The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.goldminemag.com/article/van-dyke-parks-reflects-making-music-terms-investing

Thanks astroray, for posting that link.

In light of the recent SMiLE threads, I find Van Dyke's comments interesting.

GOLDMINE: The Beach Boys’ “Smile” is widely revered, but where do you rank your contributions to it among your own body of work?

VAN DYKE PARKS: Well, as I look back on it, I feel vindicated in the work. I always did, because I contributed as I felt I should; to do the right thing is all that matters to me, regardless of how it might be interpreted. And I feel I did the right thing.

When Brian Wilson sought to migrate into the counter-revolution, he needed to break the habit of excess that was in the feel-good sleepwalk of the Eisenhower era. He found a solution in my lyrics — which were, as a matter of fact, only a reaction to the imaginative musical work that he was doing.

I’ve never felt it had the epic importance in my own experience that the public eventually accorded it. I think that the public went nuts over it because the backstory was probably more of a sympathetic nature than the front story. Perhaps the work itself could not be understood, and yet Wilson’s psychological afflictions were something that deserved a lot of sympathy. He got a lot of sympathy, and I got a lot of heartache from that project.

I did everything I could to run from [“Smile”], and when it became convenient to Brian and [his wife] to revisit that [in 2004] because of the clamor of the interactive audience that “Smile” created, I went right back into the fold and just picked up where I’d left off and filled in a few gaps that had been left in the work. It was like getting on a bicycle after years of commuting in an automobile. It was so easy for me; it was like second nature. And the reason for that is because “Smile” hit on something that I could understand, and that was the American dream gone awry.[end of quote]

There are some interesting comments in there. Here are a few I'm pondering about.

1. Perhaps the work itself could not be understood, and yet Wilson’s psychological afflictions were something that deserved a lot of sympathy. He got a lot of sympathy, and I got a lot of heartache from that project.

Is he talking about The Beach Boys here?...since the work wasn't released at the time, only those who heard it could misunderstand it.
Then again, maybe he just means the public "in hindsight"

2. I did everything I could to run from [“Smile”], and when it became convenient to Brian and [his wife] to revisit that [in 2004] because of the clamor of the interactive audience that “Smile” created, I went right back into the fold and just picked up where I’d left off and filled in a few gaps that had been left in the work.

Not walk away from SMiLE, but "run" from it. Is he talking about the legacy of it hanging over his head, or literally "running" to get away from the project at the time?

"Convenient" for Brian "and his wife". I couldn't help but think of the 2004 Dutch interview (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17837.0.html) and Sheriff John Stone's EXCELLENT comments in that thread.

The line "and just picked up where I’d left off and filled in a few gaps that had been left in the work." is interesting too.

Is he alluding to leaving the project before it was actually finished?

This whole "problem between Brian and Van Dyke" thing and it's importance in the demise of SMiLE, certainly has been coming into better focus over the years. I remember (in the old days of SMiLE mythology) when it was Brian and Van Dyke on one side, and some of the Beach Boys (particularly that "evil" Mike Love) on the other. It seems funny to me now.

One other thing: Before the new 'mythology" becomes "It was Van Dyke's fault", let's remember that IF he left before the project was finished, he likely did so to save a family, NOT to abandon a job.

Oh well, those are my thought's for today  :)

VAN DYKE PARKS: Well, as I look back on it, I feel vindicated in the work...

Yes that seems to be all of what Vandyck is about these days...or maybe thats never changed// ;)

May I disagree? He left to pursue his own solo album, after writing all the Smile lyrics that were required. He lived in the same city as Brian and could have written more lyrics, just like he did in 2003, without affecting his solo career. He just didn't have time anymore to be a session man for an album which recordings seemed to drag for months.

And you know what? I'd have signed to Warner too and focused on my own album. In a heartbeat.

I'll try to be diplomatic and fair about this, but I'd suggest looking deeper into these things and consider more than what some opinions on this board have been promoting. I'll add that there are people who post and have posted on this board who have spoken directly to some of the participants directly involved with Brian, Smile, and various friends and even family members who were there and witnessed what we're talking about firsthand. And people who have, in fact, spent personal and unguarded moments with some of the people involved.

Bottom line: A lot of this kind of talk was given in confidence, which means it's not going to be "published" and specific details may not ever be described for public consumption because some of it is, in fact, private and various parties wish it to remain that way. The fact that we do have some firsthand participants who have gone on the record and told what they witnessed through various interviews and comments published as early as 1967 is good for weighing all of the information in a historical sense. What it does not mean is those kinds of comments are the be-all and end-all of what happened, but it does suggest a little more authority on what happened if they were directly involved than someone creating and expressing a theory based on what they think happened with no direct involvement.

Open it up a bit to a direct question: With all of the definitive statements already made in this thread, are they anything more than a fan's opinion? Again, all opinions are welcome, but the issue also can be one of "more to the story", and even in that way there is more to the story that has been published and is on the record.

What prompted me to post this was the notion of the so-called "old Smile mythology", about things coming into a more clear focus, as if a greater understanding of the situation or situations at hand is now a reality...but what are you basing this "new reality" on, exactly?

It's not my intent to call anyone out, but at the same time it's relative to the discussion: Has Sheriff Stone ever spent a personal moment with Brian Wilson, an unguarded moment where they're shooting the bull over a beer or a sandwich, or even just interacting as people rather than as a fan and object of fandom?

Fact is, there are a very, very small handful of people who actually have done that, going back decades and up to the present. They heard the unguarded moments that weren't part of interviews or various press and PR to promote an album or tour, and in the case of Smile as it happened, there are in fact a few people who actually witnessed it and reported *some* of what happened on the record.

One of those is Michael Vosse, the late Michael Vosse. His accounts of what he saw when he was one of those who spent a lot of private, unguarded and unscripted personal time with Brian in 1966 and 1967 seemed to upset the apple cart of what some would rather see reported as "the truth" (as evidenced by some of the words posted above) to the point where he was all but written off by some board members here as an interloper, a "hanger-on", and whatever else in order to diminish not only his accounts but also his credibility.

That, to me, is ridiculous. For that matter, how about Danny Hutton? Was he also one of these "hanger on" characters, who attached themselves to Brian for nefarious reasons in 1966-67, especially if some of what he may remember doesn't jive with the account some folks would prefer to hear?

Could it be Danny, and Michael, and David, and any number of these people were friends? Good friends, even? Friends who themselves have achieved quite a bit of success in their relative fields without leeching "cred" off of Brian Wilson, or any other ridiculous notion of what a hanger-on would do?

Three Dog Night...remind me, how many records did they sell in the 70's? Something like...millions...maybe tens of millions?

Anyway.

Consider this before using the opinions of fans on message boards in order to shape your own version of what may or may not be the reality of what happened in some of these cases. In the case of Smile, consider at least reading the Michael Vosse "Fusion" interview again, and consider what he reported he saw less than 2 years after he saw it. Re-read the Anderle interview.

Heck, take it even a step further, and if you're truly interested in getting more of the facts to consider, try to watch each and every available interview clip where Brian Wilson himself has talked about Smile. Hiding somewhere among those clips may just be something revelatory that everyone missed the first time around.

I'm just saying this as a call to some reason, and some separation of ideals versus ideas...versus firsthand accounts.

