own right. He was a neighbor of Brian's, he'd stop in to say high and just be a normal friend down the street, essentially. He needed nothing from Brian other than friendship. Danny Hutton was releasing singles of his own, doing the usual route on the way to becoming a successful musician. He was a friend of Brian's, eventually shared a manager with Brian and Van Dyke, and knew everyone else involved. He, also, did not necessarily need to take anything from Brian other than friendship, and mutual friendship with the others. Jules Seigel - that one is a bit more tricky, but even those in the Smile inner circle never really saw him as that close, some called him obnoxious, and he was eventually cast aside. But he wrote one hell of an article that helped keep the Smile mythology alive as much as anything else published at the time.

So, once again, tell me: Out of the people I just mentioned and those in the photo, who *exactly* were the leechers, the moochers, the "hangers on", the coattail-riders, the interlopers, whatever other negative terms you'd wish to attach to their names?

The people closest to Brian were either friends or people who were eventually hired by the band to get their record label up and running. When the work dried up, when it looked like things were not going to possibly work out and the deck was stacked against them, they left.

They were as much employees of the Beach Boys in Spring 1967 as they were of Brian's, right? Damn right. Unless Brother Records was Brian's and Brian's alone...which we know is false.

Was Brian's eccentric nature part of it? Sure, as was his aversion to business affairs to the point of him ignoring and avoiding pressing business affairs. Was that the main reason why the people in that photo left? NO. Were the people around him during Smile interlopers and hangers-on? NO.

Is trying to portray these individuals as such not only unfair but totally inaccurate in light of the facts behind the history? YES. I have no connection to them, but doesn't everyone deserve at least a fair representation in history versus an image that simply is not true? Or a version of the tale for future generations which is based on inaccuracies and false perceptions?



That's my reason for the long post. If someone has something to correct, like a detail or timeline, please do. But I challenge anyone to suggest I'm writing hyperbole or fantasy as a "fan boy", or a "Brianista", or whatever other terms are used. And I challenge anyone to dispute the factual nature of what I wrote. Take that to the bank, print it, stop the presses, do whatever...including asking some of those involved or seeking out their own writings on the matter. That's the history behind the hype and legend which serves to dispute the hype and legend, and also disputes trying to blame on one rather than a variety of factors involved in everything caving in, Spring 1967.

Because the facts are the facts, Jack. I like them like Joe Friday liked them: Just The Facts.  :)

What does this have to do with anything?

You seem to care about Brian's" hangers-on" a whole lot more than the issue really warrants..... History has only really dealt them any ink due to their own insertion of themselves into The Beach Boys history. They were not Beach Boys and were aligned with Brian and not the rest of the Beach Boys, therefore they will (insult of all insults) be refereed to as hangers-on by some.  Some people will defend them, others won't....This has happened with the story of nearly every band, and usually to a much greater extent than The Beach Boys. Look it up.... Besides, they've all been treated pretty damn fairly begin so connected to the great Brian Wilson for all these decades. If the Beach Boys have had to weather being dissed, so can these cats.

 Some of you seem to be taking this way too personally....

The Beach Boys history does not begin and end with SMILE, BTW...... Just pointing out....

I just have serious doubts about using that airport photo as a positive sign in Brian's life. When by all accounts, including David Leaf's (as  vaguely recall reading a library copy of his book long ago), it was the beginning of the end and a rather tragic night in Brian's life. A sign that something was going terribly wrong with his mind.

Smile is important, and I love the music, but "what if's" always bore me. The reality of their work is so much more interesting. If Brian had stopped making great music in 1966 maybe I would care more. The fact is he never stopped making music, and some of his best work was in the five years after Smile. Smile not coming out was a symptom of his problems-not the cause.. Not saying Brian didn't have it hanging uncomfortably over his head until 2004, or even 2011, but at the time he felt happy it didn't come out. Listen to him in the 1968 J. Marks interview. Smiley seems to have saved the band and in early 1968 that still meant something to Brian.

What happened after had been happening since 1963 at least, Brian had mental issues that weren't going to resolve themselves. Blame Mike Love for not being Mr. Rogers, but bands had a lot bigger jerks than him that simply refuse to do material they don't like. Hell Dennis used to walk out off stage during some of Mike's songs and nobody beats him up for it.

Had the Beach Boys run of commercial success continued, had Brian not declined , I honestly don't think Smile would have become what it did. That's nothing to do with the great music, just public perception of what it was. The thing I want to know is why people still think Brian was driven insane and stopped working because of what Mike Love liked or not? I can tell you one thing, Smile is made such a turning point for the band and Brian because the story is then easier to tell. The reality was both more simple, and more complex.

Again does Brian missing shows and gaining weight as early as 1963 not tell you all something? His fate was his fate Smile or no, and today I think we should know enough about mental illness to realize that Brian could have had the best family (or band mates) on earth and still been ill. When or how may have differed but read Tim White's research on Buddy Wilson and his issues. It makes you really wonder about cause and effect on mental illness.  Marilyn once told me that though it was very rare, even in 1962 Brian would have days were he would shut down completely. She said all that happened is that eventually the very rare days became those that he could function. That says all too much about what really happened. I wasn't there but she was, nearly everyday for sixteen years.

Does the pilot who in that plane who pushed the button that released the Hiroshima bomb have to take all responsability for all those people killed? He doesn't either.

"He threw that bomb. Period." True. "It was Brian who shelved SMiLE. Period." True. Doesn't mean that that the whole responsability is to be put on them. The analogy is weak in the point that the pilot had to follow orders and Brian didn't, but both actions had their circumstances.

Shht, don't give them bad ideas! ;D

Thank you guitarfool for your long post with lots of info I didn't know yet.

I've never spent any thought about who was a hanger-on and their importance in the SMiLE saga or what that term means. I just thought about it and found there's really no point thinking about whether these "hanger-ons" if there were any had any role. But the info you supplied was very interesting!



It's "Siegel", not "Seigel"... :)

‍

I thought hangers on were people like Loren rather than the Vosse Posse.

Very bad analogy. The pilot had people above him (all the way up to the President) making the ultimate decision. Not so with Brian; he was the only one who made the ultimate decision about Smile.

My point was that the person who pulls the plug doesn't necessarily have all the responsibility. I only came up with this analogy because I heard a report on the radio about today being the Hiroshima bomb "anniversary" and I am aware this is a weak analogy as stated in my original post.

There is a concept called the "totality of the circumstances" when, "taken as a whole" can lead one to a sort of conclusion. It means generally that there is "no single factor" but, a whole host of facts, context, etc., which can enlarge one's reasoning for a certain consequence.  Here, in the case of SMiLE, many learned, and non-speculative posts, who are not "finger-pointing" and playing the "scapegoat" game, can draw an inference, based on objective facts, and not speculation or wishful thinking.  

I learned a lot in this thread. GF2002, TM, (and many others,) helped put some objective facts out there, to clear up misconceptions.  the professor (intentional lower case) nailed it.  No one can go back to 1966-1967.  TM and others can give a personal reflection, which should have credibility, because some of us bought the plain wrapper Gettin' Hungry, and Smiley "in good faith." IIRC, it came out after Best of Vol. 2.  Way to go, Capitol.  I'm not going to speculate that Murry or Mike killed it or even "modified it" to fulfill contractural commitments to Capitol.  To shut them up.  Those guys, ALL of them sung their hearts out, in an empty swimming pool.  If that is not "good faith" in the project, I don't know what is.

And, while Dennis and Carl are not here, they might have had much good to say about the release of THEIR BB vocal sessions.  And, no matter that Brian's great bandmates (and they are great musicians) helped and the sound guys who got the well-merited Grammy, via the grand digital aged audio file configurations, to bring some completion to the project.

Was it finished with Brian's original vision? NO ONE KNOWS BUT BRIAN. And, I would guess that he can live with it, as released, and with great appreciation of all of those who helped, whether it was his "band brothers" consisting of Mike, Al, Dennis, Carl and Bruce, who did the vocals "as directed."  And those great guys, named Bennett, Gregory, Sahanaja, Bragg, D'Amico, Mertens, Wonder, (not Stevie)  etc., who helped resurrect the legendary project which did not come to fruition in 1967, because of the "totality of the circumstances" with perhaps no SINGLE causative factor.  Disharmonic non-convergence.  Ya, I made that up.  ;)

Bring it on.  :lol

But Brian did have all the responsibility. He was the highest point in the the decision making process. Whether or not there were other people and events at play, it still came down to Brian to pull the plug at the end. Why do we always make excuses and blame others for someone's decisions?

Because it is simply a matter of fact that we are social animals that are shaped by our social atmosphere which means there are always many factors at work that influence our every decision.

And probably not even Brian.

Your motives for coming here and posting in this thread are more clear now. And that's sad.

Therefore, feel free to wallow in whatever delusions, fantasy, and perceptions you choose, because a discussion of the facts as it relates to the bigger picture of this time period is NOT what you're interested in discussing, learning, or even considering.

You instead like to push buttons, to marginalize, to throw opinions based on false assumptions around a discussion in order to provoke...

In short, have fun with that.

If anyone here does not wish to discuss this time period in a historical way, and would rather throw random bullshit around just to provoke, then at least make your intentions known so those who are here for an actual discussion and sharing of the history can avoid getting drawn into this crap.

