The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hi All,

What do you know, my login still works.

It’s been a long time since my last post (a masterpiece of understatement). But I still check in on the site every so often, and when I happened to see a recent thread – and read the comments there (Hiya, GF!) about the sort of conversations that used to go on here, back in the good old days – well, that helped to bring into focus an idea I’ve been toying with for a few months.

As some longtime members may recall, one of the distinguished luminaries of the Beach Boys world* had the notion, back in 2004, of putting together a book of SMiLE-focused essays. He graciously and generously invited me to contribute a piece or two, and I was honored (and humbled) to accept. A fair amount of work was done on the project, but there was never a complete manuscript.

To celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the SMiLE premiere (and album release), I thought it might make sense to revisit my chapters, to see if there was anything worth salvaging. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but I do know that once I dug them up, it didn’t feel right to rebury them. So I’ve put together a (very) rudimentary Wix site in order to share them. The essays will appear as blog posts, but that’s strictly an organizational convention; this isn’t a true ongoing blog, and when the essays are used up, that will be the end of it. Some of the essays are on the long side, so I'll be chopping those up into installments.

I’ve done a bit of editing, adding lines here, subtracting others there. Mostly I’ve struggled with the citations and references, dealing with lost reference books and dead links (thank you, Wayback Machine). I haven’t been able to locate everything – and the citations definitely aren’t in proper academic format! – but there came a point when I had to give it up and declare victory.

The URL is:

https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic

If you decide to visit, I hope you’ll find something interesting there. I don't expect that I'll be logging in here too often, but you never know.

Thanks,

C&N

* I haven’t been able to contact the owner of the book project to seek his blessing, so his name won’t be appearing anywhere. Some of you old-timers will probably know who I’m talking about.

Hello! It's nice to see a familiar name from the past and it's hard to believe (and process) that it's been 20 years since all of the excitement surrounding Smile. What a truly surreal and magnificent time to be a fan and to witness all of that coming full circle in real time. I think with all of the developments and changes in online technology since 2004, it's difficult for many newer fans to realize both how distant the lack of technology made all of this and conversely how close it brought people together around events or topics. I'm thinking of the Smile premiere, and how there were no phones or portable devices that could stream or instantly upload actual footage of this kind of event. I was still on dial-up internet when Matt B's reports of the show and what songs were being played started to come in as text posts on a message board. I was glued to the monitor that entire time as many others were too. Then there was a lag of time between someone who actually recorded the show and that show being passed around. Now you can upload HD video almost instantly if not stream it live...it's amazing how things have changed.

And I won't go into it now, because I've already expressed my views in the previous post about Smile discussion cited earlier, but the nature of Smile research and discussion has shifted too in a way that I'm not in favor of, where the act of putting topics on the table and having discussions and debates to air out the topics has morphed into some circles to lectures and finger-wagging, as if some were given professorships and license to control and repeat a narrative. I remember decades ago reading a statement that read something like this about Smile: "...so deft as to defy casual interpretation". I've always carried that description to include the lyrics, the music, and the overall history behind Smile. The discussions those decades ago were more about possibility and discovery than they were about narratives and absolutes, and I do miss that spirit of free-form discussion and debate. But I digress as usual. I can only hope that future generations of fans carry on the traditions of Smile discussions from the past and cast a wary eye toward factions who wag fingers and try to state absolutes while closing many important doors along the way.

I'm looking forward to reading the site, but I have one comment/request: Is there any way to darken the font so the text can be more easily read? I went to the site and the white background made the lighter gray text/font very difficult to read. I'll check back in for sure, it's just a case where I was unable to read comfortably the entries due to the font and background colors. Thanks!

Hi GF,

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it’s hard, sometimes, to process the fact that that two decades have gone by. We waited for SMiLE for 37 years, and it’s now more than half that span since it was released.

I suppose it’s natural for orthodox narratives to form over time; some people would say that most of history has been created that way. I tend to resist narratives of all sorts, out of sheer cussedness, I guess. I don't like being lectured to, and I'm too old to put up with finger-wagging. I prefer the open atmosphere we enjoyed all those years ago. I don’t think I realized, at the time, how lucky we were to be part of that ongoing conversation.

As for the Wix site, I will definitely look into the readability concern. I can tell you that I didn’t (and never would) choose a light-gray text color; everything is the default black, and it all reads as black on my devices. Is everything hard to read, or is it just certain sections or pages? I don’t have a lot of font choices, but I’m happy to see what I can do there. I apologize, and I appreciate your bringing the issue to my attention.

Best,

C&N

(https://i.imgur.com/YActIuE.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/U9s7Wn1.jpg)

I hope this helps, those are two screenshots I took of your site, running on the Firefox browser. The light gray text is very difficult to read yet all the color photos and images you have seem fine. I haven't seen this on other sites, originally I thought it might be my system but it's not. I haven't tried it on a phone yet.

Well, that's horrible.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post. I'm looking into the issue, but so far I can't match the phenomenon to any of the known Wix text issues. I've reset test blocks of text to the default, but there's no visible change: it's all black, #000000, before and after. For what it's worth, I'm on Firefox as well.

Profound apologies for the problem. I will continue to investigate.

Best,

C&N

Just wanted to quickly note: the text color issue is not problematic on my computer. I hope others will take a look and provide you with more data points on this...

As GF noted, the narrowing down of discourse about SMiLE as an ongoing source of "what if" investigations is one of the more vexing results of BWPS, and you astutely mention in one of your introductory posts that the parts of SMiLE that were most prominent in our minds during the "piece-by-piece" emergence also seem to have become casualties in SMiLE's overall mummification. Folks used to be able to advocate for the SMiLE music by citing "Surf's Up" or "Cabinessence" (or the alternate "Heroes & Villains" that emerged with the '93 box set) but now it seems that the whole thing has become a "tamed edifice" that has entered a realm of "high art" and approached the way one approaches classical music. That's one reason why I think Dae Lims' reconstruction of a "what if" SMiLE from late '66-early '67 is valuable and energizing for future approaches to SMiLE, particularly at the point in time when Brian is no longer with us. (I don't get the impression that Brian has ever been interested in re-opening the can of worms that Darian Sahanaja was able to help him tame with BWPS.)