If you're willing to base most of your ideas about Smile and the whole saga in general on people's opinions and theories who have perhaps never spent a single minute of private conversation with Brian or anyone else involved, while dismissing the words of those present and past who *actually have spent many private/personal moments with Brian* and have reported what they saw as "old mythology", it becomes a case of opinion taking over as fact. Why? Perhaps some want to believe the opinion so strongly they'll buy into whatever "feels right"?

Just because something is repeated continuously and loudly doesn't make it the truth.

Also, just because someone labels previous eyewitness accounts as "mythology", that doesn't mean it's so.

And...as long as there are people out there trying to promote opinions as "the new reality", which is another way of describing revisionist history, consider there are people who know what happened having witnessed it firsthand, and people who have heard from those people what happened, and those people might be more than willing to step in when the rhetoric gets so ridiculous and starts to be presented as the factual history...if they have not done so already in various publications and interviews that conveniently get forgotten, ignored, or passed over in favor of the "new reality" being offered.

Just sayin'.  :)

I would add, also don't just focus on some of the witness.

The secret to the mystery is in the bridge of "Amusement Parks USA".

Poor Van Dyke and his carpal tunnel/tendinitis/trigger finger. Hope his hands get better and he can tour again.

YIKES! Guitarfool, I didn't mean to cause such a response! Especially from one of my favorite posters on this board. (really)

For what it's worth, after I read my post (immediately after posting it) I realized that it didn't come out quite the way I intended it to, and tried to change it, but some weird glitch happened with either my internet, or this site, where it wouldn't connect. I left the tab open, and went on to other things, and didn't see your post until just now when I opened a new tab to see if I was able to connect with the site.

I still have that original tab open, and i took a screen shot of it, but I can't seem to attach it to this post. The board will let me browse for what i want to attach, and load it, but where is the button that actually says "attach"? When I preview my post, the attachment isn't there. I'm sure it's user error.

Some people are better than others at this posting thing. You, Guitarfool are EXCELLENT at it. I'm terrible at it. I can't seem to express myself properly, and i never learned to type properly, so it takes me FOREVER to get things out. It's a real "ocean through a straw" thing for me.

All I meant to do is ponder some of the things that Van Dyke was saying, and to remember the old days (late 70s-80s) when not much was known about SMiLE amongst the general population. (not that a lot is known now)

Unless you were around in the 60s and read contemporary articles (Seigal/Williams/Vosse/Nolan) you were out of luck. They didn't reprint things then, Dom's book wasn't out yet, no internet, no SMiLE Shoppe.

I just remember that from what I "heard" back then, (a lot of it from those hipsters you would run into at your local record shops) The Beach Boys (especially Mike) didn't like the LP, and that's why it didn't happen. We know now that it was not that simple, and that there were multiple reasons combined that brought about what happened.

That being said, obviously we will never know EXACTLY what happened for a variety of reasons.

All I meant by the "Van Dykes fault" thing was, to beware of trying to make the SMiLE thing black and white when it's really shades of grey. In fact, it was that part of the post that I was trying to go back in and change.

I hope i made more sense this time!  :)

I don't know why we are still debating... Smile as a three movement work was voted down in a band meeting, that's why it didn't happen. Brian's original vision got crushed.

 ;D

I'd also add: never apologize for your opinions! Especially not on a public messageboard.... This place is no particular poster's classroom and we are not doing term papers here..... You're a great poster too! Let it rip!!!!

Cam and I don't always agree, but this point is quite valid. The problem is, that for many years we didn't hear much from the Beach Boys themselves about Smile -- except that they were trying to finish it, or that one track or another was coming out. The first draft of history was largely from Brian's confidants during the time -- and they had their perspective. But it certainly wasn't the only one.

True, but we've gotten a lot of chatter from The Beach Boys in the intervening years regarding SMILE, so now we have the luxury of picking and choosing which perspective to believe (if it matters).. or just letting it be and letting the happy ending to the saga that happened in 2004 be the thing....

I hope so too. out of the blue a few years ago all my fingers went trigger. and carpal tunnel in both hands. hurts like hell. had surgery on both hands for the carpal tunnel and so far surgery on 8 of my fingers. still have 2 fingers to fix. luckily the surgery fix is not that bad and it fixes the problem. so if he has the surgeries he should be ok.  but those conditions are a bitch to deal with until fixed, especially the carpal tunnel. it will drive you nuts until it is fixed.

I've had tendinitis and trigger thumb/finger from too much computer and tablet use. Once I cut back when I had some days off work, they went away for awhile. I now make sure to take lots of short breaks and hand position changes/stretches on my job, where I use my laptop and tablet all day long. I wonder how much of Van Dyke's problem was caused by or made worse by those devices. He sure is on Twitter a lot, and posts lots of links, so he must get his fair share of electronic device use.

Please, I'm missing something here. What mystery? APUSA? I love solving mysteries but have no clue what this is about. That song is ancient. I hear the bridge in my head but even if I go and listen to it I'd still be lost. Not the bridge, but I went to Euclid Beach in the late 50's. My dear grandmother took me in the middle of the Summer, in the middle of the week, in the middle of the day. It was surrealistic! Set the plate for Cedar Point the rest of my life.

Plus some of the witness seems to be actively ignored imo, ie. re. VDP and BW's relationship and it's effect. Doesn't change anything but a sort of hole in the conversation and a misrepresentation imo.

To Tricycle Rider: I have the same problems posting, a lot of times what I'm thinking comes out looking/feeling different as it appears on the page! Many times the mood and spirit of what I'm thinking comes off more harsh or "finger pointing" than what I'm thinking at the time. I get caught up in the emotion.

Commenting in general on this thread, I do need to add that some things are, in fact, a case of black and white. What happened is actually what happened, and some points can't be shaded into whatever level of "gray" fits an opinion or even an agenda. The problem with these specific issues is that so much of what has been written as commentary or opinion is entered into the lexicon as "fact", and that goes both ways. I've personally been involved in long discussions here and other places where some long-held myths have been "busted" by simply looking at the facts. It's fine to look at a set of events and analyze them, then interpret them into an opinion. But when that gets entered into the record alongside the facts, and no disclaimer is present, that's when I think the bigger problems start multiplying.

I can compare this to the early days of Napster, MyPlay lockers, and any other mp3 sharing systems where you could download and upload anything and call it anything with no attached information. So I do remember even with Smile tracks some completely wrong, completely bogus tracks being labeled and passed around as Smile Sessions, let's say, and in some cases it was pure nonsense. In some cases some enterprising unknown performers labeled their own covers or instrumental noodlings as Smile material, and it got passed around to who knows how many unknowing fans who were hearing some guy with a DAW recording his own stuff and seeing it passed around as Smile music.

Why even mention those few cases? Because it left open a possibility of a total misrepresentation of what Smile actually was. That Ant-Bee "Worms"...An in-joke for decades, but at the same time how many people for years who got a Smile boot or copy of one thought that was a legit Smile recording? It takes away from the uniqueness and special nature of the original to have a random musician's work being considered part of what some fans like me consider among the best music of the 20th century.

So I feel very much the same when opinions - and let me clarify opinions on any side of the Smile discussion - are passed off in the same way.

Now what really bugs me across the board beyond Smile are ham-fisted attempts at revisionist history. Again, there are some things, some parts of the equation which are solid fact, absolutes if you will.