It's a far cry from where the original intent to start a board like this, or any board related to this bigger topic, came from. And that's sad. But maybe it's indicative of a new breed of fans who prefer to work hard at being a pain in the ass rather than discussing the facts, hashing out opinions, and having an old fashioned bull session around the history of this stuff as has happened for centuries among historians and history buffs and the like.

At least the players in the game can better be identified, those who are genuinely interested versus those who want to incite, provoke, or deliberately post bullshit in order to provoke.

So let the facts stand on their own, but try not to spread your bullshit so thick that others start to believe it's something other than bullshit. Deal?

And if you have nothing else better to do than to post such a shitty reply to what was intended as an attempt to fill in some of the history with information that doesn't get reported nor shared nor posted online all that often, but which is part of the bigger picture of the Smile era in general, in combination with your saying that you're sick of this board, then consider taking it elsewhere. Plenty of places out there to discuss music online, and sometimes you'll encounter those folks who are more in line with the type of posts in this thread.

"What does this have to do with anything?" was the exact line.

You could have told me to f*** off and it would have had the same effect. So take that to the bank. It's not welcome here.

It's more than that. I grew up when you were taught take responsibility for your own actions. Today, we make excuses for what we or other people do. I have no issues with finding out what really went down with the decision making process. It is fascinating stuff, but BLAMING Mike or other people for Smile's demise is just plain incorrect. Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

Interesting. Wow. Was it the concept "of another?"

Brian was the Producer.

Again, the theory anybody else's opinions or actions had any influence on Brian's decision to scrap SMiLE seems outside the evidence to me. Because someone else threw a hissy or disparaged the sophistication of his music or thought GV should have been danceable isn't evidence that Brian's mind was changed by any of it.

To me the bottom line is Brian's given a set of consistent reasons beginning from the event [he's also given a very few reasons that are not consistent recently] and the consistent reasons haven't had anything to do with any of it, they are all about him. I think that is as close as we will get: Brian's earliest reasons that have remained consistent through out.

Me too. So do most fanmixes. That's why I at least attempted to get not a bunch of "what if's" into the discussion, but rather actual facts about some of what was going on, for anyone interested.

It's sad. It really is sad when as early as last decade there were some people out there encouraging folks interested to explore more of the history *surrounding* these issues like Smile, rather than focusing on the speculations, the perceptions, and the pinning-down of an exact cause or reason for its collapse.

There were fans who would reach out, online and through other means, to interested fans and share the kind of info that wasn't reported, that wasn't regularly discussed or reprinted, and present some other angles on the same old stories and legends in order to think further about the big picture.

Some of those fans have died, some simply faded away for whatever reasons and don't post, some...who knows.

But if that kind of spirit isn't welcome here, or is met with outright hostility or ignorance, or idiotic comments, then it may say a lot about the kinds of fans who are engaging in that versus those who may be genuinely interested in discussing, sharing, and learning.

So yeah, Mr. Eder, the speculation and "what if" mentality I think is a load of fucking bullshit as well, a steaming pile of bullshit to be exact, especially when it's offered having been based on false assumptions and untruths.

But it's even more of a steaming pile of fucking bullshit when you have people who are misinformed, who don't know nor do they care about the actual history and facts, trying to pass off a series of "what if" scenarios as the hard facts, and presenting opinions and speculations as the truth, as the way it is and the way it should be told. Then when a factual challenge is presented, it gets personal. There are better forums and boards for that stuff.

So everyone, read a few blogs online and the like, pick and choose a few random opinions, and go out spreading the word about whatever case or point you're trying to make.

Buy the deluxe Smile box set and watch a few YouTube webisodes on Smile, BAM!!! you know the whole story, you know all you need to know in order to "understand" and interpret what happened. Brian killed it, period. That's the ticket. All that's needed to tell the story.

Fucking sad, totally fucking ignorant of the events surrounding that time, totally missing the bigger points and history, but that seems to be the order of the day. Make it easy, make it a convenient talking point that would fit on a Tweet.

"What if?"...those folks actually bothered to look a little deeper into the issues and the history? They might learn something new or interesting, but I doubt that's the goal anyway.

What if, indeed.

Dr. BB - there is something not being looked at, here.  And, I think it might be whether Brian would need to decide with his fellow BRI members or, whether he had final music and artistic control, and whether, also, if the actual brother band members let Brian decide, whether they yielded to company pressure to release "something."

There are more questions than answers, much of which falls under the "nunya" category.  As in "business."

Who had ultimate control was likely spelled out, contractually.  We don't know that. Or, the guys had so much faith in Brian, that they gave him the final word.  Which would mean there would be, "No apology, necessary" for Mike.

And, that this legend of blame game, has all been a fabrication of people outside of the actual voting members of BRI.  And, it is none of our business.   And, if I had to guess, it is "totality of the circumstances" and the voting members, and perhaps corporate. Nothing more, nothing less.

The other corporate (Capitol) factor was playing favorites. Had Lennon and Macca written SMiLE it would have been a different story.  Full backing, support, etc.   And what is ironic in all of this, is that these musicians gravitated towards one another, on other levels, and became friends despite the politics of the record company.  

So now, what we have here, is a group of BB/BW fans fighting each other, and for what? Instead of looking at this in context, for what it really could be.  

Yes, I agree, though I'm not sure anyone here is arguing otherwise. Certainly not at this point.

Oh, no, I'm not saying that. But you know, memory being what it is, and the general fluctuation of the project (what was Look? what was Holiday? why re-record the same parts over and over?) seems to suggest to me that it would be impossible for anyone to know for sure what they were thinking at the time. For instance, I can't believe that Van Dyke didn't, say, write a lyric to Child is Father of the Man. Maybe he just didn't. But it seems so likely that he must have! And yet his lyrics on BWPS are good but also very Van Dyke circa-2000s.

No one ever was arguing otherwise, despite some attempts to erroneously assign such a charge in this thread, but at some point doesn't the question of "why?" become part of the analysis? Again to use any historical event, we can act like 8 year old children in a social studies class and memorize then regurgitate a bunch of facts and dates like the state capitols or whatever, or we can act like adults and start asking why and how did it happen, what led up to it, all of that rather than coughing up random hairballs of general statements.

It's the biggest drawback of living in a Twitter world where discussions are limited to 160 words at a time. Sad.

Guitarfool,

Your "Long Post" about the history of Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al. was incredibly informative. As you said, it certainly did fill in a lot of blanks. Thanks for that. I would agree that Anderle was most definitely a "band employee," no matter how he was brought into the fold.

My Lord, it's amazing that the band could even survive this period... Running my business is driving me crazy, and I have lost nearly all of my musical creative spark. And Brian's music was the core of the BBs business!

Thank you, and I'll add to that "me too!". My business is on the skids in some ways right now, more than the usual summer slowdown, which is why I have more time to write that long stuff. So I, exactly as you so perfectly put it, can relate too with trying to balance it all out yet keep that creative mind open enough to actually create. And maybe those who experience that can relate better to hearing others facing the same thing.

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

Because I still contend that that support was lacking at times (instances beyond SMiLE), and granted we are talking about a person (BW) with undiagnosed mental illness who was far more fragile than any people around him imagined at the time.

It just seems that in hindsight, somebody (ML) realizing that their (sometimes) own lack of support or questioning of ideas would be a factor, no matter how small, in magnifying another person's depression, would be something that they would possibly regret. I think that many other people if they were in the same situation would have such regret. But Mike is his own person and has his own personality, and you can't force somebody to feel a certain way or express emotions a certain way. I am just speaking of an ideal situation.

I realize that Mike is not and has never been a robot with the sole programmed intention to agree with everything that comes before him. He has opinions, and of course people are entitled to have their own opinions, but the manner in which those opinions are expressed can make all the difference to a sensitive person… and while ML did sing his parts eventually as directed, there seems to have been some hostility involved in the proceedings at some point along the way, and the damage has been done. It seems that the old man river sessions were similar to this. And yes, to take Mike's side in this, the things he was questioning may, to him, seemed worth questioning because the momentum to finish these projects seemed to be going nowhere. I'm not arguing whether or not Mike had any right to ever question anything that Brian did. This is simply a discussion of whether his specific methods of questioning BW were possibly ill-advised, to however small a degree, in hindsight.

 I still think I have a valid point here, despite some people who think this is just some cleverly worded attempt to "bash" ML (again, it isn't)...  just a point of my wishing a "Wouldn't it be nice" scenario that these healing apologies could have happened at some point along the way in these peoples' lives.

Considering the name of the thread and that some people are still trying to spread the blame around, instead of focusing it to the one person who was the ultimate decision maker. I still  look at this way, no matter who thought what about the music, the lyrics, etc., Brian had yet to fail as Producer for the band. Sure, Pet Sounds was not as big as it could/should have been, but all in all it did do well and with 3 hits on it. He was still the man in charge and there was no reason to doubt that he could still lead them in the right direction. Rightfully or wrongly, Brian must have weighed all the input that he was receiving and made a final decision. I still think that the modular recording method was the ultimate downfall. In his mind, Brian simply ran out of time. The Beatles beating him to the punch in June may have indeed been the final knockout punch.

