The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/09/van-dyke-parks-victimised-brian-wilson-buffoonery

Part of an interview with him:
What should have been his big break came when Brian Wilson invited him to work on Smile, but it was doomed by Wilson's drug-damaged fragility and the bullying hostility of Beach Boy Mike Love. Parks brings it up unprompted, then wishes he hadn't. "It's a dull issue," he growls. "I hope it doesn't need any further elaboration. To have been victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery."

The words "victimised" and "buffoonery" seem somewhat harsh in the context of Wilson's mental illness, but Parks doesn't care to elaborate, other than to say: "It just got too much for me. It was an expensive decision for me not to continue my association with the most powerful artist in the music business at the time, but I made the only decision I could. I walked away from that funhouse."

Interesting stuff. The sort of comment that David Leaf would never have allowed in Beautiful Dreamer.

He's continued to do all right out of the association, however...

Wow cool interview. Van Dyke is the man.  :hat

I have this track of Van Dyke's orchestral work where he goes from one BB/BW theme to the next in about an 8 min medley.
Its called "Brian Wilson Suite". Does anyone know where this is available as a professional
recording? This track sounds like it was recorded from someone's pocket.

That sounds very bitter.

As far as I know that's only available in audience recordings. It's a piece (which actually went through a few different versions) that he wrote as an overture for Brian's 2000 US Pet Sounds tour. I did have a CDR boot of just the different versions of that, at one point, but it's deteriorated into unplayability. I don't know of any good-quality recordings though, sadly.

 :'( Yes that is sad - Its brilliant. There are a lot of cues from famous classical pieces interspersed between the Wilson bits -- Stuff you've heard but don't recall the title off the top of your head. Well, some classical music experts could, but that's not me.  ::)

My recording mentions Charles Lloyd as conductor. Should have been included with PS Live.

Another correction - its close to 20 mins long, not 8.

Edit - Songs in VDP's  Brian Wilson Suite: This recording may have some gaps...

Good Vibrations - In My Room - (? Bach) - Time To Get Alone - Til I Die - California Girls (Grand Canyon Suite bits) - Don't  Worry Baby -  With Me Tonight - Wind Chimes - Surfer Girl -  When I Grow Up To Be A Man - Cabin essence - Heroes and Villains (Latin rhythm) - Warmth Of The Sun - Surfs Up (cut/edit) - Wonderful - (couple of mins of ??) - Sail On Sailor - Our Prayer - Good Vibrations

Maybe "Buffoonery" is not so much about Brian but some of the "silly" lyrics of the smile songs or how Brian was into just goofing around in the Smile recording sessions without any sort of direction and it fell apart because of it, after all it was supposed to have some comedic aspects to it as well and you got to to admit there were some weird things recorded at those sessions (AKA:George fell into his French horn", "Brian falls into the piano" etc)...maybe he feels embarrassed by the whole thing.

Go back to the 1971 Rolling Stone, Van Dyke has been making comments that aren't sensitive for years. He never did apologize to me for his snide unwarranted comments despite me writing a letter explaining my viewpoints and my admiration for his work with Brian. He so pseudo intellectual. Brian Wilson wasn't a God, but he sure wasn't malicious. Plus he went WAY WAY overboard with his Mike Love crap since the movie which nobody would remember if he stopped bringing it up.

I hope nobody is offended by me being outspoken but if someone is going to publically call me out for no reason...well I see no reason not to comment honestly.  People have had good experiences with him, but I still find an established writer attacking a biographer he doesn't agree with to be petty. I really wanted to be able to say we squared it away as no offense was meant, but when someone won't even reply so I can understand their point of view I don't feel I should guard how I feel.

I guess Anderle wasn't kidding when he said the main problem was between Brian and Van Dyke.

Guess I missed something in that interview. I read it a couple of times just to be sure, but nowhere did I see Mike Eder mentioned; did he call you out using some pseudonym?

Brian's world at that time reads like a lot of buffoonery, if the books are to be believed.  Since Brian was doing humor experiments plus was high much of the time , it may have looked like self-indulgence for laughs and simple irresponsibility at times, nothing more serious until later. It may be insensitive to take that attitude since more facts are now known.

Van Dyke has an abrasive side and he also tends to tell stories that one isn't sure are true or not. I've never quite believed that he named Three Dog Night and Buffalo Springfield, for instance.

Van Dyke's the thinking man's Mike Love.

wow. Well we have proof for something I have long suspected. Van Dyke Parks is a bitter prick.

Well, time for me to play Devils Advocate -- How many of us have walked a mile in Van Dykes shoes?

I read the article and the mans life story has been fraught with numerous disappointments and setbacks
many that were financially devastating and embarrassing. 

Yet I see a person who was never hesitant to stand by Brian's side, to share his joy and tears.

Lighten up on the man. Yes, his way of expressing himself can be unflattering -- but Van Dyke is
true to his convictions. A masterful artist who has paid the price for his art.

I am sorry I did not make it clear. I was referring to a post on his webpage.

As far as being bitter.
A. He seems to not understand Brian's problems.
B. If Brian and The Beach Boys hadn't recorded his songs, he would be known by maybe 20 percent of the people who know him today.

I thought Brian's self indulgence in the studio and lack of direction is what ultimately killed Smile? That's probably what he's referring to.

Yeah, it seems there are two sides to Van Dyke. The one, who in a Pitchfork article described the absolute importance of Pet Sounds and Brian Wilson*, and the the one who says stuff like he says in this Guardian article. However, overall I think he is a good man, just like Mike Love, Brian Wilson, and most of the other people in the story of The Beach Boys.

However, I do agree with Mike Eder that Van Dyke is probably a pseudo intellectual. He comes across quite highfalutin, and his common vocabulary seems stuffed with ten dollar words where he could probably just as easily talk like the rest of us. It almost seems like he is a forefather of the pseudo-intellectual hipster dudes that live in Asheville or Portland and pontificate on crap they don't know about. However, unlike Mike Love, I think that it's okay in song to be more creative with language like Van Dyke does. However, Bob Dylan has been even more creative with language within pop music and he still talks like a normal person in interviews, unlike Van Dyke. I also think that for such an intellect, he sure hung out with some goofballs like Brian Wilson and Harry Nilsson, doing drugs and hardcore drinking a whole lot.

Also, I never understood the attack on Mike Eder. Why do that? No offense to you, Mike, but obviously Van Dyke is much more famous than you. And I feel like he was punching down, as they say. And I think if anything it made him look incredibly petty and small, to go after a writer who is just doing his best to make in a tough world. Especially a writer who said nothing damaging at all about him.


*http://pitchfork.com/news/42269-5-10-15-20-van-dyke-parks/

Van Dyke is awesome, in general.

But something happened between him and Brian recently. The TLOS stuff didn't go well, for one thing -- he really had expected to write with BW, and instead was just kind of thrown in there for name alone. A little exploitative.

And the real rupture happened with the boxed set. Something went really wrong there -- no essay from him, and he hasn't had many positive words for Brian or the material since the box was released. I'm not surprised. He also seems to really think that Brian was goaded into the reunion.

Not that I don't believe you, but where did Van Dyke say this?

1 - Van Dyke's quotes in the article referenced above are taken out of context, and the author seems to want to present it in a specific way.

2 - Van Dyke sometimes speaks in riddles, and should maybe not be taken literally.

3 - 'Buffoonery' could be interpreted in any number of ways, including "Behavior that is ridiculous but amusing."

I don't know if it's just me, but isn't it a little goofy that this guy has spent his entire adult life speaking in riddles? I mean, I'm no Mike Love fan boy, but this is about as pretentious as it gets.

Maybe he's weary of living in Brian's shadow.

It seems to me like he just doesn't understand Brian's issues and how they can make him erratic.

No, I think VDP was making a point that he's been making for a while, just in a less diplomatic way. During the SMiLE era, his professional relationship with Brian was what mattered, and he was careful not to undermine it. As he's continually insisted, he never entered "the tent". He was appalled by the shenanigans during the recording of "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow"... But for Mike Love (and others, I'm sure, but Mike Love most vocally), VDP came to represent something more. He became associated with all the external craziness... despite VDP's disapproval of it. The outright slanderous character of "Van Dyke Parks" in the Stamos Movie became the embodiment of this, where we have VDP representing the drug pushers and every negative element that came into Brian's life during that time. That's why I think that movie, though seemingly inconsequential to most of us, rubbed VDP very raw and he's obviously still not at peace about it.

It strikes me that no one, including Van Dyke Parks, really understood the slippery dynamics of the Beach Boys in mid-1966 and the fact that many forces were coming to a head as a result of Brian's desire to be something akin to the "executive producer" of the enterprise--some of which was founded on his own growing feeling of alienation from his own success. All of that was in play even in the context of the band putting out a radically new sound and new compositional method in "Good Vibrations." What followed that was a lot more esoteric and a lot less based in what a number of folks have called "avant-garde R&B." To this day, even after a completed version of Smile with the assistance of VDP, the "bad vibes" that overtook the project have still not gone away. I think VDP continues to believe that Brian (over)played a lot of mind games with people during the Smile era, which was based on what many have seen as the family business steamrollering his desire to keep moving forward artistically. Now that it's clear to most everyone that Brian was a lot more functional in the 1967-72 time frame (and VDP was still in the picture during much of that), he may just be feeling extra testy about things.

I suspect that he regrets having used the term "buffoonery" (especially after having seen it in headline-sized type) but he's also cantankerous enough to feel justified in using the term. And since a) he lived through all of that and a whole lot more and b) he's an extremely talented composer, lyricist and arranger despite his tendency toward rhetorical excess when talking with members of the press, we might just want to cut him as much slack as the various factions here tend to cut Brian and Mike.

Didn't someone say he's a "butthole"?

I don't think "buffoonery" refers to Brian's mental state rather than it referring to all the drugs and sandboxes and tents. 

I'd imagine that to be an outsider in that situation is unnerving.

Exactly.  Or to be more precise, I think it was something along the lines of  "the biggest buttonhole."  I've always wondered what prompted BW to make that statement, and what VDP's reaction was when he first heard about Brian's comment or heard the actual recording.  Of course, BW made that statement years ago, in what sounded like an inebriated state.  Someone refresh my memory - when was that?

"Biggest butthole in the world" if I remember correctly. ;D

Was apparently recorded at someone's birthday party sometime in the 1990s. Would be interesting to know if it was before or after they collaborated on the VDP album. Either way, BW sounds drunk.

'twas ringos b-party. and brian wasnt zombie serious when he said that anyway.

Here's the audio: http://youtu.be/fgAMHVL9hBQ

 ;D

I was from a Ringo Starr party for his wife Barbara. I think it was 1992 or 1997 because those are the two years they recorded together.

1997, yess!!

I leaned towards that because Steven Tyler is there and calls Brian a "freak" on mic.

Well, first, who says he doesn't understand Brian's problems? One can be mentally ill *and* behave badly, for reasons that have nothing to do with the illness. Mental illness isn't a "get out of responsibility for your life free" card.

And as for people knowing about him, the first thing he says in that interview is that he's never wanted fame. I suspect most of the people who actually buy his albums or go to his shows know about him from multiple different sources (certainly I know that in my case before I ever knew about Smile I was aware of his work with Nilsson, Randy Newman and Ry Cooder, and having spoken to other Parks fans I know it's true of many of them).

So from his point of view, what his association with the Beach Boys has brought him is a relatively small amount of money (because we know the Sea Of Tunes contracts weren't exactly generous to non-family, and he didn't write any major hits with Brian), a certain amount of interpersonal stress, and a bunch of people on message boards who call him a prick because he dares to say that Brian Wilson may sometimes have behaved badly, or because he expresses himself using actual words rather than grunting noises like 'normal' people.

I have no idea if he *is* bitter or not, but really, if he is, who could blame him?

Make that 2 percent!

Brian and Van Dyke had the chance to hit a grand slam with Smile, but Brian was into the hash tents and fork-and-glass symphonies and Vegetables skits = buffoonery.

The BBs returned, Mike slagged off Van Dyke's lyrics (his art), and Brian didn't stand up for Van Dyke or the work = victimisation.


Seems simple to me, regardless of what transpired in the 45 years since, that VDP has a point. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point because mostly likely you weren't any of the people directly involved.

So he's bitter about his disappointments and has decided to start publicly insulting Brian.

I don't care how much of a wordsmith VDK is but buffoon is a insult to this layman.

Maybe he's upset he lost out on the 10k from those acetates his wife sold.

Isn't there a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from the irony that the previous post came from someone calling someone else a 'bitter prick'?

:)

He did not call Brian a buffoon.

Yes, because no-one has ever heard of Randy Newman, Harry Nilsson, Ry Cooder, Joanna Newsom, U2... *only* the Beach Boys. That's the *only* thing that's brought him to anyone's attention. You're quite right, obviously.

Especially since Shady doesn't (as far as I know) know Parks at all, and has no way of knowing what went on between him and Brian and how accurate Parks' assessment of it is, while Parks has known Brian for nearly fifty years, off and on...

"Bitter prick" was a bit harsh I guess.

I don't see why Van Dyke is getting defended though. VDP is going down in history because of Brian and Smile and how does he repay Brian, he calls his actions "buffoonery". Incredibly bitter no matter how you spin.

Honestly there's an anti Brian air about this place lately.

Well would he have gotten some of these subsequent jobs without the rep he gained from Smile? Not trying to say he did nothing without Brian Wilson or his help, but most of his "fame" today is because he wrote with Brian.  I say this not to be mean, but let's face facts. He got a lot of attention he never would have had without the Smile connection.

Make that 'shut up, he's a legend in his own right'

That kind of sh*t reminds of the teen articles reprinted in the Priore book. Childish tit for tat nonsense, and you only get to play in this minor, off the cuff grouching if your name is Brian Wilson or Van Dyke Parks.

BTW At this point in time, I'm many, many times more excited to listen to new VDP material than I was by TWGMTR. They should have got him to produce their record! Would have still got to no.3, probably would have been significantly less sh*t.

He was a respected arranger and musician before he ever worked with Brian. Most of the jobs I listed were through his connection with Lenny Waronker, rather than with Brian.

And again, he says in the interview that he has actively tried to avoid fame throughout his life. Why should he be grateful for something he never asked for and never wanted?

I couldn't agree more. Songs Cycled is a thousand times the album That's Why God Made The Radio was.

He's getting defended because you (and others) attacked him, for no good reason. To the extent that Parks will be noted by history at all, it will be because of a huge body of wonderful work in which his collaborations with the Beach Boys are just a very, very small part. And Smile was a collaborative work, to which Parks contributed at least as much as Brian.

If Van Dyke thinks Brian was acting like a buffoon, he has every right to say so, unless you're seriously suggesting that working with someone for six months forty-seven years ago should impose an omerta-like obligation of silence about everything that he disliked.

Have you ever in your life made a mildly negative comment about someone you used to work with? If you have, then you can't really criticise Parks for the same thing.

I think we are going to have to accept that the problems in SMiLE were between Brian and Van Dyke. They got along, then they didn't. They agreed over the music and lyrics and then they didn't. Brian thought the lyrics were too sophisticated and Van Dyke thought the music was not sophisticated enough. Van Dyke resented Brian in ways and Brian pushed back at Van Dyke in ways. It's been in the eye witness sources since 1967. I doubt Van Dyke was the first or last to be put off by Brian and his scene.

I think there's truth in all the reasons we've had over the years. Friction with Mike, problems with Parks, too many drugs, perfectionism, technological limitations, missed the boat etc etc.  It was never just one thing.

You're absolutely right though that the issues with Van Dyke has been somewhat downplayed compared to other reasons. It's always been the elephant in the room.

I think Brian and Van Dyke were/are potentially great co-workers. I guess that Van Dyke was and is a very disciplined worker; I saw him live three times, and I always was amazed how fast he adapts to a troupe of musicians that he doesn't know that well, and how brief a preparation and rehearsal time he needs for different and wonderful arrangements of his work. I think he may well have been irritated at times, way back then, when Brian was, how do I put it, letting his own discipline slip. Brian became a meandering person during the first gestation of Smile, someone who could be very unpredictable, and was increasingly unable to finish things. I do not think we should be upset about VDP calling it 'buffoonery' - he could, at that point in time, absolutely not be aware of what was in store for Brian; and we have the benefit of hindsight. So all in all, I guess VDP gave an honest impression of how he felt at some moments in those days.

double post.

I just made a post about people who exchange in discourse and those who don't. Good you are a fan, that doesn't mean I have to "shut up" nor does it mean I have to like what he says about anything. My writing job has given me the good fortune to interact with people who are my musical "heroes" so to speak. Many have been nice, a very few have not. Just like any other walk of life. Van Dyke makes public statements that by their very nature will create comment one way or the other. Not to compare myself at all in terms of talent or achievement, but as a writer I take stances that are known to the public. I know some people will like me and what I do, some don't and won't. For the purpose of open disclosure, personally I'm not into that  much of his work away from the Beach Boys (that's down to my taste), but I love the songs he wrote with Brian.