The easiest and most lazy way of playing the revisionist history game would be to simply ignore, discredit, or completely erase those facts from the "official record". That way, anyone who didn't already know those facts will read the "new reality" version, devoid of those facts and points, and will read a version of events that was based on incomplete data to a point.

Simple equation: A+B+C = D.  If someone has proven that equation beyond doubt, they've used three absolute components or variables to prove it. Now, if someone comes along later and either changes or even removes the "C" component, it totally changes the equation, right? It doesn't necessarily mean they've shown the original solution to be faulty, or the original equation to be less than absolute fact, but rather they've changed the variables to prove their own equation, or even worse to change the original variables to disprove or discredit the original solution (or the person who originally proved it).

How does this tie in?

Again, I point to the Vosse and Anderle magazine pieces, both appearing less than two years after the original Smile happenings. They both specifically mention Brian and Van Dyke Parks butting heads, having some conflicts, both being very headstrong and perhaps a little arrogant and clashing on various issues. But they were also very unique talents who were regularly pushing one another to higher levels of creativity. That's common among creative types, talented artistic types, and the like.

Point is, this issue of Brian and Van Dyke butting heads was on the record since 1967, I don't know if anyone disputes that. But alongside those issues were also specific reports of tensions within the group, and tensions between family members regarding the direction of the band and specifically the direction of the music. Some of that tension is also described as having an effect on Brian and how he was working on the project.

For specifics, again I suggest reading those articles. Because it's there in black and white. And the point is, it's fine to entertain any fan opinions and analysis in 2014, including my own. But what I don't agree with is trying to revise or even remove certain facets of those original accounts in order to suit a specific opinion, or dare I say an agenda. When you have articles like the Vosse and Anderle pieces which cover a wide range of topics as I mentioned above, and report a variety of factors that were at work in 1966-67, it's there in black and white.

If someone wants to try shading some of that into a gray area open to revision and whatnot, I'm curious to hear which specific parts of those Vosse or Anderle pieces they would consider to have been proven incorrect, untrue, or otherwise subject to discredit based on use of faulty info.

And understand, I get so involved in this stuff because the music means a lot to me and has since i first heard it. I just think a fair telling of the story isn't much to ask in return.

I'm sure Mike and Brian butted heads now and then. Who works with people on big budget projects without disagreements?

VDP has a strange way of verbalizing his thoughts.  But they're always so damn sincere.

For example -- I think the "convenient for Brian and wife" comment simply means that it was a good time to revisit the project.  For whatever reason.  Brian was in a good place.  Brian feeling he needed closure.  Whatever it was -- it was convenient for them.

What does it say when the only person seemingly capable of successfully verbalizing their thoughts in this entire Beach Boys saga was Dennis??

I don't think VDP likes being continually asked about "Smile." I think he'd rather be known for other things, like writing music. He doesn't even think Brian is a genius, either. Someone asked him the other day if Brian is a genius and he said that's what Derek Taylor wanted people to believe. Chilly!

I suppose it is about nuance. There is resistance yet beautiful singing while the most antagonistic situation isn't antagonistic, it is great love. There is great respect and simpatico and then resentment and falling out yet gratitude and faithfulness. It's complicated but simple. 

Weird...your post count says 'leet'.  That's quite odd :lol

 ???

If I'm not mistaken, "leet" is a sub for number "1337" (or ...8? not sure). Sth. to do with the digital age.

I think it's interesting that BW and VDP parted ways in 1967, artistically, but later on would be partying together throughout the early 70s. That always struck me as a bit weird.

VDPs still worked with Brian artistically after '67 - cowriting Sail On Sailor together. So it's not too odd that they'd be partying together during the early '70s.

When Brian Wilson sought to migrate into the counter-revolution, he needed to break

the habit of excess that was in the feel-good sleepwalk of the Eisenhower era.

 thats a funny way to say Mike Love?

One of my favorite moments in Beach Boy history is as described in the Stephen Gaines book, Heroes and Villains -- when VDP comes in to save the Holland album.  He says to a bunch of record execs "I think I have the song to save the album..." and plays a home demo tape of him and Brian working on Sail On, Sailor.

On the tape you hear Brian saying "hypnotize me, Van... make me think I'm not crazy."  And Van says "cut the sh-t, Brian.  Finish the song."  It was a bizarre, surreal moment to everyone in the room.  Apparently, the version they heard was amazing, and much better than the finished song.  I want to hear that tape!!


So... to me, that is kind of illustrative of Brian's and Van's relationship.  Van -- who always struck me as a very sensitive, intelligent and attuned person -- must have seen Brian's case as unique enough to provide little sympathy for its state.  Perhaps he saw it as a combination of excess and stardom and pampering.  Cuz, for Van to see Brian's plight as "sh-t" which needed to be "cut" is very priceless to me.  Priceless.

I think fan opinions of what happened to Smile have changed back and forth over the years - Leaf's book influenced people to see it as a Mike Love/group vs. Brian conflict, despite much evidence to the contrary or at least ignoring multiple other factors.  The conflicts between Van and Brian went to the background, although the evidence was always there.  Now there seems to be a fan swing towards the conflicts of Van Dyke and Brian being a primary factor, which is equally lopsided.  I think that's what the poster was trying to say, not that we should form our opinions based on fan opinions without direct information from the participants - although I might add a fan opinion based on the published interviews and video clips from the participants can be just as informed as anyone else's opinion.

I'd take that with a grain of salt since Gaines despised everything they did post Pet Sounds.....

The same story was related in Rolling Stone, was it not?  Wasn't that the source for the description in Gaines?

And of course not even a single soul ANYWHERE would dare to enjoy anything despised by Mr. Gaines? 

I meant that if Gaines already hated the released version, it's not saying much for him to proclaim the cassette demo as better.

"cut the sh-t Brian" is quite poignant though.

If true, I see it as a Van's disgust with this amazing talent allowing himself (fully or partly) to become so embarrassingly unfocused and shambled.  Mental illness or not -- Brian was a waste-oid, wallowing in the luxury of his fantasy world.  A doped up, eccentric, perpetual kid.  Madness or not -- Brian appeared to have chosen that path somewhat -- to Van at least.

(http://do512blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/anigif_enhanced-buzz-15093-1377202096-43.gif)

I think VDP and Brian too, have moved past Smile.  The group did with Wild Honey. Carl produced most if not all of that album, and it is a great record. Brian and VDP, being the guys who were point men on the Smile project were not able to move past Smile. Both mens' reactions to questions about it prior to 2004 were filled with exasperation. In a 40 year period, the Smile question was the one that was least wanted and most horrid to answer. So, they began to obfuscate....Brian more than VDP, but both of them were tired of the Smile topic. They got together, made it performable, and knocked it out of the park. They have moved on, VDP has recorded several albums since 1967, and Brian has a long body of solo work behind him now. Smile is done in both mens' minds to their satisfaction. VDP has cut some tremendous music since 2004, as has Brian. The Smile question is no longer a burr in both mens' saddles, and what they are conversant about is their most recent work, which is totally understandable. Any debate about whose fault the 1967 project was can only be speculative. I love the boxed set that Tom, Alan, Mark, Dennis, and Capitol did. I also love the 2004 project. Both projects won a Grammy, and were received well in the world of music criticism. There comes a time when the whole enterprise begins to resemble tearing wings off of butterflies. Some questions are not answerable, at least to history's satisfaction. Smile is one of them.

