The Smiley Smile Message Board

I meant to post this some time ago...not sure how much potency it might have now while in the midst of everyone sifting through the SMiLE material during these next few days/weeks but thought maybe I'd post anyway for anyone who was taking a break from reviewing the SMiLE Sessions.

What struck me as interesting in these last few weeks upon reading the countless interviews Brian has done regarding TSS is his response to the question of "why did he abandon SMiLE?"  It seems he has consistently been answering with the response that drugs ruined him and Van Dyke's progress with the album.  And because of that, things were getting crazy and out of control so they decided to stop. 

But we all know that it was the group's resistance (led by Mike) that fueled much of Brian's unwillingness to continue on.  I mean, in the interviews on the BWPS DVD...Brian flat out says it...Mike Love was the reason he stopped recording SMiLE.  Throughout all the years previously, Brian was very clear to state that Mike's resistance with the material was what hurt Brian.  I'm not suggesting that drugs never had anything to do with it...but it was never really mentioned as THE reason...it was always Mike Love. 

Now, Brian publicly  blames drugs as the culprit.  But then the curve ball: Brian tells a slightly different reason in in the booklet included in The Smile Sessions.  In Brian's introduction letter in the booklet, he writes:

But just when we thought we were almost there, it all began to fall apart.  By 1966, I was used t working on my own in the studio.  I was used to everybody doing exactly what I told them to do.  But the resistance I was feeling to my vision...everything that was going on inside my head: the challenge of competing with the Beatles...pressure from the record company...it all became too much and I just couldn't deal with it all.  So I realized I had to stop.  SMiLE was killing me.  It might've killed The Beach Boys too if we had kept going.  So I ended it.

It would be fair to argue that this could be Brian's final say on the matter considering these words are printed in the booklet that is included in each and every copy of TSS.  Everyone will read this.  Everyone will have it in their hands.  It's interesting to note that he doesn't really blame the drugs...well explicitly at least.  He sort of alludes to it by saying "everything that was going on inside my head"  it's a phrase that is open for interpretation...could mean the drugs...it alludes to the mental breakdown.  It's up in the air; vague.

So what's the big deal?  I dunno, I just found it interesting.  In all the press and promotion for TSS, Brian fires off the drug response as the reason.  It was drugs...period.  But then he goes back to the "resistance" reasoning in the TSS booklet.  I personally think Brian (and management) wanted a more head turning story/soundbyte and went with the drug story for the press.  This of course, would put all the blame on drugs as the reason they stopped--and NOT on Mike Love or the rest of the group.  Afterall, here was Brian and The Beach Boys finally releasing the tapes...it'd be a clash if Brian publicly blamed The Beach Boys for ruining it.  I doubt Mike would've wanted that to be the focus of all the press either.  And so when all the press/promotion is done....Brian reveals in his personal letter in the TSS booklet that it was indeed the band resistance coupled with the other drama going on at the time.   I do wonder who coached Brian to go with the drug story for the press?  Melinda?  It would be no surprise to assume that Brian is probably fed lines or coached before he talks to the press.  I wonder who "directed" him to go with that story?

In the end, this is all probably nothing...but it still made me go "hmmmmmm."

in my opinion what Brian says here is no different to the sorts of things he's said all along. The "resistance I was feeling to my vision" is perhaps a more diplomatic way of saying "the other beach boys didn't like it/get it", and "everything that was going on inside my head", a euphemistic way of saying "I was finding it hard to think straight because I had taken too many drugs."

Asking Brian for the reason why he shelved Smile is like waiting for a bus at Waterloo Station - if you don't like the current one, there'll be another, different one along soon.

Were any of the BBs in favour of Smile at the time? Sorry for my lack of knowledge here!

I am not sure what to believe anymore. Brian's reasons for shelving Smile change all the time. My thinking is that there was resistance on all sides, including inside Brian's head. After listening to Alan Boyd's interview on IconFetch, putting Smile together digitally was an awesome task, let alone trying to cut and splice tapes together. Recording modular was probably an easier task than trying to finalize it by piecing it all together. It seems he really had too much music to work with. It was probably frustrating second guessing yourself and changing pieces around over an over again. Also, probably frustrating to the band to sing their asses off and not hear it in fully conceptualized songs. Smile may have taken it's toll on everybody.

I don't think Brian ever abandoned SMiLE. The concept was changed and the record released as SMiLEY SMiLE.
I think there are many reasons. The problems with Capitol, Brian loosing interest, the departure of Van Dyke Parks, the group dynamics, etc, but first of all: Brian's visionary search for new sounds.
In December 1966, SMiLE would have been revolutionary, still in January 1967, but in May 1967, the time run out.
Around the time the "Love To Say Dada" sessions took place, "Sgt. Pepper" was premiered on radio and played to the press. Perhaps Brian heard it back then, thorugh Derek Taylor for example and that was the end. The Beatles already did it.
And the PARTY! album in 1965 was a huge success in many countries, one of the group's best selling records, so to record an unpolished album in a short period of time was a successful idea once before.

I'm currently reading Peter Carlin's Brian Wilson biography and although i knew Murray was a terrible father it is in my face again, I don't think it is any accident that Carl and Dennis (or Murry for that matter) died young, or that Brian had mental problems, Murry messed with them badly.

I am also reminded that Mike objected to Pet Sounds quiet strenuously according to Tony Asher and likewise SMiLE strenuously enough for Van Dyke to feel unwelcome and leave. This is a consistent story from many sources including Mike (although different emphasis). It has to be a factor.

Drugs, messed up childhood and continuing pressure from painful father, lots of business pressure and a lot of people relying upon him.

Finishing SMiLE was a very difficult thing to do, Mark Linnett has stressed this in recent interviews.

So having a very hard job to do quickly with Mike particularly giving him static when he needed support, ALL of these things ^^ are the reason.

Good question, certainly many have said nice things about it. But did they actually say to Brian that they really liked it? or try to defend Van Dyke's lyrics to Mike? I don't know. I get the feeling there was some worry about their livelihoods.

"The real reason Brian abandoned SMiLE?"


So he could devote more time to keeping the streets of Los Angeles safe from crime, of course.

From all the interviews over the years, it seems all of the Beach Boys loved the music. Though, I think the fact that there was nothing commercial on it, concerned the band and justifiably so. Heroes and Villains Part One, had that been the single released was borderline commercial, at best. I don't believe Vega-Tables would have worked out well as a single, either. Back in 1966-1967 it was still a singles, hit driven business. This reason alone had to worry the band, especially Mike and may have caused tension within and with Capitol.

Is that the reason I felt so safe when I was over there in April this year?  :o :o

I had a mad, mad, mad conspiracy theory about the non-release of SMiLE:

1) Capitol is the label of the Beatles in the US
2) the Beatles was a bit more "hyp" in those days than the BBoys (just a little bit, but ...)
3) I swear I hear Paul McCartney apologize himself to Brian when he gets to hug him on the BWPS DVD.

And what if Capitol had scrapped the project because it would've been too much in concurrence with the upcoming Sgt. Pepper ? Brian Wilson, demoralized and vexed by his label preventing the release of his Big Masterpiece drowns into depression.

I know it sounds really silly, but we already seen cases of record companies signing bands that were too close to another they already had. They did that on purpose to shut them so they don't concurrence the first one. Pretty dumb, but it happened.

The title of this thread implies two things:

1) There is one true reason why SMiLE was left until now.

2) The previous reason given was false.

Peter Carlin recently stated in contrast to Brian's reason for shelving the project:

Regardless of how proud Wilson is to hear his masterpiece in one piece after all these years, he says he's glad he shelved it at the time.

"I knew that it was too early to do that," Wilson says. "It was too far ahead of its time. There was no way we could release that back then."

Carlin, who has done his share of research into "Smile," dismisses Wilson's story on what happened as a line he started feeding journalists around the time his solo version of the album hit the streets.

"That's bulls--t," Carlin says. "Being ahead of his time is exactly what they were looking for. Here's the thing. Brian was sinking deeper into his emotional travails. And to some extent -- by my estimation, at any rate -- you can track how screwy the rest of his life was becoming by how beautiful his music was becoming, because I think music was kind of his last bastion, the last thing he could really control. And when you get to 'Pet Sounds' and he takes this kind of quantum leap in his orchestrations and the ambition of what he's trying to do, that kind of announces that he's really beginning to lose his bearings in his real life."

I think that's a good gauge as to what is the underlying reason as in reality there were a variety of reasons.

 

You felt safe there 'cause Phil Spector was safely behind bars.   ;)

The quote from the Smile booklet seems pretty accurate.  There's no one specific reason, just several converging issues.  "Performance anxiety" seems to be the phrase that would best sum up the issue (remember how he said he decided he didn't need to compete anymore?).  Any pressures he was feeling at the time were seen through the lens of Murray's child abuse.  Being beaten and emotionally criticized--constantly pushed to compete and achieve perfection--is obviously going to really f*** with you.  That's why there's no Smile: a dad who doesn't see you as human and a mom who just stands by.  The rest of the band, the Beatles, Capitol, etc. are just secondary, superficial issues.

So the Boys were doing everything he told them, the resistance was in his head, the reasons were internal not external. Sounds right. I'm not sure I buy that pressure from the label, he seems to have more or less thumbed his nose at the label and he had the label on the ropes legally at the time.

To me the only legitimate reasons are those he gave closest to the event: his feeling the lyrics too arty, music too elaborate/old fashion, wanted different mood and approach influenced by his choice to use a limited studio arrangement.

Much like Brian's own thoughts on the topic change and vary through the years, the more layers you can peel back on the big picture, the more events and influences will reveal themselves as "reasons". I prefer and weigh more heavily interviews of the people who were actually there and involved directly, taking into account their own personal views and possible biases.

Having said that, looking at interviews from the people involved, consider these points within the "big picture":

- Murry Wilson and Brian Wilson had a major falling out sometime at the end of 1966, falling somewhere after "Inside Pop" had come to film Brian and prior to work in January 1967. The reasons are not exactly clear, but one aspect of it was Murry feeling that Good Vibrations was not a good idea, and that it would alienate the group's fan base with the new sounds. Immediately after the new year of 1967, Brian works primarily on Heroes And Villains, adding section after section in a burst of recording.

Brian's studio work is dominated by Heroes And Villains through January, into February, and also into March 1967. The overwhelming majority of sessions are Heroes related, and Brian records fragment after fragment rather then a full song.

Compare that to his work from fall 1966 into the Christmas season: This period is an incredibly productive run of a lot of what was to be a Smile album minus Heroes. Brian was setting up Brother, getting into film, making appearances, hanging with his Los Angeles clan, riding on a #1 hit single...it was one of the most fascinating and productive runs of creativity and production the man had in his entire career, one that any artist would envy (especially those who will hear the results on Smile Sessions this week).

So what happened around Christmas 1966? Did anything happen at all to change the course and focus of Brian's creativity? Was it really something Murry said or something which came from their falling out, or was it the shift in focus from creating Smile as a whole to getting caught up in making the perfect modular single which would top Good Vibrations?

Brian said in the 90's that you couldn't top Good Vibrations, which is very revealing in hindsight but probably not something that would be a positive thought as you labor over constructing a masterpiece to top all previous masterpieces in early 1967.

- Then...post Heroes...Spring 1967...work shifts to Vegetables, mentioned as a potential single as well. Session after session devoted to Vegetables, March into early April '67. Sounds like the same pattern as January into February...pour all efforts into one song and possible single, building it from fragments into "test edits", then into a final mix that would be on par with his 1966 modular masterpiece. However, Van Dyke Parks had either left the project or had become less and less directly involved with the project, depending on whose account you'd find. The creative force that was Wilson-Parks...was Wilson and, who else? I'd submit Brian had no one he'd take musical advice from to rein in his ideas of changing and remaking songs and ideas to the point of tinkering them to oblivion.