I'll be curious to see if your material takes us in such a direction; but even if that turns out to be not so much the case, I think this is the right time for "new/old" writing about SMiLE to emerge, and I look forward to reading it.

I just read the first 4 parts.  Very enjoyable!  And very enlightening!  I really enjoyed the preamble, but wasn't quite prepared for the in depth and fascinating look into the allusions of SMiLE lyrics to other famous lyrics, poems, etc!

Many times when I read things like this I think there's no way the original author really had those things in mind when he wrote that.  But with this analysis, and with how erudite Van Dyke has always appeared, I'm thinking, by George, I bet Van Dyke was thinking of that when he wrote that line!  Okay, maybe not every single time totally consciously, but I'm sure he was steeped in all those references and they had become a part of his vernacular.

You should send this to Mr. Parks!  I bet he'd be grateful to see it.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

@Don:

Hi Don,

Thank you for the comments.

I come from a literary-criticism background, so my writing leanas that way. Definitely not the joyless, stodgy kind of criticism, though (at least I hope not). I learned from reading the modern critics: the folks writing about Pound, Eliot and Williams. Their work – the best of it, anyway – was always alive to the cultural, historical and spiritual stuff that was layered in with the nouns and verbs. To be clear, I wouldn’t dream of putting myself in that same class…just acknowledging influences, that’s all.

For me, there’s no necessary connection between regarding something as high art, on the one hand, and approaching it with a rigid pedantic mindset, on the other. In fact, I’d argue that reading great literature like that (or listening to great music, or viewing great art) is a marvelously efficient way to kill everything that’s worthwhile in it – and there you are, with your nicely wrapped mummy.

I certainly don’t think of SMiLE that way. If anything, it’s the opposite. It’s too vital and exciting and moving for that kind of treatment. To my mind, the job of criticism is to find connections, ask questions, discover meanings, illuminate a corner or two…not to build a museum exhibit. SMiLE is a living work, and it deserves living discussion. Intellectual inquiry? Absolutely. SMiLE merits (and repays) that kind of attention…as long as you bring your curiosity and wonder and humor along as well. Otherwise, I’d argue, you’re missing the spirit of the thing altogether.

To put it another way: I take SMiLE seriously, meaning that I respect it as an artistic accomplishment, but I do my best not to get overly serious about it. In the good old days of SMiLE conversation, online and otherwise, there was peace in the valley – for the most part – and all these threads coexisted happily. That’s how I remember it, anyway. It was fun.

Sorry for the rambling. I hope you find something interesting and/or entertaining at the site!

Best,

C&N

@Dan:

Thanks for the kind words! Who knows, maybe I'll work up some courage one day and send VDP a link.

For what it’s worth, I tend to think it sometimes works that way: if the allusions/references are present in your mind, they can work their way into what you’re writing, even if you’re not consciously summoning them. If memory serves, there’s a later essay that touches on that point.

More posts on the song allusions to come – the "prework," sort of, with the critical essays to follow.

Best,

C&N

No question but C&N's material needs to get seen by VDP...I think it will buoy him up regarding his level of achievement with the SMiLE lyrics. It's clear that this type of presentation has been quite rare up to this point...

That said, there are certain ones that IMO are more likely to produce some interesting responses from him than others, so a selective approach is probably advisable.

I'm thinking the "Folks Sing A Song" sections, Play Myth Rock, and the two "A Song Dissolved in the Dawn" chapters as the initial offering, with the more speculative material that's just been posted to follow if VDP proves as amenable to it all as I think/hope/wish/pray he will be.

Some of the more recent areas do lead into the question of how SMiLE was shaping up before things went haywire, and if VDP is sufficiently impressed with what he reads, that might open up an area of discussion that he has still kept close to the vest over all these years. It might possibly lead to some insights/recollections we have never heard before...

Hi Don,

Thanks, again, for the kind words.

I was going to bump this thread – highly gauche, I know, to borrow a phrase from Van Dyke – to say that the collection of blog posts/chapters/essays/whatever is now nearly complete. Over the next couple of days (still proofreading!), I plan to add numbers 20 and 21, and that will finish them out.

I agree, absolutely, that the essays differ greatly in terms of general interest and/or critical value; some are mainly historical/contextual, and some are strictly anecdotal and personal. Those are included only by way of background. I’m more than happy to be guided by your recommendations.

Once upon a time, in a world that was less guarded about personal contact info, I actually had Van Dyke’s email address, and he and I exchanged a note or two. But that was an age (and a dozen Macs) ago – I no longer have those emails, and I’m sure the address is defunct. I’m humbled at the thought of calling any of this scribbling to his attention, but if anyone has up-to-date contact info for him, I’d be glad to send a link. (Or if it would make more sense for somebody else to send it, that would be perfectly fine with me.) A PM will reach me here, and the contact form at the wix site should work as well.

A few notes for the benefit of folks who may not have looked in on the site:

Posts 1-3 spend a bit of time – probably far too much! – on my own SMiLE history (such as it is), as well as the background of the essays themselves.

Posts 4-8, taken together, comprise what would have been a single chapter, dealing with musical and lyrical references in SMiLE. I think of this as basic stuff – prework, if you like.

Posts 9-15, 17-20 represent core attempts at interpretation/analysis. Please note that Post 20 is really more of an introduction than an essay; the essay itself (which I acknowledge to be quite lengthy) is available as a PDF download.

Post 16 is a piece of pure speculative fiction originally published – circa 2004 – in an online music magazine. (There have been minor revisions throughout.) The premise: if SMiLE had been released in 1967, and if Rolling Stone magazine had been around at the time, what would the album review have looked like?

Post 21 is a sort of closing, with a few more unapologetically personal thoughts about SMiLE.