One side note/issue before Smile: Carl produced most if not all of Wild Honey? I don't hear or see that. It's not "competitive Brian" in the studio from 1965-66, he admittedly pulled back and simplified the style, but his unique vibe and feel is still on the best of those tracks. "Darlin" was Brian's backing track 100% that they laid BB's voices on top of the session players' tracks from Redwood...Country Air, Aren't You Glad, Let The Wind Blow, I Was Made To Love Her, I'd Love Just Once To See You...I'm sorry, I can't hear those as "mostly Carl" especially since Carl was still learning how to cut a record in 1967, and those have that unique Brian vibe enough to disagree Carl was producing them or anything close to that kind of record in 1967. And the arrangements are 100% "Brian" sonically even if he wasn't as deep in the studio trenches as he was a year earlier. There is a difference between Carl getting more involved in the production and suggesting he produced most if not all of the album, which I don't think he had developed the "chops" to do in '67. "How She Boogalooed It"? *That* I can see Carl producing with what he knew in '67, it sounds that way.

Was "Friends" mostly Carl too, or was that Brian stepping back into the fold for one personal album then dropping out again?

I don't feel Brian or VDP have moved past Smile since 2004. VDP is still being asked about it in nearly every interview he does and the average pop fan thinks of little else than Smile whenever his name comes up. That hasn't changed at all in recent years. He would probably prefer to be asked about Clang of the Yankee Reaper or whatever instead but unlike Smile, it is not what people usually think about when it comes to the definite high points in all of pop music. And Brian's solo work has been full of little moments somewhat reminiscent of Smile (like the Heigh-Ho/Whistle While You Work arrangement on the Disney record), probably in order to make people think, wow, that sounds like Smile, he's still got it!

Thanks Pinder, I appreciate that vote of confidence. (really)  :)

Thanks guitarfool, for not leaving me out there alone!

I tell you, you'd never know that (the problems posting thing) by reading your posts. I've gotten so much from your posts that I actually started archiving them a while back. (I hope that's alright with you) I especially like the technical conversations about studio techniques, microphones, reverb chambers etc...

About getting caught up in the emotion thing, that's almost impossible NOT to do with music as magical and brilliant as this.

God bless those Beach Boys  :)

Here's a point to consider: I put a challenge of sorts into one of my posts to show that something either Vosse or Anderle wrote in '67 and '69 can be proven untrue, or even complete mythology. I've read the idea previously where it's not what Vosse said but what he didn't say that can be questioned, but I'll say let's focus just on what appeared in those interviews...is anything false or even "wrong" that can be shown to be wrong? I think they cover a wide range of topics, across the board. For comments on drugs...see Brian's interviews on that topic through the decades. And if we focus on what's not said, that creates an impossible standard for journalism across the board, down to the restaurant reviewer who could be challenged because he ordered, ate, and reviewed the Filet Mignon dinner but didn't say a word about the salmon which he didn't order. It doesn't make his thoughts on the Filet at that restaurant any less valid.

I think, again, there are some absolutes along with the speculations. But when the speculators intentionally ignore or omit some of the absolutes, in the form of eyewitness accounts which are shared by more than one person, it becomes revisionist if not false history that doesn't serve a purpose beyond that person seeking to revise it.

So here's my motivation, my "game" in all of this. I'm a musician who was simply blown away by Smile, as other musicians were and are and always will be. I never heard music that sounded like that, or which was structured like that. I never got over hearing 30+ minutes of it in one sitting, that first time I was able to do so going track to track. And since then, I've collected, gathered, and sought out anything related to Smile I could find. I love the music, and consider it probably the most forward-thinking and unique music of the 20th century when it was created, across all styles and genres including advanced jazz and classical/modern/avant garde.

The fact that people in 2004 were saying similar things, commenting on how modern or even futuristic this music sounded in 2004 considering it was mostly created in 1966-67 by a man in his mid-20's, suggested I wasn't alone in thinking this went beyond "pop music" and what boundaries were in place for labeling it.

So when I see Smile and the whole era of 1966-67 depicted in a clusterfuck of a "Beach Boys" TV movie, where Brian was reduced to a drug-addled mess who played with toy animals in the studio, while hangers-on and dope fiends like "Tommy" or whatever the producers had to rename Van Dyke's character to avoid a lawsuit were engaging Brian's dopey whims...only to have Mike step in and save Brian from all this nonsense by cowriting Good Vibrations with him...

...Yeah, I thought that was complete crap. It put something other than the truth onto the legacy of the music that I and others were convinced was among the most glorious music of that century, and turned it into a complete laughingstock. Smile even on the session tapes we all know now is so far removed from that image, yet here was a TV movie, supposedly "official" being shown to millions on ABC suggesting it was a drug-fueled orgy of self indulgence and unsavory characters there to distract Brian from writing music with his cousin. Complete nonsense.

Fortunately 2004 and then 2012 helped put that movie into the oblivion it deserved.

And even in 2012, though...those Smile "webisodes" on YouTube where band members are on camera describing Smile as they remembered it. Did people believe that? It was great PR to help sell the box set and sell that communal band spirit in the moment, but how true was it?  

So I do think as long as there are people promoting that version of Smile as seen on YouTube or on ABC or anywhere else, some folks can and will be there to dispute it. And while it's not as overt or ridiculous, I do see attempts to paint over certain parts of the story as already told in print by some direct participants as heading too far in that direction.

Well, how untrue is it? Mike's been telling his side very consistently for decades. So neither he nor Brian chose to talk about confrontations in 2011. It doesn't make what they did say in the webisodes untrue.

So was the Beatles' Anthology, so was Beautiful Dreamer and so on. I don't remember Van Dyke talking about problems he may have had with Brian as a writing partnership in Beautiful Dreamer. He apparently prefers to spill 'em out in his blog and interviews.  :)

Anyway... I think we all agree 99% on 'what happenned during Smile'. Mike would rather be recording a more commercial yet artistic album, Brian didn't feeel like finishing the album for n reasons and Van Dyke wrote lyrics enough to fill a double album, got signed by Warner and focused on his first solo album. Going on and on about the 1% is fun, I guess.

My asking "how true was it" is a rhetorical question. If you want to take those YouTube interviews at face value, as the correct version of events, you're believing what amounts to a whitewash. Not as egregious as the ABC TV movie, but mining the same kind of thought.

But again, here comes the same old-same old kind of dance that's been going on here for some time. Let's say various band members on camera say (as they did) how much they liked the music, how enthusiastic they were about it when Brian presented it to them: That's the version of events that goes into the record?

Hey, they all liked it! Nothing to see here, all of the reports to the contrary are not to be considered in light of interviews 40+ years after the fact done as promotional tools to sell a new box set where everyone who saw tensions, discussions, and even outright disputes over the music and ideas about the direction of the band related to this music (and how it affected Brian, too) simply got it wrong, or willingly misrepresented what they saw and heard firsthand for some personal agenda.

Again, I ask: Where Vosse and Anderle to name two wrote about these things, were they lying? Or is there something that can be presented to the contrary to dispute what they witnessed? Or was Smile really a case of the scene depicted in that ABC movie? If so, then even that turkey of a film would contradict the notion that they were on board with the Smile music, because the "Mike" character wouldn't have had to step in and "save" the Brian character from all these negative influences and distractions so they could finish Good Vibrations and make hit records again if the music was embraced across the board...or whatever snake oil that movie was selling.  :-D

I'm don't dispute anything Anderle or Vosse said but some of what they said is stated as fact and some of it stated as presumption/speculation. "I think what" this and "I think" that and "I knew what that meant" etc.. Isn't it?