And what, then, falls smack-dab in the middle of this? The lawsuit with Capitol hits its peak. A distraction, no doubt, but a necessary one if Brian and the BB's want to see it through and have the freedom to set up Brother. Then once Brother is set up on paper, what do they do with Brother? They'd need to get the ball rolling on all the projects Brian and the guys were planning in fall '66, the films, the outside productions, the comedy, etc. Oh, but there's still the album Smile to finish, and the modular singles which Brian still was not happy with and was still tinkering with and remaking. And Capitol, perhaps, wasn't there with a big budget for all of the studio time since Brian had taken them to court and the BB's contract with them was in jeopardy.

Heavy stuff, all in the span of 6 months or so. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the personal, day-to-day issues we know little or nothing about which happened at this same time, and which no one can claim to have their finger on the pulse of those personal events except those who were there.

Dennis was very vocal in his support for Smile in the press at the time. Van Dyke told me Dennis was very supportive of Brian's creative direction during that time, and wasn't shy about letting the others know they should be allowing Brian to do his thing without second guessing. You might also note that Dennis took a lot of the Smile vibe and sprinkled it in his own songs/productions, Little Bird, Be With Me, Steamboat, Time, Love Remember Me etc... Dennis loved Smile.

I think, and I base this partly on personal experience as well as having watched the BBs' story, Brian's statement is probably about dead-on, insofar as the simplest reason for the collapse of SMiLE is at a certain point he realized the whole thing had gotten away from him, it had gone from -- as Carlin said -- his last bastion of sanity to the biggest threat to it.  

Again speaking from personal experience, it's really easy to get involved in a project and throw yourself into it, then as events transpire and things play out, you realize that finishing the thing is going to be a monumental pain in the ass, way more than you had originally bargained for.  Likewise when you're in the studio...layering tracks is fun, but then comes the point when you have to put it all together.  That's work.

Now, think about this:  the modular way of recording was new to Brian.  He'd only really done it once, with "Good Vibrations," and that took six months.  Before that, everything he did was done more or less live in the studio.  Once you had a take, and put on vocals, it was basically done.  Wasn't it said at some point that PET SOUNDS was dubbed down in one day?  I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless, I don't know that Brian ever spent a ton of time on a mix.  He got the thing together live, and once it was balanced, there you go.

So now look at SMiLE:  Brian's had a great time amassing all these tracks, but now putting them all together, editing the tracks into some semblance of order, as Boyd and others have said, is a daunting task for even an experienced engineer.  But with one exception, Brian has never done this kind of thing before nor had manifested the patience to do it.  Even in the case of "Good Vibrations", he had almost bailed on it before Denny Hutton offered to buy the track.

So if you want the simplest explanation for the collapse of SMiLE, it's this:  it's a lot more fun to record a bunch of tracks than it is to corral them into an edited final mix, and the more crap you record, the more onerous that task becomes.  Now then add in all the ancillary stuff:  drugs, resistance from the band, the label, etc.  Very easy to see why you'd get to a certain point and say "screw this."  It's not fun anymore.  It's this giant albatross.  You literally will go 'round the bend if you try to get this thing done.  I know I would have, and I don't have a fraction of Brian's issues.

One more thing:  Jack Rieley in one of his interviews advanced an intriguing theory about SMiLE's collapse that, on reflection, rings true to me:  that Brian realized the album was never going to get the same kind of promo push that Capitol was giving the Beatles, and so the album was never going to get a fair shake in his mind.  And I think that would have been a very legitimate concern.  Again partly speaking from personal experience, if you're going to go through all that hassle to finish the thing, and then the release gets fumbled in the end, why the heck bother?

It all makes sense to me once you think through the process and what would have had to have been done to finish the album.

Just one tiny problem with that notion - Capitol didn't prevent the release of Smile. It was Brian who told them he was shelving it.

Nice responses by everyone...great reads!

It's true that Brian has switched up the reasons over the years...never settling on one reason.  The only consistent story we've heard (as told by others and Brian) was that it was the band's resistance to his vision that prompted him to stop.  Frankly, any other reason Brian has given--up to and  including the new "drug reason" he's given lately---has all been BS, in my book.  



That quote from Brian is defintely BS as Carlin says. "Too early to do that?"  Yeah, right!   It was clear that Brian was hungry for making something completely ahead of its time so for him to pull the brakes on it because it was TOO out there?  Doubt it. Who knows why Brian said this...maybe to deter any follow up questions and to avoid revisiting the real drama that occured which was everyone abandoning his vision.  

I doubt Brian is well enough to be able to settle one just one answer today.  There are several reasons looming in his head but I don't think we'll ever get just one answer.  Like I said earlier, I thought the chapter was closed when Brian flat out stated that "Mike Love was the reason he stopped SMiLE" on the BWPS DVD.  I thought, well, that's it.  Brian's finally come to terms with it.  And the fact that he very lightly goes back to that reasoning in his statement in the TSS booklet...I think this is as closest as we'll get to Brian's final answer.

"It makes 'Pet Sounds stink, that's how good it is" - Dennis Wilson, during the SMiLE sessions.

 :deadhorse

I think JMZ meant to say "Capitol would have prevented a successful release of Smile". Apparently, as Adam was saying, Jack Rieley shared that opinion, and in my view he may be spot-on:

Great post!  Thanks for this.  I didn't take into consideration how turned off Brian had gotten during the process.  This is sort of the missing peice of the puzzle because he's always made it seem like he was constantly moving forward while EVERYONE around him (the band, the label etc) were all slowing him down.  If indeed Brian was facing difficulties trying to complete it and was looking to bail as he did with Good Vibrations---it all makes sense why things fell apart the way they did.

Yeah I figured this was a topic that has been discussed ad infinitum around here but Brian's new story that "Drugs were the real reason he stopped SMiLE" perked my ears.  I had never heard this from him and found it interesting that it's one more story to throw into the bag as to why he really shelved SMiLE. 

Really?

SMiLE's non appearance due to Brian's drug use was the most common reason given at one point. That was the first reason I knew about.

The first story I heard was that it was Mike Love's aggressive displeasure for the material to be the number one cause and I ran with that for many years.  It seems that we've all gotten several stories over the years.  I think I"m learning now that it was never just ONE reason but an amalgamation of a few factors that led to Brian bailing on SMiLE. 

Capitol would have fumbled the release ?

They had full page color ads for it in late 1966... they booked studio time for Brian in blocks... they printed 400,000 booklets and were set to manufacture 400,000 sleeves... they sent a message to their sales people in December 1966... they were gasping to have the album to release...

Respectfully, complete nonsense.

I think SMILE is too f***ed up and promotes drug use. Smiley Smile does too in a lot of ways but its a lot more mellow and harder to get lost in that trip. Smile is a lot of fragments just on a sorta dead-end trip. It doesn't have the cohesive scope I think they set out to acheive

Great points being made all around.  It's nice to see such rational and respectful discussion on this issue - that wasn't always possible back in the day.

When you start listing everything Brian had working against him at the time, the fact that he accomplished as much as he did becomes that much more astounding.  He was hit with the "perfect storm" at the worst possible time. 

Brian's quote from the booklet is much more accurate than anything he's been saying in interviews lately.  The drugs and "people weren't ready for it" excuses are nice little PR soundbites, designed to mask the fact that this isn't a story you can just boil down and simplify for public consumption.  We've all spent years discussing these issues, but to the uninitiated, it would be ridiculously overwhelming, and would also have the unintended consequence of distracting from the music, which is ultimately the most important part of the story.

Yes indeed Chris, nice post.  I as well view the quote from the booklet to be the more fair assessment with what went down.  It touches on many subjects without going into laborious details.   For a second though, I thought Brian's latest "drug" story was him finally coming to terms with it and finally revealing the story.  He's been saying with such conviction and very as-a-matter-of-factly that it seemed worth believing.   That Brian is still throwing me for a loop!

Didn't Van Dyke say in a previous interview (something along the lines of) that drugs had no bearing on why Smile being shelved. Brian sounds pretty focused and confident in the studio and the amount of hours of work put in wouldn't have been possible if he was stoned or jacked up. Also in a work environment with all those people around would he want to look wasted in front of them?

I... what?

In Beautiful Dreamer he said something to the effect of "don't let drugs confuse the issue."  And his reasoning was basically as you said - if anything, the drugs allowed Brian to work longer hours and get more done.  A very "athletic situation" is the wording I believe he used.

Of course, this doesn't touch on how Brian's mental and emotional stability was impacted by the drugs, which is an issue that shouldn't be overlooked. 

Thank God and Brian that the mind gangsters finally had been corralled.   :lol

I just watched a Leonardo Da Vinci documentary on the BBC and it said he often left paintings incomplete. They said it was probably because he had a vision for the paintings that he just couldn't realise on the canvas so he just gave up. It suddenly got me thinking about Brian and Smile. Perhaps this is a curse of a genius, sometimes you just can't relay what's in your head.

Actually all of the Boys gave the same support to Brian and SMiLE as Dennis did. Theirs' gets overlooked for some reason. There used to be list of the same type of statements of support all voiced by all of Boys during SMiLE.

As I recall (and without my LLVS by my side, I may be wrong), the only other Beach Boy besides Dennis to praise SMiLE in contemporary press articles was Bruce.  Mike praised "Heroes," but not the project as a whole.  Even those were nothing like Dennis' comments at the time - "so good it makes Pet Sounds stink" is a pretty strong statement, and I don't recall any of the Boys saying anything like that at the time, or even in subsequent years.

How many were specifically asked about the project, though?  Some of those Smile-era articles on the group seem to focus on their lifestyles and how they function as a band, versus delving into the current project.

Say, where's my "nice post"? :-D

I think the issue of Capitol's willingness to promote the album is a bit of a red herring in light of other factors. Just a bit, because obviously Capitol was going further than they had done previously for a teenage/pop act in the way they were going gung-ho into the packaging and the creative control given to Brian. *That* is what a smash hit #1 single that gets your band voted more popular than the Beatles will buy in the way of bargaining power.

However...

As I mentioned, a major factor in all of this is the lawsuit. Which, if I'm correct on the timeline, came after the planning for the promotion, the booklet, the artwork, etc. The Beach Boys as a litigant against Capitol had gone public, had basically exposed a practice I'm sure Capitol would have rather hid under their legal carpet, and stood to cost them not only money, future money and the like, but also the most popular band (in England at least) of 1966...as the Boys were threatening to jump ship and cut ties with Capitol. hence, the lump sum back payment *and* the creative freedom of Brother Records.

The lawsuit was a major factor, I'm convinced more in 2011 than I ever was in the past.

Nice post!  :-D

Finally!

Haha..nice posts guitarfool2002...and great avatar!  I think you are right that the lawsuit may have more to do with the breakdown of events than people realize.  It's yet another component that when mixed with all the other factors...brought things to a crashing halt. 

Maybe my memory was a little foggy but here are some of them for whatever it's worth.

Nov 7 1966

Dennis Wilson: “In my opinion it makes ‘Pet Sounds’ stink - that’s how good it is.“

Published November 19 1966

Al Jardine: “Brian has done some terrific things - he is unbelievably devoted to our music - and there is more to come in the next album we must finish up when we get home.”

Published  December 17 1966

Al Jardine re. “ a very Hawaiian-influenced track, sung in Hawaiian, no less”: “This is by far the best thing we’ve ever done! Everything - the music, lyrics, singing, background - everything is perfect. “

Published January 7 1967

Mike Love: “Our [early] stage act was sort of early rhythm-and-blues - stuff by the Coasters and Chuck Berry. Not too many musical innovations there. Our progress has been slow. Because of Brian being on the road with us. He and I used to write songs. I’d contribute a lyric or rhyme, but actually, the bulk of the work has always been Brian’s. We worked after or during road tours that lasted weeks. That’s enough to kill a person without trying to come up with hit singles every few months. Somehow we did. Then when Brian stopped touring, wham! We were staggered. And he keeps doing this to us! More and more and greater and greater things.”