I still say that whether Mike Love had issues or not, his issues alone would not have stopped Brian from completing Smile. It may have been one thing out many other issues, but not the sole or main reason.

I agree with your statement on this.

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

Well if we're going throw around 'what if' scenarios what about a simple what if one morning Brian Wilson woke up and thought "I'm fucking bored shitless dicking around in the studio trying to make the album, I've got other stuff I want to try instead. I'll scrap Smile and start something new. Also I'll make sure it's quicker and easier to record so I'll have more time to take drugs with Danny Hutton".

Sometimes you have to go with the simplest option.

To CenturyDeprived: You hit on a key issue in your post on this page. Let those casting doubt read into it to find what that is on their own terms, but it's there in a succinct way. Great stuff.

Let me expand just a bit: Someone told me that some key elements of the Smile saga could be found years before, in the history of this family and whatnot. He was right.

Consider this, along the lines of what CenturyDeprived just wrote. If you're at a family gathering, and you know a family member can't swim, would you jokingly throw them into the deep end of a swimming pool? The intent to harm isn't there, but at the same time you know if the person can't swim you'd be that much more careful in how you would joke around that way.

Okay, back to reality.

Remember Al Jardine in an interview said the Beach Boys were doing parts of "Heroes" in the early days of the band? We all asked "WHAT???", and some like me assumed Al was off his rocker a bit, or forgetting certain events or confusing them. Then he later explained how they would do a "Dixieland" thing with their voices, where each would start riffing and improvising like Dixieland horns, and do a whole skit with that. And sure enough, a section of that turned up on "Heroes", and it all made sense.

Then there are the Smile skits, spoken-word bits, all of that stuff that seemed a bit odd or out of place. You had Brian trying to control, lead, and cajole various people into doing this kind of comedy based on a theme. And sometimes he'd over-produce it to the point where the comedy just didn't happen, or those involved just didn't go where Brian wanted to go and the skit went sour.

Would it be surprising to learn that Brian was doing this exact same thing with his Hawthorne buddies when they were teenagers? He'd get them together, try to get some comedy happening, direct and produce these improvised skits and riffs on a theme, and try to get them going on his humor trip. And when he got his tape recorder, he'd start recording them too. And those friends said the same kinds of things could happen, where Brian would start over-producing them into doing certain riffs and the improvised humor element would fall apart. So we got to hear in 1966-67 on those tapes the same Brian trying the same things with his current group of friends that he was doing as a teen with that group of friends. It was the same Brian.

And that same Brian also had some confidence issues, as have been reported. I suppose it's no wonder when he had a parent, an authority figure, a man many kids consider their hero in life, constantly on his back and trying to knock him down a few pegs in order to toughen him up and instill the values of "fighting for success". But it was and is negative reinforcement, and it can actually shatter someone's self-confidence in ways that may not show publicly or obviously for years.

So we have that same Brian that many have said needed that approval from those around him. He not only needed it, some have said he thrived on that support and excitement from those around him, especially when he was on his creative trip and offering new ideas. When he felt that people were with him, were on that same trip and creative spark in a way, he kept going and creating and moving forward.

Conversely, if and when he detected a level of doubt or negativity or even questioning beyond the usual questions, he'd withdraw and in some cases it would affect him for periods after the actual event. He thrived on the enthusiasm of those around him for his ideas and his work...like everyone in the arts, it was looking for acceptance and wanting people to enjoy what he was putting out there. The stronger you believe in something, the more harsh a negative reaction to that something becomes, or is felt.

And when you're dealing with someone who has already dealt with issues of confidence and self-worth, while feeling like your life has been filled with feelings of doubt enhanced by the actions of a parent despite success and praise from outside, the support and reinforcement from those around you becomes like a drug, it's a necessity and it keeps you going. If it's not there, the energy and the drive can be shattered. Take someone already dealing with issues on top of that, and the response gets worse.

Take all of those issues, bring them all to a head in late '66 and early '67, and fit them into what was going on and who was involved. And take some of the lines CenturyDeprived has just posted and see if that makes a little more sense in the context of what was happening.

And, as if it needs to be said again, it is not *the* reason or *the* answer, but it is part of the equation that needs to be considered.  

Cam - I actually was going to add an addendum to my last post about the other band members also having some role at some points along the way of not supporting Brian the way he would've liked...  We could also have a thread about Carl or Al's lack of support at times. But to my eyes, as a fan on the outside, it seems that Mike had a greater role in this, and was probably less gentle and tactful compared to the other BBs in how that lack of support was likely vocalized. That is why I am speaking specifically of Mike.

guitarfool2002 - just wanted to say that I thank you for your insightful posts in this thread, especially the one about the timeline of SMiLE events that are often not talked about. It's very informative to read this kind of stuff. I still stand by my ponderings that started my initial posts, but it's good to hear things from multiple angles. I never intended to place blame squarely with anyone, merely to discuss the facts surrounding one piece of the puzzle.

Maybe Mike, because this what you have been led to believe for years on end? Also, if Brian had all of these amazing friends who thought this music was so great and feeding his ego, why did they not have enough influence on Brian to complete the task? This stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight.

I appreciate that many people on this board want to balance things out by mentioning the many other factors/people who contributed similarly to unfortunate events in the BB’s saga, especially since the “ML = everything wrong with the BBs ever” blindly one-sided adage has been spoken for decades. I'd like to think I am well-informed enough to know that is a vastly unfair critique of the band's story.  

But… is it not possible to believe that one person’s actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) had (relatively speaking) more of a role in the doubts that caused BW to feel demoralized and depressed, when compared to the actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) of other people in the band and in BW’s circle? I don’t think this makes me a Mike-hater or a Mike-basher. I'm just discussing one person's behavior, not trying to say he is better/worse as a human being than anyone else.

The sole purpose of this followup post is because there doesn't seem to be much of a way to discuss ML's actions without someone coming to his defense and bringing up other factors/people. This seems to be a defense mechanism due to the fact that ML has shouldered far too much of the blame for unfortunate events in the BBs saga for decades. But, even if taking in the many factors and being aware of the full story (or as aware as any of us can be), maybe some of the things ML did over the years shouldn't be 100% defended. Maybe they were questionable to some degree, in hindsight. Some people here clearly will defend everything that ML does/has ever done 100% (again, a too-far-in-one-directon reaction to the blueboard Brianistas). This is not a thread about who is most/more responsible for certain things/events in the BB’s saga.

I contend that Mike, because of his strong personality, and the fact that he was BW’s co-songwriter (although unfairly uncredited as such at the time, which is a topic for a whole other thread) gave him a larger amount of influence relatively speaking compared to Carl/Al (or caused BW to feel it more and more difficult to just be able to “brush off” ML’s displeasure when compared to any other bandmates’).  That's why I have "singled him out" in this thread, even though we could also have a similar thread about Carl/Al.

It’s simply my question of if ML has ever regretted anything that he did along the way with regards to the events previously discussed in this thread. As far as I see it, he should have had some regrets, and if they were thoughtfully vocalized with sincerity, things could have turned out differently between these guys’ relationships. Again, this is my dream “wouldn’t it be nice” scenario.  And yes - this stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight, because we can't from the outside change the bandmembers' ways of conducting themselves....But it's just discussion between us BB nerds on the interwebs, after all. There are no absolute "answers" to be had; this is just a discussion.

It's all cause & effect. It's ying and yang. This goes for everyone, not just Mike. For every reason one might think it was Mike's fault, there is another who will think it is not. Your explanation of what happened is just as correct as it could be incorrect. Nobody in the band, as far as I know, has ever taken responsibility for Smile, except Brian. As it should be.

Well my answer would be no. Your premise sets it up as Mike has something to apologize for. There is no answer to your question unless one agrees with your premise. I don't.

Out of curiosity – while I understand the desire to defend somebody who has been demonized (unfairly, relative to actual reality) for a long time, it would seem that your defense of ML is quite 1-sided, and that the pendulum has swung far the other way. I don’t mean this as a personal insult – your opinion is yours, and mine is mine. But, without sidetracking the conversation to all the things that BW or other bandmates need to apologize for - are you of the opinion that ML has nothing to even remotely apologize or even slightly regret (with hindsight) with regards to matters in which he hurt BW’s feelings, ever, in the history of the band?  I mean, virtually everybody on this planet does hurtful things (warranting apology or regret) at some point to someone else, whether intentional or not.

Yet, my enraging reply was in no way as harsh as this, guitarfool!!!

I will apologize for asking "what does this have to do with anything" ... It was a knee jerk reaction to what I read.... Imagine if we were sitting around a table with some beers and OSD's copy of Looking Back With Love on the turntable, and Jon's books open and being pursued and you said what you said and I asked in a huff "what does this have to do with anything"? .... It probably would have come off a lot differently... You are one of the posters on this board who I respect the most. I think you know this from our adventures on other threads.

And here we go with how many more pages of the discussion going around and around without my help? Some people dig a lengthy history lesson (very informative and well written, yes) on Brian's people at the time, and others simply ask what it really has to do with why Smile didn't happen (in 67) ... I've asked many good questions and have brought up some very good points (some repeated to more respectful replies by others, thank you) .... If you just want to insult me: that has no place here, I would parrot: but unfortunately, it does seem to have a place here.... I am in no way trying to disrupt or any of that immature crap.. We agree that facts are facts, yet, if the fact that The Beach Boys singing their asses off on recorded SMILE tracks can be argued as a weak case, then so can ..... the facts.