I don’t envision adding any further content, although I may do some rethinking and revising over time as opportunities present themselves.

I hope there’s something useful, interesting or entertaining in all of that. Thanks for reading!

C&N

Chalk, I have never forgotten your excellent contributions in the legendary SMiLE Shop, and your "blog" does not disappoint, quite the contrary. I agree that VDP  should see at least a selection of it!
I love your "realization" that Surfin' USA and Surf's Up are not things apart, as many think, but part of the same artistic journey. That is the reason I love so much, say, Love You, the Paley Sessions and TLOS: they are too part of that journey.

Hi Zenobi,

Thanks so much for the kind words. We did have some wonderful conversations back there, didn't we?

As regards the VDP suggestion: PM sent.

Cheers,

C&N

Those were the times, right? What a Golden Age. I was overwhelmed with joy and nostalgia when I finally noticed the name of the author of this thread.
IMHO the SMiLE Shop was the best forum ever, and you were the best contributor, among many great ones. And I can guess who was trying to organize a book based on such contributions... what a great person.
By the way, I think you already know the stellar "Smiley Smile Remix" (really, SMiLE-meets-Smiley Smile) created by none other than the legendary JON HUNT, co-creator of the SMiLE Shop with the equally legendary JOHN LANE, but just in case you do not, here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh5v80aaweM

Great points, as usual, about "BWPS" being SMiLE. I agree 101%, of course.

Though, I have a doubt. What is, exactly, the fantastic 2011 construction of a "Beach Boys" BWPS in the SMiLE Sessions? Is it yet another real SMiLE, as it was approved and published by the authors? I tend to a "yes". What do you think?

And I see you quoted me (Wagner...). I am honored, sir. :)

Hi Zenobi,

Yes, absolutely, one of the unforeseen benefits of having a complete SMiLE in our hands is that we’re better able to see the links and commonalities with the earlier Beach Boys work.

Speaking only for myself, I definitely had a blind spot there: I just didn’t see or appreciate the creative continuity between the early and late Beach Boys material. But I can think of a couple of reasons why that should have been so.

First of all, the non-appearance of SMiLE in 1967 left a big gap. On the most basic level, how do you contextualize something that isn’t there? You can make a case that there was a similar hole in Bob Dylan’s work, leaving us with Blonde on Blonde on one side of the divide and John Wesley Harding on the other. If we had had the Basement Tapes available, it might have been easier to understand the continuity of his output (acknowledging that the SMiLE/Basement Tapes parallel isn’t perfect, because the Basement Tapes were never envisioned as an actual release). For example, the nonsense lyrics of some Basement Tapes songs look back to some of the verse lyrics of, say, “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” (you can imagine the “curfew plugs,” whatever they are, fitting into “Please Mrs. Henry”). And by like token, the more cryptic roots-oriented Basement Tapes songs (“This Wheel’s on Fire,” etc.) anticipate the mystery and allusiveness of John Wesley Harding songs like “All Along the Watchtower.” But at the time, there was no bridge between the two very different styles.

Second of all, there was a great need, back in the late 60s/early 70s,  for a clean break between the naive simplicity of early rock-n-roll and the “relevance” of the later music. At Woodstock, that “old” stuff (including “Wipe Out”) was strictly Sha Na Na nostalgia. The Beatles quoted “She Loves You” in 1967, but they had to fit it into a new psychedelic context; if they had still been a touring band at that point, you couldn’t have imagined them playing “I Saw Her Standing There” live and doing it straight. And as for the Beach Boys: can you conceive of a more powerful gesture – a clearer way of distancing themselves from their surf-rock past – than opening an album with a song called “Don’t Go Near the Water”?

C&N

Oh, I agree. There were days when it felt like we were all engaged in a single collaborative effort – when the ideas were just exploding, with everybody adding their own insights, theories and discoveries. I suppose times like that can last only so long. But it was amazing while it was going on. I look back on those times with great fondness.

C&N

Well, I’ve always regarded that Wagner essay as a brilliant piece of analysis and writing. But if I was quoting you, then that makes you…wait...Mac, is that you?

(Please tell me I did you justice with the attribution.)

Did you see my PM regarding VDP? (I never completely trust any private messaging system, so I wanted to make sure.)

As for the 2004/2011 question:

The precise relationship between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 sequencing of the old SMiLE material – largely but not completely following the 2003/4 template – raises some very interesting questions.

As far as I can recall – and I know someone will correct me if I’m mistaken – the single biggest difference in the 2011 sequence is the repositioning of “I’m in Great Shape.” In theory, that change should reflect a reconsideration of the 2003/4 sequence, taking precedence over it. And maybe that is the right answer. Personally, I have some difficulty with the idea of elevating a concededly (and seriously) incomplete work over a complete one. It’s almost as if the 2011 release represents the blueprint for what would clearly be the final SMiLE: a re-recording of the 2004 album, following the revised running order.

Maybe we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that this kind of thing can get pretty complicated. To take a non-musical example: when T.S. Eliot was readying The Waste Land for publication, he deleted a line from the “A Game of Chess” section, apparently at the insistence of his wife; the story goes that she objected to the negative light it threw on their marriage. (If you’re familiar with the poem, it’s bizarre to think that someone would take that stance; while certain of its details are presumably drawn from Eliot’s private life, The Waste Land is obviously *not* a confessional, personal sort of work. So it's hard to see how anyone might have read it as betraying their relationship secrets. But that’s beside the point.)

Anyway – and I’m basing this on my own recollections, so I may not have all the facts perfectly correct – fairly late in Eliot’s life, he agreed to sit down and write the poem out in longhand; I seem to recall that the request had to do with a charity initiative, but that may not be right. He wrote it out from memory, and he restored that previously deleted line.

Okay – at that point, which version is the final one? Eliot approved the published version, and it remained unchanged through numerous editions and printings; but he obviously thought that that line belonged in the poem, recalling it well enough to add it back in, without any sort of prompting. I think you can make a fairly persuasive argument on either side. (For what it’s worth, the 2015 authoritative text of Eliot’s poetry retains the line, so it seems that the scholars have decided that the one true Waste Land includes it.)