May 7 67

Bruce Johnston: “I’ve got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the ‘Smile’ LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time.”


May 7 1967

Mike Love re. EMI release of Then I Kissed Her: “The record company didn’t even have the decency to put out one of Brian’s own compositions. The reason for the hold up with a new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn’t ready yet.”

2nd week of July 67

Mike Love: "[re. Heroes and Villians] A new improvement of Brian’s capacities in this job. Once again he knows exactly what we can and what we can’t. There’s a lot of things happening on the record just like ‘Good Vibrations’…The flip is incredible. The title is ’You’re Welcome’. No other lyrics. I don’t know how Brian did it, but there’s no accompaniment. ‘Heroes and Villains’ is going to be released as the first single on our new label, Brothers Records…We are finishing it [the album] now. We knew the title and songs months ago already. Only Brian played the tapes again a few times and found it necessary to skip some songs. I don’t know how many sleeves they can throw out now, just because the lineup of songs and some songs have changed completely. He also said that we were going to make ‘Vegetables’ [the next single] instead. Brian had a photo session in a supermarket at the vegetables and fruit part."

Late 1967/early 1968

Brian Wilson: "Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE. I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on the tunes, and in the process we came up with a song called 'Surf’s Up,' and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music.
The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked ... because I didn't feel that they ... I don't know why, I just didn't, for some reason, didn't want to put them on
the album ... and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good over that, that one ... the decision of mine not to put a lot of the things that
we'd cut for the album SMILEY SMILE on the album, and so for like almost a year, we're just now kind of getting back together ... because I didn't
think that the songs really were right for the public at the time, and I didn't have a feeling, a commercial feeling, about some of these songs that
we've never released, and ... maybe I ... some people like to hang onto certain things and ... just as their own little songs that they've written
almost for themselves. And a lot of times, you know, a person will write and will realize later that they're ... it's not commercial, you know, but
what they've written is nice for them, but a lot of people just don't like it."

Just wondering why this was never brought up during the royalties lawsuit...

That is a fantastic point. Why didn't they use this quote? Damn.

Jon Steebins +_ Adam Ghost Are RIGHT.. SORRY if i spelled your names wrong.. Its drugs + Mike + Brian Stopping SMILE;; ALL the BB except DENNIS has REWROTE  HISTORY.. None of the BB liked smile and spacey songs + drug influenced music...  I do understand after ALL these years they might come around to the music.. How could they NOT..??..BUT.. if you have all the music + books + videos + print material.. You will find they all are full of BS..NONE of the BB were willing to go in  this direction .. I stand by this statement,,!!!!!!!!!!! The 5 other BB broke BW heart and slowly; he with drew from BB.. BW is a sensitive soul.. He withdrew + never came fully back to this day...!! And then technology overcame him +he didnt have chuck britz to bounce ideas off of.. The studio musicians were more open to experimentation  than  BB band.. .. THe other 5 BB are responsible for tellin BW dont mess with the formula.... OK i get that.. But what we would have left would be,,.. Mama"s +Papas..association.. Raiders.. Left over beatles.. What we do have is the GREATEST rock + roal band from USA.. The Beach Boys..!!.. Smile is part of that legacy.. If BB came out in late 60"s + 70"s.. BB because of SMILE would have been considered a prog rock band>>> Oh my did i say that.. YES i did.... SMILE rates in prog rock like ..YES .. Procul Harum.... ELP ...Beatles..  Whatever you had from that time..!!What keeps them out of the bands in that GENRE is that they were NOT great soloist on their instruments. Cw in later interviews says he loved smile.... Scuse me.. He thought GV was to far out + so did Bruce..!! UMM..The other 5 BB were POP musicians.. BW was prog rock??pop.. He lost them + had to retreat back to pop rock to reign them in + then he dispersed.. I stand by this statement + i believe BB were the greatest R+R band from USA + GREATEST VOCAL GROUP OF 20 TH CENTURY....!! bUT IM TIRED OF HISTORY BEING re written..pAUL

Yer on drugs, too, my friend.

Before you came up with this explanation I honestly believed it was Brian's declining mental state that was the main reason. ::)

So, obviously it was Carl who hated Smile all along. Who knew ?

Surely you don't believe that. Mike might have had his reasons but he did not support SMiLE. I'm sure he cared enough about Beach Boys publicity to say good things to the press at the time, but I have heard on docos, Carl (pretty sure Al), Van Dyke, Brian and Mike himself say he had issues with SMiLE. There are multiple statements from a variety of sources, for it to be entirely uncontroversial. Tony Asher even said Mike was very critical of the lyrics to Pet Sounds.

I think the point about how hard it would have been to finish are right. In the end Brian sat down with Darian and a laptop and they juggled the pieces around they got Van Dyke back to finish some lyrics and it was all good. If Van Dyke hadn't been alienated, firstly by Mike and then by Brian's increasingly eccentric behaviour, he and Brian might have been able to get together and work out a final sequence and worked out what needed to be done to finish it and then done so.

But Brian's mental state was deteriorating through this time and that might have been due to what was happening with SMiLE or it might have just happened anyway, but principally I think it was from being a sensitive person who was messed up by his father and then put under enormous pressure. So finishing SMiLE might have been a race against time that Brian lost.

Yes indeed. But do we know if Spector didn't get twin echo chambers installed in his cell?

Small point, but I feel a salient one - if the rest of the band were so set against Smile, why did they works their butts off recording some of the most astonishing vocals in rock music, EVER ?  Why didn't they just say "f*** this Brian, we're not doing it"  or at least call in sick ?

As for Asher saying Mike was critical of the Pet Sounds lyrics... this has exactly what to do with Smile ?

I'm guessing that if Mike had issues with some of the lyrical content on Pet Sounds, then it's easy to see how he would be critical of the far more 'way out there' lyrics intended for Smile.

Yep

Firstly, Murry had issues with Brian writing with people outside 'the family' and therefore sharing songwriting royalties with 'strangers' outside the family business. Then Mike had issues with anyone taking away from his songwriting royalties...that might be closer to the truth.

Exactly this: If Mike was critical of the Pet Sounds lyrics and Pet Sounds still got done, then Mike being critical of the SMiLE lyrics cannot be the reason for SMiLE not getting finished. It may have contributed, but can't be the reason.

i didn't say the rest of the band, I said Mike, and as i said Mike's objections have come to us from a variety of sources and they're all pretty consistent and i know you are aware of them and it would be an amazing piece of mental gymnastics to explain them all away. What do you expect the Beach Boys to do?  They were good singers that's what they do, Brian wrote amazing parts for them. Those are the tracks that Brian had prepared for them, they could do them or do nothing at that stage, he was unlikely to suddenly change direction and make it an album of surf and car songs. Reading the account I just read in Carlin's biography he writes "Mike had no intention of singing a word of this until someone could explain it to him..." which led to his confrontation with Van Dyke, which ended with Van Dyke feeling he was not welcome.  Earlier Carlin says "Brian began to dread the vocal sessions".  

Well put Micha. I have never heard Mike say anything but positive comments for the music of Smile. However, being the a business savvy guy that he is, it's understandable he may have had concerns with how well the new direction would have gone over with longstanding fans. Let's face it, a fair few didn't get on the Pet Sounds train did they?

Also the group as a whole must have wondered how on earth they were going to reproduce much of the material live as just a 5 piece band. They may have worried that a schism was on the verge of developing  between what the band could achieve on record and what they could perform live. In a few years time did they still want to be stuck performing nothing but the "Little Deuce Coupes" and "Surfin' USA's" of their past because the new material was too complex to play?

One last point, if the group did come close to breaking up when Brian wouldn't allow several of the Smile tunes to be resurrected for Smiley, then that's a clear indication of how much they still thought of his compositions during this period.

You point here is invalidated by the following:

1 - VDP told Mike "I have no idea what they [the "Cabin Essence" lyrics] mean".

2 - Mike sang them anyway.

Like I said earlier, Brian's explanation of why Smile wasn't released changes roughly every five years. In the ultimate final analysis, that he chose to abandon it was far more important than the reason why.

Vis a vis the absence of pro-SMiLE comments (even PR ones) from Carl, I'm not sure the idea that Carl hated SMiLE is all that far-fetched.  Yes, he was onboard in '72 when Jack Rieley was calling the shots, but he was pretty quiet about it, relative to the things he had to say about PET SOUNDS, before and after.  I was surprised to hear third-hand (don't remember from who) that Carl apparently dissed the music later in life when he was talking about it with a friend.  That's hearsay, so take it for what it's worth, but I raised an eyebrow when that story was told to me, and I started to think that Carl had surprisingly little to say on the topic over the years.  I also recalled an interview with Brian where he specifically said SMiLE didn't happen because "Carl didn't like it."  I had dismissed it at the time as just one of Brian's "Norbit" moments but after hearing that story I started to wonder if it didn't spring from a grain of truth.

If Carl was resistant to SMiLE, after having been supportive of PET SOUNDS and being Brian's right-hand man in the studio all through those years...that could have had a REALLY big impact on Brian's confidence.  Brian clearly knew Mike's aesthetic judgment couldn't be trusted, but Carl...Carl was a different matter.  If Carl was dubious, I could see Brian getting dubious real fast.

It's something to consider.  I have no idea above and beyond the above whether it's true or not.

Mike himself has said he thought the lyrics were beautiful but he wondered what the fans would make of them. Apparently the same opinion Brian had. Mike can have those issues and still support and promote and work his tail off to make it happen and even object to Brian wanting to scrap the same songs. We overlook the fact that the same sources used to vilify Mike or the Boys tell us Brian had issues with Van Dyke's lyrics and Van Dyke had issues with Brian's music and they claim that conflict is the reason SMiLE was cancelled. For some reason we choose to ignore this and don't have any problem with believing that they can issues with and still love and be supportive of SMiLE. Whatever issues any of them had they were all swept along by their appreciation of the music and Brian and Brian's enthusiasm. There is not just this press evidence of their support, you hear it all over the tapes imo, all you hear is Brian in complete control of the music, the musicians, the Boys, and himself with the Boys in team effort mode working their tails over hundreds of takes. Sidebar: to me the tapes and their documentation also put to sleep the theories that Brian was obsessive, or confused, lost, or drug addled but that's just me [and the actual events and documentation ;-)].

In spite of their support and overall enthusiasm, in the end as Brian explained in '67,  Brian himself had a change of Muse or mind and dumped all of their hard work against their wishes. Apparently, according to Brian, there was a big blow up with the Boys wanting to keep the SMiLE songs and Brian dumping them anyway. End of story [right?]. They all dusted themselves off and went back to enthusiastically supporting Brian's every whim even on some of the most brilliantly weird Pop music committed to vinyl. 

That doesn't invalidate my point. Mike did sing the lyrics anyway but not before he had alienated Van Dyke who was Brian's collaborator on the project, it can't have helped. I feel a bit like Mike Love as I don't understand what you mean when you say "In the ultimate final analysis, that he chose to abandon it was far more important than the reason why." In this world we don't get much ultimate analysis and for Brian I suspect that both the reasons why and the fact that he did abandon the project were very important. As for us its all pretty good, we have a wonderful set of sessions and a completed work with BWPS.

How do we know it wasn't?

The guy's not perfect, but the way some people go off at Mike for Smile, you'd think he was the first and only person in a band to ever have had a creative difference of opinion.