I think you're mixing their comments on Smile tracks and fragments they heard but didn't know what they were on a larger scale with their observations of what they actually witnessed and heard in terms of interactions and events. In both cases, they are clear and concise with what they saw happening, as in certain tensions and disputes among band members and participants...including, important to note, the way Brian and Van Dyke would clash.

Can this be any more clear:

Anderle: "You could do a trilogy just on the lives of The Beach Boys. There is so much emotion, and drama, in that family, much more than I've ever seen in any other family, and everything directly affects Brian. Brian is always conscious of those boys, continually conscious of them, as brothers and as human beings. Very seldom as an act. Again, that's why, a great reason why Smile wasn't finished, the way Brian wanted it, because of their resistance in the studio.


Now, I could list more examples where this resistance is not only mentioned but also described, not just by Anderle and Vosse but also by others, but it's all out there to be read and heard.  And it wasn't speculation or opinion when they saw this kind of thing happen and report it firsthand. They don't "think" some band members and family clashed with Brian, they saw it happening. Vosse had to sit there and suffer through Murry Wilson telling him how much of a mistake Good Vibrations had been and how Brian did this or that as a mistake, even as it was becoming one of the most successful singles of 1966...he reported what he saw and heard.

Unless we can try to twist it around, and where Vosse may have seen an argument going down in the studio among bandmates, he was sorely mistaken and actually saw everyone patting Brian on the back and good times all around, all the time. The arguments were probably about where to order takeout for dinner that night, because as we heard on YouTube everyone welcomed the new music with open minds and open arms.  :)

It's not about putting these different "elements" of the story higher or lower in importance, but it is about not deliberately whitewashing entire parts out of the story to boost others.

Thanks Bicyclerider  :)

David Leaf's book WAS my introduction to the "inner" world of The Beach Boys, and you're right, it definitely gave you the idea that it was a "Mike Love/group vs. Brian conflict". I vaguely recall a story after the book was published about David Leaf being in the same room with Mike Love (at a fan convention or something?) and Mike was glaring at him. I can't remember now where I heard/read that. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that book.

In regards to "Now there seems to be a fan swing towards the conflicts of Van Dyke and Brian being a primary factor, which is equally lopsided.  I think that's what the poster was trying to say, not that we should form our opinions based on fan opinions without direct information from the participants". That IS what I was trying to say, but it just didn't come out right.  

EDIT: I see I've posted right between Cam and guitarfool2002 having a discussion. Just my luck! I didn't mean to interrupt fellas, I started this post about an hour ago, but got pulled away from the computer before I could finish, and hit Post. Just ignore me, I'm the guy in the corner with the lampshade over his head. (i'm not here!)  :)
 

From what I read over the years, I found Anderle & Vosse quite a bit Brian-centric. It really is a shame that there wasn't a person there who didn't have some kind of agenda going on. At this point all you can do is weigh all the sides reporting and glean from that information what really went down. Even then, you still will never know exactly.

That would make sense if they're talking mostly about Brian during this time because they were closer to Brian both in a business sense and in a personal sense with Brian than anyone else. They can speak about things that happened when the Beach Boys weren't there, things they did with Brian, conversations they had with Brian, etc. That's just part of how the story played out due to the scheduling and the way things were done at this time. I'd argue Michael Vosse saw firsthand more of Smile coming together at Brian's house and in the studio than Bruce, Al, Mike, and possibly even Dennis as they were simply not there for a lot of the instrumental sessions, or the various writing and studio sessions with Van Dyke. Van Dyke, I believe, has also said he really didn't see that much of the band members because his work writing and playing on the sessions was done without Mike or Al, for example, being present.

But when they did interact with band and family, they did see some events unfold which they mentioned and described. And they also had more access to Brian and in conversations outside the band's business he would naturally talk about certain things which again they reported, but which the other band and family may not have heard.

Remember when Hal Blaine got called to be a witness in Mike's lawsuit? The lawyers asked him about certain songs, certain sessions, and what he could testify about Mike's involvement in those songs. And Hal basically said he didn't see that much of Mike in the studio as he was recording some of the tracks in question because Mike simply was not there for those instrumental tracking dates, and more often Mike would be in studio to record vocals after Hal's job was done. And, of course, Hal would not be there for a vocal group session since he didn't sing and wasn't needed there.

So the lawyers may have been expecting Hal to report something he just wasn't able to report, while his direct dealings with Brian in the studio were more of a regular thing where the Beach Boys (minus Carl most often) weren't there when Hal was there, especially into 1966.

I'd say consider some of that with Vosse and Anderle too before casting them as Brian-centric, or using that to suggest a far-reaching agenda. If Anderle was there to manage the band and set up Brother Records, he would be crazy to "take sides" when he was still there as his success depended on the band's success, and trying to pick sides in what were family issues going back to Hawthorne wouldn't serve a purpose. He was there to make them money. A few months after leaving the Brother operation, he gives the interview: Does he call out anyone specific in that interview? If anything you'd think he'd have the bigger axe to grind with Brian, who hired him and then in about a year Anderle was out the door...yet Nick Grillo remained. Does Anderle go negative on anyone, including Brian? Does Vosse, for that matter? They deliberately avoid naming names, even when Anderle is asked directly if there was a "ringleader" in the resistance he mentions.

Of course it was a whitewash. But you can whitewash without lying. Since we're talking about Mike... if he says he liked the music, he isn't lying since we know for sure that he really liked GV, H&V and Wonderful. If he doesn't say that he never argued with Brian with Brian about the direction the group's music was taking he isn't lying. If he doesn't say he loved the lyrics he isn't lying.

There may be multiple truths without a lie involved.

There was also some bullshit offered to us in the last decades by Mrs Wilson, Parks and Love, in a very self-serving way. But they're human and I forgive them. It's that 1% I was talking about.

Any event holds just as much truth and unique perspective from any/all parties involved. Anderle and Vosse's statements are key, but they were not the only people involved. If this were a trial (for the murder of SMILE) would the jury be instructed to ONLY take their testimony into consideration? Of course not! The accused would also either take the stand or be equally represented. And in the case of SMILE it would doubtlessly be a hung jury....

I will let Brian Wilson himself answer guitarfool's Wild Honey question….In a January 2013 interview in Uncut Magazine, Brian shared that "It was always a challenge for me to live up to my name. It was a really big thing for me. People expected me to come up with great orchestral stuff all the time and it became a burden. I was getting tired of it. It still happens, too, but you just learn to live with it.  So the other guys started getting more into the production side of things. Carl [Wilson] really got into that. And we decided to make a rhythm ’n ’blues record. We consciously made a simpler album. It was just a little R’n’B and soul. It certainly wasn’t like a regular Beach Boys record. It was good to go back to the boogie-woogie piano I’d grown up with. Dear old Dad [Murry Wilson] taught me how to play that stuff when I was young. In its way, it’s very nostalgic. And we used the theremin again for 'Wild Honey'. Carl had fun singing on that."

Regarding Friends, the tracks that Brian has said that he recorded in past interviews are Diamond Head, Busy Doin' Nothin', Passing By (he left this unfinished), Friends, Transcendental Meditation, and Be Here In the Morning. Mixdown production was by Carl Wilson. Friends was not issued in Mono in the USA.