I also want to stress I offered him equal time in anything I have done regarding Brian or the group, it was his choice not to participate. I respect that, but it does mean I have to go only on what I am told by people I do talk to, or by what I think of his public statements. I respect his talent even I don't like most of the things he has said publically. This goes especially since the movie. To be fair I like his comments in the 1976 special a lot, but I again go back to the 1971 interview with Tom Nolan in Rolling Stone. His statements in there about Brian's "cute" behavior belittle the man. As far as Brian being a child like eccentric, isn't that why most people like him? To me reading this, he hasn't changed his air of superiority over Brian and the Beach Boys. It's like he still thinks of him as a Hawthorne hick whose evil bully band mates force him into being a Beach Boy. This after Brian publically complained he wanted to keep the group together!

I suppose I hate to see 1971 attitudes on mental illness, or even quirkiness, prevail. Tony Asher made some arch comments about Brian to Nick Kent in 1975, but since then has displayed much growth and understanding. He has gained much insight over the last thirty some years about Brian and his frailties. Insights he didn't have as a young man.  I don't see the same happening with Parks after reading the new interview. If Brian has shown any guile towards Parks, can't we see it from his side? Rightly or wrongly Brian may very well have felt Van Dyke should have rode out the rough waters of the 1967 sessions with him. I to this day don't get why Brian would ask him down to explain his lyrics to Mike, had he not felt it was something that Parks needed to do. Brian could have felt that way for a multitude of reasons. Maybe he needed a buffer, maybe he wanted insight himself, maybe he thought it was the role of the lyricist to defend his lyrics. Whatever the case, Brian's feelings on him have cooled at times.

Peter Aims Carlin made a strong point in his book about Brian being a part of the Leid In Hawaii Mike Love monolog. That says a lot about the faith Brian himself had in Parks at that time. Me pointing this out should not be misconstrued as a knock, something between him and Brian clicked for a time resulting in some wonderful songs. Yet even if they were tight at times, even if he did help Brian go forward as an artist, they were always very different people personally. Does that negate his worth as an artist?    


Andrew, fair enough so he didn't want "fame", but you cannot deny that Smile brought his name to the masses. He worked before that, and given that Lenny and others who had power liked that work, he probably would have had a place in the music business no matter what. Having said that, I am positive that he would be known only to a certain niche had he not crossed paths with Brian. That's again not putting him down, it's just a fact. Maybe Van Dyke was known to you and some of his fans before Brian was, but if so that is very uncommon. I know of dozens of people of his generation who were great arrangers, had hits, were great songwriters, etc. but they don't have the name recognition he does. If he wants it is a moot point, The Beach Boys is how most people were introduced to him.

His attitude on Brian and Mike makes him look petty. As his chiding extended to me, I can safely say he takes potshots at people who, in his mind, disagree with his views. To put the word author in quotes next to my name at the header of a anti reunion post was uncalled for. Bizarre too as I had no say in the reunion whatsoever, nor did I claim to. I have no continuing contact with anyone in the Beach Boys world except on here or on Facebook. I took the time to directly write him and politely explain that I meant no offense in my interviews with Jeremy Roberts, nor did Jeremy mean any himself. As he chose not to respond the only thing I can even remotely think he didn't like is that I said I like the Beach Boys as a group and that Brian ultimately was the only one in the group who could have cancelled an album in 1967.  I have a right to feel he should not belittle me or my job, nor misrepresent me. I changed not one word in my book about him by the way, I don't have to like a guy to access him fairly. However I will continue to speak up if I feel he is unfair to The Beach Boys, Brian, or anyone else for that matter-especially me.

"So from his point of view, what his association with the Beach Boys has brought him is a relatively small amount of money (because we know the Sea Of Tunes contracts weren't exactly generous to non-family, and he didn't write any major hits with Brian), a certain amount of interpersonal stress, and a bunch of people on message boards who call him a prick because he dares to say that Brian Wilson may sometimes have behaved badly, or because he expresses himself using actual words rather than grunting noises like 'normal' people."

Smile is referenced in most pieces about VDP.  LIke it or not - and he may not - it's what a lot of people know him for. Is his best work on there. Dunno. I like his stuff with Newman, but I like Newman's later stuff more. There are times when I read VDP's comments and he comes across as a bit of an ass, putting himself in the best light possible. Whether or not I would like to have been him when Brian was messing around instead of getting on with the work, is a different matter. VDP has worked with a lot of people and has been fairly productive himself, but to a lot of people - and not just BB fans - he's known for his collaboration with Brian

But that 'certain niche' is the group of people that actually buy his albums, go to his gigs and so on. The rest are, for the most part, people like yourself who have no interest in his work outside one album he wrote lyrics for forty-seven years ago. Why, precisely, should he be grateful for 'name recognition'?

As for the comments about mental health -- Brian's mental health doesn't give him a pass for every bit of bad behaviour ever, especially since at the time Parks is talking about Brian wasn't particularly unwell compared to his later deterioration.

As opposed to everyone else who's been involved in the music industry or the Beach Boys' career, all of whom are shrinking violets? ;)


That's true, but that's not a reason he should refrain from ever criticising Brian. And again, I don't think that that connection has contributed especially to any professional or artistic success he's had, but just to a reputation he'd rather not have. If I were him I'd feel like the man in the joke -- "See that cathedral? I designed that, but they don't call me John the architect. See that bloke over there? I saved him from drowning, but they don't call be John the lifesaver. You shag *one* sheep..."

That's not what I'm saying at all... do we really need to revert back to this old debate AGAIN when we have this new interview to talk about?

I concur. THIS. Including Mike but NOT limited to Mike.

He should be grateful simply because he would not have career he has enjoyed without the name recognition. I made a supposition about what his life would have been like without the group. Reality is that most all of the niche that he actually does have were introduced to him through Smile and The Beach Boys. I am sure I am not alone in thinking Smile his finest hour, even among his hardcore fans who love his whole catalog. If you don't mind may I ask one question?  I was trying to figure this out from your posts, did you discover Van Dyke through The Beach Boys first?  Either way I will offer no further debate as I admire your passion for his work.

If anyone thinks that building a sandpit in your living room, turning your living room into a gym and starting a fire in a studio doesn't count as buffoonery, I'm not really sure what would.

And what is increasingly apparent over the resurgence of Van Dyke's solo career is the downplaying of his work with Brian and his focus on everything else, which isn't exactly horrific. The man has produced, arranged and collaborated with hundreds of legendary artists with incredible scope and we're expected to define him on six months work?

Mike, I think it's a bit rich to suggest Van Dyke, a man with his talents and connections BEFORE Smile, wouldn't have had a career. He might have even had a better one if he wasn't signed to Warner on the suggestion that he might have picked up some tricks via osmosis from Brian.

I actually discovered Van Dyke's work pretty much simultaneously with the Beach Boys, in summer 1995, when in a two-month period or so I got hold of a video of Ry Cooder on which Van Dyke played keyboards, a Randy Newman best-of CD on which he was credited as co-producer on my favourite tracks, and Pet Sounds, and also saw I Just Wasn't Made For These Times on TV with the footage of Brian and Van Dyke together. I don't know quite what order those events happened, because they came so close together, but my perception of Van Dyke Parks from the start was "that person who's worked with all those other good musicians" rather than "that person who wrote with Brian Wilson".

The only other 'hardcore Van Dyke Parks fan' I know in real life *despises* Smile, thinking that Brian and Van Dyke were utterly wrong for each other as collaborators, and says "Mike Love was right". He became a fan through Parks' work with Randy Newman and Harry Nilsson.

Hypehat, we should encourage non convention in people. Brian shouldn't be put down for not being strict in his work habits. Please read my posts again, I made no such suggestion about Van Dyke. I said exactly the opposite in fact. My only point is that his career wouldn't be the same. Am I really having to argue that Brian Wilson made a difference in the path of everyone he worked closely with? Jan Berry was much bigger than Van Dyke before meeting Brian, but can we deny that Brian and he helped each other go further creatively? Brian is someone who has the ability to bring out the best in people as a collaborator, and I am finding strange that this is even a debate.

Exposure and appreciation is a good thing for an artist, even if traditional fame is not sought. Not one artist makes a record or performs without at least wanting to be understood or connect on some level. He would not have had all the same chances or opportunities without Brian Wilson. Not because of a lack of talent, but because historical facts speak for themselves. Hooking up with a beloved person like Brian Wilson will further ones career, though I would never contend Van Dyke was motivated by that personally.

Very interesting post Andrew because your story here is fairly unique. Funny enough I heard Van Dyke first on a Popeye soundtrack LP when I was a five year old kid in 1981. I didn't particularly think much of the album either way but I liked Popeye so my parents bought it for me. Only when reading up on Van Dyke after I became a Beach Boys fan did I know he did the record though. In those days I didn't study the credits! So inadvertently I too heard non Beach Boys stuff first, but I didn't discover him at all until I saw American Band in 1988.

Quite. Parks' *actual* career success, to the extent it's relied on anything other than his own obvious talents, has been because of his association with the Waronker/Titelman/Lowell George/Nilsson/Cooder/Newman coterie. There were a huge number of massively talented and successful people in LA in the late 60s and early 70s, and Parks knew and worked with most of them. And a large part of his income has come from his film score work, which started years before he even met Brian Wilson.

Personally I've always been a credit-studier, and I suspect most of Parks' fans are.
That said, I did actually hear the Popeye soundtrack before anything else Parks worked on, but only from watching the film on TV when I was three or four.

Mike, sure we should encourage originality. I'm not dissing Brian for his creativity. But, what comes with that is that it's totally understandable that if I set fire to a prestigious recording studio, such action might be called 'weird' or 'strange, nay, even 'buffoonery'. I for one don't get this 'well Van Dyke is an asshole and how dare he bite the hand that feeds him' talk going around (from others, not just you) when, and I don't think I'm exactly pushing the boat out here, Brian Wilson does strange things.

If anything, Van Dyke's career has probably suffered thanks to his association with Brian. The man works so hard, has an incredible skillset and CV and can talk til your dictaphone runs out and all everyone wants to talk about is ten tracks he wrote when he was in his early twenties that didn't even come out in its intended form. No wonder he gets a little bit dismissive.

The "historical facts" are as follows:
Most of Van Dyke Parks' work over the years has either been film scoring, which he started in 1963, or as a result of his connections with people like Lenny Waronker and Randy Newman, who he worked with before he ever met Brian Wilson.
Unless being one of the principal creative collaborators with the head of A&R (and future President) of Warner Brothers Recordings does *less* for your career than co-writing an album that was never even released, it's safe to say that his collaboration with Brian Wilson has had almost no effect on his actual career, as opposed to his public profile, which is a very, very different thing.

We *should* encourage people to behave unconventionally. And not, for example, call them "pseudo-intellectual" or say "his common vocabulary seems stuffed with ten dollar words where he could probably just as easily talk like the rest of us" or "this is about as pretentious as it gets" when they dare to attempt to express themselves precisely and in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

Hypehat - if an artist needs the "sensory ambiance" to enhance the creative process, I have no problem. The sand (clean and canine or feline free) and the gym - a no-brainer, with Wii and Trekdesks, getting people to be less sedentary, is a great thing.  Space use is a personal thing. Even a stationary bike will help you live longer than a couch.

A fire, is another story - maybe controlled in a very safe environment - but show pyrotechnics have proved deadly, so maybe the "virtual variety"might be best.  Such as the faux fire used in the SMiLE shows.

And, I love Parks' work in Popeye (the movie) and it is one of my all-time favorites.  And, he certainly did other stuff besides BB work.  And, I'm interested in the outcome of the copyright suit.  I found den Breejens work a delightful "tribute," and thought it more "transformative" - even a gentle "parody," but a court might have additional facts to support another finding.  I found it a means to keep alive a whole body of work, marginalized in the 1960's, trashed by critics on all levels. And his response was a "missed opportunity" for everybody. The BB's responded graciously to Katy Perry.  Not here.

It is why I resurrected the old thread below.  And I don't like the title.  Mike asserted a claim that the court found meritorious and we have information that Murry took control of these literary assets.  

Parks' work is more abstract, where Mike's is more "available" and concrete.  And Mike's lyrics hold generally universal appeal.  I find the Wilson-Love collaboration in the BB sphere, superior in quantity, duration and synergy as held against nearly any other.  Wild Honey reception on this latest Touring Band run has been phenomenal.  That is Brian and Mike. Like Lerner and Lowe, Mencken and Ashman, The Shermans, etc.  

Brian does not impress me as a buffoon, in any context.  I find it troubling.  JMHO

Agreed but it is MOSTLY the problems between the two creators over their creation.

BEH.

What does that mean? 

If anyone understood Brian's problems, it would be Van Dyke Parks. A lot better than you probably!

Warners had these "Loss Leaders" compliation LPs in the 1970s.

Thats where I first heard the genius of VDP as a cut from Song Cycle was on the "Songbook" LP
Althought the vocals were not my cup of tea the track was like nothing I had ever heard.

I had no idea VDP had worked with the BB, or what "Smile" even was.

Van Dyke is the new Mike Love.

Exactly! Thanks for bringing that up. There is an interview in a Spanish newspaper, after TLOS... This was before VDP going to Spain, I believe. I wish I could find it... He says something like: "I was expecting that this collaboration would mean meeting an old friend but instead...". So yeah, something occured during that time. Perhaps it had to do with BW not using VDP's lyrics for Live let Live?

Much as I enjoy VDP, I would bet that there's a difference between his 'work place personae' and the glib $10-a-word pontificator. His interviews to me read a lot like Tom Waits interviews - the world's a stage and VDP plays the part of Samuel Clemens incarnate. When the mike is on, it's showtime. And that's good copy.

That being said, it's somewhat refreshing to read another angle on the whole Smile saga. I don't blame him for being touchy on all things Smile...it's both an albatross and a blessing to Van Dyke.

Van Dyke's comments are pretty inoffensive. I really don't think they show any malice towards Brian.

Oh come, VDP is the old Mike Love -- youre just now finding out. The new Mike Love hasnt been reincarnated yet.
/s

So if somebody you worked with in the past said they feel "victimised by your buffoonery", you wouldn't feel that's an offensive comment

I wonder how Boris Johnson would react to such a comment.

Van Dyke's comments are Petty & Offensive.

There I fixed your post.

Death to Mikes Beard says the Van Dykester is running that galloot Myke outta town.
This is the general sentiment on the board, why fight it?

Lets post a $100,000 reward for VDP as he is become Public Enemy #1.

Not me.

I'd say they were one of those English blokes that spell funny.  ;)

Look, Smile is pretty much my favourite music of all time but I'm not going to stand here and claim that Brian Wilson holding 'parties' in the recording studio where everyone goes apeshit at each other, recording Illinois cabbies to put on the album and throwing a ball around the studio is NORMAL.

It was the times. LA in the 60's. People way too young with too much money and power

I was watching a Harry Nilsson doc the other night, a man just as crazy or more so so than Brian and Van Dyke was rightfully singing Harry's praises.

Is Van Dyke suddenly opposed to the madness that was the 60's music scene in America or is he suddenly just bitter that things didn't work out how he would have liked.

It's all about context and no I wouldn't be offended. Brian and Van Dyke are friends. My friends and I say much worse things about each other if you were to observe them outside of the context of that relationship. You may well be mistaking the tone of the comment.

Van Dyke was first and foremost a session player - turn up, play what was expected and most importantly finish on time and on budget. Watching Brian become increasingly bizzarre and self indulgent must have turned his stomach after a while.

What's so bad about 2 percent? Of course that number is arbitrary, i.e. I totally pulled it out of my ass, but it doesn't seem like an unrealistic guess to me. I don't think you  really help your case by opening your post with telling someone they should shut up either. That's just bad form. By the way, I like your screen name, BergenWhitesMoustache. Have a good one!

Van Dyke has a right to his opinion. I thinking if I thought I was going to create this magnum opus with this genius who cranked out PS and I got there and he wants us to pretend he's stuck in a microphone or a piano and we are going to bang on a key and knock him out of the piano and a lot of our stuff I found odd and unprofessional: I might characterize it as buffoonery

The buffoonery was situations like David Anderle who had been literally busting his ass setting up a record label and corporate identity for Brian and the 'Boys, in the process not only stepping on some well-connected third rails of the record business that a man in his 20's just didn't take on and burning multiple industry-centric bridges in the process...because he among a select few including Mr. Parks himself saw something special in what was going on in that scene...

...only to have Brian refuse to come out of his bedroom when some business, what i assume would have been important business, needed to be addressed.

The reasons for that kind of thing straddle the line between mythology and reality, but it's just one very small piece in a large puzzle which we simply *will never* have all the pieces necessary to complete.

This interview is what it is, and remember Van Dyke like all entertainers is also concerned with publicity, PR, and spreading the word about his work so people buy it. Period. Just like everyone else.

And this interview looks like an artist who seems to be pushing aside his previous identity as collaborator in order to enhance his identity as a well-regarded artist still working and putting out product. He wants to enhance Van Dyke Parks at this point more than the Van-Brian connection, which is fine.

As far as Skrillex, as soon as dubstep runs out of both steam and fresh ideas, he can live off the money he's making now on a hot trend and retire on his investments. Because unlike some styles, you cannot button up an entire genre of music into a handful of sonic gimmicks and expect it to last beyond the length of the trend itself.

So if Van Dyke wishes to make his association with a young artist like Skrillex more a part of his musical identity in this very moment, more power to him, that's the nature of the music biz beast..."what have you done lately?" versus 45 years ago.

Give us the full recording of the interview, we'll talk.