Just a couple of thoughts:

- As someone who's much more of a Beatles fan than a Beach Boys fan, I can tell you this: the Beatles were probably the least of the worries around the time of Smile. They only released one album in 1966 (except for a compilation cobbled together by Capitol in the US), they hardly had any singles compared to previous years, and they were pretty mum about what was going on. In fact, John Lennon was off working on How I Won The War, and Paul McCartney was composing the music to The Family Way. Rumors were that the Beatles were over.

- Speaking of The Beatles, David Prokopy wrote in his tape set notes back in 1993 that explaining why Smile wasn't finished is like explaining why The Beatles broke up. Ergo, I conclude that the reason Smile didn't come out? It was because of Yoko. *snort!*

- Thank God Smile did NOT come out when it was supposed to; it so wouldn't be the legend that it is now.

If we're going to bring Jack Reiley into the discussion, hinting at more evidence or proof of a reason why Smile happened as it did, I'd suggest first that Reiley wasn't there when it originally unfolded in 66-67, and while his memory of the facts coming from what he was told can be added to the discussion, why not weigh more heavily the words of those who were actually there?

In other words, Michael Vosse who was perhaps closer to Brian on a daily basis as any "outsider" at that time, and David Anderle, who was the man behind the business dealings with Capitol and who, as acting manager, would probably have had firsthand negotiations with Capitol staff over promotions, the lawsuit, contracts, etc.

Compile quotes and statements from those two men, readily available, and add that part of the story to what is a multi-layered puzzle that I doubt will ever be narrowed down to a simple answer. What factors do they cite in various interviews?

Although the "Yoko" answer is pretty damned funny. ;D

Ever think they actually DID? And maybe that's why vocals were never recorded for a lot of material?

+1

You don't really have to take sides to see that everyone had a point.  You're Brian: you're making this amazing music, you've been busting your ass for years, you've delivered the band wealth and fortune, why can't they shut up and do their jobs?

You're Mike, or Carl:  I just got off the road, got a bunch of acclaim for making a certain kind of music, now here's this completely different thing, Brian's not communicating his vision really well, he's acting weird, and his friends kind of freak me out.

You're Van Dyke:  I've got my own options and career.  I did this to help out Brian and achieve this vision.  Now here's all these rubes acting superior and implying I'm a hanger-on and my lyrics suck.  Who needs this?

You're Capitol:  We're spending HOW much?  And the dude's got a sandbox in his house?  WTF?  Where is the single?

They're all valid viewpoints.  It just depends on where you're standing.

This is beyond stupid!

If you're Brian Wilson at the height of your powers and it's 1967 and you have complete control and complete say over the music you're creating, you have these amazing vocalists who will sing exactly what you tell them to no matter if they like it or not (and the only concrete evidence we have IS the Beach Boys singing these parts) and you scrap the whole thing because Mike Love questions a single line of lyric or is generally not exploding with enthusiasm, it's YOUR decision and your mistake. Mike did what he was told and would have continued doing so just like the others. Brian dropped the ball and it's his responsibility. He put himself in the position to make that decision. End of story.

Surely you realize it's not so simple? That Brian didn't "drop the ball", for instance?

I'm not saying it's simple: I'm saying that the man in charge made the decision to not finish the album when he had every tool to indeed finish it at his disposal. Now, we can point to whatever hurdle we want and assign blame there, but in the end is was Brian's decision.

You're leaving out one key factor:  motivation.  It's an intangible, but it's extremely relevant.  There's a world of difference in creativity between having the wind at your back and perceiving that, even though all the tools are at your disposal, you are having to wield an inordinate amount of mental and physical energy to wield them.

Exactly!

I guess I'm just saying that in the end it was Brian's decision alone. No one asked him to abandon Smile or ordered him to or plead for it's scrapping.


There could have certainly been more positive support for Brian but it was his decision so the responsibility for Smile being scrapped is his.

Collapsing under your own ideas and mind =/= making a decision

imo

It also seems increasingly clear to me that Smile never really ended ... Smiley comes out, but Brian keeps working on Cool, Cool Water and then comes up with Can't Wait Too Long ... he records this other version of Surf's Up ... At the time, I'll bet it seemed much more fluid than 1.) Project ends here 2.) New project begins.

That's a very good way of thinking about it :)

And yes, Brian did make a decision no matter what the factors.

I think what is being over looked is Brian didn't can SMiLE because of anything but the fact that he didn't dig it for all the reasons he gave. He was enthused about it, he had it all planned, was systematically and orderly improving it, had the band et al jumping through all of his hoops, had fired his dad, had the label in his back pocket, took all the time he wanted, and did as he pleased, and as he got what he wanted he didn't like it. Why is somebody responsible for Brian's Muse?
We also continue to overlook that Brian himself said the Boys didn't want SMiLE scrapped so they obviously weren't exerting pressure or doing anything that Brian took as working against SMiLE, he saw them as advocating for SMiLE. He canned it in spite of even the Boys advocacy for it.
It is fine if Brian didn't dig it back then, he doesn't have to be someone or something's victim, he can own his feelings toward his own creations.

Did Brian really have the emotional maturity to pull this project off? I mean what about the LAX photo in October 1966. How many friends were in that photo? And within 6 months he was barely talking to any of them. Does that sound like the guy had it together? It makes complete sense to me that he got 'jack' of the whole SMiLE idea and decided to go on a different tangent, one that didn't involve a competitive musical spirit.

Which photo would that be?

The one with Jules Seigel, Danny Hutton, Gene Gaddy & Barbara Rovell et al at LAX, late 1966.

Lots of good thoughts here. My 2 cents is that The Beach Boys probably all had varying degrees of mixed feelings about it including Brian. The only thing that matters today is that they did excellent work on it especially Brian. As far as drugs I doubt Brian was all that drug addled at the time compared to his intake from say 1972-82. As far as mental illness Brian had it before Smile and he had it after Smile. It didn't just pop up because an album didn't come out.

Because Brian did some fabulous work from mid 1967 to mid 1973 I don't think the non release of Smile destroyed him creatively in any sense. Yes during those six years he had times where he wasn't doing much, but he had times where he was quite active. From 1961-73 his creativity doesn't seem interupted to me at all. His hygiene didn't go down until after his dad died and his weight didn't become a real factor (at least not to a dangerous extent) until Holland. Obviously by 1972 he was having chemical and mental issues, but I think he didn't completely change until Murry died. My thoughts are that Brian would have went the way he went no matter what sooner or later. Did being in a group add to his problems at times? Sure but it also gave him a wonderful outlet.

I also want to add that the others sooner or later were going to blossom as songwriters in the way Brian and Mike had. They were going to have more input to some level when mono was phased out in any event. They even during Pet Sounds and Smile were still essential to what Brian was doing and these individuals were all too talented not to want to do their own music. That said it seems through Surf's Up Brian had a lot of final say, he was respected by the band, and had some sort of leadership role. To me the turning point was using Surf's Up in 1971. This is all confirmed by Desper and others around at the time to me personally and even Brian without my prompting basically confirmed that Wild Honey to Sunflower in particular was a time where he felt everyone was working together quite well and that he was a full part of that. Even something like 20/20 Desper felt like Brian had final say even approving the Smile tracks being done. After that he changed and the band changed.

I think Brian got sick of hearing about Smile and only when it was made to be this gothic thing did it really hurt him mentally. I think he has been misinformed by those who came into his life later as far as that period goes. Thankfully he has apparently come to a place of peace about not only it being heard but also it seems he may now realize that his band mates did do some great work on it. One last thing I think this is cathartic for all of the surviving members. It got to be as big a noose around their necks as it was for Brian. Mike Love still is being put down because Brian's social group didn't like him and he didn't like them. What people should realize is that Mike was a great asset to the band until he got on the oldies train, and that his work should speak louder than rumors or even his own words. You must understand that even in 1966 Brian was his cousin and somebody he grew up with. He was not going to have this view of Brian as being this prophet of the new dawn or whatever people thought of him from the outside. I think he did and does respect Brian's talent, but to him Brian was and is his cousin and he was going to be frank with him about what he liked or didn't. That really didn't matter because obviously Brian won the argument and he did the work. As his old quotes from 1967 show, he came around enough to show public support. Again trust the art not the artist. Mike may be a great guy, he may be a jerk, he probably can be both. What matters is the work he did. Brian Wilson was one of a kind, without him The Beach Boys wouldn't have got off the ground, but I don't think he would have done as well if he hadn't had some great talents to work with. They were even in 1966 a great GROUP.

Hey great post, but I'm going to focus on what I don't agree with. 

From reading Carlin's book on Brian and other material I have read, I think actually Brian's mental health did suffer a significant change within the SMiLE period. Early on he was eccentric, fun, adventurous and highly prolific, he was writing and recording amazing pieces. Towards the end of the SMiLE period he had shed a lot of his friends and was having serious paranoid episodes. I think there is a significant shift. if you look at his work, the version of H&V he finally released it was a pale shadow of his early recordings.  I think at the end of the SMiLE period Brian just did not have in his mind the shining vision of a "Teenage Symphony to God" that he had at the start.

I agree.  A great deal of the band's concern about SMiLE could probably be traced to their perception of Brian's mental state and concern about the people around them.  That said, I think it's a valid point that the real bad stuff didn't kick in until 1973.  But clearly, things were bad before then.  There was the stay in a mental hospital in '68.  Consider how bad things had to have gotten for that to have happened.

x

Well honestly I think his direction changed. Is Smiley as grand as Smile? No not in scale or in quality, yet Brian gushed about how the band was brought together and how much he enjoyed the Smiley sessions to J. Marks in January 1968. This unpublished tape is used in my Beach Boys manuscript and on that day at least Brian was in great shape mentally. Besides Heroes the single may have had a slightly flat mix but it is inventive and ranks as a great piece of work. It could have been better going by the early arrangements,  but what Brian decided on was really good. By 1969-70 many of his productions were as grand as ever. This Whole World and Add Some Music, and Break Away alone are all as clear and exciting as the Smile era.

As far as mental illness it went back to Murry and Murry's father. Brian had it before 1967, as Marilyn once told me he always had bad days. Granted they were few in number when they met in 1962, but there was a tendency to withdraw or lack confidence when he was down. Go back to 1963, he is gaining weight and not wanting to tour. In 1964 he had a few minor incidents on their fall tour and had a full breakdown by the winter. By 1966 Brian had radical mood swings described by Tony Asher that really were serious and not always connected to reality. Smile he had odd behavior on a number of occasions. Honestly though until Carnie was born Marilyn did not notice a big change. That was almost a year later. Al Jardine and Bruce Johnston have both attested that Brian was in good shape during the Wild Honey/Friends period. 20/20 was a struggle to some extent but as I described he bounced back a great deal. His dad selling the songs in 1969 hurt him bad and he stayed in bed a short time, but within weeks he was writing and recording. He even went on tour a few months later. His behavior on the tour included one bad episode, but he performed well at the shows and enjoyed it. By 1972 drugs were a problem as well as lack of motivation but listening to Brian play the Fairly Tale on bootleg in early 1973 shows him to be pretty much who he was ten years earlier. By then yes he had a lot more bad days but the real Brian was still there at times. After Murry died I don't think he was. Not that he hasn't had good moments or good periods, but his whole demeanor changed and his work was never as consistent. As early as 1974 he was still singing and writing well at times, but he gained almost 100 pounds and a track like Battle Hymn just wasn't up to anything he had done before.  Note Steve Shapiro's comments in your often cited Carlin book. Brian as late as the early seventies still had a sense of humor and normalicy on his good days. Debbie Kiel said that when she met Brian in 1969 he didn't have to be watched or worried about. By the mid seventies that had drastically changed.