I think we all need to calm down and just try and respect the various little camps and enclaves us fans can settle into when we're talking about a band that spans 50 years and with such varied output... I think the truth, and the only truth is that, yes, there were too  many various contributors to SMILE's (67) demise to ever be quantified and set in stone. If you want to blame Mike, there's evidence to that effect, if you want to blame Brian, there's evidence there too. That's life....

"oh how couldn't the Beach Boys see that all Brian needed was unequivocal support?"

Did Brian have that in him for the others? Didn't he wash his hand when Mike was screwed by Murry? They were just human beings after all. I'm not prepared to demand apologies from Mike for being tactless or Brian for showing weakness. Surely they owe me squat.

It's very simple to me:

Dennis recorded two tracks for Surf's Up, decided to scrap them and scrapped they were. Life goes on.
Brian recorded most of a new album in 66/67, decided to scrap it and scrapped it was. Life goes on.

One sided. I get that a lot. It's just something that happens when something is so wrong for so long.

I'm sure Mike has owed and made plenty of apologies just like all of us. Your premise was SMiLE.

Indeed, and no amount of revisiting or revising history will change that fact. If these guys haven't been willing to set the record straight after 46 plus years, I doubt we will ever get at the real truth behind the scrapping and shelving of Smile.

I think they pretty much have set the record straight (as straight as condensing 40 years of conflicting emotion into an answer to the same damn interview questions over and over again can be) and have been pretty consistent in their positions and seem to have all pretty much put it under the bridge (any strife, that is) ..... It's us who keep the wounds open and bleeding.

Mike Love takes responsibility every time he states that he was against the drug use… He didn't get Van Dyke's lyrics… Those admissions speak for themselves.  Bigger PICTURE… Mike sings on ALL of theos songs, so he wasn't that opposed to them was he?  No.

he betta

I got out of line, I'll admit that and offer a direct apology to you as well. Just as you stated, those knee-jerk reactions can be the ones that come out worse or even different than the original intent, and again it was over the line in this case. So I'm sorry for that.

I just want to restate my bottom line here, and it's not to rehash anything but rather to explain where I'm coming from.

Reading through these posts it can be frustrating to witness not just opinions being presented as solid facts, but those opinions of certain authors and certain books/projects being presented as facts, as well as in a few cases the opinions being based on facts which are simply not true at all. And they can be proven false by presenting the facts. If people are willing to consider them, which it felt like wasn't happening enough here in favor of the debate itself.

That is why I posted as much info as I did. I simply do not care to see people who were involved in the Smile saga have their names dragged through the muck on this board, have it suggested that they were more trouble than they were worth, whatever the case. It's not that I'm related to them or associated with them, but the *facts* (that word again) shows that some things happened a certain way, despite what some may have been led to believe based on faulty information.

The other point is that research has been done, the facts are out there for the taking, some of these people are out there and have been spoken to by people on this board, directly and indirectly.

Here is where I might sound a bit harsh, but it's something that may save some of these dust-ups, and is directed generally rather than to a specific person:

Opinions are welcome, naturally. However, take some ownership over what you're about to say in the discussion before saying it. If you're basing a challenge in the discussion on something you've read in the Smile box set, consider digging deeper. If you're basing it on the "Beautiful Dreamer" DVD, consider digging deeper. If you're clutching a copy of LLVS and that's all you have on Smile, consider digging deeper.

Because above all, there are no simple, general, compact answers to any of these issues. Period. If you try to suggest that there are, you'll get called out. Because those who have looked into this and spoken with some of these people know that there is more than a simple plug-in answer to most of these issues.

Discussion is fine, but to come on without a good chunk of information, suggest things that have been proven false since the late 60's and try to argue those points as right or wrong...it's bordering on a waste of everyone's time. And it shows a bit of laziness too because if the interest is truly there, the materials and resources can be found with a little effort.

And that effort can pay off in magnificent ways, one of which is interacting with some people who you might connect with even in the slightest way and who may inspire you to then try to "pay it forward" when a similar opportunity comes your way.

So I did post maybe a bit too long-winded in this thread, but some of those items, again, are not ones which are often repeated or even reported in general surrounding Smile, for whatever reasons. Surely they're not in the box set, nor were they on those YouTube webisodes where everyone was overjoyed with Smile in general. Nor in LLVS, or several other books. But they're facts which, if folks are genuinely interested in this Smile history beyond Twitter-style short answers and convenient solutions to complex questions, are worth at least reading about so you have that much more info for the discussion.

And if some people don't care about such things, that's their business..just don't try to argue or debate stuff that you're not even familiar with beyond those short and easy answers.

And please don't take the Smile box set booklet version of events, or the YouTube interviews, or LLVS, or Beautiful Dreamer, or any one source to be the final word on any of this. It's not that easy, and that's what keeps it interesting. Consider many sources and many accounts, and if you're not sure where to find those, just ask before starting a dust-up over these things.

That's not too much to ask, is it?  :)

Does anyone else feel Mike secretly has a lot of regrets, like the collapse of smile and all the other things he get sh*t for. I personally do.

He comes across like a broken man in a lot of interviews, you can tell it in his voice.

No apology necessary, GL. The only person out of line was me...

And you bring up a great point: as long as SMILE and it's story remains interesting, in and of itself, it will continue to be discussed.

And Shady, you make a great point too. And it's something to remember: Mike is a human being. Regrets are par for the course if you're  his age, and if he doesn't want to share them with a bunch of strangers: that should be respected.

We might get a better look into his view on things with the book he's writing.

I think smile bothers Mike more than he let's on

I think this board might just blow the internet into the cyber-afterworld if this book every comes out....

He has also been asked this stuff a million times and also is aware that he has been unjustly identified as the villain in all of it. You're right in the respect that if Smile had been released and was a commercial and artistic success, that most likely their whole history could have changed. Some heady stuff if you really think about it. Kind of prophetic that the lead song was named Heroes and Villains. Their hardcore fan base has done nothing but paint each band member as one or the other for the past 40+ years.

preach it, bro  :hat

"A broken man too tough to cry".....

It's also a reality that a specific segment of "fans" just get off on bashing the guy, to the point where the why's, how's, or what's hardly even matter.....

This should be admitted.

The youtube fans.... ;)

oh man, your even bigger brianista than i could possibly think.....

It's really a large number of people who bash Mike. I see anti Mike comments everywhere and not just on Beach Boys related sites.

The general word out there to people with even a limited knowledge of The Beach Boys is....Mike Love is a dick head, he hated Pet Sounds and Smile and wrote Kokomo.

The Gospel According To OSD!  :lol

No kidding, every Beach Boys video I see on there has one, whether it's warranted or not.  I mean, if you don't like him, that's fine but don't talk about him as if he killed someone.  He's made questionable decisions when it comes to the band but he seems like a pretty cool guy.  Not cool as in hip but cool as in I wouldn't mind sitting down to have a drink with him.  The way people vilify him is disturbing and I do feel sorry for him and his family as well.  I talked to his daughter Ambha about that and it really does hurt her to see what's said about her own father from people who don't really know what's going on.

I can't stand the man's behavior and career decisions at times, but the youtube stuff about him is plain awful.

Youtube comments are a cesspool of group-think of the lowest form.

Look at any AC/DC clip and the comments quickly devolve into Brian Johnson bashing and most Beatles clip comments feature "Paul was an asshole" blowups.

only at times?  ;)

I've thought about that a lot over the years, and this is my opinion. I think for the most part, Mike feels vindicated about a lot of things and a lot of his choices -- both in his music career and in his life. And, now that I write it, vindicated isn't the best word to use, maybe satisfied is a better term. No, satisfied isn't right either. How about content? Content with his choices, life choices. Mike has seen first hand, hell, he experienced first hand, what happened to Brian and Dennis, the tragedy that was their lives and careers. He's seen bands come and go, rock stars die too young, and other rock stars/musicans broke - and broken. For most of Mike's 72 years, he's been healthy and happy. He has every material thing in the world that he ever dreamed of, and, now, it appears he is surrounded by a loving wife and family. I mean, when you think about it, what more could a man want?

To address specifically Mike's Beach Boys-related regrets, I feel very strongly about two areas. I always felt that Mike felt they blew it with the trifecta of Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, and Friends. The Beach Boys went from arguably the second most popular band in the world in 1966, to, in three short years, a band let go by their record company, a corporation near bankruptcy, near empty concert halls, and band members/family members splintering. Brian was regressing to the point of contributing about 2-3 songs (or 8-9 minutes of music) a year, Dennis was releasing solo records, Bruce left, and Carl Wilson became the band's producer almost by default. It wasn't supposed to be that way. And, basically they never recovered. Mike made the statement in a documentary, and while he was oversimplifying and not 100% accurate, his statement about "Heroes And Villains" being Brian's last dynamic production - and that was in 1967 - is a pretty powerful statement. And, in many ways, ways that I'm not prepared to debate, that one statement tells you a lot about the career of The Beach Boys.