.

This kind of thing happens in a lot of studio sessions where you don't have hired gun session musicians on the clock collecting overtime if they go one minute past the clock. The Beatles regularly did things like this, and people laud them for it. Yellow Submarine: Mal Evans walking around the studio room with a bass drum strapped on his chest, being followed by a cadre of various Rolling Stones, their women, and other guests to that party. And that record became a classic. A Day In The Life: Balloons, rubber noses, monkey paws, masks, fake Groucho moustaches...on a room full of world-class musicians who normally attended recording sessions in full evening dress and tuxedos. A Day In The Life...continually at the top of the "best of all time" polls. "If I Can Dream", Elvis stripped down to the waist, being given a handheld microphone, and doing full-on stage moves and knee drops as he's all but writhing around the studio to deliver that amazing vocal.

The times had in fact changed in 1965-66-67, and such events as described above led to three records that are unarguable, undisputed, all-time classic studio recordings.

Yet some musicians would consider those events which went into the sessions "buffoonery".

To each his own.

.

.

I see what I said got stuck in your craw. Well, I actually agree that people should be unconventional. But they can also be conventional. They should be themselves. I think Brian Wilson is quite an unconventional guy, but he doesn't come off as calculated as Van Dyke. He's a genuinely odd guy. Harry Nilsson seemed like a genuinely odd guy too. But not Van Dyke. He seems like a guy that looks down his nose at others because they aren't as "smart". At least it feels that way in Brian's case. However, I do think overall that he is a good man. But it is a shame he had to attack Mike Eder.

Van Dyke's lyrics were used. He wrote two different sets of lyrics, one for the "Arctic Tale" movie and one for TLOS. I emailed him about it at the time, and that's what he told me.

And you base that on what, exactly?

Him talking about The Beach Boys as if they were a bunch of dumb hicks?

You now, sometimes Brian and Van Dyke just get tired of answering questions about Smile. So do The Beach Boys.  It constitutes 1.5 % of their 50 year career, and the number of questions all these men get about it is far more disproportional. Brian got sick of it and said he burned the tapes. Carl talked in circles about it. Dennis wouldn't talk about it. Mike got tired of being the villain in the story, and Al and Bruce didn't talk about it until recently. From Van Dyke's point of view, he says to the interviewer that he feels like he's said enough about it, but when pressed, says he got victimized by Brian's buffoonery. He is not calling Brian a buffoon, he is making an observation about Brian's behavior. Did Brian behave in an erratic manner during 1966-67 Smile? Anyone who says no I believe is kidding themselves. Cancelled sessions because the "vibes" weren't right, obsessive shuffling of pieces of Heroes ad nauseum, believing Phil Spector was trying to psych him out when viewing "Seconds".....trying to get Van Dyke's friends to start bar fights so he could record them.....telling a friend that his wife was a witch, withdrawing from David Anderle when he was badly needed, and on, and on, and on dum bee doo dah...

Yes, I think Van Dyke thought The Beach Boys were doing it for the dollars when they released the Smile Box and reunited for a one off tour. Well, so what? I never have known a musician who having had a taste of the big money in popular music, did not remain aware and conscious about it from the time they got rich. The Beach Boys have made decisions most of their career based on who is offering the best funding for concerts and records. Were these decisions always in their long-term interest? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

I happen to believe in a day's work for a day's pay. So does Van Dyke. He has taken some very great steps in empowering musicians he has worked with through the years. Orange Crate Art, Van Dyke mentions , cost $350,000 in 1992 dollars to produce. It was supported by Warner, who have been in Van Dyke's corner for most of his career. Brian  was isolated from family with Landy, and Van Dyke was one of the first contact people who reached out to him after the void created by Landy leaving was created. I adore both Smiles, the box and the live version, but their most successful collaboration music wise was OCA. Van Dyke wrote and produced and Brian helped arrange vocals and sang stacks of vocals.

OCA was promoted, but like some Van Dyke albums, it was not something flowing in the context of its time. I think Van Dyke simply feels that when he has contact with The Beach Boys, things do not go well. After what they did to Brian's Smile work in the sixties and seventies, creating Frankenstein versions of several Smile tunes, I feel that for Brian to reunite with them was a courageous act on his part. That's Why God Made Radio I see fulfilling two objectives, it gave The Beach Boys much needed publicity for a Reunion Tour, but more importantly, it was an opportunity for the surviving Beach Boys to work with each other....because speaking actuarily, they need to make peace with each other. Their kids already have, but I see some healing that took place in the family.

It's too bad they did not do the extra concerts, because, now things are again fragmented. But we have an album from The Beach Boys no one thought would ever happen, we have a document of a first rate tour that was very professionally done, Brian in the studio with a new project, some shows from the surviving Beach Boys  this coming summer (albeit in two touring units), and with Van Dyke, we have two new albums, one compiling his 45s from 2011-12...and Super Chief, which is an unexpected bonus. Since when have we known Van Dyke to release two albums in one year?  Sooooo.....despite the drama that always accompanies The Beach Boys, it is going to be a great year for people who love their music, what with Made In California, possibly a new Brian project, and two new albums from Van Dyke for people who love his work. Screw the drama, bring on the music.....

I commend you on your enthusiasm and actually agree with some of it. 

Excellent post, Peter. We just have to collectively shake off the ongoing "cold war" that keeps threatening to heat up between the factions of the band (and the fans), and take what we get. To expect anything more, or wallow in each turn of phrase reported in the press, is nothing more or less than masochism. As you say, bring on the music!

As far as Brian answering questions about SMiLE, from the period of 1967- 2003, I find an underwhelming amount of interviews with Brian Wilson discussing SMiLE. He just wasn't "around" as an active Beach Boy for many of those years, rarely interacting with the press, and, as you pointed out, when he did submit to interviews/questions about SMiLE, the answers consisted of short sentences, sometimes consisting of erroneous statements, usually consisting of unfulfilling information. Brian had a chance to "set the record straight" in 2004. I found his answers about SMiLE to be prepared, not by him, but by his wifeandmanagers, overly rehearsed, and lacking in depth. I'll leave it to each individual to decide whether Brian's answers were truthful or not. Brian Wilson has had problems telling the truth in interviews and documentaries. I understand that Brian can do what ever he wants, doesn't have to talk about anything or anyone, doesn't owe us anything blah, blah, blah, but, IN MY OPINION, I still think it is odd for an artist to not discuss - just for historical purposes, not even entertainment reasons - arguably his greatest work, IN SOME DEPTH, over a 47 year year period.

Personally, I could care less what Van Dyke Parks has to say about SMiLE. Obviously, I do not know the man, but his remarks about SMiLE (and other Beach Boys-related projects) over the years appear to be two-faced.

I am unaware of an interview over the period from '67 to '03 with Brian where he WASN'T asked about Smile. My own interview collection of Brian's from that period is over 40 of them and there are none that omit Smile.The reason he chose not to give candid answers was that in his mind, his music had been used without his consent on more than one occasion. Whether to debate about whether that was okay or not is a different issue. In his mind, when he closed the door on Smile in '67, it was over.  What Brian answers in any interview depends on his mood that day, and if he was not properly medicated for most of that time ('67 to '92 at least), he would be hearing the interviewer AND the voices in his head simultaneously. I  dare anyone to have a cacophony in their head and to try to do a cogent interview at the same time. He simply wanted them to end as  fast as possible, because he was fighting off the noise in his head, not to mention whatever insensitive questions the interviewer would ask. The truth in those circumstances is whatever will get the interview over the fastest. Even IF the interview was prepped, anyone who knows Brian knows that he will say whatever he wants to, preparation be damned. In fact sometimes he'll passive aggressively say the OPPOSITE of what the official story was prepped to be just to teach whoever his latest PR liaison is that he can't be controlled. The classic one is the Interview (in Rolling Stone in '76 I think) where he's under Landy's thumb, and asks David Felton is he has any uppers, thereby embarrassing Landy to no end.

As far as Van Dyke Parks goes, his point of view is as valid as any player in the Smile '66-'67 drama. Whether anyone wants to understand his point of view is up to them. As I indicated in the post above, he reached out to Brian to do OCA when few if any other people were even willing to call him, much less visit him. Van Dyke responded to Brian's call in 2003, and helped finish what was begun in '66-'67. He responded again when Brian called him to do  narratives for Lucky Old Sun. I have no doubt he would respond again if Brian called him. So, if he is a little irritable because he gets asked about Smile for the 933rd time at a time when he has two new albums out, I don't blame him for being irritated.

myk luhv destroy smile and induce mental illness in god (aka brian wilsun)

[giggle]

Where the interview in the Guardian that got this thread started is concerned....I think I may know what got Van Dyke to be so testy with his interviewer. About two weeks ago, in the blogpost at the Guardian's site linking to a stream of Songs Cycled, it was referred to as VDP's first album of new material in 24 years - ie, since Tokyo Rose.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2013/apr/29/van-dyke-parks-songs-cycled-album-stream

As if Orange Crate Art, which was VDP's album in every respect except with Brian singing instead of him, had never happened.

 I know that Van Dyke also gets a tad annoyed when people overlook the fact that Moonlighting, despite being a live album, had several songs he had not put on tape before.  And I recall an interview sometime back where he indicated that he thought of his album with Inara George, An Invitation, as deserving a place alongside the records under his name alone.

(Though I don't know where he would place those albums of his soundtrack work that have come out - apart from Super Chief, which, though it uses music he has composed for films, is definitely in a different category from something like the soundtracks of The Company or Broken Trail.)

In the occasional interview he expresses pride in his work on children's films and TV.  He's no doubt well aware that some of his younger fans heard his work first on The Brave Little Toaster or Follow That Bird, back before they got around to finding out what Smile was.

But to get back to the Guardian interview - I have a strong suspicion that VDP had seen that blogpost beforehand and it got his dander up. A month or so back, he was in Australia and did an interview with a guy who made the same remark about first-album-since-Tokyo-Rose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9975874/Van-Dyke-Parks-rolls-on-with-a-new-album-Songs-Cycled.html

That led him to toss some notable verbal barbs the interviewer's way - and actually resulted in a pretty entertaining article. (For one thing, he explains just how those "Van Dyke Parks apologizes" business cards of his came about.)

But to get back to the interview - he has expressed his frustration before about what happened to Smile in '67, as in a talk from earlier this year which I quoted from in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15319.msg355364.html#msg355364

In that article he said he had to get out of the Smile project, at least in part, to get away from Brian's drug use.  There may be some truth to that.  Until the early Seventies, Van Dyke, from what Danny Hutton and others say about him, seems to have leaned mainly toward pot and the occasional upper to get something done for a deadline - so after a while, Brian's pharmaceutical ways, on top of everything else, must have been more than he could handle.  

There is also the fact that Lenny Waronker, right at that point, was able to sell his superiors at Warner Brothers on giving Van Dyke carte blanche to do what he wanted, expense be damned.  It was unheard-of  in those days for an artist with just two singles released under his own name, to get a budget to make an album that was as much as the amount spent on making Sgt Pepper, or close to it. So it's hard to blame Van Dyke for choosing that over trying to stay with Smile.

But anyway I'd say this was just an interview where he was less in a mood to talk about Smile than usual, and not all that much needs to be read into the "buffoonery" remark.  And the point should also be made that Van Dyke is, always, quite proud of Smile, and never hesitates to get out the old felt-tip and put his name to it in any of its several incarnations after a show - like that one coming up in LA on May 29. It's just that he sometimes is a little peeved about being asked to rehash  the subject when he's out promoting his new stuff.

There's a big difference between being ASKED about SMiLE - and DISCUSSING SMiLE.

In your original post, you said that Brian and Van Dyke get tired of ANSWERING questions. Yeah, I've seen the questions asked. I just haven't seen too many thoughtful, in depth answers. And, yes, I understand the reasons that you stated for this.

There is also the issue that as it relates to Van Dyke Parks and "SMiLE" that his participation as the lyricist on that record is probably the only reason he is even relevant to the general public.  Even with his contributions to the Beach Boys' canon, he is hardly a household word.  

I do understand VDP being irritated constantly being asked about "SMiLE" and asked to discuss "SMiLE".  It's probably "old news" to him, something that took place nearly fifty years ago that while it did earn him a fair amount of notoriety was a less than positive experience for him or so it seems.  He has every right to feel this way but I really can't blame people for constantly bringing it up to him especially those trying to do proper interviews with him.  The reason being as it pertains to VDP, "SMiLE" will always be the hook that writers are hoping to use to bring eyes to their piece when writing about VDP.  His other work for whatever reason, isn't as well known and has less of an intriguing story behind it.

I have no issue with what VDP said regarding Brian Wilson although as someone who is extremely sympathetic to cases of mental illness tend to look at Brian Wilson's erratic behavior during the creation of "SMiLE" as far less "buffoonery" and far more symptomatic of mental illness, something that the world at large did not have much understanding of in 1966.  So from that standpoint I have always had a great deal of sympathy for Brian Wilson and have always wished that many of the avenues available to people who struggle with mental illness today would've been available to Brian Wilson in 1966.  

The bottom line is for me though is VDP much like anyone else has a right to his viewpoint regarding his life's work.  He has made several statements over the past year or so which have rankled Beach Boys fans but I don't think his intentions were ever malicious in nature.  Whether or not his viewpoints are objectively accurate is another matter and debate entirely but I don't feel that he overstepped the mark in that he should be vilified for his comments.

Van Dyke wasn't asked about SMiLE, it says "Parks brings it up unprompted".

SJS -- I don't think Brian has ever talked about his music with particular depth. He's come closest on Pet Sounds, but besides that his comments tend to be perfunctory to the extreme. He is -- like most musicians -- terrible at actually talking about what he does. He does better when he can use a piano, but even then his points can be incomprehensible.

I suspect he is deeply proud of Smile, but more as a personal accomplishment. I'm not sure if he remembers how he made the music, or what his aims for it were in the 60s. If he can, I doubt he can communicate them particularly clearly. Formulaic answers, for better or worse, are what we get.

Incidentally, has anyone found it strange that we haven't heard a one-on-one interview with BW for awhile? I wonder what's going on ...

If I were in Van Dyke's shoes back then, the very instant I was offered to the chance to make Song Cycle I would have been out the door in a nanosecond.

I'm also thinking aloud, if Van was the lyricist and the lyrics had been written already, what was the need for him to be around at the studio sessions anyway?

To Peter Reum:

I am immensely grateful for your posts on the matter. IMHO, Van Dyke has all the rights in the world to make known that he's irritated about the gazillionth question about the Smile period. He's always been very supportive to Brian, and you rightfully single out OCA as a prime example of that. Many people seem to forget about the fact that he's had, and does have, a brilliant career of his own. Yes, he comes across as a polymath, a very well-read intellectual, and I like him all the more for that - he's pretty unique in showbiz, in this respect; and I never ever had problems with his use of words. I find that in this thread, he's been put down unjustly as a vain man who likes to impress with his language. Nonsense. If words come easily to you, should you then limit yourself and talk common street language? Present yourself as a man, different from who you truly are? That would amount to some form of self-betrayal. Moreover, all that he says makes eminent sense; with a true poseur, you always feel that form overrides meaning - and this is absolutely not the case with VDP.

Let's not forget that VDP is an intellectual human being, someone with feelings too. He's fully entitled to irritation, as are we all.

Well put THDon & Peter.

Just to be sycophantic, VDP's a hero of mine - in his own right - and a very human one. Very approachable, very generous with his fans, and was always extremely supportive of BW when it counted. Puts up with a lot, gives a lot. Like him a lot.

Very well said, John. I met him three times, and he always shows great patience and interest alike. And I have his calling card, which is, um, unusual...

Absolutely. I've never known of a celebrity (for want of a better word) who will give his time more freely to his fans. I frankly can't say enough good things about the man.

I made sure not to ask him about Smile back in 1999 if that means anything.

This has been addressed in a few other threads. The condensed version, since my writing a more expanded and time-consuming post then having it ignored is annoying as hell:

Van Dyke was responsible for and involved in creating more aspects of Smile than just the lyrics.

Your entire post was excellent, I just wanted to pull these two paragraphs and comment:

The first one, I just think is more inaccurate than correct, or else Van Dyke is practicing a bit of hypocrisy by "blaming drugs" which falls in and out of fashion in Smile post-mortem discussions every few months.

Again, to make it brief: Anyone who believes the scene in which Van Dyke was traveling in Los Angeles from 65-69 wasn't surrounded by if not consumed by psychedelic drug use and abuse is either blind to the facts or naive.

One of Van's Byrds buddies David Crosby took to the stage at Monterey Pop with an "STP" sticker displayed on his guitar, STP being a particularly strong blend of LSD and forms of speed which was designed to be the most potent trip but instead caused more problems than epiphanies.

So if drug use around Smile was the problem, I'd argue it would be difficult to be around a group of young musicians in LA in 1967 who were not into drugs heavier than pot and also who were more into regular drug use in general even more than Brian. So to point at not wanting to be around drug use as cause to leave would seem either hypocritical or another red herring.

Second point: One of the Smile gang, perhaps Vosse in the Fusion piece (can't recall), suggested Van Dyke was tired of being dominated by Brian, which would only give an offer from another label to be 100% in charge, along with a supply of cash to get the album done, that much more of an easy decision to leave the Smile project. There would be no cause for anyone to shoot down or ignore your ideas in a collaborative role if you're the "boss" and your own name is on the album as solo artist.