Smile was a turning point yes, but really it only made more clear problems that had been there all along. Perhaps Brian wasn't one who should have done acid, but I don't think it did anything but bring out things that were in him already. Hard drugs, prescription drugs, and drinking proved a lot more damaging in a permanent way. That the Beach Boys gave Brian more input after Smile was something he mostly welcomed. There were times later on he felt unneeded or unwanted but that rarely the case on albums like Friends, Sunflower, or Wild Honey. The big point I am trying to make is that Brian's decline was happening years before, and continued to happen in the years after. His work isn't totally tied to that. Even after Smile the changes were very gradual. Note the footage of him in the blue shirt in Hawaii in 1967. He is fully in control in the studio segments.

adamghost I agree with you. Brian had a very bad spell in 1968 but it seems like it was short lived. He also had a very bad spell in late 1964. Yet (because of some comments by Carl to Geoffry Himes in 1981) I date 1972 as the start of the drug abuse as opposed to use, and 1973 as when he really changed for good.

These are all great posts, but I look at what Brian says in his notes to The Smile Sessions, talking about the project unraveling:

"Truly, my creative heart was broken."

WOW....  That comment, alone, just breaks my heart too.

So, now in 2011, I trust that Brian's creative heart has indeed mended, for many years now, and that, hopefully he is truly of how much REAL JOY this wonderful, wonderful music brings to thousands of people!!!

End of story? What about Brian's mental state? What does that make of his "responsibility"?

But with what would I have wasted my time then?


So now can finally put this discussion at rest. "End of story". :wink

I'm really sorry to necro this thread, but where were these quotes published? LLVS?

Mostly New Music Express and Disc & Music Echo. A few are republished in LLVS. The last one was broadcast on KHJ's History of Rock and Roll.

David Anderle said the point at which he knew they were going to have trouble with SMiLE was Brian's reaction to the "Fire" music, and things did seems to gradually go downhill from there.

Brian's idea that the Fire music could somehow mystically cause an increase of fires in the area is an outward manifestation of some underlying factors.

In my view---SMiLE was about communicating the spiritual/LSD experience to the consumer of the album/art. "Fire" communicated a negative aspect of the spiritual/LSD experience and Brian's sensitivity to this, along with the double bind that he couldn't disclose what he was really working on (for to do so would rob it of its power in the same way something is lost when a joke has to be explained), left Brian in a bind that he needed a way out of. I think the fire paranoia served that purpose and it also led Brian to question his direction and the appropriateness of the project as a whole.

I hope it isn't too much to ask, but could I please have a breakdown of which appeared where? These would add great perspective to the band's attitude towards Smile on the Wikipedia article (something that's sorely lacking), but I unfortunately wouldn't be able to add them without reliably citing their origins. Thanks in advance  :)

Here's the best I can do at the moment:

DW:  Hit Parader Magazine, issue unknown; interview Nov/7/66; LLVS 27
AJ: Disc & Music Echo; Published Nov/19/66; interview mid-Nov/66
AJ: New Music Express; Published Dec/17/66
ML: New Music Express; Published Jan/7/67
BJ: New Music Express; Published May/27/67; interview May/7/67; LLVS 198
ML: New Music Express; Published May/27/67; interview May/7/67; LLVS 198
ML: TeenBeat; issue unknown; interview late July 67; LLVS 140
BW: KHJ History of Rock and Rock; interview late 67/early 68

Following up on my prior post it's notable that Jules Siegel was under the impression that Brian had destroyed the Fire master. As Siegel reported "Brian destroyed the master."

Obviously the truth is that Brian had not destroyed the master and this reinforces my prior claim that the whole Fire thing was possibly a fabrication to get out of a situation Brian wanted to get out of.

Some very interesting points here that I hadn't considered:

1-The idea that Carl also hated SMiLE. This changes everything when Brian cites the group's disapproval as a key factor. This also reaffirms the idea that there was more going on then just Mike asking what Cabin Essence was about. When your previous collaborator/front man and little bro/studio associate both seem unsupportive and/or hostile to your project, that's pretty significant on top of all the other issues going on. Brian thought Fire literally caused fires. Maybe in his paranoid state he honestly believed this music was tearing his band apart and so it had to be killed.

2-This idea that the reason vocals weren't recorded for many tracks was because of similar complaints from Love and Brian's own indecisiveness to all aspects of the project. Can anyone confirm this?

I doubt that theory -- seriously, seriously doubt it.

My impression is Carl starting doubting the SMile project when he saw Brian scheduling endless sessions to work on bits and pieces of songs with nothing getting finished.  Carl was in on a lot of the sessions and could see Brian's inability to finish anything.  I'm sceptical that he "hated" it, but he saw the project circling the drain and probably agreed with pulling the plug.

Bicyclerider, that's a much more plausable theory. I just don't think that Carl hated Smile.

Hate may be too strong a word. Disapproved, maybe?

Whether they liked it or hated it, each Beach Boys would have ultimately done anything Brian asked them to do.

Brian shelved smile because he was overwhelmed by everything going on at the time (not just recording but also legal headaches with Capital and a mariad of other reasons) and his mental health was precarious at best to deal with it all.

Nope, not even disapproved. Carl made a finished version of "Surf's Up," after all, and put Smile tracks on subsequent BB albums. That strongly suggests to me that he liked the music.

Agreed. I think it was more a case of "what do we do with these songs?" rather than dislike.

Perhaps he liked some tracks but not others? Or took awhile to warm up to it?

Please think about what is being said here. Also, they did release Smiley Smile. How could the band have released Smiley if they did not like Smile? If you take the Smiley version of the songs, plus the all that was released on subsequent albums through Surf's Up, they must have really liked the music that Brian created for Smile.

Just because Smiley was released doesnt mean the boys loved it or SMiLE. You're saying my assumptions/speculation is wrong based on your own assumptions/speculation. Truth is, nobody can claim the high ground here, it's all educated guesswork.

What? I say it because it is much more weird sounding than anything on Smile. They put their name on the production credit. Nothing they did after Party sounded anything like what came before it. They were moving forward with varying degrees of success, but moving forward none the less. So far in both threads discussing Smile, there is nothing new put forward that hasn't been beat to death in other threads. We do know through those who have spent years researching this era that many factors went into the shelving of Smile, the least of which is that the guys did not like some of the songs.

I'm not blaming the guys for the album's nonrelease. All I said was that's interesting to note that Carl disliked SMiLE too.

Smiley was even weirder but it was a completely different sound. It's possible to like one style of weird but not the other.

Singing-wise and musically dynamic, Smile is much closer to what they were doing on Today and Pet Sounds than anything on Smiley Smile. As for Carl, didn't he liken Smile to a grand-slam when comparing it to Smiley Smile (a bunt)? If anyone in the group besides Brian knew that they had to move forward in a big way, it was Carl. Just looking at what was released between 1967 and 1973, it was Carl & Dennis who were the most progressive in moving the band forward and trying to keep the band relevant.

Yeah, I've heard that Carl quote before. More than anything, and starting with SMiLE, Brian developed a failure to finish the things he started. Even Love You, an album many people see as a Brian solo album, Carl had to finish it. Brian got to a point where first he couldn't tour and write, then he couldn't write and finish a project (SMiLE), then he contributed less and less to the band's albums, and finally he was all but gone with an occasional cameo. He really hasn't completely realized a project on his own since Pet Sounds, IMO.

Maybe they were apprehensive about the album, its lyrics, etc., but yet they were also excited about it (and as is pretty evident, put a lot of work into it), and maybe what really drove the project down and caused dissension was the continual reworkings/re-recordings, the amount of delay happening.  One can imagine they may have been like, "WTF??  Let's finish this already and get it out while we still have a major hit in the charts!"  Brian was even quoted (in '68?) about how the decision not to release Surf's Up at that point was a major issue among the band.   When it comes to why Smile didn't happen there is only one person ultimately responsible, and we all know who that was/is.  Why that was, though, is not completely clear - but blaming the band doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.

If Carl didn't like Smile, he would not have dragged Steve Desper into the vaults to retrieve the Woodshop fragment, Our Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, and Surf's Up.

Yes, I think it's been established the band was not at fault.

Mikie (1992):  Marilyn, why was Smile scrapped?  Did it have to do with drugs?
Marilyn Wilson-Rutherford:  Drugs. Yes, without a doubt.

Has it? Some people seem to think Brian couldn't continue without apologies and a complete and utter buy-in by anyone and everyone who had any doubts about what Brian was doing.

I think before, people wanted somebody, ANYBODY to pin SMiLE on and Mike was an easy scapegoat. That attitude still exists, but it's becoming more nuanced and fair. Mike didn't kill SMiLE. I think only the most misinformed and/or biased fans would tell you that. For what it's worth, I've seen many argue the other way, that their unsupportiveness was a nonfactor, which I don't think is fair either. The truth is probably in the middle. Their lack of interest hurt Brian's feelings somewhat, and probably exacerbated creative differences between him and VDP. But ultimately it was a variety of serious issues going on and it was solely Brian's call to start over with Smiley.

My line of thinking wasn't that Brian needed an apology to make it possible to finish the album. My line of thinking was that if the (however inadvertently) hurtful words/actions had not been said in the first place, it would have been one significantly less monkey off his back at the time.

And that once all was said and done, looking back, an apology or expression of regret at some point in the intervening years (or even at the time) would have been the right thing to do (not that the apology would, in and of itself, magically make Brian "able" to finish the project).

Considering the performances of their singing, I would neither call it lack of interest nor being unsupportive, but I agree with your assessment that Smile started and ended with Brian.

cuz he was/is fat an lazy

Even before he started substantially altering his mindset with substances, Brian was prone to making some very questionable decisions on very dubious or whimsical grounds, viz. the "Little Honda" tale: he was playing back the final mix and when someone passing by stuck their head into the control room, Brian asked their opinion of the band's projected next single. "Nah, don't like it" was the response, whereupon Brian canned it as a A side on the spot.

Allegedly - it may be apocryphal, but even so, serves to illustrate a point.

Here's my take:

Brian was split between two goals that were difficult to reconcile:

Creating a piece of art that would earn cred from hipsters/heads of the time and keep The Beach Boys ahead of the curve.

Creating a popular 'hit' record, that would earn lots of money for him, his bandmates, his family, and respect from his father.

Good Vibrations managed to do both, but it must have been obvious that as Smile developed it was not going to be GV mark II. I think VDP's artistic sensibilities are all over Smile and I think the artiness was at odds with some of Brian's core aims. So I think the project created a discordance within him that must have opened the floodgates for self doubt. Arty vs Hit. Had he shared VDP's self confidence and pioneering f**k you squares spirit that would have been do-able but Brian had a foot in both camps. I think there would have been too much of a sense of risk at letting down his bandmates, and of failing in the eyes of Murry.

Sure Smiley Smile is weirder in some ways, but the whole band is on board so there's no risk of letting them down. It's weird, but in a kind of sniggering locker room 'we're not taking this too seriously' sort of way. You could argue that it's a more cowardly album than smile, although maybe that's unfair. It was certainly much safer, even if it doesn't immediately sound safer.

Hasn't Brian claimed that Carl had issues with Good Vibrations?

I bet they all, at times, had doubts about certain songs. Good Vibrations, in terms of songwriting, cost, production methods/time must have pushed their trust to the limit. I wouldn't be surprised if they all expressed fears about that one, although Mike's faith in his 'relatable' hook probably helped ease any concerns he might have had at the time.

You mean Brian, but he has extenuating circumstances due to his mental problems which are not his fault - at least not entirely, as they may have kept SMiLE from happening even without the drug taking.

I think in terms of accuracy versus opinion after-the-fact, I think we're putting a little too much importance on Carl Wilson's role in all this in the first half of 1967. For one, and this is indisputable, we can trace the media reports of his legal issues surrounding the draft and his C.O. status. There was a dark cloud over the band's plans in general because ultimately it was up to a judge or the courts over what would happen to Carl, and the possibility of him going to prison was hanging over the plans, not to mention he could have been ordered to do or perform certain services short of being inducted that may have taken him away from the band's activities or as an active member.