If the difference between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 SMiLE-Sessions sequence were more substantive – if, say, Brian had added in “With Me Tonight” or “You’re Welcome,” or if he had decided that SMiLE really ought to end with “Surf’s Up” after all, we might well have to say that the 2011 sequence represents the last word. But in light of the (relatively) minor change, I find that I’m capable of ignoring the cognitive dissonance and resisting the temptation to rob the 2003/4 work of its status as the final, authoritative version. That said, I can certainly understand why other folks might disagree with that position.

(And no, I don’t default to T.S. Eliot with respect to *every* artistic controversy; it’s just that I know his work very well, so it’s easy for me to talk about it.)

Apologies for the over-long rambling!

 Yes, I (finally) read your PM and hope I managed to reply...

The 2011 SMiLE, besides moving "I'm in Great Shape" earlier, has two very important (imho) additions:
- "My Only Sunshine", which ends with that sublime snippet called by somebody "Barnshine" (if I remember correctly)
- The equally sublime tag to "Vegetables", which I think was omitted in 2004 simply because that dazzling display of harmony and counterpoint vocals was so extremely hard to reproduce without the 1967 Beach Boys.

What is my point, now, if any? Let's say that there are two officially released SMiLEs, the "Brian Wilson" completed one from 2004 and the "Beach Boys" incomplete, but including additional great content, one from 2011. So, I think "BWPS" is "the" SMiLE, but the one featured in the SMiLE Sessions is a perfectly legitimate alternate version: again, the Beach Boys SMiLE.

I hope I was not running in circles. :)

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:


That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

Excellent points, and very important ones to consider.

I'll add one more element to this: In the case of Smile specifically, the main creative forces behind the work itself were still alive and directly involved in finishing the work. It wasn't a case of scholars decades or centuries later trying to "finish" a dead composer's work based on manuscripts and notes found in archives; Smile was the product of the same two musicians and writers who envisioned and worked on the piece originally, reconvening with the expressly set goal of finishing the work for public performance as a full musical presentation in movements.

If either Brian or Van Dyke were not the ones finishing it, I'd probably feel differently about BWPS being the definitive version, the completed version. But they were the same guys back together picking up where they left off in 1967 finally putting the last chapter in the book of Smile as a complete work from the original creators.

The sad part of unfinished works in general is when the creators are no longer around to actually see it to a natural conclusion and say "this is now finished as I want it." Years ago I went on a few research deep-dives about parallels in other entertainment media like film which seemed to be similar to the Smile saga. I had a decent list going in both music and film, mostly film, but unfortunately that list and my thoughts are long gone or misplaced.

But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

And another was Nicholas Ray's "We Can't Go Home Again", a bizarre but unforgettable film experiment that saw Ray battling to edit it into a complete work but never finishing it before his death. Years later the film was "finished" by those close to Ray and using his original thoughts and ideas to finish the edits as they thought Ray would have wanted it had he had the technology, time, and other aspects in his life come together so he could finish it (does that sound familiar?)...but it still isn't and could never be exactly what Nicholas Ray envisioned in his mind as a completed work, which again lends the Wilson-Parks BWPS Smile that much more weight because they were both directly involved in finishing it and calling it done.

Check out the Ray and Welles projects I mentioned, if anything it's an interesting historical trip about two radically different films made by two of the most challenging, frustrating, and respected directors and filmmakers of the last century.

And there was one musical piece I found - cannot remember the name - where the lack of technology hampered a 20th century composer enough to where he couldn't finish his work until technology was developed to allow the work to be performed as he envisioned. If that sounds vaguely familiar to anyone, please fill in the details!

Thanks, Zenobi, for reminding me of those other differences. That’s what I get for working from an unreliable memory!

I agree: we have SMiLE, and we have a sort of variant SMiLE. An embarrassment of riches, in other words, that would have been unimaginable pre-2003.

C&N

Absolutely. Meaning not just that I agree unreservedly, but that deference to the artist is, for me, absolute.

To be clear,  I’m prepared to accept the 2011 SMiLE Sessions assemblage as a sort of variant of the definitive work, but only because it’s such an unusual outlier. And it’s important, I think, to remember that that assemblage exists *only* because there was a complete SMiLE to serve as a template.

It’s perfectly fine, of course, for someone to prefer the rough sketch to the finished painting. But I think it’s simply indefensible to claim that the sketch is the “real” work, and/or to delegitimize the work recognized by the composer as final. That’s been my consistent view for two decades now, and I’m sticking to it.

C&N

It’s sometimes difficult to separate fact from fiction with respect to Welles’s late projects; which were mere ideas, which had a measure of substance, which had a reasonable prospect of actually happening.

But it does seem to be true that Welles actively sought funding, in the 1970s, to enable him to shoot a new ending for Ambersons, featuring the still-surviving actors in their original roles. Although it wouldn’t have been the original ending – instead, it would have been a sort of “many years later” postscript – it would have been in keeping with his original vision.

If he had found the money, would that have been the definitive Ambersons? Well, he didn’t find it, so we’re spared the decision. But the story is a powerful reminder of just how miraculous it is that the original creators were able to return to SMiLE and complete it, all those years later.

C&N

Yes, Welles definitely had his share of battles with studios over his vision versus the studios' final cuts, and it's all a fascinating journey into the inner workings of Hollywood movie-making and politics, and perhaps also a look into the creative mind of someone like Welles. I'd also add his battles over "Touch Of Evil" to my earlier examples, where the studio yet again cut scenes from Welles' original edit and that led Welles to write a long memo outlining his own ideas for the edits...which led to a project to restore the film to Welles' original vision based on that memo and which actually happened after his death.