If nothing else it was a massive ego boost for a young guy like Van Dyke in 1967 to receive that kind of carte blanche from a record label.

Still, Mike's Beard question stands: if the lyrics were written already, why was it necessary that he stick around?

Because Parks contributed more than just lyrics to the project.

Seriously? I hope it's a serious question and not one designed to provoke a reaction, because it has been answered.  :)

Because the collaboration went beyond Van Dyke working solely on the lyrics.

He worked on the MUSIC as well, and was a creative spark or catalyst for Brian and vice versa when they got to work in the studio.

The proof of this in print is again in the Vosse Fusion article where he describes the electricity that would happen in the studio (STUDIO, not Brian's home or at a piano) when the two got down to business. The two fed off of each others' creative energy. The audio proof is when we hear it on numerous session tapes where not only is Van Dyke there, but he is either playing with the musicians, asking and answering musical questions with Brian, and in one case conducting the band on the studio floor. The visual proof is the numerous Webster and Jasper photos of them in the studio working as well as some silent film footage.

They were doing more than having Van Dyke write his lyrics then split, that's a fact.

This was a point which was lost on many people (myself included) reading about Smile for years until we could actually hear the evidence on tape of Van Dyke's musical involvement at various sessions.

And apart from the music, Van Dyke was the one more involved, or at least he took the lead, with getting together the visual elements of Smile through the artwork and specifically through Frank Holmes. Remember, Holmes' art came from his meetings with Van Dyke, where they'd discuss song lyrics and themes of the various songs, and it was a large majority coming from Van Dyke and Holmes instead of Brian and Holmes working this stuff out.

So if Van had simply punched his time card after writing the lyrics and split, there would remain gaping holes in both the visual and the musical components of Smile, at least more gaping than already exists.

Because Van Dyke was responsible for and involved in creating more aspects of Smile than just the lyrics.

Oh wait, I just said that two posts ago.  ;D

Andrew, next time let's sing that line in two-part harmony.  :lol

I thought I read an interview or two with Van Dyke Parks where he said that he didn't write a single note of music on SMiLE, and that the music's all Brian's. Is that true or is that another example of Van Dyke Parks saying something that isn't true or has to be "interpreted"?

I also remember an interview with him where he says something like, "Don't let the marijuana fool you", or something to to that effect. So, I guess some drug use and buffoonery was acceptable.

Let me just propose this and let your ears interpret the music: Did the music Brian was recording when he was working with Van Dyke in late 66-early 67 resemble Pet Sounds, or any of the albums that followed in 1967? Or is it more unique? Listen specifically to the orchestrations and the combinations of instruments within the arrangements, and how certain parts interact with each other which is a change from both Pet Sounds, and closer to but still not what Brian did on Good Vibrations. Not to mention some specific sounds and textures which would seem to have come from Van Dyke's recording of Donovan's "Colours".

However much Van Dyke wants to say he did or didn't do on Smile, and as usual some of what he says does need interpretation or at least reading between the lines to get to the point, our ears can certainly detect at least a mutual influence between the two musicians. If not more.

I can't provide specifics right now, but there is more than one case of Van Dyke downplaying his role in the past.

You know what guitarfool2002, your perfectly fine post, and I mean that with no sarcasm, was a long way of answering my question that Van Dyke Parks says things in interviews that simply aren't true. Which, come to think of it, makes him a perfect fit with the other Beach Boys and their interviewing skills. :-D Seriously, I have a problem with the guy, I said what I have to say, and I should probably bow out of further discussion about him, which I will.

 ;D  I do want to clarify one phrase I used in the post, because I know a simple turn of a phrase can be picked out and interpreted to mean something other than intended: I said Not to mention some specific sounds and textures which would seem to have come from Van Dyke's recording of Donovan's "Colours"

That's a bad way of saying what I wanted to say, obviously the VDP recording came later, but it's a musical sensibility we can hear in "Colors" which we also hear at various times with Smile, and it's a very unique musical sense that Brian didn't explore on Pet Sounds, hinted at for Good Vibrations, and all but discarded after Smile collapsed. The conclusions which we each draw from that are up to how we each interpret what we hear and think about that music.

I don't know the exact interview to which SherrifJohnStone is referring, but depending on exactly what was said, there's no reason to think Parks was lying. He may well not have written a note of the songs, but have contributed to the arrangements -- which are, after all, the things that sound more like him than Brian. Remember that Parks was a professional arranger at that time, and no professional arranger would dream of taking credit for writing the music -- they arrange it.

(Which is not to say that Parks was the sole, or even principal, arranger on Smile, but that he contributed arrangement ideas).

Van Dyke has said he didn't write any music, he put a syllable to a note or something. I don't remember hearing anything in interview or tape where VDP is arranging. Is there an instance? I remember VDP did play instruments and Brian did ask him about levels and something about tempo. I know VDP has said he was influenced by Brian but I've never heard of any claim of Brian being influenced by VDP. On the other hand, it probably would be hard not to influence each other during a collaboration.

I have always thought that the music on Smile had Van Dyke's fingerprints all over it from the moment I heard Song Cycle. However as the guy has always maintained he only wrote the lyrics and the music was all Brian's, I just assumed that my imagination was working overtime. Why if what guitarfool says is true do both parties continue to lie about the extent of VD's involvement? Is it because the extent of his contributions might step on the myth of "Brian Wilson - genius songwriter/arranger/producer"?

The fact that "Smile" de-volved into "Smiley Smile" might be taken as evidence that Van Dyke has some influence on the arrangements and studio work. Not only was Brian not as musically well-educated as Van Dyke Parks, he was starting to become diminished even in terms of his own skills at that point, at least in terms of getting a product finished. SS was an easier project, starting from scratch to finish.

I think that had a LOT more to do with Brian's new direction (or lack of direction).

What had VDP done before he began work with Brian and was he the producer and arranger on those recordings? SMiLE is different for Brian to my ears too but is it really out of the arc from the earlier albums through PS through the multiple versions of GV and on to SMiLE? Interesting.

It was a voluntary change in sound and style. Breaking these things down to their bare elements in order to complete them, i.e. the complete opposite approach that Smile had.

SJS I feel you. If someone doesn't want to know something that shakes their image of someone they will yell louder than you. That's what happened on this thread, because for some reason Brian is being made to be as big of an idiot as he was in that movie Van Dyke hates. OK Van Dyke is world famous on his own, the kindest, most egoless, most honest performer ever! He  wrote Brian's Smile music, and Smiley was the only thing Brian could do without him because Brian was an addict who misbehaved in the studio. I've been told to "shut up" and that Van Dyke knows more about Brian's problems than I do. The latter is obviously true as they were on and off friends and collaborators., but that's why I so dislike the things he says about the man. He of all people should be a bit more understanding, or at least quit being so negative in public.

I don't see a lot of yelling here. There just seems to be lot of pushback -- as in my mind there should be -- against the idea that Van Dyke is somehow an asshole, rather than a complicated, talented guy who has been rather used by the BW/BB camp over the years.

And not a single person has suggested that Van Dyke wrote the Smile music. The theory put forward is that he was a musical sounding board and contributed arrangement ideas -- something that Tony Asher claims to have done for Pet Sounds. For that matter, it's something that nearly all of Brian's collaborators (minus Mike, perhaps) have done -- Usher, Asher, Paley, Thomas and Bennett. Most of these guys aren't professional arrangers either, as Parks was and is.

None of this, of course, makes Brian an idiot. As I've posted here repeatedly, one of Brian's overlooked -- and strongest -- talents is collaboration. He latches onto talented, unusual people and great players. He pushes them to make great things, and they push him in return. That's how so much of his music works. Even something as auteur-sh as Pet Sounds was arguably co-arranged by the Wrecking Crew and co-produced by Chuck Britz.

Exactly. And that goes perfectly well with Van Dyke's statements that he didn't have any input into the musical side of the songwriting, and put one syllable per note. Suggesting, for example, that a melody line be played on a marimba rather than a clarinet, or that a cello double a violin part an octave down, would not require him to have written a single note of music for the songs. And we *know* he made a suggestion of that type on Good Vibrations -- the cello part. Nobody in the world would think for a second that that means he wrote the music for Good Vibrations.

First you are very correct about Brian's talent as far as working with other people. Very nicely said.

I was being a bit sarcastic as far as the comments from Kittykat and Mike's Beard on the Smile music. Not because I don't respect them, (which I do) but because I don't want the talent of Brian being underestimated. Van Dyke did make suggestions, so did The Beach Boys, and so did the "Wrecking Crew", but I think the music Brian wrote in 1966 was basically his own very unique vision.

I still don't see why the push back on me. I praised Van Dyke's work with Brian (nobody else could have done better with Smile), but commented that he can say things that rub me the wrong way. That was the subject of the thread so I gave my two cents.  I said he has talent of his own, but that meeting Brian Wilson spread word of that talent to a lot of people. Even that rather obvious observation didn't get accepted.

It's not that I am trying to take away any of the good things Parks has done as an artist or human being, but it seems to me that for some he is beyond reproach. After all isn't it human to be an asshole at times?

I agree, Mike.

yeah that sounds about right.

I'm a total asshole at times...and human.

So that makes sense.  ;D

Very thankful I am understood. I hope you all know my take on things is in no way meant to negate anyone else's. Now let's all get along and then we'll have world peace. :angel:

Yes it did, it was merely the conclusions you drew from that -- that because working with the Beach Boys made Parks better known (even though he has never wanted to be well-known), he therefore owes his career to Brian, and so ever making a very slightly negative statement about him in public makes him 'an asshole', that didn't get accepted, because it's not the truth.

Cosine. It reminds me of stuff you'd see from Justin Bieber fans, actually.

"VDP would be NOTHING without Brian Wilson, he should WATCH HIS MOUTH"

I'd concede that perhaps, in the industry his name became a little better known for his Beach Boys association, for a bit in '67 and lots more since 2004, but in terms of wildly affecting his career? The guy has been a jobbing composer for film and television stuff for years now. And in that industry you don't have "1964: Arranged the Bare Necessities' on your CV and end up wanting for work.

It could equally be argued that The Beach Boys owe VDP...after all, he got them signed to Warners, fished out Sail on Sailor.

How would their career have gone if they'd ended up signed to a label that just accepted the first, shitty version of Sunflower, accepted Holland without 'sail on sailor' on there.

Also: Brian Wilson is quite clearly a buffoon.

Andrew may I try one more time to relate to you? I feel you are misreading me or at least the tone I am taking. Let me talk more generally here.

I have had the good fortune over the last twenty odd years to be in touch people in the music business that I admire. Some are very close friends, some are just business acquaintances. In both cases I get told things in confidence that I don't repeat. Sometimes I've had to use my own discretion as far as what to share, sometimes I am told not to share. Mostly they have to do with ego, life on the road, or personal and monetary honesty within a band. Some of these folks are hard up for money or recognition and can get plenty for what they have told me. I was was making a point (which I have always made) that I find anyone airing private grievances to be in the wrong.

I think you can be honest, but get your point across without hurting ones feelings. They are all people like you and me and words do hurt, especially those from someone you once considered a friend or partner. The late Paul Williams was an inspiration to me when I was starting out. He wrote something once about when he met Bob Dylan how Bob was genuinely hurt by something he wrote. Dylan was especially disappointed because he felt Williams did a great job in the rest of the article. He was always honest from then on, but didn't take shots. It stuck with me strongly.

We have a public form here where debate is encouraged. We are all pretty open non PC critics when it comes to the music and even the lives of these people. What is made public is fair game, and in the case of Van Dyke he went public with me. I still would never speak about it in a book, magazine, or personal webpage. It has nothing to do with his art, and I like that as much as before. Here we were asked our opinion about what he said about Brian and I was honest.
 
I never once said he was an asshole, only that he has done things I personally object to as far as Brian and Mike go. I don't think he owes them his career (though I stick by what I said as far as most people generally knowing who he is through Smile), but I find him unprofessional in his manner about them. Saying we all can be assholes is letting him off the hook. I only said that much because I do give credence to people who had good experiences. Trust me if he talked about you in the smarmy false manner he did with me, you wouldn't love the guy. He doesn't do the celeb thing? OK cool than he should consider my time to be as important as his. I wanted to talk it out, he refused. You know people have arguments, disagreements, and lawsuits, they don't trumpet to the press. Many people actually talk to one another and work things out.

I have nothing left to add, but it's awful to have people tell me what I feel or think. It really is a drag and I hope we can stop this now.

If this thread were a person, it'd be a 7 stone weakling who gets sand kicked in his face by bullies at the beach type guy.

Actually, I think this thread is the bully kicking sand in people's faces here, or rather some of the posts in here make it seem that way. This thread is really starting to piss me off.  I hate how Parks is deified here to the point where if anybody criticizes him they are  torn to shreds here. Same thing happened to me here a couple of years ago; being called 'stupid' and of 'low intelligence' because I don't care for most of his work pissed me off to the point I almost left this board for good. And for the record, I'm going to say this...with my (very limited) experiences with those in the BB's world, only three individuals weren't friendly, and VDP was one of them. God forbid I bring that up here again, though.

I think a point made above is well taken. Whether celebrities are personable or not, they are people first, have bad days, or even are very sensitive to what people write about them. I know most people around the group read these boards. What we say here does ripple through to the people we write or speculate about.

Also: Van Dyke was a session musician, and a very talented one at that. Why not have him along?

Peter Reum is, as usual, on the money.

Personally I reckon if you're looking for evidence of Van Dykes arranging on Smile, The Prelude To Fade might be the most obvious one. That sounds so much like him, what with the way the individual elements of the orchestra go with and complement the basic H&V melody.

I, too, have been lucky enough to communicate with Van Dyke, and he's been an absolute gentleman and joy to know.

VDP bailed on Smile before Brian was done with it. The direction Brian was going in may have prevented him from ever finishing Smile, however, the fact still remains that VDP walked away. It was his choice and he made the choice to bail. Sorry, but a grown man playing the victim card rubs me the wrong way. And of course he has to bring up Mike again and again. If he is such an intelligent peace and love kind of guy why does he feel the need to help perpetuate the myth that Mike had a lot to do with killing Smile? It is a false narrative, and anyone who looks/listens objectively to TSS would know it. Mike spent months and months singing exactly what Brian told him to sing. Mike did not have a damn thing to do with Brian reworking Heroes and Villians over and over and over.

Oh, and I like VDP work on Smile. As time goes on though, I think the truth has come out about the two people most responsible for the collapse of Smile. VDP and Brian.

Well put.

Great, great post.

A BBs album with Brian and Van Dyke in 2013 would be interesting. Lock Mike in a closet if needed.

So we're now willing to either whitewash or totally disregard all of the other factors surrounding Smile in late 66/early 67 which some folks have spent years trying to uncover or interpret/analyze? I hope not.

Unless we're talking semantics here, and it feels like some are, where the hypothetical scenario of a terminally ill patient with no hope for recovery being taken off life support can come down to saying the person who actually "pulled the plug" so to speak would bear the ultimate responsibility in the matter, rather than whatever family, legal, and medical issues went into that ultimate decision and act.

Yes, Brian as the creative force had the strongest word in pulling the plug on Smile, but let's not turn a blind eye toward what those who were working around him have reported and have said happened which contributed to that decision, which may or may not have even had a definite "end point" as in Brian himself one spring day in 1967 declaring to the band "it's over".

Do not ignore the issues surrounding the Capitol lawsuit, Murry, the family dynamic of the Wilsons and Loves, the "loyalty" card, etc because each of those may have contributed (however big or small) to Smile's demise according to people who witnessed it, and it paints a more complex picture than trying to compartmentalize it into saying "Brian and Van Dyke" were most responsible.

Again, doing so would be like saying the medical professional who actually turned off the life support was most responsible for that terminally ill patient's passing in the scenario above. Technically correct, but not at all a valid point in context.

Im not vindicating anybody.  >:D

Brian quits SMILE = Everybodys against ME... IM OUTTA HERE, F... IT!!!!!  :o

Thanks. This topic has struck a nerve with me for a couple of years now. I'm really tired of the blame game.  VDP was a young, pretentious kid and seems to have had a huge ego that could not withstand critique.  Ever have the new "kid" come into the workplace and think they already know everything and start to rub everyone the wrong way before they are either fired or move on quickly to something else of their own accord? That's what the whole Smile and VDP thing reminds me of.

Van Dyke assumed the same role that Tony Asher had played in 1966, and what gets forgotten is how some of Brian's work with Tony got critiqued to the point of having lyrics which he had written with Brian discarded or rewritten before the song(s) was released under the Beach Boys name.

There was some backlash against Brian having an "outsider" working on songs, or vice versa having Brian work outside the family business, and all of that is on the historical record going back to 1962-63, and some would say still exists in 2013 according to recent interviews.

Re: the workplace scenario. Likewise, a boss can also hire someone specifically to shake things up or affect some changes, and when that new someone does do his or her job which they were hired to do and it rubs existing employees the wrong way, couldn't the issue be as much or more with the existing employees' reactions and feeling threatened by the newcomer than with the new employee who was hired to do a job and is executing those job duties? If it reaches a point where that boss who hired the new employee would then fire that new employee because the regular crew is being rubbed the wrong way, they're either not fit to be a boss or they simply have no backbone.