The other "big regret" that I think still haunts Mike to this day is that his songwriting partnership with Brian Wilson essentially ended in 1980 - 33 years ago. They were only 40 years old. I don't think Mike ever envisioned the day when he would NOT record albums - ALBUMS - with Brian. But, that's what happened. I think Brian's solo career silently killed Mike. Yeah, Mike made the occasional negative comment, but he always had to say things like "Brian's doing his thing now, but we always have a seat available and the door is always open" to remain optimistic. I always thought that Mike was thinking "I hope this is Brian's last solo album and he gives this solo thing up". But, Brian never did; Brian has had a 27 year solo career, and Mike recorded one Beach Boys' album in 20 years. Mike's songwriting years with Brian have now become ancient history. I used to think that Mike would give or do anything - anything - to work with Brian. And I was wrong. Mike now has his "demands", and I think Mike has his demands because he was deeply disappointed, devastated, and I'll even say shocked that he never again worked on an album's worth of songs after Keeping' The Summer Alive. Yeah, "Kokomo" is part of that, too, but I think Mike harbors the regret of what could've been - post 1980. Wasted years of possible Beach Boys' albums, possible hit singles. 33 years, that's a large part of Mike and Brian's adult life. Mike now views his songwriting partnership with Brian as a part of rock & roll history, but the optimism of future collaborations seems to have disappeared, for a lot of reasons that have been debated ad nauseam. Yeah, I think that's a huge regret.

Very very well put, as usual. But one thing: do you really think Mike regrets Wild Honey: a Brian/Mike showcase for the ages, that fans obsess over and which sold pretty damn well in the day? Or Friends: which sits right there in the little TM, be-robed, bearded, guru Mike period?

I want OSD to blog his 40+ years of BBs shows experience.

I want OSD to provide the "forward" to Mike's book!

luckily, it won't happen.

If Mike regrets that smiley smile, Friends and Wild Honey eras that really is a shame. Mike did some of his best work on the latter two albums, especially Wild Honey. So what if they bombed commercially, can't he be proud of the incredible music they created (assuming he does regret those albums, we're just guessing)

You make a great point about Mike's bitterns regarding Brian's solo career. One thing we're glossing over is Mike's anger toward BWPS. I'm sure that stung him, especially the decision to not use his lyrics on Good Vibes. I'm sure a lot of that anger towards Brian's camp (because we all know they made all the decisions regarding BWPS) carried over to the C50.

One thing I wish I knew. Is it really so hard for Mike to get in a room with Brian and sit at a piano, if so, who's stopping it from happening.

I highly doubt he regrets Wild Honey or Friends. He wasn't exactly writing surf/fun in the sun songs and running around looking like he walked off the cover of All Summer Long at that period. He might regret Smiley because it wasn't SMILE (which he probably hoped would come out and be nothing but genius regardless of how he felt about it personally) .....

Good questions. Did Friends bomb because of its (Friend's) quality, or because fans were turned off by the preceding album, Wild Honey, which they might've purchased on the strength of "Darlin'", and thought it was a return to the "old" Beach Boys, which it wasn't, or for both reasons? How's that for a sentence!

Oh God, this is gonna get me in trouble.... I think after 1966, Mike (and the group) were still behind Brian and following him wherever he was gonna take them. Yes, Mike jumped in with some contributions on Smiley Smile, a lot of contributions on Wild Honey, and a couple more contributions on Friends. And in that respect he might've been content; Mike was now Brian's songwriting partner again. But... OK, here we go...Do you think Smiley Smile, Wild Honey , and Friends contained the type of music that Mike wanted, was it "Beach Boys" music? I'm not talking about the surf & turf stuff, but the Spectorian, Wrecking Crew productions of "Help Me, Rhonda", "California Girls", "Sloop John B", and "Good Vibrations". Those were the songs that took the group to another level, and even Mike Love had to admit that. And, now they were gone. Home studios, drugs, simple songs with guitars strumming or group humming. What happened to The Beach Boys? They were losing fans in droves. I guess Mike was changing, too; you could see that. So maybe he was trying to be hip, too. And like I said, he was still trying to support Brian's musical direction(s). I think things happened so fast, too fast. Look at how fast they went from SMiLE being scrapped into Smiley Smile into Wild Honey. Three entirely different musical directions. I'm rambling here but I'll say this and then duck and hide. I think Wild Honey is a patched together, slightly overrated attempt at a "soul" album which misses the mark, and I think the overall effect hurt Friends.

I think you're on the money, but IF Mike was thinking that way at the time.... Seems he was almost as weird as Brian at that point. I think, if anything, he might have been happy enough that they weren't out on their asses in the street, considering the recent shake-ups. I think Mike might have been at his most content and maybe even a bit humbled to be a Beach Boy at that time. Others were stepping forward to contribute in great quantity and he didn't seem to mind..... The sort of Mike OSD hates was to come later...

Sheriff, that is the single most depressing thing I have ever read on this board--and also the most poignant. You speak a lot of truth, and I haven't always been receptive to it. Frankly, you've pissed me off a lot of times. But that was because it took a while, and it took a lot of learning on my part, to become familiar with the kind of nuance you bring to the history of this band. Bravo. If Mike truly feels that way, I think it goes a long way toward explaining why Mike Love has become the Mike Love he is today

I wrote this thread off soon after it appeared, but after reading it in its entirety, and especially after the last few posts, I think it has turned into a rather illuminating discussion.

Good job, everyone (especially GuitarFool). Let's not ruin it...

Don't get depressed. It is just one (particularly sharp and articulate) fan's musings, as is most of what goes down on this board. There is enough there in historical record to muse in a more positive direction as I have.

I don't know whether to thank you or apologize to you. :police:

THANK YOU! A bunch of recordings got scrapped. Bands do this all the time. In the next 5 years the band put out roughly 75% of the great Smile material anyway.

On this subject I think there were about three things going on.


1. Mike just didn't like the music.  That's his opinion, and you don't have to apologize for opinions.


2. Whether or not Mike didn't like the music, Brian was fully in control, as always, and could have told Mike to go take a long walk off a short pier... as he did on Smiley Smile!  So the whole "Mike ruined smile" thing has never stood up to the fact that the album that came out next was even more weird.  The reason?  ... because Brian released whatever he wanted, Mike had no control over it.  Therefore he couldn't have possibly been the reason Smile was canned.  Brian decided what came out and what didn't.... Brian at the time was in a bad place, and ultimately the blame for the album not being released rests 100% on Brian's shoulders since he was essentially the sole creator and custodian of it! 

3. Finally, Brian was being very irresponsible at the time, and drugs certainly had something to do with that, and mental illness as well.  Unfortunately, the baby is often thrown out with the bath water when people let others down.  Brian's irresponsibility was (in ways) letting his family and his bandmates down... so everything he was doing was being looked at with skepticism.  It was very easy for Mike to blame the music on Brian being on drugs and to not take it seriously, because Brian was in a place where he wasn't reliable and wasn't trustworthy.   Every addict goes through this, at the time Brian wasn't really an addict but was having issues with his entire family, the band, the record label and his wife for what they felt was his irresponsible behavior.  Brian could have cured cancer and the band would have been skeptical. 

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Mike.  I feel like I have a similar personality... and I think you're dead on.  Mike is a very proud guy, stupidly proud, but he's also right about almost everything.  He knows it, and he's basically a right-fighter.  That doesn't mean he doesn't have any love for Brian or his family, of course he does... but I think it seriously pains him to look back and see all their missed opportunities.  I don't think a day goes by that he doesn't think fondly, and sadly, of all three of his cousins.  Unfortunately he's handled things in such a harsh, heavy handed manner over the years that a lot of people think he's an ass, but I honestly don't think he cares about that.  I doubt he regrets anything he's done, but like you said I think he regrets a lot of things that have happened, and not happened. 




BTW, you can see Mike and his stupid pride all the time if you pay attention.  Look at the story that was told about how "Spring Vacation" was written, it speaks VOLUMES about what the whole deal is.  This is how I understand it:

The song started out as a gospel tinged song that Brian wrote for Carl to sing on.  He kept goading Carl to sing on it, Carl was unable to and apparently Brian and Carl's last conversation centered around the song, and Carl explaining to Brian that he was going to die before he got the opportunity to sing on it. 

Years later, the boys reunite, and Brian's been hoarding songs for years for them to sing.  Mike's been wanting to write music with Brian since 1980.  Mike pesters Brian, Brian reluctantly gives Mike his baby, certainly one of his most cherished, unfinished songs, the song Carl was supposed to sing on, and Mike writes the lyrics for it. 

Mike, having visions of doing things the old way, just goes in the other room, takes long enough to meditate about it, and writes the lyrics in 5 minutes. 

So it seems to me, that for Brian to share that track with Mike was a huuuuuuuge act of charity, and to Mike, writing a song in 5 minutes was meant to prove to Brian that they could do things like they used to do in 1962. 

This is how these two love each other. 

He's too proud to ever admit it, but I think deep down he knows his band was *that close* to achieving eternal Beatles level praise had they played Monterey, released SMiLE and went in a progressive POB-esque direction in the seventies. Instead, they're regarded as a joke by many, remembered best for a few surf n cars hits from 50 years ago. And that's mostly his fault, due to not surporting his bandmates, wanting to play it safe and take the easy nostalgia money, and letting personal issues (resentment of being replaced as collaborator, not getting credited properly) fester and ruin relations with the others. Now, Dennis and Carl are dead, Al and Brian resent him and it's too late to fix it.