So again that falls into the questions about original vision versus the released version, and the validity of a "restoration" or reconstruction after the death of the main creator. With Touch Of Evil, more than Ambersons, I'd say if they worked meticulously based on Welles' own notes to do the reconstruction, the question would be (again) is that cut and restoration the definitive version of Touch Of Evil. It's a stretch, yes, but for all those years leading up to BWPS, I think fans making their own mixes and sequences were coming close to that same question and dilemma with far less to work with in terms of original intent or creator's intent...which again is why I think it's helpful that we got BWPS to act as the definite answer in that specific case.

Now let me introduce this somewhat new development into the mix. This article is about Magnificent Ambersons and a project to restore it to Welles' original vision, replicating the scenes that were cut without Welles' consent and presumably lost forever:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/18/magnificent-ambersons-rebirth-for-ruined-orson-welles-masterpiece-that-rivalled-citizen-kane (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/18/magnificent-ambersons-rebirth-for-ruined-orson-welles-masterpiece-that-rivalled-citizen-kane)


Read through that, and see if it connects as it did with me to the current debates about AI technology in music. Or the use of AI in general to either finish unfinished works or create works that were intended to be a certain way but never materialized. It's all fascinating to me, and I wonder if the negativity surrounding some of the AI works so far will be put on projects such as this one with film restorations. I can't see a dividing line between the two media and the use of tech to recreate or "finish" lost or impossible projects.

Nice! I'm a Welles fan too and this project sounds super cool. I'd love to see it.

I find it odd when people say "No. BWPS is a Smile, not the Smile. The latter can never exist, because it never ever existed, except in the ever-changing imagination of Brian Wilson circa 1966-67. As a physical reality, Smile never came close to completion..." (real quote)

Like anyone would walk up to Brian Wilson and say "Oh, that album you think you finished in 2004 and are happy about? Yeah that's not THE Smile, because THE Smile only existed in your imagination in the 1960s."

As if an album like GnR's Chinese Democracy is not THE Chinese Democracy because it took 20 years to make. Or that Beethoven's 9th has a musical piece in it originally written 30 years prior - yet no one is claiming that the 9th isn't THE 9th because it has 30 year old elements on it.

BWPS is Smile because the guy who wrote the music, who helmed the recordings, who envisioned people enjoying it, SAYS it is Smile. That makes it the Smile.


Yeah, I think this is a better way to put it. I do think that it belongs on the same shelf as BWPS. However, I don't think TSS completes Brian's total vision for Smile - Whereas BWPS is a real and colorful journey that is completed - from Plymouth Rock to Hawaii. So thus, while TSS deserves probably every bit of attention as BWPS, it isn't the completed work.

I really do think it's this simple, when all's said and done:


When I returned to the essays at the site linked in the first post – after a couple of decades – I discovered that a few of them were incomplete, and several others needed substantive edits. I think about how I would feel (and I need to be clear, I’m in no way putting my own scribbling on an equal footing with Brian’s and Van Dyke’s brilliant work) if someone challenged my right to revise the material, or my right to decide when it was finished.

Please forgive the shameless plug – I feel so strongly about this point that I dedicated a whole essay to it:

https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic/post/21-dim-last-toasting (https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic/post/21-dim-last-toasting)

C&N

"shameless plug" - plug away! I've been reading various posts from your site the last couple weeks, but I didn't read this one yet. What a GREAT read. You brought up points I didn't even consider. Standouts:

"if the artist decides to pick up the palette again and return to the canvas – whether that happens thirty-seven minutes later or thirty-seven years later – that decision rests with the artist alone. As long as he’s alive and functioning, he owns the absolute and exclusive right to revise and remake that painting."

Second to second the creative mind is an ever-changing machine. I have never understood the argument that a '66/67 Smile would be the only valid Smile, because a Jan '67 Smile would be different from a March '67 Smile - would the latter be less legitimate because a few months went by? No. And because a few decades go by doesn't mean that the same artist can't revisit old material and complete it.

Peter Reum's quote: "To those who contend that Smile should have come out in the 60s, and is not valid in 2004, I would say---in my opinion, you have totally missed the whole point of Smile…. Did Brian and Van Dyke succeed in their quest to create a Teenage Symphony to God? I would say yes, but not as a Teenage Symphony, but a Life Symphony…."

The moment BWPS first clicked with me, I'll never forget it. The compositions, the harmonies, the structure. What a blessing to have that music and calling it a "Life Symphony" is exactly how I see/feel it in my mind. The harpsichord of 'Wonderful', the ocean feel of 'Blue Hawaii', the "Long Ago" tag on 'Holiday', the harmonious coda on 'Vegetables'...I could go on and on about how many moments of pure beauty are on this album. Brian and Van were 100% successful in their venture with this.

I wish we had a truly definitive list of what was vintage and what was created in '04.  Obviously the DYLW material was vintage but I've always thought the CIFOTM pieces for instance were new.

Thanks for the kind words – much appreciated.

With respect to your point: I think it’s kind of amusing...many of the folks who deny SMiLE its definitive status freely acknowledge Brian’s absolute right to change the album – sometimes, it appears, from day to day – throughout the 1966/7 period. And they (presumably) acknowledge his right to cancel the album altogether; although we now know that the cancellation was more of a lengthy postponement. But somehow they seem to feel that his right to make changes is revoked after that point – as if creative license came with an expiration date.

C&N

Of course, I agree with you all. As I said myself, BWPS is SMiLE. The SMiLE. No doubt whatsoever about it. Moreover, it would be the SMiLE even if  Brian and VDP had completely botched it... because they say so. The fact that instead, luckily, it is a masterpiece, is not essential for that.

Said this, I think that the TSS SMiLE (the one I love calling "the Beach Boys SMiLE") is not the SMiLE, but is still a masterpiece, though an incomplete one. And though constructed "a posteriori" after the blueprint of BWPS, it is still officially published by the authors, so it is a legitimate alternate version. Really an embarassment of riches!

