The Smiley Smile Message Board

Could Mike ever have been satisfied with any answer that Van gave him? Suppose if Van actually described in detail exactly what the lyrics meant. Even if he described a detailed point-by-point explanation of each word from a literal standpoint, whether Van made-up an explanation on the spot or whether such explanation was truly a heartfelt explanation… would this ever have satisfied Mike?

Essentially, wasn’t Mike’s probing in actuality a thinly-veiled attempt to embarrass/discredit Van no matter what answer Van gave? Does anyone think that Van could have given an answer to Mike about the lyrics that would have made Mike genuinely, non-sarcastically say “ok, now I understand and accept the lyrics”? I certainly don’t think so.

It was a setup as usual for the lovester to take out his anger on VDP of being passed over for lyrics. The number one character trait of Mike is being a bully to other people and hogging credit.

I thought we already had our weekly 'Let's bash Mike thread"?

It's an actual question, which I'm not surprised is being avoided right off the bat. 

Honestly man...and this is coming from me...who really cares? I actually have to agree with Jaws, this Mike-bashing is getting out of hand. I agree with you on a lot of points, agree Mike's behavior is shitty, and agree a good number of posters are insufferable twats about defending him...but do we really need like 5 different threads on the top half of the first page hashing the same points? After awhile it just gets old. We get it. Mike's not a good person and has done more harm to the band's image than good. Let's focus on the good.

Van Dyke himself has said in the past that it reached a point when the lyrics were challenged where he felt like he had someone else's job, and wasn't wanted. Ever been in a real-world situation where either someone wants your job but there isn't a valid corporate-level reason to kick you out? Or ever been the target of someone trying to find ways to either make you look bad or start others questioning your abilities and performance in order to get you out the door? That's what it sounds like was partially behind this, too. Not a good place to be. You're essentially screwed no matter what once the whisper campaign turns into an actual effort that has support within the organization.

They did a similar thing a few years later with Nick Grillo, finding all kids of reasons to doubt what he was doing which led up to Grillo leaving and Stephen Love getting more control of the band's inner workings. Look it up. Not directly comparing the two because one was creative/artistic and the other was financial and power-brokering, but it's a similar process.

Pretty much. This is what I think the lyric questioning was really about, but I don't really think I'd ever thought of it quite like that. Once it becomes believable that there was no answer that could have been given to Mike (as I believe, but I am curious if anyone actually doubts that), it seems like purely an antagonistic maneuver. I just don't see how anyone can explain it as being anything but.

Of course he was making a comment instead of a real question.  Most people do that.  He never would have liked Van Dyke because Van Dyke was taking his JOB

They've upped the quantity to a bi-weekly thing now.  Is that the one that's twice a week?  Not every two weeks. 

Seems an odd question nigh-on 50 years down the line but I note that this board wasn't around back nthen so maybe it's valid and not just another shitstirring exercise; on fact, it's obviously not else it'd've been shut down already.

I guess really we ourselves need to know what the lyrics mean. We've had the occasional explanation - for Surf's Up, courtesy of BDW, for eg.  But Wonderful - is it really about a woman's sexual awakening? Coulee Dam and its damn crows? Plenty more… precise translations are still lacking.

I agree with Van Dyke (as I understand it.... I may be wrong) that the lyrics are up to the listener. 

Music's really like that anyways.  Classical music evokes different moods and feelings in people, depending on the listener, without lyrics.  It's some of the most powerful music.

So Van Dyke I'm sure purposefully made the lyrics a little obtuse so you can make them whatever you want.  lots of good songwriters do that. 



Einstein said that there is no fixed frame of reference in the universe.  Everything is moving relative to everything else, and therefore wherever you're standing you see things differently than someone standing somewhere else. 

If you read Jim Murphy's excellent book "Becoming The Beach Boys" you get the impression that nearly all of Brian's collaborators were a bit miffed when Brian started collaborating with someone else. Gary Usher confessed to being bitter that Brian started working with Bob Norberg and on and on it goes. I wonder if Tony Asher was a little upset that he had been replaced with Van Dyke Parks. It's perfectly understandable that Brian would want to work with other lyricists/collaborators and that those collaborators would be puzzled/bitter/upset/you name it that their collaborations with Brian didn't continue in the way that they had hoped it would.

That's ridiculous. The lyrics aren't supposed to mean any one thing. That was Van's whole point in refusing to answer. It's up to your own interpretation

And that oblique, allusive style is opposed by the classic style to which Mike adhered -- direct, conversational, clear, easily understood. The style of Ira Gershwin, Lorenz Hart, Hal David, Gerry Goffin, etc etc.

So yeah, Mike wasn't innocently asking for clarification -- he was putting VDP on the spot. And I can empathize with Mike's suspicions and impatience. What's the distinction between lyrics that can mean anything, and lyrics that mean nothing?