Now before I get blasted for posting this, no, I am not saying Mike's evil. He seems like a well meaning if somewhat abrasive guy. Deep down, I really do believe he wishes none of the drama had happened and time could've stayed still in 1965 with he and Brian together writing hits as a family. Problem is doing the same thing again and again was stiffling Brian creatively. Brian, I think, was too sensitive to say it upfront, and getting shoved aside hurt Mike.

It's a complex story, no clear cut villains or heroes, and no, Mike absolutely has nothing to appologize for SMiLE-wise except perhaps not being vocal about his hurt feelings to Brian himself and dealing with them properly. Its incredibly unfair to blame him for the nonrelease of SMiLE. That being said, he has done more than any other member to damage the band's reputation and with all the bad press he gets (warranted or not) I think he knows that, and feels ashamed for it.

I used to think his "Oh, I loved SMiLE! I just didn't like a few lyrics!" spiel was an attempt to save face. But he's stuck by that story, it makes sense (he went along with GV and Smiley which are just as weird, musically) and he admirably stuck to his guns and set the record straight in TSS' book. So, I've come to accept his story as true. I think perhaps his talking down of the lyrics was a way to get back as Brian's right hand man, but Brian was so sensitive he took it as an attack on the whole project itself. In a vacuum, this would be no big deal. Combined with everything else going on, it was just too much for Brian to handle.

Mike Love did not take pleasure in the album's cancellation. He just wanted to be a part of it. He's done a lot of douchey things over the years, made some questionable decisions regarding the band's direction, but SMiLE isn't his fault. I hope, for his sake, he's revealed his true feelings to Brian. And if he expressed all this publicly, no ego, no bullsh!t, no beating around the bush...I think he'd finally redeem himself to the public. So in a sense, I agree with the sentiment of this thread.

I for one don't buy the Mike Love "I just didn't understand a couple of lyrics" line concerning Smile.  It's much more complicated than that.  For one, he didn't like Van Dyke or Van Dyke's crowd of hangers-on that came with him and were monopolizing Brian's time (although that worked both ways - Brian was very demanding of Van and the crowd's time with his insistence on instant gratification of whatever whims came into his head).  Drugs were part of that dislike, and the fact they were encouraging what seemed to Mike as a very non commercial musical direction. 

Secondly he didn't like that Brian was writing the album with Van Dyke and he was once again excluded from songwriting royaties and his songwriting partnership with Brian.  This was nothing new, Roger Christian and Gary Usher also perceived a distinct animosity from Mike while they were collaborating with Brian.  So it's impossible to tease out just Mike's feelings about a couple of lyrics from his distaste and concern over the project overall and the influence this new group was having over Brian (drugs).

Starting with David Leaf there has been codified a Brianista view that if only everyone had been encouraging and supportive, Smile would have been released, Brian would have remained healthy and creative and continued to do groundbreaking work with Smile and post Smile projects.  While I might have found some truth in this view in the past, in fact this is extremely unlikely and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  Brian was on a self destructive path in 66/67, had already had a nervous breakdown, was hearing voices, and his drug use was exacerbating his developing mental illness.  Even IF Mike had been the most supportive Smile booster of the group, I have no doubt the Smile project was doomed to failure because of Brian, not because of external pressures but because of internal pressures.  So Mike has nothing to apologize for in that respect.  He had his opinion but that opinion was not a tipping point or anything close to it.

I definitely don`t think that Mike deep down believes that going in a POB style direction would have led to them, `achieving eternal Beatles level praise`.  :lol

The Beach Boys would never have had the level of praise that The Beatles had and apart from one poll in a British newspaper (the exception that proves the rule) they never did have.

Mike may well believe that if Brian hadn`t abused drugs and succumbed to mental illness that they could have continued to be successful in the charts for many years which may well be true.

The fact that some people think "Vegetables" would have been the second single proves the lack of massive hit potential of "Smile." I don't think that song would have ever been a hit on AM or FM. "Heroes & Villains" was the potential hit single of the album and it didn't chart that well. I can't think of any other song on the album that would have been a big AM hit. Album oriented rock was still a year or two from taking off in a big way on FM. Even the Moody Blues "Days of Futures Passed" didn't become a big hit until it picked up play years after its release on AOR stations in the '70s.

 :-[ WTH is "Beatles-level praise" anyway?? Wow that was pretty snarky to cover the NME poll, yeah that poll is the only benchmark to gauge who was most popular in England that year. The Beach Boys were almost always neck and neck with Fab Four - until that is the Beatles self destructed and the BB's kept chuging along.

The Beatles were more popular and had a higher hipness quotient in the USA than they did in Britain. America is a much bigger market than the UK.  More people and more $.

Very well said. I also used to buy into the "it's the band's fault for not supporting him enough!" story, but it really doesn't hold up when looking at the big picture. That being said, some of the "pro-Mike" counter-arguments are ridiculous as well. People act like just because he sang the songs he must have supported them and just because he never criticized them on tape he must have been fully, 100% on board with all things SMiLE. As always, the truth is in the middle, somewhere.

As you said, I don't think he liked VDP back then and probably felt threatened by him, artistically. VDP represented the future of pop music with his avant garde Bob Dylan/poetry style lyrics. I think deep down, Mike knew he needed Brian more than Brian needed him. And deep down, he knew he couldn't write a "Surf's Up" or "God Only Knows" of his own to compete with Brian's new lyricists. Perhaps if Brian had thrown him a song or two each time it would've placated him. But between getting only one song on PS and none on SMiLE he saw the writing on the wall.

I *do* believe him when he says he loved the music Brian was making. And as others have said, the fact that he was a-okay with GV and Smiley shows he wasn't opposed to new, progressive ideas. Yes, he said "don't f*** with the formula" and called SMiLE "acid alliteration." But I think both jabs are aimed at VDP and his lyrics specifically. By formula Mike meant that he and Brian had written great, popular songs together up to then so why change that dynamic? By dissing VDP's lyrics, I think he was hoping Brian would come to agree and ask Mike to rewrite them. Instead, it was the straw that broke the camel's back and caused Brian to quit the whole thing.

I agree that Brian's breakdown was inevitable but not necessarily that it had to come exactly when it did or that SMiLE's cancellation was destined to be part of it. Perhaps, after his irrational fear that Fire couldnt be released, there wouldn't be an Elements track. Perhaps it would have to be compromised from Brian's original vision, whatever that may have been. But there was more than enough material to release a kickass album that Spring. And had Brian not wasted so much time pointlessly making, remaking, and remixing H&V, recording crap like the Jasper Dailey songs, and set aside just one afternoon to record the missing vocals... Well, who knows.

Either way, long story short: SMiLE, at least some incarnation of it, was within reach. Brian's breakdown, indecisiveness and unproductiveness are the reason it wasn't to be. I believe Mike 100% when he says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. I speculate jealousy and resentment lead him to speak out against the project, but his part in the collapse of SMiLE is unfairly overstated. Almost to the point of outright slander. I'm not exactly a fan of Mike's behavior or idea of what the Beach Boys should be, but I genuinely feel bad for him in regards to the flack he gets for this. He's an easy scapegoat, I suppose.

While I absolutely agree with your overall assessment, I do disagree with you on Heroes & Villains' chart success. It's highest chart position was 12. That's not too bad, and it charted better than the more catchier tunes like Darlin' that came after.

For better or worse, to John Q Public the Beatles are the greatest band ever and the Beach Boys are a bunch of out of touch old farts pretending to be 18. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair. But don't pretend you don't know what I mean, and don't lose sight of the overarching point of my post.

Here's the thing.

Lots and lots and lots of music fans (who aren't hardcores like us) just flat-out associate Mike Love with SMiLE's demise, and think that he is the main or only cause. Closely examining history reveals that this is a gross overstatement of the facts. The fact that the man is utterly, wholeheartedly and irrationally loathed by so many people is very unfair. It's basically extremism.

But... Mike Love uber defenders still baffles me, and will continue to baffle me, when they try to say that Mike's attitude wasn't a contributing factor of some sort. Hey - minimize the contributing nature if you must, say it was only a small little factor if that makes you feel better - but don't negate Mike from being *a* factor whatsoever. That is totally absurd.

That, IMO, is also a totally unfair, and extremist conclusion. Convincing one's self that this rewriting of history is somehow the truth does not magically "counter" the extremist anti-Mike Love vibrations that permeate the universe. Two wrong opinions don't make a right.

No, I wont argue with that, I know what you mean, but you dont know much of anything by that blanket statement. Depending on the age demographic the Beet-alls may be worshipped or despised. I am over fifty and my opinion of 90% of their music is "meh". And who cares what the general public thinks anyway? Judging by what the average American chooses for "entertainment" he has about the sense of a turnip and even less good taste. If we look at the readily available data for statistical "popuality" levels of the fanbase by record sales we see that both bands were fairly even until the Pet Sounds era - the time of the infamous NME poll. I really dont know who has sold the MOST records but seeing the Beatles had disbanded years before BBs went into their not so great years they quit releasing anything new since 1970. I think you have to measure greatness by several factors. But the old farts comment was just not right, dude. not right.