And now I'll be blunt, just as I was blunt in defending Mike Love some threads ago. Yes, sadly there are so-called "fans" who seem to have revoked Brian's right to decide ANYTHING after 1967. The reason? It is called ABLEISM. They think that after 1967 Brian is not the same person, and so almost everything he has made after 1967 is too heavily influenced by "external forces" to be really "legitimate". BWPS is only the greatest instance of that: of course, it is only a fanmix by Darian Sahanaja (sarcasm). But then...
BW1988 was made by a committee.
Imagination was more Joe Thomas than Brian.
The Wilson/Paley Sessions were more Paley (obviously).
TLOS was more Scott.
Radio was more Joe.
Etc.

Luckily, it seems that some naysayers have somewhat relented lately, and at last accept to enjoy, for example, TLOS without always wondering what was made really by Brian and what was instead by Scott. Better late than never, guys!

Sorry, double post.

Zenobi, I think you make a great point. And for what it’s worth, I tend to think some of these attitudes apply to Pre-1967 Brian as well.

There seem to be people who want Brian to be some kind of idiot savant: brilliantly creative, but not “smart.” According to that view, the 1966 Brian was just kind of swept along with the psychedelic trendiness of the people he was hanging out with; he didn’t have the intellectual ability to grasp any of the truly esoteric stuff. That view makes it easier to denigrate those people as mere hangers-on, and it makes it easier to devalue the ideas Brian was experimenting with at the time.

Post-1967, of course, the well-publicized (and seriously sensationalized and exaggerated) biographical narrative gives these same people a rationale for emphasizing “idiot” over “savant,” and attributing Brian’s later successes to manipulators and/or collaborators (using that latter word in a way that suggests that it was the “collaborators” driving the projects, with Brian having little to do with the final product).

I wouldn’t presume to guess at these folks’ motives. But as always, when you’re furthering an agenda, you’re unlikely to advance the frontier of truth.

C&N

Hi Zenobi, I totally see what you're saying now about TSS - I was interpreting your original post wrong. Thanks for your explanation.

If someone (who knew relatively nothing about The Beach Boys) were to ask me to point them toward Smile, I would first and foremost hand them BWPS. I would also point them toward TSS if they enjoyed the former, but I would warn them that it is heavily unfinished compared to BWPS. TSS is definitely legitimate as it's the source material (and has the actual Beach Boys on it), but I just see BWPS as the real deal (which I think is your point).

I can't get over how awful 'Holidays' sounds on TSS - or on any fan-edit I've ever listened to. But 'On A Holiday' sounds so pristine and beautiful. There's this spookiness about the original Smile recordings - vibes that really emanated into Smiley Smile. But those haunting vibes are completely gone from BWPS - it sounds childlike, ethereal, and colorful...and since it was supposed to be a teenage symphony to God, I think this album had to wait until 2004 to be created - when Brian was in a much more stable place to create something that beautiful.

I am just so thankful that, in recent years, friends/collaborators of Brian Wilson have spoken publicly about what Brian actually does in the recording studio (and how he writes his music). So there should be no doubt that he is the guy in control. Sure, he has spoken about how he doesn't like some of his collaborators work (Brian publicly complained about the sound of Imagination). But then again, Bob Dylan hated how Time Out of Mind sounded, and yet no one thinks for a second that Bob isn't in control of his career. That's just the music business. Brian has had collaborators steering Brian's musical vision since his first chart hit 'Surfin'. It doesn't take away the fact that Brian's musical DNA is in all of the songs that his name is connected to.

What bothers me the most isn't that people believe the false narrative that post-67 Brian is an incapable person, rather, it's that people who know better spread this false narrative...whether overtly or subtly. I'm just thankful that most of that talk left this forum for a different home a long time ago.

It is like Brian split the partly-joyful, partly-spooky original SMiLE in two separate works: all the spookiness into Smiley Smile (which I love as well), then all the joyfulness into BWPS.

Yeah, I can’t imagine the discography without Smiley - while it’s not my favorite, I totally see why it is some people’s favorite, and it has really grown on me over the years.

I’ve been listening to Jon Hunt’s Smiley Smile that you linked on the previous page almost nonstop the past few days…that is such a cool trip.

It's brilliant... and something ideal to put on at Halloween with dim lighting. :)

The question is where did these opinions originate about BWPS not being the definitive Smile, or whatever variations of that have been spoken. And one source and mindset is pretty obvious, and has been in the public record for nearly 20 years.

That would be the lawsuit Mike filed against Brian, Melinda, his manager Jean, David Leaf, The Mail On Sunday publication, and related interests surrounding a free CD giveaway.

It's a long read, so this is only the first part which describes the basis and background for Mike's case.

Decide for yourself, after reading this, how relative the language in the lawsuit is to those opinions of BWPS, Smile, etc. and what is the "real" Smile and whatever else surrounds that mindset.

And consider that one way to make Brian and Van Dyke's completed Smile less legitimate (or to refute it entirely) would be to claim it is not the real Smile, and that the real Smile was in effect stolen from The Beach Boys, who own the intellectual property as claimed in the lawsuit. Mike's suit made the same claims about "Pet Sounds" and Brian's live performances of that album too. Part of this, if not the crux of these claims, is that Brian performing and releasing his versions of his own compositions was hurting Mike and "The Beach Boys" financially, and causing "confusion" in the fan marketplace.

The language in this suit explains a lot.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE LOVE, Plaintiff,vs.THE MAIL ON SUNDAY; ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD.; SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP, LTD., SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP NY; SANCTUARY MUSIC MANAGEMENT, INC.; SANCTUARY MUSIC PRODUCTIONS, INC.; BIGTIME.TV; BRIAN WILSON; JEAN SIEVERS; THE LIPPIN GROUP, INC; SOOP LLC; DAVID LEAF; and DOES 1 through 100. Defendants Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR THE FOLLOWING CAUSES OF ACTION:Violation of Statutory and Common Law Rights of Publicity; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Action for Indemnity Under Written Indemnity Agreement; Declaratory Relief; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Copyright Infringement for Unlawful Reproduction, Unlawful Preparation of Derivative Work, and Unlawful Distribution; Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition – False Representation; Federal Trademark Dilution; State of California Unlawful Business Practices; Interference with Contractual Relations; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantages; and Civil ConspiracyJURY TRIAL DEMANDED


NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION
1. This action arises out of an international advertising and marketing scheme organized and orchestrated by Brian Wilson and his agents to promote the release of The Beach Boys’ long-awaited Smile album, at the expense of fellow Beach Boy Mike Love and The Beach Boys corporate entity, Brother Records, Inc. (“BRI”). This multimedia promotion shamelessly misappropriated Mike Love’s songs, likeness, and The Beach Boys trademark, as well as the Smile album itself, which has been identified with The Beach Boys for over thirty-seven years. The primary means used to implement the scheme was the use of “The Beach Boys” registered trademark, the misappropriation of images of Mike Love and the band, coupled with the “give- away” of over 2.6 million music CDs entitled “Good Vibrations.” This CD included a number of Beach Boys hit songs composed by Mike Love and Brian Wilson. The free Good Vibrations CD increased the sale of defendant Brian Wilson’s Smile CD, and defendant The Mail on Sunday’s newspapers, but it has had an adverse effect on the sales and value of the many Beach Boys CDs available for sale in the marketplace. Incredibly, the emails and correspondence by and between the defendants three weeks before the “give-away” on September 24, 2004 admit that they had to use The Beach Boys name and images to “engage” the audience. This suit seeks damages including the disgorgement of millions of dollars of illicit profits, and the protection of The Beach Boys trademark and the name and likeness of Mike Love and The Beach Boys
2. Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson, Dennis Wilson and Alan Jardine were the original members of the world famous Beach Boys band. From November 1961, when The Beach Boys released their first hit record Surfin, until the present, Mike Love, as the lead singer on most of their songs, has been the only member of the band to consistently perform live concerts. Brian Wilson essentially stopped touring in 1964, to be eventually replaced by current Beach Boy Bruce Johnston. Dennis Wilson passed away in 1983, Carl Wilson died in 1998, and Alan Jardine was not a member of the touring band from 1962 until 1965, and again from 1998 until the present. The current directors and equal shareholders of BRI are Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson’s estate, and Alan Jardine. Alan Jardine became a shareholder in 1973.
3. Contrary to the myth that Brian Wilson was the sole musical genius behind The Beach Boys songs, Mike Love and Brian Wilson are credited as co-authors of nearly all of The Beach Boys’ hits; and Mike Love and Carl Wilson carried the performing band for forty years. Many of Mike Love’s early compositional and lyrical contributions to The Beach Boys songs were concealed for many years by Brian Wilson’s father, Murray Wilson, who was the first manager of The Beach Boys, and then later by Brian Wilson, in order to direct the valuable songwriting royalties for The Beach Boys hits to Murray and Brian Wilson. However, this injustice was corrected after a four-month federal court jury trial and ensuing verdict and judgment in 1994 (hereinafter “the Love partnership action”) crediting Mike Love as the co-author of thirty-five of The Beach Boys’ songs, including such hits as California Girls, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, Help Me Rhonda, 409, and Be True To Your School. This judgment legally established Mike Love and Brian Wilson as partners in these songs and that Brian Wilson owed fiduciary duties to Mike Love in connection with their songs. Before the trial court decided on the amount of damages, Mike Love and Brian Wilson entered into a settlement agreement, i.e., a contract, wherein the settlement agreement was incorporated into the judgment.
4. In addition to his songwriting contributions to The Beach Boys, as the longtime front man for the band, Mike Love has been historically recognized as the primary voice and image of The Beach Boys; and Carl Wilson was historically recognized as the musical leader. After Carl’s death in 1998, Alan Jardine announced in the entertainment media that he no longer wished to tour with The Beach Boys; and Mike Love announced privately within BRI that he would no longer tour with Alan Jardine because of Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members. BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark. Since 1998, Mike Love has scrupulously fulfilled his license obligations, using the trademark to perform as The Beach Boys in approximately 150 live concerts per year all over the world. He has paid over eleven million dollars to BRI as royalties on this license.
5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.
6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.
7. Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties. Between 1991 and 2002, Brian was under a court-ordered conservatorship, first with a court appointed lawyer until 1995, and then with his just married wife. In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems. In order to promote himself, Brian began to misappropriate BRI property. In 2003, he misappropriated “Pet Sounds,” a Beach Boys album, all while serving as a fiduciary to BRI. In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV.
8. The acts and omissions perpetrated by defendants to misappropriate the songs, the copyrights, publicity rights, the names and likenesses, and The Beach Boys trademark are summarized as follows:
· The Mail on Sunday’s unauthorized use of Mike Love’s songs, name, and images in its September 24, 2004 edition to promote the giveaway of 2.6 million copies of the Good Vibrations CD and the associated sale of 2.6 million copies of its newspaper;
· The Mail on Sunday’s unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark to promote the giveaway of 2.6 million copies of the Good Vibrations CD and the associated sale of 2.6 million copies of its newspaper;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of Mike Love’s musical compositions California Girls, Good Vibrations, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, Darlin and Help Me Rhonda, which were included on the Good Vibrations CD;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of Mike Love’s name and images on the cover of the Good Vibrations CD;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark on the cover of the Good Vibrations CD;
· BigTime.TV’s unauthorized use of Mike Love’s songs, name, and images and the unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark to promote the Good Vibrations CD on television and the Internet, and to promote its own services;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his partnership agreement with Mike Love by exploiting their co-authored songs for Brian Wilson’s benefit and to Mike Love’s detriment;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by replacing the lyrics Mike Love wrote for their co-authored Good Vibrations song with those written by Van Dyke Parks for the version of Good Vibrations that appears on the Smile CD;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by not informing Mike Love of the inclusion of their co-authored songs on the Good Vibrations CD used to promote the sales of Brian Wilson’s Smile CD;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by participating in the scheme to give away the Good Vibrations CD, which included many Beach Boy hits, thereby devaluing other Beach Boys albums being sold by BRI and causing less of these other Beach Boys albums to be sold;
· Defendants David Leaf, Jean Sievers, SOOP LLC, The Lippin Group, and others tied in the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD with a worldwide promotion of Smile by, inter alia, producing a television “documentary” using copyrighted Beach Boys materials and The Beach Boys trademark in such a way as to represent to the world that Smile was a BRI product, and that Smile was the property of Brian Wilson and that Brian Wilson and his new band was, in fact, the real Beach Boys.