Ultimately the public embrace of and reactions to the work that Brian did with both Asher and Van Dyke would be the validation, even if it took several decades to materialize.

Van Dyke had every right to focus on SongCycle instead. He had been available for more than six months, worked his ass off on the lyrics, had helped with the tracking sessions. He probably didn't write any new lyrics in 1967 for the project. Brian was doing his thing in the studio rerecording H&V, Vegetables, Wonderful...

Does anyone here really believe that he should have refused Warner's offer to stand by Brian?

Even if it's acknowledged that there were many issues at the time, that doesn't mean that one of those issues can't be highlighted as most important and responsible.

I don't think it was Van Dyke who was responsible because he did what was asked of him in writing the lyrics. He has said that he left because of Brian's drug use which is fair enough.

Brian has to take responsibility (while obviously being sympathetic towards his mental health problems) because to release a Smile album from what they'd recorded would have been pretty easy at that time. But it's clear that the drug use combined with the mental health problems that he already had had left him shattered and he didn't know anymore how to complete Heroes and Villains never mind the album itself.

The other band members (Mike in particular) probably were critical of some things but that's not abnormal in a band at all. What is abnormal is junking an entire album because of it.

I've never felt that Brian junked "SMiLE" because Mike Love didn't like it.  Did that possibly contribute to his decision not to more forward with project with as much gusto?  Probably.  But I just think as you brought out in your thread he ended up getting tangled up in a web of his own mania and had no idea how to bring the album to a conclusion.  I've always felt that the fate of "SMiLE" always rested in the hands of one person: Brian Wilson.  Which is why I was not surprised at all that it wasn't until 2003/2004 when Brian decided with some urging from Melinda to revisit the project that it finally saw the light of day.  Hindsight being what is is, I think we can all look back now and not be at all surprised that "SMiLE" did not surface without Brian Wilson's capitulation in the seventies, eighties or even the scrapped post-PSS "SMiLE" box in the mid-nineties. 

Yes, you're right. My post was badly worded. What I meant was that for the people who believe that is what happened, it wouldn't be a normal reaction from Brian.

The issue of Van Dyke and his reactions to the drug use were addressed and I think pretty fairly challenged by a post I wrote earlier in the thread, I hope you'll go back and re-read it if you missed it earlier. In short, Van Dyke was traveling in circles both in LA and in the next ten years or so of his life and friendships where heavy drug use was a part of life among some of the friends and working associates he was around. Both before *and* after Smile. So it's still a stretch for me to see the history of who he worked with and to pinpoint something that was consuming those around him solely to Brian Wilson in 1967, especially considering there were folks with far worse habits and behaviors that were in and around Van Dyke's circle of associates and friends.

And that point would seem to erase the offer that was given him by Warners to be his own boss, his own musical identity as an artist, and have control over his own music. For an early-20's guy in LA, that was an amazing offer, still is in terms of 2013's music business. It's akin to hitting the lottery to have that kind of offer for a debut album.

I honestly feel that there cannot be and will never be one main reason behind any of this, and if we start assigning such a label to any of what we know of Smile, it will simply not be accurate. I thought the Smile fan and research community in general had accepted that and moved beyond that some time ago, where the series of events taken as a whole need to be factored in far more than one finger of blame or responsibility, because it wasn't that easy to package.

Ehhhhh I feel that's an awfully presumptuous statement to make. Given the difficulties of working with analog tape and the sheer volume of what was recorded, and without the benefit of 45 years of hindsight, not to mention the hurricane swirling around him, Brian probably wouldn't have found the task to be as easy as you might think.

Note that I said, 'a Smile album'. I didn't say it could have been the definitive Smile album or a perfect one. Could they have completed something at that time when you consider all of the recording that they'd done? Yes, I believe so.

Van Dyke's feelings about the collapse of Smile are complex as well and cannot be simplified to one reason or attitutde.  Look at his blaming Mike for Mike's hostility towards him and his lyric writing with Brian.  Multiple writers and people on the scene have confirmed this, including Brian.  I suspect that while Van Dyke appears on the surface to be supremely confident and even arrogant at times, underneath that he must have had  doubts about his ability to write "Beach Boys" music with Brian that would fit in with their musical history and be successful in the marketplace.  In a sense Mike was confirming to Van Dyke his worst fears about the Smile project that he didn't want to admit to himself.  Van Dyke was insulted and hurt by Mike's attitutde AND by Brian not having his back.  As a defense mechanism he responded with an "I don't care if you like my lyrics, don't use them if you don't want to" and an I don't need this, I'm out of here attitude, but that was a front.  So he walked out on the project, and I believe has felt guilty about abandoning Brian and Smile ever since.  BWPS was closure for Van Dyke almost as much as it was for Brian.

Mike may have sowed seeds of doubt in both Brian and Van Dyke but those doubrts were there all along.  Brian's erratic behavior and "dominating" Van Dyke, Mike's attitude, their own doubts, Brian's increasingly obsessive complulsive reworking of tracks without any clear prospect of finishing the album, Van Dyke's leaving, and add in Capitol pressure and the lawsuit, Murry and god knows what else, and Brian (and Brian alone) pulls the plug.  But if we're assigning "blame" I would say Mike would be pretty far down the list, and the two people at the top would Brian and Van Dyke.

This is a good argument, and key. I reckon he didn't write a thing in 1967, given the vast majority of sessions were for H&V and Veggies. If he did, it would have been Dada, and we have no record of period lyrics for that. His work was done, unless he wanted to stick around and be quizzed by the band.

Tony Asher didn't turn up to any vocal sessions, did he... His only anecdotes, as I recall, focus on him going to the tracking dates.

Van Dyke also mentions in this particular interview that he was still dealing with the death of his brother at that time, which coloured his songwriting for Song Cycle. If you were grieving, Brian's organised fun might not really appeal to you

It still feels like the issue of blame is more semantics than anything else, as I doubt there are many in 2013 who don't think Brian was the one who scrapped Smile...and I said as much earlier in this thread. It would be a disservice to put all the historical focus on the fact that, yes, Brian "pulled the plug" on Smile when there was a perfect storm of events and people which came together at perhaps exactly the wrong time which led to the collapse of the Smile album. And we may never know all of those events, either, so why whitewash the whole thing by focusing on the notion of blaming someone rather than the reasons and events which led to that point?

It's too complex an issue to assign blame, and again perhaps those relatively new to the whole Smile saga would seek to do that but I thought that was old news several decades ago as Brian himself has said many times "I scrapped it" or "I threw it away", and heck, Derek Taylor's press release in 1967 among others said with no doubt that Brian pulled the plug!

So why in 2013 is the issue of assigning blame in any way coming up in light of everything else?

The first point: We have session photos of Van and Brian in the studio, most date from 1967, including the famous one of them both playing the same Rickenbacker guitar. We have a session tape where Van Dyke is on the studio floor conducting a large band with strings as they record an instrumental section of Heroes which never had lyrics. We have other less obvious evidence too in similar forms as those examples.

So he was there in the studio as Brian did tracks which had no intended lyrics, and also there as other instrumental tracks were recorded in '67. He did more than simply write the lyrics and wash his hands after that work was done.

Second point: There is a series of photos taken at Columbia where Tony Asher is seen standing behind the patch bay as Brian, Bruce, and Terry are at the board, and I believe Mike is seen in another shot from that series, but I could be wrong on that point. But Brian was not cutting too much of the instrumental stuff on Pet Sounds at Columbia, yet Asher was there in at least that one set of photos. Of the few extended vocal sessions we do have from the Pet Sounds era, is Tony mentioned on any of them, or can he be heard in the booth or floor at all? Remember too, he had an actual corporate job which he took a leave of absence from to write with Brian - meaning at some point he was back writing for the ad agency at perhaps the same time Brian would have been tracking vocals. Just a thought.

Third point: Everyone grieves in different ways, no one can claim to state what did or didn't appeal to Van Dyke at this time. Perhaps he needed this activity as well to take his mind off the grief? It's silly to speculate how one deals with grief, so let's not assume he didn't want to be there. The session tapes don't feature a down or sullen Van Dyke, in fact when they are all goofing off and making noises into the microphone, Van Dyke sounds like his usual sarcastic self yet he's also participating and contributing to the goings-on rather than getting up and walking out. Not to mention the regular sessions where he can be heard basically working alongside Brian and offering suggestions and encouragement.

I do get the feeling Brian had a more willing and eager friend in Michael Vosse who seemed pretty happy to be doing all this crazy stuff with Brian. But Vosse wasn't the musician Van Dyke was. :)

VDP may have made suggestions and some of them may have been accepted by Brian but if Anderle's right not enough of them were accepted to suit VDP because he says VDP had a problem with the music being not sophisticated enough. Jimmy Lockert told me this and you hear it on the tapes, Brian would listen to suggestions and he may adopt them, he might even try it, or he might dismiss it out right. He only did what he wanted to do.

There may be many reasons but in my opinion the only real problem was Brian fell out of love with what VDP gave him and the plans he had for the tracks and album didn't work anymore and he changed up what could work for him and dumped the rest for something different.

On a related point, who wrote the lyrics to Wind Chimes, Brian or Van Dyke? The credit originally was to Brian only and I don't think it was changed until BWPS cam out, and it was Wilson/Parks. It was also that way on the box set.

When I saw Brian's solo credit and the fact that the words didn't sound like any of Van Dyke's other lyrics on the project, I always figured Brian wrote them.

If that's true then what explains the presence of Heroes and Villains, Vegetables, She's Goin' Bald, and Wind Chimes on the next album. If Brian really didn't like what VDP gave him anymore, why record an album in which over a third of the material was co-written with Parks?

Parks claims Wind Chimes but disavows He Gives Speeches. I think it's the other way around.

I agree with that. Lyrics about writing a satire sounds like Van Dyke's style.

A guy staring at wind chimes (while almost certainly stoned) and not being able to look away sounds more like the guy who wanted to open the all-night telescope store.  :)

Whoops. Wrong post.

?

"he changed up what could work for him and dumped the rest for something different"

Because of Van Dyke's interview saying he was "victimized" by Brian.  Van Dyke is not blameless in the collapse of Smile and he knows it.  He just needs to own it.

You know, there are now two ways to  enjoy Smile. You can listen to the 2004 version, part of which won a Grammy, or you can listen to the Smile Sessions that won a Grammy. I am sure that some Beach boy fan who is also a statistician will do a multiple regression correlation study that attempt to weight the variance for Smile 66-67's demise. Personally, I'd rather listen to the music. The horse that is the blame for the 1966-67 Smile has been dead for a long time. :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

I wish I could remember where I read it, but it was in the 90s so it was probably in Beach Boys Australia or Beach Boys Stomp, but someone says something about confirming that Van Dyke "helped" with the lyrics of Wind Chimes, my inference being that the lyrics we have are VDP's rewrite of Brian's lyrics.  I'm sorry, I know that leaves a ton of [citation needed] and isn't within a hundred miles of conclusive, but I thought it was worth a mention.  If anyone can nail the source that'd be great.

Who or what is this being directed to? If it's something I wrote,  just let me know so I know how to respond in kind.

Not directed at you guitarfool2002.....merely an observation about the direction this thread was sliding. Smile 66-67 is dead, long live Smile 2004 and 2011.

He changed the Van Dyke parts the least though. In fact on Vegetables and Wind Chimes the one constant in both versions appears to be Van Dyke's lyrics.

I agree with that!  :)   I just wanted to ask, in case I had to dust off and post my old favorites like Mr. T, Doug Henning, or the Lionel Richie clay bust in reply (long lost references to previous forums' shenanigans...)  ;D

It's actually been too long since I've given Smile 2004 a full listen with fresh ears, I think it's due for a re-evaluation.

Having heard them both, is there a consensus on which would be better to listen to first ( I've listened to  neither , yet) 

Both the least Van Dykey songs imo and the even less Van Dykey version of Vegetables. H&V deVanDkyed by 25% or so. SGB no Van Dyke [according to VDP]. Wonderful survived without cut to the lyric. No CE, DYLW, SU, at all.

Even if SGB is not Van Dyke's lyric, he does claim Wind Chimes which I didn't count, putting us back to where we were, if we're taking Van Dyke's word for it. Again, those lyrics remain intact. To say H&V is "deVanDkyed" by 25% is misleading I think. All the lyrics Van Dyke wrote for the song seem to be there, except for Cantina, which I don't think constitutes 25% and even that part was written after the initial writing for the song anyway. Whether or not you think the songs are "Van Dykey" or not, Brian still used them and again kept the Smiley Smile project full of songs co-written by Van Dyke Parks. Furthermore, Brian was still singing songs like Surf's Up which didn't make Smiley only a few months later during the Wild Honey sessions. I think it is a very, very difficult claim to make given all we have that Brian had fallen out of love with the material. Ten years later, Brian was calling Van Dyke his favourite co-writer...

So you claim that Brian was so into Van Dyke's lyrics that he did not significantly deVanDyke SMiLE for Smiley?

You're right H&V was deVanDyked by 20%.

nobody ever really mentions the speed and the effect it had on Brian over time. I think it was far more detrimental than LSD or pot/hash.

as far as I know, it was Van's drug of choice and he introduced Brian to it. It sounds like it really helped Brian focus initially and they got a lot of work done right away... but what was the effect of amphetamines on Brian after 6 months? nearly the opposite of "focused" i would say.

as for whether or not Van helped write any music, he himself has stated that he did not. he has taken credit for random things like the cellos playing triplets on Good Vibrations, would he really deny writing any SMiLE music? nah.

this statement from Van is surprising, as he's never really said anything like it in the previous 45 years or so since SMiLE fell apart. he singled out Brian, completely unprovoked, in rather unflattering terms.

I would certainly label a lot of Brian's activities during the SMiLE period as buffoonery. I just wonder why Van Dyke hasn't really done it until now.

I'm saying the end of Smile and the emergence of Smiley Smile had nothing to do with Brian falling out of love with what Van Dyke gave him, and I think the material evidence we have supports that.

OK. I disagree.

Disagree with what? You can't disagree with the material evidence since that's a matter of fact.

The material evidence is he dumped most of Van Dyke's lyrics. He dumped half of VDP's lyrics outright and cut lyrics from the half he kept. That is a fact. And Brian said it was because they were too arty.  I call that not being in love with them, which you may argue with the characterization, but is the material reason songs and SMiLE were dumped and Smiley emerged with less then half of SMiLE's Van Dyke lyrics.

I do argue with the characterization because it's a mischaracterization. Yes, he dumped SU, CE and DYLW. He also dumped O'Leary's Cow, Our Prayer, Old Master Painter/Sunshine, Look and other songs that VDP had nothing to do with. He wasn't simply cutting out Parks and that should be clear by what got cut and what remained. Some Parks stuff got cut along with some non-Parks stuff, just as some Parks stuff stayed and Brian was still hung up on songs by Van Dyke that were cut that year, as evidenced by the Surf's Up recording. If you are not in love with the lyrics of a writer, you don't use the songs that that writer wrote to make up over a third of your album, nor do you continue to sing his lyrics a year later.

‍

It should be a dead horse issue but one only needs to take a look at pretty much any youtube video from the era and read the comments and it's clear a vast section of posters still carry the David Leaf partyline on why Smile collasped.

Didn't Van Dyke still blame Mike Love, and his hatred of drugs, as of late 2011? That's according to his post on his website (the one that offended Mike Eder, in which he referred to Mike Eder as an "author," quote marks from VDP). He said something along the lines that Mike Love blamed drugs for making Smile for what it was, and that Mike Love should chill out and not judge and realize that ML's favorite authors wrote a lot of their best work while high on drugs, citing Poe and Dickens. So, Van Dyke was not only still blaming Mike Love, but defending his and Brian's use of drugs while making "Smile."

Of course, I could be wrong, because I can't really decipher what the heck he's saying.

Van Dyke's post:

http://bananastan.com/notes_1.html

Thanks, I hadn't read Van Dyke's post re the reunion and Smile box for a while.
Has anyone tried singing "It's an anecdotal height of personal neutrality in an ethical dilemma" over the backing track for the Child Is Father Of The Man middle 8 ?

We will continue to disagree over the evidence then.

Peter sees the glass as half full.  I see it as half empty.  Phil doesn't see the glass at all and complains about how the glass company is never going to produce the glass.

The "victim card" is not a pretty or sensible move for Van Dyke to make.  GEEZ

 8)

Van Dyke probably doesn't enjoy having his work disparaged as druggy shite!

More like disparag-ed, as in past tense. It's time for Van Dyke to move on. The album got released. I'm sure he got some royalties from both BWPS and the boxed set.  He also seems to have a weird possessiveness towards Brian Wilson in terms of thinking he should be able to tell Brian whether to play with the Beach Boys or not. He's like a bitter ex-wife or something. 

It becomes more than than simple royalties when people say in public that your most well known work was 'acid alliteration', or sending The Beach Boys in a 'bad direction' (see Mike Love's essay in the Smile booklet). Van Dyke would like to see that work given proper legitimacy, yet Mike would like to deny that the album is a legitimate work - he's only outwardly repped for one Smile song, Wonderful, in my experience.