God, I just realized how old this thread is - its like been hashed out maybe to this point here.

 :deadhorse

I agree with almost everything you just said. And just to clarify, I live the Beatles but think they're massively overrated, I don't think the BBs are old farts (but many people I know do, sadly) and the point of my post was preceisely that the Beach Boys were just as respected until 67 with the failure of the SMiLE sessions and no show at Monterey. Had those two things not happened, and the Boys not fallen back on their old hits for easy money, the band's reputation would be astronomically better today.

Lets get one thing straight. I am *NOT* a Mike defender. I strongly disagree with much of his behavior over the years and his vision of the BBs as a beach themed nostalgia act and nothing more. The popular narrative that he killed SMiLE is just wrong though, and he does deserve to be defended against such unfair accusations.

I think if you read the rest of my post you'll see I'm trying to present a more nuanced view of how it sent down. I believe Mike liked Brian's music. I believe he could sense that Brian was done with him as a collaborator. I think petty jealousy clouded his judgement and caused him to speak out against a project he probably knew deep down (or nowadays with hindsight) was genius.

He didn't kill SMiLE, but yes, his lack of support was undeniably a factor in its nonrelease. Hell never admit it, but I think deep down he knows that, and he knows how much more respect the band would've commanded had it been finished and beaten Sgt Pepper to the punch. He doesn't owe us an apology or anything, but he does owe it to himself to deal with his feelings on the matter.

I pretty much agree with everything you said above, with the exception of the part where you said he doesn't owe anybody an apology. Of course, rock stars/celebs don't "owe" anyone anything. They can do whatever they wanna do.

But for him to be an ostrich about the issue for decades, whine and complain about being misunderstood (and have his children/wife endure so much pain that they feel compelled to gush online about their own feelings), when all it would take/would have taken to have made the situation so much better would have been a small acknowledgement of "maybe I shouldn't have been quite as harsh as I might have been, or if Brian/VDP might have interpreted my tone as being harsh in a way that caused hurt feelings and helped make a bad situation worse,  I honestly regret if there were hurt feelings as a result"... well, it just is dumbfounding to me that he hasn't said something like this over the years, when it's so plainly obvious to me that a large swath of the extremist hatred against the man is directly related to his 110% absolute lack of self awareness to be able to acknowledge something like this in the slightest. He is his own worst enemy.

It’s. All. About. Stupid. Pride.

Why is M. Night Shyamalan hated with such a degree of extremism as he is? Besides his movies' quality decline, it seems to be because he steadfastly publicly clings to the idea that he is amazing, and doesn't seem to have any self awareness of acknowledging when he has f*cked up.  I could give a bunch of other similar examples too. While it's not an identical situation with Mike, still basically what I'm saying is that the public will really, REALLY grow to irrationally hate an artist on an extreme level, when they irrationally cling to pride and ignore (or refuse to acknowledge) some of the "tougher" issues at hand, as some sort of absurd ego defense mechanism.

I wonder if any of Mike's ex wives have ever suggested that he should say something like this, in some interview, at some point. Honestly. I'd like to think that there's a single person in his life who isn't a "yes man" or "yes woman" who would have tried to talk a small bit of sense into him.

At what point can it be said that a person, with an often sarcastic personality, who isn’t exactly known for tactfulness, can or cannot be “guilty” of hurting someone else’s feelings in a deep way?

Let’s take music and the actual people involved in this out of the equation for a moment.

What “evidence” does a person on this board need to arrive at the conclusion that, when reviewing a series of events where circumstance has brought two people with very different personalities together (not necessarily Brian and Mike – this could be two plumbers, a father and son, mother and daughter, etc etc)…that one of those people can possibly, potentially have an negative (and at times detrimentally negative) emotional effect on the other person with their words, tone of voice, and overall attitude?

Can it just be agreed (without applying this to the SMiLE saga), that this is something is possible that can happen between two people?

I ask because I myself have witnessed this type of interpersonal relationship thing happen between two people. In situations that have nothing to do with bands.

It does happen.

People can, unknowingly and unfortunately, effect other people in certain negative ways (sometimes VERY negative ways) *even when they don’t mean to*. Does that mean the person who affected the other person is ultimately “responsible” for all sorts of fallout and subsequent situations that the hurt person finds themselves in? It’s very hard to ascribe blame in a direct sense… but one thing is ab-so-friggin-lutely clear: the person who hurt the other person should acknowledge they might have possibly hurt someone by what they said and/or in the manner that it was said in, once it becomes clearly obvious that there were hurt feelings.

And by the way: Brian is guilty (in a different sense, since the situations are apples/oranges) of not properly apologizing to Mike for the credits screwjob.  Or maybe he said he was “sorry” at the time, but didn’t correct it - so he didn’t really apologize in a true sense.  Either way, Mike being hurt by the songwriting credit omissions is an established fact. Nobody is going to argue that. Despite that we can argue about specifics regarding why the crediting omissions happened, we cannot argue that Mike surely had hurt feelings as a result. Those feelings were real to Mike.

Well… the flipside of this coin is that Brian was hurt too by Mike’s words/actions during SMiLE. It’s an established fact, or to put it another way: Brian’s hurt feelings were real to Brian and are not something that we can argue/refute. We can nitpick and discuss all sorts of other factors like drugs, technology, etc etc… one can also make the argument that Mike “had every right” to say what he said by virtue of being a bandmate. But… once it can be agreed that hurt feelings were in some way, shape, or form permeating the atmosphere, it seems impossible to me that one can think that a very sensitive person’s interpretations/reactions to those feelings are of negligible concern.


What I want to know is, do the people who continue to 100% absolve Mike of any responsibility whatsoever, and say he has absolutely nothing at all, ever to feel sorry about in the slightest… do those people think that this same absolving of responsibility would apply to every non-Beach Boys-related situation/person on the planet? Do they think that no person can ever deeply hurt another person with words, and/or that the hurt person simply just has to “man up” and not take things so hard?

Or do they think that, “Well, Mike may have hurt Brian’s feelings, but so what? All he (maybe) did was hurt Brian’s feelings, and that has nothing to do with anything else.”

For the life of me, I cannot understand the psychology of thinking that way. I honestly, legitimately want to try and understand the way of thinking that leads people to the conclusion that Mike has nothing to apologize for or regret in his actions. I want to be enlightened if I’m wrong - maybe I’m just missing an essential component of human understanding, but it makes no sense to me.

Mike should 100% absolutely NOT be crucified like he has been for years. But - even his most ardent defenders should realize that his actions/tact/personality played *a* measureable factor (even a small one, if that’s your cup of tea) in why SMiLE didn’t pan out. Or… if you are of the belief that the project would have fallen apart due to other factors (thereby making the hurt feelings a non-issue when discussing the album’s demise), it STILL doesn’t mean that an iota of an apology or acknowledgement of responsibility shouldn’t still have publicly happened by the Lovester himself. He would ultimately have only *helped* himself in a big way if he would have done so, and he continues to hurt himself by having not done so.

What is it you think Mike did to apologize for?

I think a prerequisite for him assuming responsibility would be having the responsibility to assume in the first place.

He’d ideally apologize for saying things at the time that unintentionally, inadvertently, deeply hurt somebody’s feelings. I’d hope for a DeLorean to go back in time about 47 years and have those words spoken then, but late is also better than never. Neither you nor I can know exactly, specifically what was said between Mike/Brian/VDP, nor the exact manner in which the words were said. But I don’t think it’s reaching to assume that the words, in all likelihood, were perceived by Brian/VDP as being a tactless, negative, and that they caused deeply hurt feelings, to say the least.

Did Mike have the “right” to say them, to speak his mind in the way he saw fit? Well, of course he did. It’s the USA, and you can pretty much say whatever you want (barring yelling “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow”…err… “Fire” in a crowded movie theater)… but it is a truly big person who can find it in themselves to apologize - or express regret - for hurting another person’s feelings – even if hurt feelings weren't intended in the first place.

There would also hopefully be at least a tiny amount of acknowledgement/awareness of the fact that, no matter how small the words/sentiment were, that they potentially could have been taken the wrong way by Brian/VDP, and that although they were just words, they nonetheless may have been a contributing factor (however small) in stirring up a cloud of negativity/self-doubt in a very sensitive person.

Yes, he had an equal right to express his opinion on band matters. He asked about the meaning of a lyric that he sang. Which of those requires an apology? Is there something else you can point to that requires an apology.

What specifically did Mike say that hurt Brian's feelings?

^This should be enough to end the thread. TL;DR: No, he doesn't have to. But it'd be a nice, honorable thing to do. And I do believe he'd win back a lot of sympathy from the public if he did. I sense a deathbed confession...

Obviously no one can say. But it isn't unreasonable to assume that in more or less a whole calendar year of sessions, they probably talked about it a lot. And both VDP and Brian have strongly stated Mike was negative about it. Could they be pinning their failure to finish the LP on the publicly declared bad guy, the easiest scapegoat? It's possible. But Tony, Gary and other collaborators also confirmed a hostile vibe from Mike. So, theres that.