Not to sound rude, but I don't see how that quote states or even implies that Carl produced Wild Honey.

Brian directly implies, no states, that Carl and the other Beach Boys got more involved with the production end of things, at the time of Wild Honey. Especially Carl!

It's not saying CARL PRODUCED WILD HONEY, but when you're the creative leader/producer of a band and you directly state, that beginning with THIS album the other band members, especially this one guy, starting getting more involved in the production side ...... it at least clearly implies that each and every note on the album was not thanks solely to that unique Brian thing.

Oh wow, rereading that...I'm an idiot. Somehow I missed that sentence and only took away the "Carl really got into that" and "Carl had fun singing that" parts. My bad, guys.

I think it's a difference in terminology, and without wanting to get too much into a back-and-forth, there was a dividing line in 1967 between producing and mixing a record. Those production decisions that got the song to the stage where it would be balanced and mixed, even those pre-production decisions like instrumentation and arrangement...I have to say I think Carl was skilled but it could have been a combination of not being skilled enough yet to fully take the production helm, and Brian was still putting his sonic stamp on those tracks.

I base that a lot on my ears, as well as the output of the band from 67-68-69. I'll say one thing, "I Can Hear Music" sounds terrific, but it's basically Carl's throwing in Brian's sonic tricks and whatnot into that production. Great record. But when I hear Wild Honey, especially Darlin and Aren't You Glad, to name two, they are Brian's productions to my ears even before Carl was there to do the final mixing decisions.Well, Darlin was Brian's all the way, again the BB's just tacked their vocals on the tracks Brian did for Redwood.

I also think it's no accident that many of the tracks that really stand out on WH-Friends-20/20 were either Brian's leftovers, Brian's projects for other artists, or Brian's concepts from the beginning no matter who eventually mixed them down. Compare the sonics of "How She Boogalooed It" to Aren't You Glad for one example, down to the bare basics of how the song was written and arranged, and in '67 Carl just wasn't there yet but was learning by the day...IMO.

The suggestion in question originally was that Carl produced most if not all of Wild Honey, and my ears just don't hear that enough to agree.  :)

I get a very distinctive Brian vibe from Friends. Sounds like he was pretty much in charge for this one, encouraging the others to make some contributions and working together with Carl (who I guess was still partly in the process of learning, about to make huge leaps forward after this particular record). Sunflower, on the other hand, doesn't feel half as much like a Brian production. It clearly wasn't.

Brian definitely produced Darlin', I'd Love Just Once to See You (confirmed by him when I raved about it to him), Mama Says, and Let the Wind Blow. The rest were produced by a combination of Carl, Bruce, and Alan.

I don't hear Brian's "sonic stamp" in any defining way on much of Wild Honey at all...... Frankly, the album sounds like total shite (sonically, not material-wise) , and little like anything the band had ever done before, which I might be tempted to prescribe to a newbie like Carl doing much of the work (along with Al, Bruce) Unless we're just gonna round up and count bass, drums, guitar, keys, vocals, other instruments being recorded in any configuration by the Beach Boys as being evidence of Brian's sonic stamp. The dominating "sonic stamp" on that album, to me, is the organ and piano, which wasn't all Brian all the time, right? Carl had obviously learned much by the time of I Can Hear Music. I don't think it's fair to say he was simply aping Brian's sonic tricks because ......... why wouldn't he want the track to sound like it was ......... The Beach Boys? That was his job: to carry on the tradition. It was going to sound like Brian's "sonic tricks" no matter what with Carl Wilson singing lead anyway. This is like saying that Brian has spent his entire career simply aping Phil Spector. Brian didn't write the song or produce the track, so the credit goes to Carl. If Brian was there and making suggestions, then sure: but then wouldn't this sort of thing, in respect, have made the other Beach Boys, The Wrecking Crew, Chuck Britz, and Murray part of this sonic stamp from day one?

Carl was the only Beach Boys member to somewhat consistently play Brian's post '64 studio dates up through Smile with the Wrecking Crew. He began shadowing Brian for learning production as early as late 64. He learned Brian's methods by being at sessions in a similar manner to Brian observing Spector from late '63 onward.

Pure coincidence...It's 5:48PM as I'm reading the board, listening to WXPN and the show "Many Moods Of Ben Vaughn". His theme today is "whistling songs"...guess what he played?

"Whistle In"   :)

Tell me anyone, when was the last time you heard Whistle In on an FM radio broadcast? I love radio, XPN is doing as good as I've heard any station in the past 20 years with their programming. Ben Vaughn is an unabashed Beach Boys fan, especially 67-72 era, he plays that overlooked era all the time.  Highly recommend both

Missed not just the point, but several points. If you don't hear what I describe as Brian's sonic stamp, let's call it the "vibe" of the tracks he produced to simplify the term, I'd suggest listening to the differences. Some people have and do, to the point of teaching college-level classes on the way Brian made records.

The Brian legacy and reputation some don't want to see magnified is, in fact, deserved, and the reasons why can mostly be found on the Capitol label from the 60's. Orange swirl for 45's, rainbow and black for albums.  :)

Next point.

Carl was basically serving an apprenticeship and learning on the job under his brother's mentorship in the studio. I'll chalk some of this up to a misunderstanding of the term "producer" and producing a record as it was defined in the 60's. And even by the late 60's, that definition changed. Subject for another discussion.

What do you think that Smile-era track "Tune X" was for Carl? Plans were in the works to allow band members to bring in artists and produce them for Brother in '67, just as Apple Records tried to become in 1968. Did Carl ever produce a record before Tune X? Did Carl even write, arrange, or do anything but perform on a Beach Boys record or song before 1967? Tune X wasn't even a record, necessarily, I always saw that as Carl's entry into the producer's chair in the studio, call it "on the job training" and call the session and resulting track an experiment. He had been observing Brian, Brian had been showing him the ropes so to speak, now when he was ready to try out a full session on his own, he got "Tune X".

Seriously, is it any accident that Carl's first production sounds exactly like a Smile track like his brother Brian had been cutting over the previous months? Again, where am I going wrong to the point where that's being argued?

If you learn how to make violins under an apprenticeship with a master violin craftsman, what do you think your first attempt at making a violin will look like? Could it be that you're going to apply what you've been learning and observing from your mentor, and copying certain elements and styles of work when you do get your chance to try it on your own?

Now, tell me again how I'm so f***ed up on thinking Brian has a sonic stamp or trademark that can be identified in his productions when he was involved. And tell me again how the notion of Carl as an inexperienced producer in 1967 and even 1968 who would apply the techniques he had observed and learn from Brian over the previous three or more years in the studio would not come out sounding more like Brian?

Whether it's painful to admit or not, there are thousands if not more professional producers, engineers, musicians, arrangers, etc who recognize and can identify and even analyze Brian's "sound" on his productions.