But from all the times that Mike has defended the incident of asking about what the lyrics meant... it very much seems to me the implication he makes is that it was some innocent request for clarification, because that's an easier way to spin it. What he doesn't say in interviews is that there is no answer that would have satisfied him, yet I believe that to be an accurate assumption.

Well you have to realize even though Van Dyke was trying to "make it"in the music biz and a collaboration with Brian would do a lot for his career, he had the integrity to see when he wasn't wanted and he didn't want to make waves particularly when it involved Brian's family.  I suspect Brian putting him on the spot and not supporting the lyrics himself was as disappointing and upsetting as being confronted by Mike.

So you don't know what they mean either? Aren't you even interested?

Edit to add: are you saying none of us should be interested, cos that's what Van intended? I'm interested! I want it all explaining, still, now, 35 years after I started collecting Smile's entrails. Wasn't that part of the mystery, the enigma, part of what lured us in and snared us for so long? Should we just give up now?

Whoa, whoa! Hold it for a second, Century. It was ME who created the anti-Mike Love thread for this week. Please refer to it. Mike questioning artistic decissions is addressed-at among the sundry topics. No need to start this over here.

Didn't mean to steal your thunder there.

Could the mods merge the two threads?

Anyhow, my answer to your question is he didn't like the lyrics period. Any explanation would not have changed it. It's common situation in people's life, in this case fueled by the fact that Van had Mike's job.

Now my question: you are very vocal about Mike and the others not being sensitive enough about how their questioning would affect Brian's confidence and frame of mind... How should they have proceeded? How should they have expressed dislike on different terms? Should they have obliged silently and record as told (the latter of which they did anyway)? Just what would have been better?

Mike's followers seem to all have the lack of empathy and understanding just like their idol. ::).      Think of what the rest of us think as Mike tours county fairs as "not the Beach Boys"

Obviously Mike's point wasn't to actually find out the meaning of the lyrics--or at least that wasn't his primary point. His point, as he has usually said when talking about the topic, was that the fans wouldn't understand or relate to them. Right or wrong, better or worse, my understanding of his perspective is that if someone has to ask what the lyrics mean, the lyrics aren't working properly. (Naturally they're both right in different circumstances. Successful lyrics can be direct, relatable. Or they can be vague and evocative. The problem is competing visions more than results or individual philosophies.)


Clearly not. The mystery, the search, the interpretation is worthwhile. But if your hope is the find "the answer" somewhere at the end, then yes, give up. That is a waste of time because there is no definitive, literal meaning.

You and others seem to have a lack of understanding: not agreeing with those that blame Mike Love for many of Brian's disgraces doesn't make one a follower of anybody.

I totally understand your obsession with being refusing to assign blame to Mike Love for any harmful actions. It's all about being pointed at M&B's "not the beach boys" shows.

Well, I would agree with what you're saying in that any explanation would not have changed it, and understandably Mike was upset that Van had his job. The point is, it seems like a real passive aggressive move to actually harangue Brian into getting Van to come down to the studio in order to be questioned for a topic which he must have full well known there was no answer that would satisfy. It seems almost like a prank at that point. That's just really ultimately an act to embarrass someone, especially if as you and I both agree, there was no actual answer that would have suitably made Mike happy. That begs the question of why he asked the question in the first place, if not for the actual question being something Mike knew would force an ultimate result to happen (Van getting offended and quitting, which no matter how much revisionist "I like Van" talk Mike says these days, would probably have been welcome news at the time).




IMO, I think that a solid and sincere "Ultimately, I trust your judgment" coming from Mike (and the Boys) would have gone a lot for Brian's confidence, even if Mike and them still had doubts. I think not letting resentment get in the way of how he approached things (a tough thing, yes, for a young guy to have the maturity and foresight to grasp) would have been hugely helpful. And if one is to take the approach by saying that it's unrealistic for someone to have known how to have acted more kindly with Brian at that point, that's fair to say... but I get no impression that there's been any hindsight realization of this from Mike - do you? FYI, I'd feel *quite* differently if I felt there was hindsight realization on his part. That in no small affects my own feelings on the subject.

Bottom line is, the way that Brian's current-day support system of collaborators and associates is clearly carefully designed to not rub Brian in a way that would trigger certain emotional bouts. I'm sure that Brian has ideas which are shot down sometimes, even today. Didn't one of his more recent collaborators say it was their job to ensure that Brian wasn't recycling old riffs like Shortenin' Bread anymore? When dealing with a sensitive person, it not just about what's said, it's about how it's said. That's the support that Brian should have had back then. If he had it, I don't think his fall would have been as severe.

Is anyone gonna argue that? Not sure why that's a hard concept to agree with, idealistic as it may be.

The only person who can ever confirm that though is VDP, which makes the search still valid ;)