Again - you and I were not there, and we can't specifically say what those things are. The point is, when a person has deeply hurt another person, even if that hurt was not intentional... once it becomes obvious how deeply those words cut, an apology is basically the right thing to do - even if it's not apologizing for the intended sentiment that the words expressed - the apology/expression of regret would be to let the hurt person know that the hurt was not intended, and that the words didn't come from a hurtful/vengeful/mean-spirited place in the person's heart (Mike).

But I would really like to know your opinion on this question, which I posed to you earlier in this thread:

Beach Boys aside, do you think it is impossible for a person to potentially have a negative (and at times detrimentally negative) emotional effect on another person with their words, tone of voice, and overall attitude? Your reaction seems to imply that you find this to be an impossible or unacceptable occurrence, even though it does happen between people on Earth every day due to conflicting personalities.

It's clear as day to me that this is basically what happened here between these guys.

I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do.  

Bruce and Al need to be humiliated that way more often.....

No. In that instance, Brian ought to appologize for hurting their feelings. Please don't put words in our mouthes. Or ignore half of the argument against your claims--Brian and VDP agree that he didn't seem supportive at all. This attitude of hostility by Mike to outside collaborators of Brian's demonstrates a pattern of behavior which is reasonable to assume was repeated in 67 and deeply hurt Brian. Again, not the big bad sadistic killer of SMiLE, but a bit obnoxious and careless.

Brian should apologize right now for humiliating Al & Bruce. And for humiliating them by waiting 48 years to apologize. ;)

Wait, wait, wait a second! You're taking Mike asking what some lyrics mean't and "not seeming supportive at all" and turning it into "an attitude of hostility by Mike to outside collaborators of Brian's" and then turning that into a "pattern of behavior" which you then assume was repeated in 67 and deeply hurt Brian and was "obnoxious and careless?" ..... Isn't that something of a stretch?

This is what keeps getting me about these discussions: taking one's opinion and adjusting what he know to fit this opinion, and then turning around and using the opinion as somehow supporting the facts...

As far as I can gather, the only person outwardly hostile to outside collaborators was Murray.

Mike doing this 48 years later proves what? Will Smile automatically reappear as a 1967 release? Will history be changed? Personally, I think that the Beach Boys historians have proved that no matter what any band members thought about Smile, that if Brian had really wanted Smile finished and released, then it would have been indeed, finished and released. What happened with Smile was on Brian, and Brian only.

I think Mike already apologized on September 8th, 1967.   

Oh wait, he might have apologized April 12th, 1973...

it was one or the other, can't remember, becuase it's been 50 FUCKING YEARS AGO

How about reading all of my contributions in this thread before opening your mouth? I've given a fair, nuanced take on Mike, I'm not laying the blame for SMiLE at his feet, he is a factor in it, however. An apology is not owed us or Brian for SMiLE as I've said. But it would be a humble, thoughtful gesture on Mike's part. Will it change history? No. But it may sooth old wounds, diminish the barrier and resentment that clearly exists between the two, and help each get some emotional weight off their chest. In Mike's case, it could save his reputation before it's too late.

I think before you debate a man or assume you know his stance and go running your mouth, you ought to read his entire contribution to the relevant topic. F*** me, right?'

Not when your entire comments are the length of the U.S. Tax Code. 

I have no idea, why do you think Mike hurt their feelings. Maybe VDP's feelings were hurt but I don't think requires an apology for asking a lyricist to explain a lyric.

I think we are just not going to agree. I don't think Brian got his feeling hurt by the Boys, he told them what to do and they did it. On the other hand I think he and VDP had issues with each other and they may have hurt each others feelings, not even sure of that. If you think that Brian's hurt feelings by anyone were a factor in the failure of SMiLE I think that is wrong. I think it is pretty clear that Brian had his problems with the material itself and in particular the lyrics and he did just what he wanted to do which was scrap and modify and new. I don't think you owe  someone an apology for them getting their way.

If you care about the topic enough to visit a forum and create an account for discussion, it seems really weird and unfair to criticize someone for offer a meaningful response and add to the exchange of ideas. Don't you think? Or would you rather we limit ourselves to bite-sized tweets, dissmissive put downs and simplified black and white/heroes and villains historical revisionism? Why do you even come here if not to discuss the subjects intelligently?

The problem we as fans have is that we have no perspective.  We ONLY know Brian by his music, that's all he's ever given us intimate or personal.  So we assume anything to do with his music is a huge deal to him.

In reality, while it's the only way WE know him, it's just 1 facet of his life.  

At the time he and his wife had all kinds of sh*t going on.  He had an overbearing dad that was entangled in every part of his life.  He was having trouble with his brothers professionally... The record company was beating down on him.... he had business obligations he was failing to meet, he was addicted to drugs, and he had serious mental issues that would soon prove to completely cripple his life... for years and years and years.

Whether or not Mike said something cross to him was probably just a minor part of the sh*t that was going on in his head, most people would be devastated if they were fighting with their wife, we don't know sh*t about that... for instance... so speculating on whether or not 1 business associate "Apologized" or not (Which he may have, who knows?) is just the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous ideas we've discussed on this forum.

I'm just saying, you have been bitching about something for about 5 pages back and forth back and forth and you can't really expect anybody to be fluent in your ramblings. 

I don't expect you to be fluent in mine.

Nope, sorry. TL;DR.
140 characters or less, please. I have ADD and cannot focus on one train of thought for more than 3 consecutive seconds.

Show me these 5 pages of unintelligible rambling, please. As far as I can see, I joined the discussion about 2 pages ago and shared my input clearly and descriptively.

Guys, give it a rest.

I just want to discuss this intelligently. If a fully thought out contribution is being derided I can't help but wonder what the point of this thread is.

No it will not, especially after 48 years. Why would Mike or any other band member apologize for something they had no control over? Also, none of us really know what has and what has not been said between them over the years. Btw, I've read all of the posts in this thread, but to tell the truth it was getting all kinds of stupid rehashing this crap for the umpteenth hundred time. Talking about it for the next fifty years will not change a single thing regarding the final outcome of Smile.

^this

There's more to the story than the Cabin Essence fight and what is recorded on the Sessions. You're ignoring the fact that the testimonies support each other, and combine to give us a clear consistent picture of Mike's abrasive personality. I'm not just saying "Derp, I don't like Mike. He didn't like some lyrics so that means he is everything wrong with the world!"

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying Mike apologize for "killing" SMiLE. I don't blame him for SMiLE never being finished. His tactlessness was what made him Mike. This time tho, it was strike 9 or so on a long list of contributing factors. Forgive me for "rehashing" the topic, but I find it interesting and want to discuss it. Not all of us were around for the Smile Shop days or the history of this forum. If you dont want to talk about it, just go on scrolling. But what good is a community that discourages genuine input?

Idk what has been said privately. You're right. But Mike sure hasn't expressed any regret or sympathy in public in all the times he's been asked about this. I've never claimed he owed anybody an apology but don't you think it would reflect better on him, put a rest to the clashing egos and give the fans peace of mind and for many, more respect for Mike as a person?

This is not how human beings behave though is it. We all as human beings unintentionally hurt people`s feelings from time to time but nobody looks back across their whole life and apologizes for every mistake that they have made over the past 50 years.

Should Carl have apologized for not rating Mount Vernon?

Should Al have apologized for recording a new version of Cottonfields?

Where would it end? It is not faintly realistic.

Not saying Brian must go out of his way to apologize to them. Someone presented a hypothetical. If they felt bad and opened up to him about it, he ought to apologize. It's obvious there's some heart feelings between Mike and Brian, tho. About SMiLE? I'm sure that, like in '67, it's but strike nine or so on a long list of grievances and unaddressed feelings of rejection and resentment. But in all the times he's been asked, it's not unreasonable to wonder why Mike seems to show no hindsight, no empathy for everything he now knows his cousin was going through and how much Brian needed all the support he could get from everyone even after all these years. That says a lot about him as a person. Sure, he doesn't *owe* Brian an apology. But it'd be the mature, respectful thing to do. Even if you don't think he has anything to apologize for, it seems like the other remaining BBs and a good chunk of the fanbase does. Complying could only benefit Mike.

I like your use of loaded language to make Mike look as bad as possible. Like the "Cabinessence flight" .... Fight? Really?

And how on earth are we to know that Mike hasn't apologized to Brian repeatedly for anything having to do with SMILE?

Mike says exactly what I think people should expect when people talk to him about Smile. He is not about to admit any culpability after 47 years and, in his mind, he probably thinks that if Brian was hurt by anything it is because Brian wasn`t strong enough at that point to deal with things healthy people could have dealt with which is true to a large extent.

I said fight, not "flight." I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate on this, but my main source is the "Catch a Wave" biography which presents Mike as exceedingly obnoxious in the encounter. Something went down that day for it to be so vividly remembered by all parties and so well known against the many many sessions of the era. Not a fist fight or a shouting match but probably an exchange of personal put downs all around at worst or one caustic remark too many...it was a turning point for VDP's commitment to the project, perhaps a seed of doubt planted amongst all Brian's other issues...

I've used the term "Cabin Essence Incident" before which I concede is a more accurate way to refer to it. Regardless, Van only quit when a more lucrative deal came along, Mike still sang the Tag, Brian still ultimately made the call to shelve it all. But this definitely helped stall the momentum of '66 and begin the period of doubt (1967's months of overworking H&V and cannibalizing the album for a single but unsure what it should be...