How and why is this a point of dispute?  :-\

OK, well, I guess you can chalk up one producer, arranger, singer, musician, writer, who doesn't exactly dispute your points or miss them, but simply sees it as a bit more shaded. That's all.... Yes, Brian has a "sonic stamp" ..... Problem is, this sonic stamp is too wrapped up in the identity of The Beach Boys to really be an all too identifiable thing somehow removed from the voices and talents of the other Beach Boys or the players on his cuts. My point with Wild Honey is that, aside from maybe Darlin, nothing on the album (not even hardcore Brian tracks like I'd Love Just Once To See You) especially sound like anything he'd done before. This just means that both others had a serious hand in the song construction, arranging, playing, and producing, and that Brian's own "sonic stamp" is more versatile and sneaky than people tend to seem to want to allow it to be. This has always been a disservice to Brian, I feel. People seem to want to bully him and history into conforming to something that, in a large part, does not exist in any clear cut, black & white form. Which is fine, but you can't sit there and state opinions and impressions as solid fact when these supposed solids break down upon inspection. And someone disagreeing with you in part is not necessarily them missing all your points. Humans have the ability to disagree without that necessitating missing points. It's not a matter of not wanting Brian's legacy to not be magnified. What on earth would be the motivation behind that? Some people just don't like seeing it inflated beyond reason until it comes off as nothing but a cage ..... Sure people teach classes on how Brian makes records, but they also teach classes on how Bob Dylan makes records, and Bob Dylan did everything he could to not make records in any way someone would bother trying and teaching, yet they do it anyway. Big deal. I don't understand how everything has to be HOW THE HELL AM I WRONG????? on this board. Like it or not, but we can intellectualize music and how it's made in every which way/direction/spirit possible, and this truth leads to wildly varying impressions, feelings, views, personal experiences with the music.

Now, this is JUST MY OPINION, but as a listener: Brian's "sonic stamp" up until Pet Sounds was to basically take garage-band basic tracks by The Boys and more fleshed out Wrecking Crew bass/drums/guitar/keys tracks and spruce them up with extra instruments and production flourishes ...... Aside from the songwriting (many co-writes) and production flourishes/extra arrangements, these were basically rock n roll tracks with the player's personalities and Beach Boy voices doing much of the work as an end result. No knock in the slightest against Brian. This is awesome stuff. Nothing but oodles of goodness to love ... Then comes Pet Sounds/SMILE ..... if anything: THIS is Brian's clearly identifiable sonic stamp ...... Wild Honey, to me, sounds like we're back to the garage band days with The Boys and with little vocal arranging or extra instrument flourish. It sounds like a band with Brian Wilson as a member. And it sounds clearly like someone else produced the thing. Yeah, it sounds like Brian because he's there, this is The Beach Boys, but it doesn't sound like anything that came before. So Carl did much of the production? Big deal. I wish Brian had done the full deal on it and that it sounded as full and lush as Friends (and album chock full of Brian's sonic stamp) but I love the thing  just the same ........

So, I guess what I REALLY meant is that, sure Brian has a sonic-stamp (that can be dissected, interpreted/recognized in varying ways) but it's not clearly evident in any obvious way on Wild Honey. And it certainly doesn't sound like anyone trying to ape him. To my ears, and maybe mine only, by this time, each Beach Boy (Carl and Dennis especially) was rapidly developing their own identities that were quite removed from much if not most of what had come before. For example: much of the Production work on Surf's Up, CATP, Holland, and to an extent, certain Sunflower cuts don't really smack of Brian much at all. Again, big deal. Brian's still a genius.

oops

Didn`t you name Aren`t You Glad as an example though which Peter Reum then stated wasn`t produced by Brian?

Which surely means that it isn`t quite so simple...

Surely nothing. Peter also originally suggested Carl produced most if not the whole thing. That turned out to be not so simple, either, but you probably missed that since you said nothing about it.  :)   I didn't say Carl produced the whole thing, nor did I say Brian produced the whole thing. But who was still the go-to guy in the band for production decisions and issues, not to mention the only Beach Boy in fall 1967 who could write a song besides Bruce who didn't contribute any songs to the band until the next year? Al? Carl? C'mon. However much or little Brian did on an hourly basis in the studio, go ahead and debate that. But don't write Brian or his influence (and stature) as producer of the band out of the story entirely. He handed it off to Carl, he wanted Carl to become more active that way. Is that saying he bailed out entirely and disappeared? Is that saying we should credit the album to Carl's production skills? That's simple, no...it's common sense. No.

Read the Preiss book for some quotes from Jim Lockert who engineered Wild Honey, quotes from Carl, etc. Among the quotes:

Carl is quoted as saying Brian was the one who wanted to move the band into an R&B direction with the album. Sounds like a producer's call, that one, before they even started the actual recording. Remember there was some harsh criticism of the band and the vocal sound they were known for at the time...Brian most likely wanted to toughen up their sound a bit to counter that with R&B. Perhaps? But whose musical call would that have been? Carl? He wasn't writing anything.

Lockert describes the recording process as being close to what he had to do with Smiley Smile. It sounds deceptively simple, that mix, right? And kind of muddy, similar to Smiley? Lockert said WH was done in fragments and pieces, instrumentally and vocally. He says he did the piece-by-piece, section-by-section method of building the tracks from different tapes and takes, like he described on Smiley. That could account for some of the problems in the mix, right? He also described the record making it sound almost like the White Album, where this time each member was bringing some things to the table, ideas, etc. More democratic and open than it had been earlier. That suggests there was that openness vibe happening where the decisions were opened up to the band, and each had ideas. But there was still one guy who was the most skilled at producing a song in the band.

Carl says Brian asked him to get "more involved" in the recording/production of the album, "he was tired" or something like that.

Is that saying Carl produced most if not all of the album? That's already been countered. Is asking Carl to get more involved in the production akin to giving a two-week notice before quitting the job entirely? No. Again, I never made a point that Carl was not involved. My issue was he wasn't as involved as was being suggested.

And thanks for reminding me of "Aren't You Glad"...notice there is a heartbeat rhythm in the drums right when the line "I've got a heart that just won't stop beating for you.". Hmmm...on Don't Talk from Pet Sounds there is a similar heartbeat sound played instrumentally after the line "listen to my heartbeat", that whole thing of Brian using instrumental parts to represent things like heartbeats, or a fire, or water, or railroad spike being hammered in was a musical trip Brian was on at various times in 66-67, and even before using sounds to represent things or ideas.

So much for that stuff about sonic trademarks, right? So if it wasn't Brian himself producing it, and let's say Al or Carl or Bruce were calling the shots on that tune which Brian and Mike wrote (unless that's inaccurate too)...then they were nicking one of Brian's sonic tricks, right?  :)

Aren't You Glad never utters the word "heartbeat" so I hardly think Dennis playing "duh duh"  after "I got a heart" (also played after "I got a love" and also in the instrumental sections) is some Brian trick related to Don't Talk, To claim so with any assurance is just as far reaching as anything else ever cast off on this board. Maybe they nicked the idea from Eddie Floyd's "Knock On Wood" ("bah bah bah") released the previous year. Were The Stones nicking an Eddie Floyd trick by doing the "bah bah" on the snare after Mick asks "Can't you hear me knocking"? ..... Were Men At Work nicking Brian, Eddie Wood, and Stones ideas when their drummer went "bah bah bah" after Colin Hay asks "Who can it be knocking at my door"?

Calm down sir.

Seriously, its posts like Nicko's right here that really get me. You have guitarfool discussing the topic at hand, about Brian and how much he produced Wild Honey and whatnot. And he provides quotes and everything to back up his post. And instead of having something constructive to add, Nicko decides to preemptively devalue guitarfool's post buy telling him to "calm down", as if he's really getting out of hand. Plain stupid.

Not trying to devalue anything...