We're looking at it based on what happened with the value of hindsight and knowing the history. What's crucial to trying to place him in the Smile/1967 context is to keep in mind his status was up in the air, and he didn't know if he'd end up in jail or serving in a VA hospital or anything else, the case was still actively going through legal channels.

So we can't put that much importance on what Carl did or what he felt or how he was going to deal with Smile because, putting it mildly, he had a lot of other fish to fry in 1967 that could affect his life and the band's status beyond dealing with Smile.

I just don't see Carl being a key part of the Smile story in 66-67 in terms of anything beyond what he did with Brian on Pet Sounds, and what he was already doing in terms of the live band even at that time. Was his personal and moral support important? Yes, it always was. But if Carl did or didn't "like" something it wasn't carrying the weight it would carry after Brian handed over the production responsibilities, and again Carl had a lot of other non-musical stuff going on which could radically affect the band's future depending on how a court would rule on his status.

Agreed and the same goes for the rest of the band.

I don't doubt this "Little Honda" story, but it serves to illustrate yet another (early) example to make me think that Brian was a guy who was indeed fragile, and could be crushed or get deep doubts from the negative/questioning words of other people very easily, and that this should have been (at least a little bit) apparent to those around him.

Let's just hypothetically say that his bandmates all recognized this trait in Brian as early as '64 (or earlier). I don't think this is implausible to assume.

I'd imagine that they would have seen him act like this sometimes, at least to varying degrees. Not to say that any teeny tiny criticism/question of Brian was going to necessarily (in and of itself) make Brian go "off the rails" and change direction/plans of a project, because Brian did stand up for himself about projects that he TRULY, TRULY believed in (like Pet Sounds)... and of course, they'd have recognized his ability at despite being a leader and taskmaster in the studio... but I'd imagine that his bandmates would have realized that he absolutely had a tipping point if he encountered a specific type of resistance, were pushed enough, or if the right buttons were pushed in a certain way (which certainly wasn't always predictable).

At that point, being in a band with the (admittedly genius) bandleader who is known to sometimes be extremely sensitive like that, what would the best course of action be when interacting with him, or when having a differing “opinion”? I am asking because I honestly don't quite know the answer - I'm just of the opinion that, despite my not knowing what the right course of action should have been, I feel safe in saying that the course of action that Mike took was not appropriate for the person he was dealing with. I'm NOT saying "what way could Brian have been talked to that, in and of itself, would have made it a certainty that Brian would have finished SMiLE".  

It's my opinion that Brian wasn't handled with the "kid gloves" that he should have been at the time (hindsight is 20/20, yes) - but I’m trying to honestly come to a conclusion about how I myself would have acted toward Brian in that situation – not that I can fully get into the headspace of having actually been his family member and bandmate at the time – but to nonetheless try and see what I think would have been the right (or as Carl would have said, “appropriate”) way to have handled it, as much as I can hypothesize as an outsider.
 
I’d really, honestly *like* to NOT think that Mike’s lyric questions (and in particular, the probable manner in which they were presented, and if it was an ongoing pattern of an “attitude”) were inappropriate when talking to a guy who, despite having shown/wielded power in the studio, was also surely known to be very fragile inside.  I’d like to think that he just simply did what any band member should have the right to do (question what he didn’t “dig”), and that it was no biggie, case closed. But I just can’t quite see it like that, no matter how much I try.  

I don't get any kind of "kick" at feeling that a member of my favorite band acted in (IMO) a crappy way - a way which may have been okay to act towards some thick-skinned people, but probably not appropriate to have acted to other, more fragile people - I am just trying to wrap my head around it, and trying to understand those fans who see things differently. This board is very good at getting into the nuances of things and putting long-held ideas under a microscope, so maybe someone can enlighten me if they think I'm wrong.

Maybe Capitol Records got tired of funding an artist who had a hard time completing one single and cost them tens of thousands in '60s money (Good Vibrations). Add to that the fact that said artist(s) sued their own label.  No wonder they preferred that the contractual obligation for an album be met as quickly as possible (Smiley Smile), given all the money spent on incomplete, expensive sessions. They already had "Good Vibrations" in hand for the album single, along with H & V as a middling-successful single. They had no great need for Brian to complete the Greatest Album Never Made/Completed.

"Even before he started substantially altering his mindset with substances, Brian was prone to making some very questionable decisions on very dubious or whimsical grounds, viz. the "Little Honda" tale: he was playing back the final mix and when someone passing by stuck their head into the control room, Brian asked their opinion of the band's projected next single. "Nah, don't like it" was the response, whereupon Brian canned it as a A side on the spot.

Allegedly - it may be apocryphal, but even so, serves to illustrate a point."

Mike should have hired that guy to walk by the control room whenever Brian was mixing something he didn't like. "Hey, what do you think of Smile?" "Nah, don't like it."

Even if this did happen, I don't think it illustrates what you fellas think it does. JMO. If you look at the whole picture, Brian is anything but fragile or indecisive. The guy just happened to agree with what Brian was already thinking, otherwise he wouldn't have asked imo.

Not to mention the fact Brian may have already been scheming to give Little Honda to the Hondells as an A-side single for them. Just to make Murry mad.

April Fools! 'Cuz we all know Brian couldn't stand up to Murry. You know except when he did or it's a convenient excuse for his behavior.

Since the rest of what we call the Smile Sessions were basically Heroes & Villains and Vegetables, and a confusing decision to start a new song after VDP already left and scrap it after a few days...can it be said that Smile was basically toast by Dec. 1966? Is 'Dada' really a Smile song? The Elements never really progressed past 'Fire' either. So many issues.

Do you have ANY idea when Capitol  released GV as a single?

That's the conclusion I've come to as well. The album was sidelined to work on the single around the beginning of January. What should have been a comparatively simple task spiraled out of control because Brian kept remixing the song (and frankly, it was as good as it would ever get already.) Then he gives up on Heroes, tries to rework Vega-Tables as a single instead and before you know it, it's late April, the moment has passed and Pepper is imminent.

Now, I still consider up to the announcement of the cancellation to be SMiLE sessions. I consider Dada a SMiLE song. Speaking of the Elements, I believe Dada (or Second Day ie the reworked flute version) was part of the suite. The Elements was never meant to be a suite of Fire, Veggies, Wind Chimes and Dada. It was supposed to be a four part instrumental. We know what Fire was, obviously. The track was more or less scraped after December due to the whole "it caused a real fire!" scare.

Just a hypothesis, but by April, since VDP was gone for good and neither single was working out, I think Brian restarted work on the one track he thought he could get right without Van's input--the Elements instrumental. Whether Dada is water or Second Day is air in anyone's guess. I've read air was originally to be a flighty piano theme...which sounds like the outro to Wind Chimes...so my speculation is that WC would segue into (and in a sense, be part of) the elements, then Fire, then Earth (Workshop, maybe?) then Dada as water.

The band members are all human beings and at this point The Beach Boys were all very young men (between the ages of 20 and 25). They obviously didn`t know the severity of Brian`s problems which they certainly can`t be blamed for. I think it`s fair to say as well that back in the 1960s issues such as mental health problems were not as understood as they are now. I think their reactions are entirely understandable, and as mentioned many times, happen in bands all over the world every day. They were worried (Mike in particular perhaps) about their careers which makes perfect sense and, in a sense, their worries weren`t entirely unfounded as the following years proved (not that I`m saying that Smile would have flopped, only that it doesn`t take long for any band to fall out of favour and out of the charts).

Also, anyone who has worked with a mentally ill person will know how difficult that is. Obviously you are sympathetic and try to help them but that doesn`t mean that you never get angry or exasperated or frustrated with them. That`s only human nature. The band members shouldn`t be judged negatively for being human.

Nicko - I mostly agree with and pretty much totally understand what you are saying... and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now" regarding underlying elements of BW's mental state, and how maybe things could have been handled differently/delicately if they'd known more about mental issues at the time.

This is not asking him to take the fall for something, but more of display an understanding of having been even the slightest bit part of a problem. I think he's been very, very afraid at the possibility that a slight chink in his emotional armor would make him take the biggest of falls, but it shouldn't have to be that way. Mike doesn't "owe" me or anyone else that, but then again the flipside of that is that he isn't owed a universe free of haters, either.

If a universe of people are going to hate Mike for their own convoluted and imaginary, fantasy, fanboy scenarios of tragic events that happened to himself and his loved ones, then this is a universe of haters Mike would be better off avoiding and ignoring all together. He doesn't need to make a public apology for s*hit.

No, Mike doesn't need to make a "public apology". I never used those words, and I think it's absurd scenario to insinuate. Speaking personally, I do not hate Mike. I do have some issues due to my observations of some of his actions and non-actions, yes. There are truckloads of outright, blind haters who aren't well informed on the nuances of the actual history. The only people who can truly, truly quantify the scenarios in question as being "imaginary", "convoluted", or "real", are the people who lived them: the band members themselves + VDP - not you or I.

I've only insinuated that the people's feelings/interpretations of what happened at the time are "real to them", not that some specific unquantifiable emotional event should be heralded as "fact"... while you imply that anyone who doubts the actual people in question's own recollections (BW/VDP, etc) are drawing "their own convoluted and imaginary, fantasy, fanboy scenarios".  That doesn't make sense to me.

. and I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy towards Mike if he'd said something reflecting and even just a tad bit regretful in the years that have passed, along the lines of "if we knew then what we know now"

Is that not an imaginary public apology of Mike's that you've dreamed up?

Or are you imagining that he might have said so much in private? And if so, if you imagine he might have said such in private, then why sit here saying you'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd say so much? Any private apology is no one's business, so why worry about it?

He's saying Mike ought to have expressed more regret/empathy/understanding of Brian's issues and how his behavior during PS/SMiLE may have contributed to his downward spiral if even just a little. And for the love of God, no, for the millionth time, it's not that Mike "owes" an apology. It would just be a nice gesture is all.

Not saying Mike has to call up all the papers, set up a live web chat and hold a press conference about it. Just that in all the times he's been asked it might have reflected better on him if he had expressed such sentiments.

I really don't understand why this is such a radical, offensive idea to some of you people, or why you're still splitting hairs over this...

When you state the term "public apology", it by definition conjures up a press conference of sorts, where the specific matter at hand is discussed, dissected, etc, on its own. Almost some sort of fallen-from grace CEO or politician scenario. I'm saying that the right thing would have been for perhaps a paragraph or two in an interview or two over 47 (!) years to discuss the elephant in the room of his role in this saga - a primary reason why truckloads of people have issues with him.

Just a little bit of easing up on the emotional stonewalling, and easing up on starting off every single friggin interview (including the recently-uploaded-to-Youtube "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous") by mentioning that the Wilsons had life issues due to substance abuse. It's like he thinks the more he can keep mentioning that unfortunate factor all the time like a mantra, it will deflect any possible questions/topics that he seeks to avoid answering. Keep mentioning it, Mike. Every. Time. Please - we want to be reminded again  ;D

This ideal scenario is not necessarily a "public apology", although it could be considered one, if you somehow want to peg/pigeonhole it as such.

And the reason I doubt it has been said in private is because I'd think that IF Mike would be willing to have a balanced enough perspective to sincerely speak those words privately, he'd be wise enough to realize that a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum would very likely earn him a lot of respect, understanding, and humanizing. I know Mike wants to be loved and for the haters to go away. I bet if he could press a button and trade a couple million bucks for all the haters to vanish, he'd do it.

Of course, there's also the IMO irrational fear that such a tiny acknowledgement like that in a public forum could snowball into people wanting to ask more questions, take some giant fall for other things, etc. I think this is a major reason why it hasn't happened on either the public or private front. IMO IMO IMO.