Van Dyke would love to see Smile as just another entry in his CV, I guess. Last gig I saw him at, he politely greeted all the fuckwits giving him copies of Pet Sounds to sign but got really involved with two Carribean girls who said they had known and performed with The Mighty Sparrow, I think. He ended up telling them he'd like to record with them.

Then again, at the same showing the interviewer at the Q&A asked him what he would do if he saw Mike Love to which there was...... what about at a hospital? Quoth Van Dyke, 'I might pull the plug.'


He also took great  pains to play that off as a joke, btw. I reckon so long as Mike Love stops going 'Smile? Oh yeah, Brian was tripping balls on that one, although I do like one song' in a pointed manner Van Dyke would back off.

Van Dyke was a hired hand, not a member of the band. He should take the checks and cash them, not wish ill on members of the band that may have made him more money than any project he's ever been involved in. That's kind of warped to say that about Brian Wilson's first cousin. Mike rendered an opinion about Van Dyke's work, which he's entitled to, and has never even joked that he'd "pull the plug" if he found him in the hospital. Van has emotional problems.

He'd pull the plug, but I have it on good authority that he'd piss on Mike if the man somehow were to catch fire. This is a man that's sober, healthy, and good.

Most definitely. That was in poor taste.

Great post KittyKat

Brian took Van Dyke in. Got his name in history and he says something like this.

Nonsense. Van Dyke was well known in the business. His success is his own, and Smile didn't even become a thing until the 70s and, really, the 80s. By that time, VDP had already established a career as a recording artist, arranger, film composer and A&R man that was quite separate from his work with Brian or the Beach Boys.

Everyone involved with the BW/BB saga says regretful things. It's par for the course.

Why didn't Van Dyke contribute to the boxed set booklet? He didn't like what Mike said, but even if he didn't have an opportunity to read it before it was published, he could have figured out Mike might say something he has said before. So why not put his own two cents in? 

Not to enter the fray again only to get burnt but Smile was a huge deal in 1966 and 1967. I  think a good read of Look! Listen! Vibrate! Smile! proves that both the US and UK rock press had been hyping it for a good year. Not going to go further here but some things are solid fact.

The press was hyping it. That doesn't guarantee the fans would have embraced it, what few Beach Boys fans were left.  I don't agree with fans who think Smile would have been the Beach Boys' version of Sgt. Pepper's, no matter how much press hype they got. A lot of things got press hype. Also, consider that LLSV was a gathering of the clips. Spread out in those publications over a year's time, it may not have looked so massive compared to the hype garnered by the Beatles or the Doors or the Stones, or even up and comers like the Who. I'm sure Capitol records paid for a lot of that hype, yet all they managed was a sub Top 10 when they released the first single from what would have been the album.  That doesn't make it right for Van Dyke Parks to kid he'd go all Kevorkian on Mike Love.

Had it come out within a few months of "Good Vibrations" it would have killed. Heroes still did quite well putting it all in perspective.

Well, Uncut just put up another interview with VDP on its site, from the June issue that just hit the stands. It involves him examining his career album by album. And the albums discussed are a pretty interesting assortment because they include ones for other artists that he produced or arranged or both:

Smile
Song Cycle
Randy Newman's debut
Phil Ochs' Greatest Hits
Ry Cooder's debut
Discover America
Nilsson's Popeye soundtrack
Orange Crate Art
Joanna Newsom's Ys

His remarks on Smile don't vary too much from what he's said in other places. But his explanation, this time, of why he decided to have Brian sing OCA is one that I don't think he's mentioned before.  And for longtime VDP students there are some other quite interesting things.  He says he didn't work with Randy Newman again because of personal differences - which he explains in some detail.  He remarks that Greatest Hits is not his personal favorite among Phil Ochs' albums - and I wish the interviewer had gotten him to say which one was. (My guess is it would be Rehearsals For Retirement.)

And he repeats what he has said in a couple of other interviews - that he views Discover America as his best album.

http://www.uncut.co.uk/uncut/van-dyke-parks-album-by-album-feature

They seem to talk to Van Dyke Parks quite a bit. Is he that much better known in the UK than here? Someone posted something he said a few months ago from that magazine and he said something along the lines of that he thought Smile could be filmed, but he had no intention of working with Brian Wilson ever again, on anything.

Thanks for the link, very interesting read. With all the badmouthing of VDP going on here lately, it's nice to have the man himself reminds us that he's a true artist and a gentleman.

Although I cannot support VDP for saying these things about ML after all these years there i no doubt that there is bad blood between them. I can imagine VDP being frustrated as the Smile sessions ground on with Brian becoming increasingly erratic. Having Mike badger him about the lyrics on top of an already falltering project was enough to make him abandon ship.

There is no hiding it. ML is obviously a very unlikable character and many have ill opinions of him. VDP would be wise to keep his to himself however as there can be little change apart from damage to his own reputation.

I do find it a little different that Van Dyke seems to assign a lot of blame to Brian now. I don't remember him doing that in the past. For instance, this interview he blames people feeding Brian drugs as much or more as Mike questioning the lyrics. Then there's the "buffoon" interview. The fact he said a couple of months ago that he has no intention of ever working with Brian again. Did he see Brian reuniting with the Beach Boys as being disloyal to him (though why he would think Brian has to answer to him, who knows), or something else, or a combination of the reunion and whatever the something else is?  Surely he must have known Brian might work with the Beach Boys again.

My thoughts exactly.

VDP has been saying he left because of the the drug use (amongst other things) for quite some time now. But I do agree that his attitude seems to have evolved a little recently.

I think you're right about this.  VDP reappeared in the Beach Boys' saga several times after Smile failed to happen, by allegedly helping them get their contract with Warners, by his vocal appearance on "A Day in the Life of a Tree," by suggesting "Surf's Up" for the album of the same name and "Sail On, Sailor" for Holland, and even by his accordion on several songs that Brian had nothing to do with on Still Cruisin' and Summer in Paradise.  He has certainly been critical of Mike Love in the past, but this criticism of Brian (and apparent refusal to work with him again) is much newer and I suspect has roots in something that happened more recently.  Does anybody know why Van Dyke Park's wasn't more involved in the release of The Smile Sessions?  (Specifically, whether he refused to be involved or whether he was somehow excluded?)  I think the answer might have something to do with that.

"Van Dyke was well known in the business. His success is his own, and Smile didn't even become a thing until the 70s and, really, the 80s."

VDP, in the Uncut piece, rather contradicts this view himself.

He does, reading it. Which is very odd, because he was working with Lenny Waronker before he ever met Brian Wilson. So either Wirestone and I are wrong, VDP is remembering wrong, or (most likely) It's More Complicated Than That and, for example, Waronker had been trying to get Parks signed to Warners for a while but working with Brian was the last extra bit of pressure he needed.

Either way, though, I have absolutely no doubt that, given that Parks was so close to Waronker, his career would have gone more or less the same way whether or not he worked with Brian.

Guitarfool, Andrew, appreciate you both stating this; have believed the same thing for a long time; the evidence is all over many of the session tapes. VDP' voice also seems prominent at several of those creative/purile/take-your-pick avante garde party tapes, though I wouldn't know whether he'd been inhalationing or no!

VDP is/was very well know and in demand within 'the biz' but would he be a comparatively well known household name without the BB connection - the answer is obviously no.

Even with the Beach Boys connection, he isn't a household name.

And, again, as he said in the interview that started this thread, he actively doesn't want even the little bit of fame he does have.

Van Dyke Parks is someone who would typify the term musician's musician. Not only is he familiar with a wide variety of music from different eras and places, but he can apply that knowledge as a session player, lyricist,  producer, or as an arranger. In this respect, he has wide renown within the  musician community. Lyrics are a matter of taste. Some people enjoy the more simple and straight forward approach, some people love humor in lyrics, others enjoy lyrics that tell a story, and so forth. If the goal is commercial sales, Van Dyke's lyrics would be appropriate if the artist already has a strong following. If the artist is a new artist just starting out, I think Van Dyke's arranging or producing talents would be more helpful. It is clear that he probably has the most diverse studio curriculum vitae  in LA, or perhaps even the US.

No doubt his credentials, skills, and resume is/are second to none. I do think though, and this is in no way a negative or a slight, that many of the musicians under 45 years old who would seek him out specifically for a project had probably first heard of him and his work through Smile legend. It's just one of those bigger-than-life associations you can't escape, and if the artist or personality has a hard time dealing with the association from fans, they can either come to terms with it, embrace it as an image, or risk alienating fans when you try to distance yourself from the role all those fans love you for.

I can name a few who have either spoken eloquently or had some killer one-liners about this phenomenon and their roles: Mike Nesmith as the Monkee, David Janssen as The Fugitive, and Danny Bonaduce as Danny Partridge.

I think sometimes the microcosm of fans who are music obsessives and record collectors can forget just how many people, music lovers but we'll call them "civilians", are not invested in music the way we are, and many still could not name the four members of The Who or identify a photo of a young Keith Richards. These folks are not seeking out "Song Cycle" unless someone gives them the tip.

Peter Reum knows what's up. More than the petty fucks who are trying to say that Van Dyke would be pumping gas if it wasn't for Brian Wilson.


Hey, maybe he is The Mike Love It's OK To Like - his solo records aren't fucking garbage, for one.

I'd like an answer to this.

I really would too.

But I think it's one of those things that insiders have to keep hush-hush for some reason.

My theory? (Based on pure speculation and nothing more):

I'm guessing that lots of negotiations between the BBs were going on to get TSS released, as well as C50 up and running. I have to imagine there was a give-and-take type of thing where Brian's side had certain demands, as did Mike's side. You probably had a case where one side said that a particular thing had to happen for another thing to happen, etc. (I doubt that Al/Dave/Bruce would have made any huge demands).

Well, this is several years after Beautiful Dreamer, on which Brian, personally on camera, specifically called out Mike as being a major factor in SMiLE's demise. I'm sure that Mike was not happy at that in the slightest.  So I wonder if a condition of Mike's in the whole TSS release/participation and C50 was that Brian no longer mention Mike as being a factor in SMiLE's demise, and that if asked about it in interviews/the TSS liner notes, etc., that BW was to shift to solely mentioning drugs/record label pressure as being the cause(s).

And VDP, I'll bet, when he got wind of that, was very pissed about it, and what he viewed as rewriting of history (as he saw it) might have turned him off to the whole project. Right or wrong, I think VDP likely blames Mike for SMiLE's demise to some degree (maybe to a large degree).

I assume it was something of that nature... or it was somehow a squabble about money.

Just a wild guess. I could be totally 100% off-base.

If he *was* excluded then that's a damn shame. The 2nd most important person in the legend and he gets left out of the supposedly all-inclusive boxset over petty politics? No excuse.

I agree. For such an important historical release, it's utterly absurd. I'm sure the true answer will come out at some point... who knows, maybe one of my theories above holds water.

I didn't want to be the one to suggest it, should I incur the wrath of Pinder and Cam, but that sounds the most likely. I hope we're wrong. I really do want to give Mike the benefit of the doubt and believe this petty personal crap would be put behind after 45 years.

More a plausible theory than a wild guess... and yes, 100% off base.  ;D

Good to know (seriously)  :)
Whatever the reason is, it's most certainly unfortunate.

It's nice to do some second-guessing, and to speculate. Nothing against that.

Couldn't it be that VDP just thought: I myself am finished with the Smile-saga, I said what I had to say on the subject, we did 'Presents Smile' in 2004, I have a career of my own (remember: VDP has been more active in the concert circuit in the past 5 years than perhaps ever before, and released new material in various forms also) and I'm off to new shores now?

I can't really see why he should have formally refused to contribute to the book that came with TSS for other reasons. Even if there are issues still not fully resolved - VDP is verbose enough to write a brief, friendly note that does not delve into the more sensitive topics.

But I can see that he perhaps felt the whole saga to have become quite a burden over the years, he may have found his own closure with BWPS.

For him, Smile is something from 1967 that he put a lot of work into and that did not see the light of day then. He worked on the material again in 2004. And still: countless articles and comments here and there and everywhere always used to identify him (and still do) as 'The Man Who ... (and everyone knows what follows here)'. Not so much the man who did the fantastic Jump! album, for instance.

Is my idea.

Come on, it's been nearly three years now...  Throw us a bone?   :lol

I'll tell you in another 41 years.  ;D

Add to that the fact that it must seem ironic to someone so close to the project that the BBs' decision to release TSS came only after (seven whole years after…) the acclaim BWPS received; a case of delayed bandwagon jumping, coming late to the party, dragging the horse back to the locked stable after the door's been bolted… whatever.

And to see his ol' compadre BW be a willing participant after years of saying "no no no" followed by "we finished SMiLE", to then come out with "here's another helping"?

And indeed VDP might have considered that they had done with it in '04, exorcised a demon and moved on.

This completely, deliberately, also ignores the fact that we fans are still clamoring for Brian's CITFOTM, Barnyard sans fly-ins, the Durrie Parks acetates and whatever else they can dredge from the Smile ditch, so poor ol' Van realises that it ain't over yet… which, after 48 years, understandably might well be wearying.

All speculation…




(and if we all keep guessing maybe AGD can let us know when someone hits the nail on the head, and offer some kind of prize!)

VDP seemed very positive about TSS in the build up to its release, or at least, that was my impression. I remember him describing the package as a 'faberge egg' which suggests to me that at that stage he was proud to be associated with this beautiful archival release. The negative comments seem to come after it was out.

Maybe something occurred just prior to its release. Maybe he wrote an honest recollection for the book that didn't go down to well with the others (most likely Mike, let's be honest) and it was excised from the final package, hence VDP's souring of mood? Just a thought but something clearly occurred and the omission of any major insight from VDP within the book is a glaring one to say the least. My guess is that his insights didn't sit right with one, or more, of the BBs.

Wouldn't that be ironic if he wasn't included in the book because Mike didn't like what he wrote? Would certainly explain why he suddenly seemed so bitter about the whole thing.

What if it was he and Brian who had the beef between them over TSS. He did say he was Brian's victim.

Very good point… I'd forgotten about the Fabergé egg line.  I think this argument has to have credence.

Now, let's see how AGD marks it out of 10!

Yeah maybe it was Brian's people who told him they wanted to keep things sweet with the rest of the band for C50 so the narrative of the TSS book was going to gloss over the conflict issues. I think Century Deprived made this point and it's a good one.

I see no reason why VDP couldn't contribute to the book. This omission suggests to me  that what he did write was deemed unsuitable by someone who had a degree of control over the product, namely a band member.

I have to be honest the content of the book is disappointing. There's no real depth to any of it and that's because much of the exciting drama of Smile (i.e. the conflict) is not present. I'd have to re-read it but do any of the contributors go into depth about the disagreements within the band or disagreements between the band and VDP?

Otherwise maybe it was a financial disagreement over TSS and VDP pulled his input for those reasons but I suspect the former is more likely. Financial agreements over the musical content would have presumably been well established by the time he'd made the faberge egg comment. Songwriting credits, licensing stuff would have been negotiated at the start, no? Whereas the content of the book was presumably finalised at a later stage in the proceedings? That might explain his apparent u-turn fairly late in the day.

Maybe it doesn't address conflict within the band because there wasn't any really.

Truth is very often stranger than fiction.

Oh, I got it. VDP did not contribute lyrics to SMiLE at all. It was all Mike's work.

The rest, the media hubbub: all smokescreens, sex, lies, videotapes, the lot.

Case closed.

'Xactly.

I find that hard to believe. it's one thing to argue that the inter-band conflict over smile wasn't the main reason it collapsed, but that there was no conflict at all flies in the face of all the available evidence. Why would brian, VDP, Marilyn, Danny Hutton etc. make that stuff up? Even Mike openly admits to his dissatisfaction with the lyrics. None of them are claiming that the conflict surrounding Smile is a myth dreamed up by fans and music journos.

Please throw us a bone!!! ;D

Don't make promises you can't keep. :wink

Having an opinion band isn't conflict.

There's a lot of overcompensating going on. The narrative used to be "the band hated smile and killed it." Then we reevaluated the evidence and decided that was unfair, but now there's many who claim Mike and the boys must have 100% loved it in spite of Mike, VDP and Brian saying otherwise all these years. The truth is in the middle, of course.

Or do they just basically say Mike had an opinion.

Keep it in perspective, too. That pendulum swings too far in both directions, and I agree to a point that the story unfolded in the middle somewhere, if we're weighing the versions of the story(s) that have been published "on the record".

But keep in mind there are also accounts from people who also were there and have not gone "on the record", and have no desire to do so, yet they have spoken with some who post on the board.

As far as that pendulum swinging, for one I think the Smile Sessions Youtube "webisodes" were a whitewash, and I guess they had to be for promotional and marketing reasons (especially at that time with everything else coming up re: 50th) but in some ways they still bother me in the same way you could go to a new burger joint in town and get a horrible burger with horrible service, a stale roll with overcooked meat and wilted lettuce served cold by rude employees...and someone asks you after the fact how was that new burger joint and all you do is rave about the fries. It misses the point.

I also think if the pendulum is allowed to swing too far, you'll get the version of Smile that was shown on the ABC "biopic" TV movie, which I've said many times here was so absurd it could border on slanderous. Yet how many hundreds of thousands of viewers got that impression of the era from that depiction? It's potentially worse than trying to bust the incorrect opinions that have since been "busted" which swung the other way, because it was presented as an official account. I still don't know how that made it to air as it did, but it's past history and I don't see many clamoring for DVD's of it.