Guitarfool`s theories may be entirely correct for all I know but he responded to one poster`s innocent comments with `Why am I so f***ed up?` and responded to a simple question of `Is it that simple?` which a lot of quotes that show that...well, it isn`t that simple at all is it.

I'd hope that nobody would be naive enough to think that the answers Brian and Mike gave weren't planned out (with certain responses made expressly off-limits) well ahead of time. There were probably contracts, stipulations, and rules. It was all in the name of PR, and I'm sure it was also an attempt at hatchet burying. But it was ultimately a whitewash, and I'm sure everyone deep in their hearts on some level knew it.

It should be noted that denial can also make many peoples' interpretations of their "side" remain consistent for decades as well.  Regardless if you think that applies to this situation or not - I think it's safe to say that a given person's consistent responses about a subject over decades' time, doesn't necessarily, by definition, mean squat.

And all this had what to do with Van Dyke Parks?

It's a digression but an interesting one.  Shouldn't the session tapes reveal who was producing the songs?  Who's calling out for another take and making arrangement changes and suggestions?  If it's Brian, then he's the producer.  If it's Carl, then he's the producer.  I know - well I've read - that for. Sunflower Brian produced some of the music tracks and left the vocals to. Carl to produce.  So it could be a mix like that going on for some of the Wild Honey tracks, as well as the. Friends tracks.  The orchestral tracks on Friends - the title track for example - I can't see Carl being able to produce at that point.  But the vocals?  Sure.

Who's to say what's "constructive" or not on here?

Sometimes only a few words are just as effective as a term paper length post/reply.

There tends to be a "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME?!!!!!!!!?" attitude that creeps up from time to time on this board and it's utter bullshite and deserves to be called out whenever someone has the tenacity.

See my last post, Reply #50.

I'd never say anyone involved with Smile has the absolute truth on his side. But the Smile Box webisodes shouldn't insult anyone, unless someone thinks Mike, Van Dyke, Brian, Banana or Louie should apologize for something that heppened 48 years ago.

I'm still upset with banana for chewing up the original lyric sheet for "Child Is The Father Of The Man"  :)

That's crossing the line and I don't appreciate it at all. If you have a problem just say it to me directly and cut the veiled personal insult routine. If you can't do that, or if you have no rational or appropriate way to reply to things that have been written by me or anyone else here, then consider dropping the kind of stuff that you just posted here entirely. If you can't discuss these things even in a heated debate kind of way without going to veiled personal insults against me or anyone else, you'll get called out like you were in other threads by posters other than me when the same stuff went down and you did the same routine.  It's not welcome, it's not funny or cool, and I promise I'm done with it for good this time. And others might be as well, but that's just speculation.

And if you don't like my paper length replies, don't read them. Your call. But don't patronize or insult me for writing what I want to write or how I want to write it. It's an open forum here, and if people have a problem with what I write here or the length or content of my posts, get in touch, let me know, and we'll talk. Or just don't read them. Plenty of words on this board to entertain, plenty of cool photos too.

Your call. Just don't drag me or how I contribute here into it. And try to man up and just come out with it directly if you do have an issue instead of using hit-and-run terms like "term paper length replies".

"Don't patronize"

That is very good advice.... Advice I suggest we both take.

There is a good deal of hypocrisy in what you're saying regarding crossing lines and inciting conflict, just as there is a bit of arrogance regarding what you consider useful postings or rational arguments, etc etc, but I won't go into it. Treat folks like you want to be treated, ya know?

What the f*** are you talking about?

I agree, that yes, sometimes it IS better a few words are just as effective. However, in this instance it wasn't. He was just trying to paint guitarfool as overemotional and out of hand, or something.

Shoot, I don't even know much about guitarfool but he is isn't posting to post or just disagreeing to disagree. He's trying to add to our understanding of past events like a few other posters here. Wish there were more here.

Fair enough but when it's OK for Guitarfool to scream in all caps in hideous exasperation that another poster might dare disagree with him, someone might have the nerve to say "calm down"

and I really can't think of a single other poster here, OSD included (in his moments) who doesn't, even from time to time in the least, add positively to our understanding of the events we love to endlessly discuss.

Guitarfool, you're one of the best posters on this board as far as I can see. I applaud you for sticking up for yourself here--you've done nothing but intelligently argue your position which is what this board should be for.

I say just ignore Pinder. He has a tendency to drag arguments on unnecessarily to the point where they become absolutely ridiculous. One of the reasons I stopped coming here for a few months was because he kept dragging me into this stupid fight about Mike Love. I wasn't being unfair or going out of my way to diss the man, but god forbid anyone have a different opinion. I wouldnt have even minded that so much if he hadn't joined in on the public taunting when I tried bumping a few older SMiLE threads--if we disagree on a topic, that's no big deal, but to join the crowd and put me down personally as a result was pretty petty I thought. I've been accused by others of not accepting criticism, so I think that last paragraph may also be a barb at me too. Which, if it is, I think it's really unfair and uncalled for. Basically what I'm saying is, he's not worth your time to argue with. Even when you best him, or point out how unreasonable he's acting, he plays the victim and/or acts like you're also in the wrong to the same extent he is. It's truly maddening.

Sorry, Pinder, but that's just my personal experience.

No offense taken, and I am fully aware of how I can come across, and I do try and stave that behavior, which is partly why I take frequent lengthy breaks from his board (I just set myself up for a wealth of barbs here) .... But I've been called out and insulted just as much as you're accusing me of doing, only it seems to be A-OK when it's certain posters doing the calling-out and insulting.... All that said, we ARE discussing things that are highly emotionally charged topics for not just some of us. This needs to be understood. The condescending tone that creeps in is the thing that always ends up getting me going, and I'll stand behind my opinion of it not always being cool.

I debate with great veracity, but I hope I haven't insulted anyone on a personal level. If I do, anyone can feel free to call me out on it, since I obviously don't like to be on the receiving end myself. I wasn't as polite to sweetdudejim as I couldve been on another thread, and it actually benefited both of us I think, when he called me out on it.

I don't think myself or anyone really has crossed the line into simply untenable behavior here on this board (well, aside from some choice personal messages I've received) and different people debate with great veracity in different ways/styles .... What on occasion bothers me with certain lengthy posts/replies is that a feeling comes across that based upon the time and effort taken to compose such posts/replies, this automatically makes disagreement especially prone to being taken as insult, irregardless of the content of said posts/replies or disagreement. I think we've seen ample evidence of this, though it is thankfully rare. But this occasional attitude of this sort of "what business do you have disagreeing with me?" type of thing, usually followed up with "polite" insults at the quality of the disagreer's contributions to the discussion is something I can't help but take issue with. Sometimes people disagree not just to put forth an opposing opinion, but also to learn.

I type long-winded replies because I'm passionate about what I'm writing about, and I want to debate my point as effectively as possible. I guess I could just say "Nope. I'm right." But that doesn't benefit anyone now, does it? This way, I can explain where I'm coming from, they can get an idea of why I disagree and maybe we can find common ground and home in on the details we still disagree with. That, to me, is an intelligent, interesting, meaningful discussion. I love it when the people I'm "arguing" with respond in kind. I guess not everyone looks at it that way, but it seems guitarfool does.

Oh, I love long posts/replies. Don't get me wrong (which I know I've made easy) and I've contributed some hefty streams of chatter myself..... I'm just describing a peculiar phenomena I've noticed in relation to certain long posts.....