Oct. 66. But since it didn't make the cut for Pet Sounds, it was always on tap for Smile whether it fit the theme or not. It wound up on Smiley Smile. Albums were built around singles back then, usually a single or two, surrounded by filler material, so including GV would have been a key selling point for both Smile and Smiley Smile, as far as Capitol was concerned. The fact the Beatles and other bands were changing the importance of albums as more than singles plus filler didn't necessarily sink in that well with the guys at the top. The Beach Boys were due to put out an LP in a certain amount of time and they were overdue. Brian had to put out something. If he didn't have that obligation, he might never have put out Smiley Smile at all. He could have taken more time to complete Smile if albums were made the way they were later, when bands could take three or more years between albums, and the entire album was considered important and not just a way to re-package/re-sell singles in an LP form with surrounding filler tracks.  

I really have to say I don't get the Mike apology thing. At all. Mike could be the biggest jerk in the world, but he's entitled to his opinion. Brian being sensitive is Brian's problem. Men are men. Look at the Jonathan Martin case in the NFL if you want to see how men in this world view any type of softness. Read the comments in articles about that case. Even if they agree Richie Incognito was being a jerk, it's a man's job to stand up for himself, not the jerk's job to say he's sorry.

We're splitting hairs over it because you guys keep repeating your wish over and over and over.....

But what I've quoted from you in yellow is THOSE PEOPLE'S problem! A bunch of fanboys!

Mike has moved on. Brian has moved on (or has at least received artistic validation at the level few mere humans see in their own lifetimes) ..... If a bunch of angry fanboys can't get over a guy asking what some lyrics meant, 50 years ago, then maybe they shouldn't be give a single morsel.... Maybe they should just be free to suffer this massive issue forever and ever..... They sure seem happy to suffer it endlessly for men who've long since grown up and taken it to the bank.

Using that logic, is any type of bullying behavior considered ok, so long as it doesn't end in fisticuffs? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and that line's placement is dictated by the person who felt bullied. 

I firmly suspect that Mike had then and has now a "men are men/ no apologies or acknowledgements come hell or high water" attitude too.

I'm glad if the parties involved have "moved on", if that's really true. Not sure if it's quite true, but in any case...I simply find it worthy of debate on a board like this when I hear opposing viewpoints, that IMO don't compute. Again - mentioning the 50 years ago thing only seems like a straw grab and deflection itself from what we are talking about.

Once again, you are simply imagining things to suit your own imaginary scenario..... and your imaginary scenario entails Mike "bullying" people! ..... Is your boss bullying you when they ask why you did this or that or what you mean by this or that? Maybe so, but maybe they're just doing their job! Mike's job was to sing these words, VDP's job was to write them, therefore part of Mike's job was to ask for clarification if need be..... See, I appreciate people who are honest with me in life.... What you are asking for 50 years down the line is an insincere apology. Not only that, but you're asking someone to not only not be who they are, but not be who they were 50 years ago.... If Mike doesn't think he has anything to apologize for ...... TO YOU..... then that's life.... Sorry, man...... 50 years matters, sorry again. Time heals and these people, relatives, bandmates, have healed and gotten on with their lives. Please try and do the same.

To be fair, CenturyDeprived did spend several pages of another thread discussing the need for an apology when you have unintentionally hurt somebody.

Even if Mike did believe he was partly responsible for Smile`s demise (which he obviously doesn`t), I don`t think him coming out in public and admitted it would change anyone`s opinions in the slightest.

I politely disagree on this point. If it was sincere, it would have been remembered, and there would have been a softening of the hardcore nutjobs. Not everyone would love him, but there'd be a perceptible difference. Of this I have no doubt.

Especially in the days of the internet, when it would be no secret that there was a sincere acknowledgement made, people would know - even if it was from an old interview. The hardcores would know first, then the info would filter down to the Youtube hater idiots.

CD, and I'm being serious, why not write Mike a fan letter asking for an apology? ........

If it's sincere enough, maybe he'll at least go into some detail about this or that and maybe it will help......

Which again completely ignores Mike`s comment in the past of, `being related has allowed us to be much crueller to each other than if we weren`t related`. That doesn`t suggest to me that he can`t acknowledge any wrongdoing in the past.

You`ve said yourself that arguments in the music business are absolutely commonplace so I`m not sure why you persist with this.

Pinder - I'm not so much saying that Mike should out of the blue make any sort of "insincere" acknowledgement. I'm saying that it bloody sucks that an acknowledgement in some interview at some point didn't occur years ago, when it would've counted so much more. At this point, in 2014, post TSS, post C50, it would probably come off as insincere, yes.  I'm simply debating you who doesn't think that this ideal situation would have been the best course of action. Not trying to get Apology Campaign 2014 off the ground or anything.

And I wasn't the one to make the sports analogy. I only responded to it ,as I think it's absurd to defend bullying in that case.

No, there wouldn`t.

You know obviously that some of these nutjobs actually believe that if Mike had just said lovely things to Brian in 1966/1967 that Brian would never have suffered from any mental health problems and that everything would have been rosy.

And what exactly should Mike acknowledge, `I acted in a way that millions of musicians do but because of Brian`s mental health problems he did not have the defences to deal with it`. That`s the truth of the matter. Brian couldn`t deal with hearing about a fire on the news or with watching a movie. He coudn`t deal with the normality of life.

Hardy har har. "Maybe it will help?" I'm simply having a discussion/debate with people here whom I disagree with. I'm not owed anything myself by the Lovester.

It's legitimately good to hear a comment like that from Mike, but I'm saying that something a bit more specific would have been the right thing to do. That's all.

But you see: this is not a discussion... It is a statement on your part and then you disagreeing with anyone who questions your statement.... I'm telling you that you should put this into action and write Mike a letter! Why the desire to endlessly repeat a statement when you could possibly get what it is you want?

Just because a group of people historically and generally speaking "act a certain way", that doesn't in and of itself make it appropriate for any given circumstance/any given person, as a blanket statement. Nuances, man.

I'm not trying to "get" what "I want". This sh*t is up to the people involved to figure out on their own terms, and to live their lives the way they see fit. We're just discussing our views on this band, as this is a forum to do so. You're endlessly finding new ways to defend actions that I don't think are deserving of being defended, while we're on the topic of Smiley Smile board members repeating repeating ourselves ourselves. Ha. Ha.

Yeah, but you just keep repeating the same thing: to effect: that you wish Mike would have made some sort of sincere apology.... Simply finding new ways to repeat the same thing shouldn't be passed off as discussion or debate... I'm just trying to understand the motivation to persist in such a tiresome quandary. Especially if you're not even interested in any possible resolution....  "You can't always get what you want" you know?

For doing what you`ve admitted millions of other musicians do? Come on...

Personally, if I were in Mike`s position (and I kind of have been) then I would not acknowledge anything at all because it could end up driving you crazy. When working with a mentally ill person nobody is ever going to get everything right (I know from past experience) but there is no point in thinking about what you could or couldn`t have done differently to try to help someone. You can`t rationalize with an irrational person after all. This is even truer if that person is abusing drugs at the time...

If you were working with a mentally ill drug abuser then you would have to be nuts to blame yourself and say, `if I`d spoken to him in a slightly more friendly way then everything would have been alright`.

I`m sorry but that`s not how human beings work. You are essentially now suggesting that you think Brian should have been treated differently to any other human being. Come on.

You suggested the same thing when discussing why the C50 tour couldn`t have gone ahead indefinitely.

Your comments just aren`t rooted in the reality of the human condition.

And this isn`t about me defending Mike. As I`ve said before, some of Mike`s other actions (such as plotting to kick Al out of the band) deserve a hell of a lot more scrutiny.

My sole motivation is to pick apart whatever reasons (IMHO reasons that don't add up) someone would have in thinking that a past acknowledgement wouldn't have been the right thing to do. It seems totally utterly obvious to me, but that's just me. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, and sorry if I do. Not intending to be annoying. But on the same token, I could call out many posters on this board with repeatedly harping on a particular viewpoint, and then make a post about why do they keep harping about that particular viewpoint? It's because we both have strong opinions on a given matter.

You have done it across 2 separate threads now though and it is getting nobody anywhere.  :)

Mike hasn`t acknowledged anything because he doesn`t feel there is anything he should acknowledge. In exactly the same way I don`t see any of the other band members making huge acknowledgments about the past either.

You know what? Lots of musicians act like jerks. Lots of non-musicians do too. Doesn't make it right.  There is no all encompassing rule of what is acceptable for each and every situation.

One can't categorically state that every "typical" way of doing things should have been applied to all of these situations we are discussing. I've been in situations with dealing with people who act in a way that I deem unacceptable, and I do what I can to avoid those people from being in my life or in a musical endeavor together. When the family thing is part of the equation, it's a whole other can of worms.

Right! Then let it rest...

Ah, now it`s about Mike acting like a jerk.  :)

Mike won`t acknowledge that he acted like a jerk because he doesn`t think he acted like a jerk. Simple as.

I'm beginning to sympathize with imaginary Brian. I've had my feelings hurt recently by a few boarders' insults, insinuations, and criticisms, both intentional and unintentional, over some imaginary agenda. I'm still waiting for my public apology.

Oh imaginary Brian, I feel your imaginary pain!

Sarcasm of that level somehow doesn't surprise me. I personally think it's kind of low. Neither you nor I can fundamentally prove what Brian's feelings were/weren't at the time, but at least I only speak in hypotheticals and state my *opinion* of what I think his probable state of mind/feelings were... whereas you come off as parading around what you believe to be absolute, indisputable "facts".

If Brian told you personally that, irregardless of drugs, that he felt certain feelings about certain people's actions at the time, you'd still find a way to say that his feelings were 100% "not valid" and were absolutely imaginary, even though he felt them - right?

Serious question.  

Second serious question: would you tell that to his face?

He may not in his heart think he acted like a jerk. Most probably. But I wonder if in Mike's heart, despite that he has never publicly said so... would he do things even slightly differently with hindsight if he could go back in time? I think he probably would, even if only just a tiny bit.

The one BB who I think would've had the balls to address the issue outright, without dancing around the subject or avoiding hard questions that could make either himself or other band members look bad, were he alive today, would be Dennis.  

More accusations, more insults hurting my feelings over something imaginary. No apology.

Fine. You think he may have done things a tiny bit differently. Not worthy of 2 threads then.  :)

Wow, this thread went to hell right quick.

How would you know what Brian was thinking about Little Honda? If that happened to me and I watched that song become a hit for someone else I would be thinking "I shouldn't have listened to that guy".

Wrong. It went to hell a long time ago.

This is just a revival.  ;)

Any thread about Smile, Mike, Brian & VDP goes to hell as soon as the first person responds to it. And, if we go back to any other thread about Smile's demise, it is always the same old argument over & over. We've beaten this dead horse a 100 times over. Oy! ;)

At least 100 times, and not just on this board.  Some people love to revive and regurgitate it.

I don't know, it's my opinion as labeled for the reasons I stated.

A thread like this needs to be extinguished if mere "sarcasm" is seen as something "low" .....

I see no problem discussing it. Remember, not everyone's been on the board here forever. However, once it descends into back and forth bickering with no new info or thoughtful speculation coming out, it's useless.

And yet my questions both go unanswered.

An entire post dedicated solely to scathing sarcasm? If not outright low, the post should qualify as being 100% passive aggressive in nature, and not contributing anything whatsoever of worth to the discussion. It's not a response to a question, but rather a scathing attempt to diminish one side's point of view and literally teasing the assumed feelings of someone that neither of us personally know. Hell, I'm big enough to say that we're simply discussing our opinions of the assumed feelings of others. IMO, the only way a remark like that (the wording of which sounds like a playground bully making fun of someone) could be seen as anything *but* low is if it were grounded in 100% provable truth, which it isn't.