Which is why the majority of the songs on Sounds of Summer are not co-written by Mike Love?


^That anyone connected to Brian Wilson would be shameful enough to write/endorse this is just, well it's truly sad. And that it was given Mike's blessing is jaw-dropping.

This stupid lawsuit makes it seem like Mike was right there penning words to 'Cabin Essence' :lol What an absolute crock. To those who wonder why Mike Love is vilified all over the internet, it's not because "Brian is Jesus so someone needs to be the anti-Christ" lol, it's because Mike has put on full display the depths he will go to vilify Brian time and time again.

I realize lawyers spin events to favor their clients all the time, but this document reads like a game of Twister.

Mike is guilty of all that, and something else too.
Problem, for me, is I have really despised him for many years, but then I realized that the only person "suffering" for that was myself.
So I decided to forgive the old "villain", and to allow myself to be again a fan of his. I am happier for this.

I had a similar revelation myself - my negative viewpoint of Mike was really hampering my enjoyment of the music. I've really stepped back from the drama in recent years (at least, compared to how I used to post). I've really tried seeing things from Mike's point of view - and in some ways I understand his POV, in others I do not. But it has helped a lot and I'm back to enjoying the music as I did as a new fan.

Having said that, the rumors like the one in the lawsuit above absolutely crushed my enjoyment of Brian's discography when I was a new fan. People on this very board (who are now banned/gone from here) convinced a lot of people that Brian wasn't in control and that he didn't have much to do with his records. So when the Gershwin album was coming out I was fairly convinced that Brian was checked out and that Darian was fully running the show. It really bummed me out.

And thankfully, other awesome posters here pointed out how false those rumors were, and how Brian actually was in control. And in the years since we have heard first-person anecdotes of Brian recording/writing and it's awesome to see. I guess my point is that, as Guitarfool pointed out, it's good to know where these rumors start - and who started them and who is spreading them. And it's good to point this stuff out from time to time, as it could help a new fan not be swayed by false rumors - as many have been.

Thanks, GF, for posting that court filing. I knew about the suit, of course, but hadn’t read any of the documents. Man, that is some ugly stuff. Apart from the mean-spiritedness and the gross inaccuracies, it’s just so shoddy and lazy and careless. When I was a lawyer, an age ago, we were expected to proofread our work product. Mike has had a good deal of material success in his life; one assumes that he could do better, lawyer-wise, than the guy with an office above the check-cashing establishment. Evidently not.

Apropos of other comments in this thread: I made a sincere effort of my own to set aside my negative sentiments about Mike, I really did. I thought he did a great job at the 50th anniversary concert I saw. He sang with conviction, and his presence definitely added energy to the show; I left the venue feeling glad that he was a part of the tour. I allowed myself to think – against my better judgment – that the Beach Boys just might be a viable band again: that against all odds, there might be a triumphant final chapter to their story. I was disappointed (but not truly surprised) when Mike opted out; character, as a much wiser fellow once said, is destiny. Like the reunion, my personal reconciliation, as regards ol’ Mike, was not fated to endure. That probably reflects a failing on my part. Maybe I need to investigate TM.

C&N

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Brian has worked with dozens of lyricists over the years; and yet, regardless of the individuals involved or the time period, certain themes and motifs have continually surfaced and resurfaced in his songs. There’s a through line there – a thread of DNA, as you say – and it’s Brian.

By way of example, on a more-or-less superficial level: I was staggered, a while back, when I realized how many of Brian’s songs make reference to telephones, making calls, etc. “Busy Doing Nothing”; “Had to Phone Ya”; “From There to Back Again”; even the unused “reconnected telephone” lyrics from “Cabin Essence.” (That’s off the top of my head, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.) Obviously – if we disallow pure coincidence – Brian’s own thoughts/feelings/concerns are finding their way into the lyrics, irrespective of the lyricist.

C&N

I don't really disagree with any of these points, and that lawsuit is absolutely awful, but what I can say... I like Mike's distinctive lead vocals, and really love some of them. I like many of his lyrics, simple and effective. I think he really came out with some great hooks. And I ALWAYS love his bass vocals whenever I hear them, particularly for their warmth and sometimes their voluntary goofiness.

Maybe one of the reasons I have so mellowed to him is that once I dreamed of speaking to him and he was very kind and pleasant, and in fact there are fans reporting that he is that way, to fans, in real life.

Now to the "narratives" about Brian, so gleefully broadcast by a sizable section of the so-called fans: I always considerated them pure unadulterated BS. Always. I think I have a decent BS detector, and immediately recognised that unmistakable scent, many a year ago.

To paraphrase my friend Chalk, there is a common theme in the history of the Beach Boys and of "solo Brian", and that is not Mike, nor VDP, nor Joe, nor Scott, nor anyone else. That theme is called Brian Wilson.

Yes, it's absurd that now and then it's necessary to remind people of such an obvious thing.

Though, not as absurd as a "fandom" where "Brianista" has all too often been used as an insult, shame on them.

This also to clarify that having mellowed to Mike does not make me any less of a Brianista... quite the contrary, in fact.

Great point about telephones, making calls, etc. I'd add "Magic Transistor Radio".

Perfect metaphor, considering that Twister is the game I hate most in the world!

Oh yes, we can certainly add the radio songs to the list – that takes us all the way to "That's Why God Made the Radio." And the Beach Boys catalog stretches back far enough to include some snail mail as well – "Keep an Eye on Summer" and "Girl Don't Tell Me," off the top of my head.

Not sure there are any inferences to be drawn, except maybe to say that human-to-human connection is an ongoing Brian theme.

C&N