Or the pendulum has not swung back enough yet.

Enger-land swings like a pendulum do.

Allegedly.

And if only we can further convince ourselves of every person’s feelings also being "not valid", we can make the pendulum fall off its axis all together, and believe whatever we want to.

Yeah. Whatever that means.

says the mysterious man in the picture.  8)

What does being "victimized by buffoonery" look like? VDP is such a popinjay. He got his collar studs all in a twist.

"Victimized by buffoonery" looks exactly like Kittkykat

Is that B-Gas or is it short for Big . . .

You've got the  popinjay manner to a T, go with what suits ya

I think that Van Dyke Parks is sort of a victim of SMILE. His Tony Asher-like mission seems to go on & on.

VDP was there big-time for the SMILE album but later left due to various project difficulties as well as personal opportunities.

He stuck up for SMiLE and Brian through the years all the way to BWPS and even took over sole responsibility for all the album's lyrics (my guess is that this move was to take pressure offa Brian).

VDP has more than paid his SMiLE dues. My guess is that the "buffoon" comment has more to do with Brian's dealings with the band (The Beach Boys) than his relationship with Brian for the basic idea of SMiLE.

That seems likely a reflection of the same rift that separated VDP from The Beach Boys in the first place.

There is however the possibility that the "buffoon" comment has to do with Brian not leveling with the public and spilling the beans about SMILE.

The fact that Brian's public stance on Beautiful Dreamer specifically fingers Mike, and that Brian's public stance 7 years later has ZERO mention of Mike, tells me that something happened to cause that change of Brian's public stance in the interim.  That public change of heart didn't happen out of thin air, methinks.

I have a feeling that a tiny contingent of people on this board may think that Brian magically "came to his senses" while not being around people putting lies in his head... but I think that both times around, Brian never publicly mentioned any person/circumstance that he didn't in some shape for form honestly perceive as being contributing factors (and there were many). It's just that his selective omissions at certain times surely happened for a reason. Maybe not an insidious reason, but a reason nonetheless.

I cannot imagine that in the time period just preceding TSS, that this subject (and how it would be handled during the release of TSS) was not at some point delicately talked about between Brian and Mike's people, and that there wasn't some PR massaging going on behind the scenes.

Mike surely likes having his name not mentioned whatsoever in the discussion of the contributing factors of SMiLE's non-release - and it doesn't make sense that, after Beautiful Dreamer, that he'd just sit back during the filming of the TSS Webisodes without wondering/worrying about if Brian would say the same thing again in 2011, ya know? He wasn't gonna just take his chances on that. Even if there was some legit mending of fences happening behind-the-scenes regarding the subject, it still only makes sense to me that the 2011 public stance was very well and delicately plotted out about what was ok/not ok for all parties to say publicly.

I think this sounds plausible. It's very sad that we seem to need a bad guy in the first place. BWPS/Beautiful Dreamer dumps it all on Mike, now with TSS and the backlash against Mike "hating" we have an alternate scenario where VDP and Brian never got along, disliked one another's work, etc.

Obviously, it's nobody's fault. But regardless, it's really lame that PR whitewash and Van's inability to let go and move on have robbed us of a more balanced take in TSS book, and a retrospective from the project's lyricist. Now, I've praised Mike's essay for sticking to his guns and setting the record straight and I'm glad it was included. But the fact that the guy who sung a few parts apparently had so much say in this boxset at the expense of the album's original collaborator doesn't sit right with me at all.

We can't know what happened, but something about the compiling of this set definitely ruffled VDP's feathers, and that's a damn shame because this should've been his time to shine as well as Brian.

Even when viewing VDP's non appearance on TSS as a completely separate issue with its own set of reasons/circumstances... I still think that VDP would have had to have his own feelings on the project filtered/muted/muzzled to some degree, if he were to have been part of TSS (and if peace was to have prevailed).

And the thing is, I don't think there has to be a "bad guy" or a "good guy" in this. It's a bunch of flawed people, and hindsight is 20/20. It's just that the people involved should all admit the things they did, acknowledge hurt feelings, and share the contributing factor thing a bit. Just even a little tiny bit. Then there can/could've been be some true forgiveness, at least in the public sense. The "bad guy" thing IMO is a public reaction to a certain someone never, ever even slightly publicly discussing their contributing factor role (or not talking - at the very least - about the reasons why some people would think they are a contributing factor) for 47 years.

Agreed. If Van was approached to contribute an essay then on the subject of the project's collapse he could've kept it to "I didn't feel welcomed by the band, I wanted more of my ideas to be heard, I got a solo album deal, I left" and keep it at that. It's too late to point fingers. Just discuss the music, the inspiration and the memories. Even if it was all Mike's fault, nobody needs a giant "screw you, mike" essay from VDP. An all inclusive retrospective on the project's goals and whatnot would've been nice tho, coming from him.

Whoever's fault it was that he was excluded or made to feel unwelcome to contribute to the book ought to be ashamed. The opportunity will never come again now.

Everyone's arguing and theorising from the premise that VDP was in some way excluded, made to feel unwelcome or ignored concerning the Smile box, and maybe he was. But suppose he wasn't ?  ???

Check out a Jan & Dean singles discography, especially the B sides.  ;D

 ;D

I'm not pretending to know what happened, but leaving him out is a pretty big omission, and as others have said, he comes off a tad bitter about the whole thing so until I hear something definite, all I can do is speculate...

Ok, how about this: since we can agree that something happened that pissed VDP off, was it something that directly pertained to him or something more general that he still found offensive?

Point of order. You've over paraphrased but your point is not a backlash. The information that there was trouble between VDP and Brian and the sources of that trouble have always been there from eyewitnesses. Its still there, you can look it up.  Fandom has had a 4+ decades habit of ignoring that info in favor of trumping up charges against others.

Same goes for the "charges" against Mike. Vosse, Brian and Van confirm it. It was wrong to solely blame Mike but it's wrong now to blame VDP as well. Both happened, both were contributing factors. There were a dozen others as well.

Just some speculation on my part, but I believe Van Dyke had to go to bat in a very aggressive way to help his friend Frank Holmes get his due with respect to the using and the remuneration of the Smile artwork.  Perhaps in the process his working relationship with Brian and co took a hit and he walked of his own volition.  Agd, care to tell me if I am getting warmer or colder?  :-)

I was thinking along the same lines Rich...

Right but fandom has taken the charges against Mike very seriously for decades while Mike and the Boys were sort of an outsider to the process. They didn't stop anything, they didn't want Brian to stop SMiLE. On the other hand, fandom still largely ignores the history between VDP and Brian, it is being pretty much ignored right now. In spite of all the so-called pendulum swinging, somehow a question from outside the process is still made much important then creative and personal issues between the two co-creators in the process.

Cam, while I think it's possible that Brian lost his interest in a bit of the SMiLE material, and that's why the album didn't come out in '67, I think for you to basically say that "Brian didn't like Van Dyke's lyrics" is a bit much.

I mean, even after cancelling the project, "Heroes And Villains" was still his big priority to get out there. And finally by later in the year, he did. He also recorded another version of "Surf's Up" at the piano in later '67, which I don't think he'd be doing if he were so turned off on Van Dyke's lyrics. Shoot, even by like 1973 or so there's a story of him playing a special version of "Heroes And Villains" on the piano while an interviewer was over to talk about Spring. And he called "Surf's Up" a "masterpiece" around the 15 Big Ones.

And you speak of "the history between Van Dyke and Brian", but the facts show that even after the SMiLE era was over, they were still friends. It's mentioned quite a bit that he was hanging out with people like "Van Dyke Parks and Danny Hutton" in the early to mid '70s. Theya also worked on material for Redwood (the song "Sunflower Maiden") and of course they also worked on one of The Beach Boys biggest '70s songs, "Sail On, Sailor".

I guess what I'm saying is that while the decision to can SMiLE ultimately rests with Brian, the other guys in the group did have a say. Peter Reum has spoken of group meetings about the album and whatnot. So to act like Mike and the guys had no say is disingenuous.

Group meetings about the fate of the SMile album are speculation, nothing more.

Brian disliking or hating Van's lyrics?  Hogwash.  Having doubts about their commerical potential?  Certainly.

Exactly. It was wrong to blame Mike but the answer is not to pin it all on Van now to make it even. I think perhaps Brian felt Van's somber Americana lyrics about the destruction of the Indians were a bit heavy for a comedy album called SMiLE. But to claim they disliked each other's work entirely or fought all the time is baseless hearsay.

I didn't say this, David Anderle and Brian said this at and near the event. So they are used as authority against the Boys et al and everything else, but they (and Siegel and Vosse) are pretty much ignored on this issue.

Who claimed that?

You.

Where? First of all I never said entirely or all the time. I said just what Brian, Anderle, Siegel, and Vosse said on the subject.

.

Yeah, how dare I discuss my favorite BB album on a forum dedicated to the BBs...

Nine of those people said Brian didn't like  or disliked Van's lyrics.  Recheck your quotes please.  You may repost them as I'm sure you have them handy.

That was NONE of those people, not "nine". 

Didn't he also say that Mike and Brian weren't getting along and that Mike was giving Brian trouble?

Even the studio sessions of the surf/car/girls hits have Brian and Mike going at each other in the studio at times.

Not to mention that "Cassius" Love vs. 'Sonny' Wilson" seems to me to be a humorous release valve of sorts for actual, real tension, much in the way that "I'm Bugged at My Old Man" was. It seems obvious that both pieces were BW's "lighthearted" way of addressing some stuff that caused him at least some element of truly legit stress.

Do you think the psychodelic sounds skits and/or Jasper Dailey tracks served a similar purpose for SMiLE?

Brian certainly got frustrated with Dennis and Mike at times, it seems Carl and Al were mostly exempt or less confrontational than the other two.

That's an interesting thought, actually.

While I highly doubt that those "songs" were ever even remotely considered for usage on the proposed final SMiLE product... and I think that their existence can most likely be chalked up to BW's procrastination at tackling the harder SMiLE writing/assembling issues at hand, not to metnion procrastinating/avoiding personal stress with other people/circumstances (throwing together a quick random odd assemblage or two, like the skits and Dailey tracks surely helped him put off other important things)... it does, to me, seem that the procrastination itself was an attempt at a tension release valve for BW, so in that sense I could see the tracks serving a similar purpose for SMiLE, ya know?

I think it's possible one or two could've made an appearance. The Vegetable fights and George Fell perhaps being the most likely, the later would make a cool hidden track after Surf's Up. As for the JD songs, I agree that was probably just procrastinating and trying to give the studio people a laugh.

Yeah, you may well be right about the fights/George Fell.  If they would at any point have been legitimately considered, it seems that the legitimacy of these tracks was abandoned pretty quickly. IMO. But yeah, it's a mighty cool way of looking at those early released "skit" songs as prototypes of what was to come in SMiLE, and probably not much of a stretch.

This ^ is the point that I was trying to make on another thread a few days ago. SMiLE wasn't the first time that Brian's music/ideas/lyrics from a collaborator were questioned or debated. Knowing the personalities of the guys, it's common sense that it happened before, and, in Mike's case, maybe more than the others. And how did Brian handle those instances? He crushed 'em like a grape or steamrolled them. But, during SMiLE, questions or issues were brought up, and, Brian was soooooo adversely affected, and, even in some opinions, requiring an apology? I don't think so. It was probably business as usual, except the witnesses (Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al) changed.

One other point about Mike Love's "attitude", more speculation if you will....Is it possible THAT'S JUST THE WAY MIKE WAS? Everybody knew it, tolerated it, ignored it when possible, and moved on. Again, is it possible the Mike Love of 1961 was the same Mike Love of 1966? He's the kind of guy (like Al Jardine actually) who might've been known for his complaining and sometimes negative attitude, but was tolerated. The theory about "but Mike sang the words and the parts and did his job well" might have a lot of truth. I sometimes think that Brian knew Mike - or somebody else - would have something they didn't agree with, and he stood there, let them get it out of their system, and moved on. Kind of like, "OK, thank you very much, now sing the song..."

Sheriff - that's a very good point you make, but I'd think it would be fair to say that the questions and/or pestering was more than likely at a level that would have eclipsed the questions and/or pestering on prior much less artistically divisive projects? You can still think that Brian wasn't or shouldn't have been "soooooo adversely affected" in '66/67, but the projects which you are comparing (and specifically, how resistant people likely felt about them) were quite different, that I don't think it's quite fair to equate them to one another. 

It's possible that Mike's usual abrasive nature was magnified in this period due to his justifiable fear of being phased out and Brian's instability caused him to be less willing or able to stand up for himself like before, tho. Just a thought.

That makes the most sense to me. And yes, drugs were a big part of this too.  
It doesn't make sense to me that Mujan's assumption can be dismissed as "foolish" or "absurd". There's logic and human nature involved in every part of it.

Did I say dislike? He said they were too arty, not good for vocals, artistically selfish. He did not like those aspects so in a way I guess he disliked them in the same way Mike did, they recognized the art but didn't want to use them.

Thanks. This is what I mean when I say the pendulum of public opinion seems to be swinging too far the other way now. Fact is SMiLE was a different project than anything before, it was made in an especially turbulent time, with its own set of complex circumstances and Brian was melting down big time.

Just saying "Brian was boss" or "nobody cared what Mike thought" and using that to dismiss everything going on isn't helpful.

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"???

Huh?

Question to Pinder and Cam: do these statements (which seem balanced and fair to me) in and of themselves make someone a "Brianista"?

I honestly wonder where Kokomaoists feel the line is drawn.

No. Those statements are indeed fair and balanced... Honestly

It's a known fact he's always been hostile to outside collaborators and in interviews/whatever he invariably comes off as very egotistical and lacking self awareness. We've discussed this before ad nauseum. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself everytime I say something you don't like or that's inconvenient to your 'praise mike, always' mantra. It's getting old.

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

Asking VDP what some lyrics mean makes him always hostile to outside collaborators?

See, you keep taking your view of Mike and stating it in a casual and matter of fact fashion as it it's accepted common fact ...... Now, that deserves to be called on whenever it occurs.

VDP, Asher, Usher among others have testified to a hostile vibe from Mike when working with Brian. But no, I'm totally basing this on the Cabin Essence Incident alone (which hypocritically enough, you seem to have in your mind as a totally benign nonevent and spout that as fact) because you say so. Ok.

I feel like at least 50% of what we discuss goes in one ear and out the other for you... It really is annoying.

No, I just take issue with making blanket statements about people. And if I were to go around doing that I think I would fully expect and be prepared for folks to take issue with it and ask me to clarify....

The Beach Boys have had countless collaborators. I had no idea Mike was "always hostile" to each and every one of them.

Pinder - also, the Lovester himself has stated in some interview that I've read that he's aware of his tone being sarcastic sometimes. So I think that even Mike would admit (independently of talking about SMiLE which is probably the most defensive and touchy of subjects for him) that he can come off (or has in the past come off) as abrasive at times (or a similar adjective if "abrasive" is too negative for your tastes). I doubt he'd dispute that.

But...Mike's power position and feelings of security (or lack thereof) surely was never at a constant, unwavering level throughout decades of countless collaborators, now was it?

I'll put it this way: if Mike felt he might get phased out, I highly doubt that feelings such as those would have led to him being *less* questioning/abrasive,etc - right? At best, maybe you'd have an emotionally well-adjusted, confident person just internally diffusing those feelings and have their usual tone remain unchanged.

that is nothing but a bunch of imaginary speculation about a person you've never met....... I have nothing to say to any of it.

other than..... ummmm...... insecurity, power, ego, strife ....... IN A ROCK N ROLL BAND????? ...... Nope, doesn't happen. Only Michael E. Love's dealt with any of that.

Look, you have an imaginary Beach Boys movie that you've directed running in your head (as we likely all do) .... and it's your movie: you have final cut, so just let it roll.

You know he has a point. You have no problem speculating yourself. It's only when other people's speculation leads to possibly unflattering truths about Mike that you suddenly take issue.

But you don't see me using my speculations to draw such broad conclusions/judgements about someone's character.

To be able to state that it seems logical that a person, in all likelihood feeling threatened, could very likely have those feelings of theirs manifest in having their communication style come out in a perceptibly different way (with certain elements magnified) compared to how they communicated in other, relatively simpler earlier circumstances, shouldn't be too hard - this doesn't have to equate to a "broad conclusion/judgement about someone's character".  It doesn't seem like such an inconceivable stretch.

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks  ???

It's not. But don't forget you're talking to the biggest Mike apologist on this board

It would seem that way.
I'm not calling the Lovester the Boogie Man. It's a human reaction that I'm sure a lot of people would've had in his shoes.

I think it's become about getting the last word in.  :lol

A Mike apologist is a silly term since all one has to do to be labeled such is ask a couple questions here and there.

Wow Pinder...you really are delusional...

friendly bunch here

Is it like a closed game or can we all play now?

It started to be about VDP, but now its turning, like most of these threads recently , to one which is trying to put Mike in a bad light (without letting anyone know that's the whole purpose of all these threads)

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

I think everyone should agree not to make ANY references to Mike for at least a week.
Then try to talk civily, without accusations, after that.

What bias?