Sorry, I just find teasing about someone's feelings to be low, even if we are just talking about assumptions here.

why should anyone have to answer imaginary questions asked about imaginary scenarios?

There is no discussion here! Just you imagining things and then demanding that others join in and somehow prove your imaginary scenarios as correct.

But I'll play along....

If Brian told me that stuff in private, of course I would not make light of his opinions, and I would consider them 100% valid and I would be as sensitive with him as possible.

But I don't know Brian and if I met him I most certainly wouldn't launch into a discussion of said subject.... And if I did, I've the distinct feeling he'd likely go "huh"?

I also suggested you write Mike a fan letter, which is probably the most worthwhile contribution to this thread, since it suggests taking action and possibly arriving at a conclusion.

You're just restating my feelings on this subject, for no apparent reason that I can see.
I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the matter.

Don't bother. This conversation is going nowhere fast, neither of you are gonna convince the other.

All of the posts are still here to read if one will use the Search function. Should you do that, you will see that all that has transpired here, transpired before. Using Yogi Berra's famous line "It's deja vu, all over again." ;)

God Only Knows what happened during the SMiLE saga.

But, that's exactly what I'm doing. Posting on old threads to add my own input. It's not like I'm starting new threads about topic that have already been discussed.

Been there, done that, exhausted every possible variable there is to Smile. Doc is right - use the search function. The board is clogged up full of Smile arguments that go nowhere all over again. It's like inciting a riot, and you seem to wallow in anything SMiLE related on this board (including 'contributing' one more in a myriad of Smile fan mixes). Yeah, so TSS (or BWPS) still weren't the definitive end-alls to Smile for some people. Deal with it. There's more to The Beach Boys than Smile.

Yes, but we are still discussing the same stuff and arguing the same old arguments. All I can say is that from what I can glean from the people who post here that have really studied the matter, is that Brian and the lack of technology are the two areas to point the finger. Whether band members disagreed or didn't like some of the material, Brian was the boss. Even if they kicked and screamed through the entire process, if Brian had really wanted it completed and released,  they would have went work and completed it.

I concur that Brian was the one who decided to pull the plug on the project. That shouldn't be debated. But find me an album by any artist that is a massive undertaking, with people around them “kicking and screaming” throughout the entire process, that does not result in the project’s creator being negatively effected in some way by that resistance, and I’ll eat my shorts.  Not saying the “kicking and screaming” description is accurate to this saga, but just referencing your quote since you mentioned it.

Let's just say Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry and leave it at that. The man took his name literally.  ;D

If you read my posts you'll see that I agree. Sorry for bringing up old topics but you don't have to get involved and for me this is the first time discussing the topic with people who actually know/care enough to discuss it intelligently.

Now you know what I meant there, let's not argue about that. I will say that I know of no bands where there was total harmony during their existence as a band. Six band members are never going to fully agree or like every piece of music presented to them. Now, if Smile had started during the Sunflower-Surf's Up era, I could see that making Brian retreat, but not in 1966-67. I never bought that argument and never will. Brian did what Brian wanted, no matter. I think Brian lost focus due to what I said earlier, stopped and restarted in a completely opposite direction with Smiley Smile. Smile burned him out, and Smiley helped him to cool down and start fresh.

And as I've said before (and it's not difficult to get me to say it again), I am sorry if I ever come off as annoying or a broken record.
From my perspective, I find it annoying when people refuse to respond to a portion of a question, or when people resort to sarcasm instead of mature discussion.
The whole making-an-apology-is-akin-to-pulling-teeth thing IMO applies not just to the person we've been discussing, but also to a chunk of the people who from my observations, wholeheartedly embrace that concept in general. I should probably pull out my stopwatch to see when the next sarcastic response remark will be flung into cyberspace...

Many of us have been dealing with the Smile saga for 40 plus years. I know that I started delving into it around the 1971-1972 time frame. So, I've been hearing these arguments for a very long time. The real issue is that the arguments run in circles. The same old information,  hearsay and legend just keeps getting tossed around without anything new being added to it. I think the legend and myth will always outweigh and win out over any actual truth that is stumbled upon. Forty plus years and myths live on. :)

Yeah, as I've said before it's fun until you get to the point where nobody has anything new to offer and it's just stupid back and forth. Look at this silly "Mike should apologize!"/"Nuh uh, stop hating!" bickering going on now...

Some of us see no reason for an apology. Also, we just don't know what was said in private between the parties. For all we know everybody apologized to everyone years ago. Who knows? It ain't changing a damn thing one way or the other.

This is why I suggest CD write Mike a letter!!!!

Imagine if he actually clarified something!!!

This will be written off as sarcasm, but from where I stand, simply repeating things over and over and demanding people answer imaginary questions regarding imaginary scenarios is not exactly "mature discussion" either.

And Mujan: please stop characterizing anyone not playing along as accusing you guys of "hating"

The one winner in all of this is Brian Douglas Wilson. After all of the years that he had to downplay and lie about Smile, he has been able to come to terms with it, release it in two different versions and finally take pride and feel the joy of his "Teenage Symphony To God". So, in the end, all the right things happened, just 37 years after the fact. :)

1. If you *actually* think The Lovester would care about responding to such a letter, that's just crazy talk IMO.

2. I have less than zero desire to personally get involved with somebody's personal life with them. That's icky speak.  

And in the meantime we had to suffer through Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, Carl & The Passions, Holland, Love You, Light Album, POB!!!!!

What an injustice!!!! MIKE, APOLOGIZE!!!!!

Crazy talk is endlessly discussing an imaginary apology. Suggesting you ask the man for one himself is merely venturing into the realm of reality.

The endless thing is simply a reaction to the endless parade of the exact opposite, emotional stonewalling.
Sorry to be a pain.

Pinder, the fact is you've jumped all over me accusing me of hating Mike before for little to no reason other than the fact I have not blindly praised him to the extent that you have. You can deny it all you like now, but it's true. I really must request (yet again) that you read thru some of your earlier replies to me and see how you come across at times. But seeing as you probably won't...sure, I'm just crazy and have it in for you for no reason whatsoever. Sure, whatever.

I know, ain't it a bitch? ;)

So we're endlessly debating if it's right or wrong to demand an apology from Mike for something he allegedly did to Brian 50 years ago...

(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130322233618/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5d/William_Shatner,_SNL_get_a_life.jpg)

Maybe Dr. Phil should do a show about "Smile." Then all involved can assemble and Dr. Phil can browbeat them into telling the truth and the right person (cough) can say he's sorry, and they can all break down in tears and hug it out.

When do tickets go on sale for that? :lol

with OSD as guest host  >:D

OSD needs to fight Mike on Jerry Springer. ;)

That wouldn't be fair because Mike would have the "youth" advantage

Don't underestimate OSD's hoveround.

Mike and Brian should have been guests on Wally George's Hot Seat in a round table debate.

Landy could have been a plant in the audience holding up a pro-Brian sign (and he'd have fit right in with the mullet, nobody would ever suspect)... ::)

Just imagine the threads around here if THAT had happened ;P

Would have been legendary television though

The BBs need a reality show like "big brother"

What's funny is I answered your question and you and a couple of others apparently don't consider my feelings valid and got snarky and insulting. Yet somehow you continue to bang on about imaginary feelings and imaginary apologies as if you are some sort of imaginary victim.

Still waiting for my apology for your intentional and unintentional hurting of my feelings.

Cam - if you honestly have hurt feelings (and aren't just trying to make light of the concept), then I will trade you a sincere apology for your answer to another couple of questions from earlier in the thread that you did NOT actually directly answer:

If Brian told you personally that, irregardless of drugs, that he felt certain feelings about certain people's actions at the time, you'd still find a way to say that his feelings were 100% "not valid" and were absolutely imaginary, even though he felt them - right?

Serious question.  

Second serious question: would you tell that to his face?

An apology on condition?

I don't dance for my apologies no matter how low the expressed opinion of my character. No thanks. That hurt my feelings too.

I'd like an apology for using the 'word' "irregardless."

Don't you see, CD, that talking to Brian about such things would be a completely different situation than you are asking Cam to address? .... If Brian told Cam what you are imaging then these would be real true expressions of feeling from one person to another: not assumed, presumed, speculated feelings. So, why on earth would Cam, or anyone then tell Brian that his feelings are invalid?

CD, there is even an implied dig in your imaginary question. You've already outed you have an agenda with your imaginary questions. How do you imagine that anyone is going to fall for your poorly laid insulting plan? My intelligence isn't high but isn't as low as your opinion of it and my character.

Hopefully you will eventually show more concern for real feelings than imaginary ones.

sigh

I honestly apologize for having said that. That was not cool and I regret having put it like that in a conditional sense. So let me put it on record, that I honestly, unconditionally apologize if there were hurt feelings.

Now, I'd like honestly like to hear your response to my questions.

Anyone else find it funny that "Beautiful Dreamer" comes from a Mike lyric?

Apology accepted.

Actually it came from Stephen Foster ;)

Nothing funny will happen in this thread...

Yeah, but the fact that the term is used in a Beach Boys tune (no mere coincidence) pretty much er, wait, .... should the Foster Estate sue for credit for those two words???  >:D

Ummm...no?

I think the Mike on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous thread should be merged with this one...

This has gone so far that no one can tell a joke anymore?

I told a Wally George/Landy mullet joke in this thread, and you seemed to chuckle at it. I myself am cool to say and hear them, even in this thread.  ;D

As soon as Wally George's hair popped into everyone's heads: the laughter turned to horror!  :lol

Cam - my only agenda is trying to understand something. I’d like to think that, even if in your heart you believe that the facts point to a certain “truth”… that you can be willing to recognize that, ultimately, your beliefs on this subject are admittedly merely your own opinion/interpretation of events, and not absolute fact. I’ll concede as such for myself and my beliefs; they are educated best guesses. I think that some people on this board make every implication that their postings are "facts" (even when discussing the participants' feelings), and I think that's rather extreme. Something as simple as the occasional "IMHO" would help diffuse the tension, and allow us posters to show more respect for one another here, you know?

My unanswered questions posed to you are only to get to the point that a person’s feelings can’t outright be dismissed as 100% negligible if they were to come from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Something is keeping you from answering those questions, and only you know what that reason is. Regardless of what your answer would be, it will not suddenly make either of us “right” or “wrong” about our admittedly stubborn conclusions/opinions/interpretations of events.

  

Is there an argument for locking this thread?

Some good, long-term postin' souls are getting wound up by posts that are, if I can paraphrase Runners, ahtcbGGA:L<M KLL:KJL:KJL KJHLKJHKJRTAAAA!!!!!!

WAIT!!  Cameron hasn't held up his part of the deal yet by answering CD's questions!  CD already apologized and........and the drama continues.

Biiiiiiillllllllyyyyy!!!!   Where's the Flying Pizza guy?

According to Mike Love logic, yes.

Cam likely knows that providing speculative answers to speculative questions here would be like dumping napalm on a campfire!

Posters are under no obligation to answer anyone's questions. Especially when they border on pure fantasy in the first place.

They should teach "Mike Love logic" at Law schools :)

Whasup, Andy?  What's goin' down.

At this point, I'm less asking for an answer, but more that I'm politely requesting that that Cam occasionally consider using "IMO", or imply such.
Every once in awhile, you know?  I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, or to answer any questions. There is no obligation. I hope this isn't met with sarcasm, or a mean-spirited response; I'm trying to be calm, cool, collected, and respectful.

I think that is perfectly reasonable.

But bracing for sarcasm on a board such as this isn't exactly reasonable, IMHO. Most times it's meant as a joke

On break at work. But yeah... I'm gonna lock this.