The guy is a singer, lyric writer, hook-man, frontman for my favorite band of all time ...... THAT's my bias...

Aside from that, it's disturbing to see people pleading this case over and over that they're, ya know, just trying to maturely discuss something, all the while dropping little things like "Mike's usual abrasiveness" "hostility" and on and on and on, while denying that they're trying to paint the guy in a specific light.

Only Love himself gets to say the last word on Love.
Hopefully he'll change the lyrics to LBWL and sing "Last Word on Love" live someday. I can hear the harmonies now.
One can dream.  ;D

Do you have a list of words/adjectives that I (and everyone else, for that matter) can learn to avoid ever saying about Mike? If so, please share and I'll try to never imply there was ever any "hostility" again. Can't a discussion include some terminology that seems appropriate to me when discussing a given circumstance, without it being seen by you as attempt to "make a wide-sweeping judgement about a man's character"? Because it's not.

No, I do not. But anyone should be prepared for disagreement when you use such terms to describe someone or an incident....

Including when the participants being discussed have *themselves* made those implications, and have *themselves* used those terms (or their derivatives), I'm assuming?

Yeah, but I'm not making any statements/conclusions about anyone's character

Uh huh, Pinder. Everyone is out to smear Mike and you're the great defender of truth on the boards. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I think I misunderstood the word "buffoonery" in the thread title… was it an instruction?

Pinder – I’ll conclude by saying: I could understand your line of thinking if it were closer to the lines of: “we are outsiders, and can’t ever quite possibly know the intricacies and complexities that went down between a group of strangers… and it’s not fair to make “conclusions/judgments” about a person within a situation that nobody here was personally involved in – but that said, it may still be plausible that some of our conclusions on this board may be logical (though unprovable), and may possibly approximate the actual goings-on at the time - or at least how some of the participants viewed the goings-on.

In other words – without casting judgment, it should still be able to be admitted that a logical point may (and I stress the word “may”) have been made, even if one specifically desires to NOT do any general, overarching, wide sweeping finger pointing. That is all.

To be fair, it`s only 3 current threads that have now become about the exact same subject being discussed by the exact same people.  :)

I've said all that! Others have said all that, but still you guys go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and........

Ok, man. I can respect that.

This thread went to sh*t pretty quickly again. Thanks do much for that.

There was danger of considering that VDP's role in SMiLE's collapse might be much more crucial than you-know-who's. The pendulum isn't ready to swing that way yet.

Honestly, I'm not only starting to lose track of the threads, I'm also losing track of who started what. And frankly at this point I don't give a fig sh*t over who started it, just that I'm tired of reading the same garbage every day. Just this constant bitch bitch bitch going on.

Amen to that.

Or, y'know, just trying to keep balance and not feel the need to assign blame for its own sake.

If there is still room in the thread for some old-fashioned Smile talk, I'd like to mention some points from pages 12-13 about the "Psychodelic Sounds" and Jasper Dailey tracks.

I think, well at least in my opinion, some of the opinions being offered about what they were or what they were intended for aren't quite getting to the main points around them. One at a time, the Jasper tracks.

Brian was a prankster, a practical joker going back to his Hawthorne school days He enjoyed the put-on, and he enjoyed the setup probably as much if not more than the punchline after the joke unfolded.

Keep this in mind.

So there is a newer label in town which everyone would eventually know as A&M. In the Smile era, they were a fledgling label banking on Alpert and Moss' money, for the most part, and like any label trying to score some artists with big name potential to join the A&M roster.

And imagine, during the Smile era when the Brian hype is in full swing, being fueled by the Derek Taylor producer/genius PR campaigns, A&M gets a call to meet with Brian Wilson.

So you have Brian Wilson, reported in the music press as busy working on his latest mind-blowing creation in the studio, music that will blow people's minds...and a lot of people are eagerly waiting to see and hear what he comes up with to follow up Good Vibrations.

Then the meeting is set up, Brian and Michael Vosse are going to meet with the A&M label head Chuck Kaye, no pushover and already having a roster of incredible songwriters on his client/signing resume. Chuck Kaye would become one of the most successful music execs in rock history, so again remember he is not a pushover still wet behind the ears in 1967.

Kaye thinks he's taking a meeting to get Brian Wilson somehow on board at A&M, a real coup. Or at the least, as even Van Dyke's new bosses would attempt with him, try to get an "inside track" on what the hell kind of new music Brian has been making under a veil of secrecy since fall 1966.

At the meeting, Brian pulls out some music to play for Kaye. Damn, this is the biggest scoop...Kay may have been thinking.

They listen, and instead of breathtaking new Brian Wilson music, it turns out to be the Jasper Dailey tracks.

And Kaye is left with the feeling he doesn't want to insult a potential blockbuster of a deal like Brian would be, but the music is not at all what he was expecting.

And consider this: For a prankster, a practical joker like Brian who also had a childlike yet psychedelic sense of humor, wouldn't the punchline of the elaborate joke when Kaye hears Jasper's vocals warbling some nonsense tunes set to a Smile-type instrumental backing be worth the whole thing?

Including staging sessions for Jasper in the first place???

Consider it another one of Brian's put-ons, perhaps...and consider how much he and Vosse and whoever else laughed as they told the story of how a legitimate label big-shot like Chuck Kaye got duped into thinking Brian was carrying him a world-exclusive rather than going there to pitch a Jasper Dailey release.

And that I think is Brian's humor trip played out in the offices of A&M, or it could have been...but surely more than a diversion, I think.

Think humor, that's one of the keys to Smile in general.

Y'know, I really thought we were beginning to get somewhere on Mike not being routinely blamed for, well, pretty much everything that went wrong in the BB world, not to mention WW2, the slave trade and the last mass extinction, and then it all goes to sh*t again. Listen up: to the very best of my knowledge, he had nothing to do with Van Dyke not directly participating in The Smile Sessions package.

For the record, I don't blame him for WWII, just Vietnam :hat.

In all seriousness, I appreciate you clearing that up (and bring this thread back on topic.) I'm not a blind Mike basher or anything, but I couldn't conceive of any other reason for why he might have been left off except more bad blood between the various parties.

I have to say, you are probably the best poster on this board. Always providing well thought out and cited answers...just saying, it's appreciated :)

Is that anecdote in TSS book then? I don't remember it, but I haven't thumbed through that since I first got the box (when it first came out) and I have a bad memory. Sounds like a hilarious joke on Brian's part, I just wish it didn't waste valuable studio time. I suppose it wouldn't have made a difference either way, tho...

I remember an interview with Hal Blaine that appeared in BBFUN eras ago. He stated that Brian would often discuss with Carl over musical matters. This obviously was part of their work dynamic in the studio. He said that probably any other people would have gotten into fistfights-- that's how harsh the discussions would get. But they were brothers, loved each other and something like that would never happen.

Point is that Brian was used to arguing with his bandmates/family over artistic issues. That's part of any group's work dynamic and this is the environment in which some of our favorite music was made. There is no reason to think that the working environment for Smile was any different. Nor is there any reason to speculate that Brian suddenly became unable to deal with his cousin and brothers over decisions he made.

Interesting - but as you say this was an elaborate and time consuming prank - recording the Jasper tracks - that took away from the task at hand, completing Smile.  Part - even a large part - of the problem with Smile was Brian getting off into "side trips " - we'll do an album of nature sound effects, we'll do an album of humor, let's record an argument about Vegetables.  Cool ideas but it kept pushing Smile back until the "moment" had passed and Brian shelved it.

Maybe it was a symptom of his waning interest in and satisfaction with the lyrics and the mood and approach of SMiLE.

I've heard this supposition voiced several times on this board. Is there any evidence (interviews, etc) that Brian grew dissatisfied with VDP's lyrics?

It's in the Anderle/Williams interview from 1967.

And maybe it's a symptom of mental health issues exacerbated by drug abuse...?

They had artistic differences, same as Brian and Mike. There's no proof that Brian hated VDP's lyrics or that this was the main factor in shelving the project.

I think it is understandable and even a bit natural to be hostile to outside collaborators. Neither Lennon or McCartney collaborated with outsiders during the Beatles' existence, and they weren't even family. It is especially understandable if the outsider's contributions make no sense to you.

And maybe it's not, maybe it is strictly his muse and business sense.

You are the one who said hate, I am saying what Brian, Anderle, Vosse, and Siegel said.

Actually I think Anderle said the fact that there was trouble between them and VDP thought Brian's music wasn't sophisticated enough and Brian thought VDP's lyrics were too sophisticated  was "the main reason".

I don't think Van Dyke was being as serious as it might sound. I think Brian was just getting a bit deep into whatever was happening and it manifested itself in weird situations which have been documented, and Van Dyke didn't really know how to make of it. Most of what was happening with Brian was happening in his head, and I don't think Van Dyke was a strong enough person to handle it. "I wasn't a big enough guy" - Van Dyke.

Same with Mike. Even though he is to blame to an extent for the demise of Smile, it is Brian's fault too. Because it was in Brian's mind. That space in Brian's mind was where all this beautiful music and emotion could flow out of, but it's that same space I think that he just became vulnerable to someone like Mike Love showing any kind of negativity about the project.

Delaying tactics. Always remember, Brian was, and remains, a consummate manipulator. He's had excellent teachers.

Okay, so what if...

Van Dyke was invited to contribute to the TSS set. He was asked to write an essay for the booklet. He was sent lists of the tracks that were to be included.

What if Van Dyke himself didn't approve of so many unfinished/demo takes being included? What if he thought it would spoil the magic/mystery of the Smile myth or of what he and Brian had attempted to create? What if he was a little embarrassed about some of the material, but, as a lyrical-collaorator only, he had no say in any veto in the tracklisting, and instead protested by not contributing to the set?

Maybe had no problem with BWPS because: a) he was finally getting his public due b) it was a different entity to Smile itself.

Maybe he had a problem with TSS, but not BWPS, being assembled along Darian's three-LP sides plan when back in 1966 they had only planned two sides of the LP?

Personally I can't see why VDP would have a problem with the inclusion of session material and outtakes. If anything, that stuff adds to the mystique and it's impossible to include all the unique pieces of music and feels without featuring a sizeable amount of session material.

I have wondered about your last point myself. Possibly VDP had a problem with the smile material being sequenced as per BWPS, or maybe some of the fly ins/digital trickery - perhaps he just generally had a problem with the disc 1 sequence. But from the comments AGD has made - 'truth is stranger than fiction' etc. - I'm inclined to think the reasons are far more subtle or abstract than this. If VDP had a problem with the disc 1 sequence I'd expect somebody would've leaked that info by now. Also he had a hand in the BWPS sequence so, if anything, that disc 1 order is a tip of the hat to VDP. Any other sequence would be arbritary imo.

Truth can also be far more prosaic than imagination.

An aside: wondering if Van wrote an essay which - for whatever reason - wasn't included: will it ever see the light of day? That could be illuminating…

You mean he wasn't asked?

I hadn't even considered that possibility. That would be pretty insulting. I hope it wasn't the case.

No, I mean you're all going with the most fanciful - or self-fulfilling - theories. Of course he was asked. I think the circumstance that lead to his not contributing* was mentioned, or at least alluded to, before the box was released.

(* as I understand it. I may have been sold a pup, but I think not).

I wonder if a group of fellas associated with SMiLE back in the day have sort of decided to not talk about it much anymore after BWPS?

What if? Then you would be Van Dyke.

Wasn't going to step in, but...

If the only takeaway from the full three-part series of Anderle-Williams interviews is that Brian and Van Dyke had issues over lyrics and whatnot, I'd suggest re-reading the interviews and taking note especially of how many times Anderle mentions the resistance from band members and family members to Brian's Smile music, and how it reached the point where Brian and Mike would get into arguments during sessions to the point where it would break up the session and they'd walk out.

If you could put a number value or a ratio on the times Anderle mentions resistance and squabbles within the band during Smile versus the notion of Brian disliking VDP's lyrics, it might be at least 10-to1, if not more.

Short of trying to scan and post the whole thing, re-read it wherever it may be reprinted outside LLVS.

But the factors Anderle mentions most prominently and most often in the interview are far different than what's being suggested on the last few pages, regarding Brian and VDP over lyrics.

Note: I just reread the whole thing yesterday... :)

I need to pull out my copy of LLVS and re-read that article again myself. Oh what a rad treasure trove that book is.

To all those people (including Mike himself) who prefer to see the Mike-as-either-being-or-not-being-a-contributing-factor and/or band squabbles (or lack thereof) as an absolute a black-and-white situation either way, it surely cannot be – precious few situations in BB-land often are.

Shades of grey, people. Shades of grey.

The only reason this point keeps being driven home is because of the extreme unlikelihood of the black-and-white claim, and most importantly: the fact that IMO, such a black-and-white claim (in and of itself) inadvertently contributes to Mike’s truly, truly unfortunate vilification. I hope this last sentence I just typed makes some sort of sense to people. I'm sorry if it's been said before. 

Maybe I should re-read it but does he not say what I quoted that the issues between VDP and Brian were the main thing?

Here is the VDP related part I've been talking about:

DAVID: Michael was just starting to get into the picture. Paul Bobbins was starting to get into the picture at this time. Then when I started coming up to the house a whole bunch, when the Brother Records thing started to happen. Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.

PAUL: When, February?

DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.

PAUL: They missed each other.

DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two.

(A few paragraphs later)

PAUL: Was this the first break in Smile, the first turn downward?

DAVID: Yeah. That was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact for the first time Brian was havin' trouble with studios — getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers. Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
And I was very aware of what was happening, but I couldn't put my finger onto why Smile was now starting to nosedive, other than the fact that I still felt at that point that the central thing was Van Dyke's severing of that relationship.

If someone can point me to a transcript of the interview to copy and paste some sections here, I'd appreciate it because I don't have time to do it right now!  :)

It's not accurate to pull a few words out of context, in some of these cases, as Anderle touches on many issues around this. But there is a definite description of situations where resistance from the band and family were at least present, if not the "main" factor, and again taking all of these external issues together there cannot be a main factor. And I agree that Van Dyke and Brian separating was major, but even that had more to it than disputes over lyrics.

But Anderle speaks at length of the resistance from the band to what Brian was doing and asking them to do, going back to Pet Sounds, and how it affected him and the work.

This thread and the discussion is about VDP and Brian, this is the VDP and Brian related stuff from the interviews.

Maybe we could have another thread for Anderle on resistance regarding everything else. I'm not sure we have it right about what he is saying about the Boys. I should re-read it but my memory is when he discusses the Boys and resistance, the Boys are doing a great job, singing hard, beautifully, and his not liking or not being satisfied with the beautifully sung product is the resistance.

Well people tend to cherry pick the quotes that support their bias/viewpoint, and ignore the rest.

Anyone objective reading the interview/articles would not come away with saying Brian "disliked" Van Dyke's lyrics - that is never said or even implied, just the opposite.

So they "clashed" over it and couldn't work together because Brian liked the lyrics being too sophisticated?

I won't try to put words into the interview that aren't there, but I will suggest this reading of what the "resistance" was isn't what Anderle said, in fact he's detailed and specific about Brian having parts for the Boys to sing and getting met with resistance which led to breaking up some of the studio sessions, as well as overall frustration.

When I get time I'll clip and paste the actual sections.

A ridiculous phrasing of the question in an attempt to bolster your own bias.  They clashed over the lyrics and the music fitting together appropriately, if we read the interview with a modicum of reason and sense - not over Brian disliking the lyrics.  Did he think they were inappropriate for the music?  It seems so.  But no one ever said he disliked them - in fact he liked them so much Van Dyke "blew his mind."

And to tie this Van Dyke/Brian thread to another notorious thread, when did they actually clash over the lyrics?  We have no reports that there was a problem during the writing of the songs.  But when a certain balding bass singer questioned the lyrics and prompted Brian to call Van Dyke in to explain the lyrics - VOILA!  The clash!  And then Van Dyke leaves, which Anderle describes - the "hassle" and then Van Dyke isn't around.

I agree on the cherry picking/bias/wording.

Where was Mike mentioned in the clash between Van Dyke and Brian? If like or dislike bother we will just go with what he said: "Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that."

Are you making the connection of Mike to the clash and leaning to the late February date now?

No, the clash still makes the most sense in December - from what I can tell there were no lyrics written by Van for Brian after that date!  So what was there to clash about?  All they were recording was Heroes (and in April Vegetables but Van had left and I guess Brian rewrote the lyrics to be less sophisticated).  Maybe Brian was bugging Van to rewrite the lyrics, though this possibility has never been reported by anyone at the time or later.  Van did leave again late Feb (actually after the March 1-2 intro sessions).  I suspect Anderle knew there were clashes about the lyrics, and then he left for good off the Smile scene March 1-2, so that might explain Anderle's February remark?

To be honest, I can't see Mike c.1966-67 confronting Van unless he had some indication from Brian that the lyrics were bothering him. Much like with the voice over on Heroes and Villains, I just don't think Mike would of done anything without Brian's blessing.

I don't know, Anderle's context is Van Dyke is still needed for lyrics. He seems to think Van Dyke was still on the clock in February.

This is STILL going on????

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Everyone was moaning that the board was being dumbed down by endless polls and lists, then some real discussion and debate sparks up and people start moaning again. If you don't enjoy the smile threads Pinder, just ignore them. Personally I'm finding this one of the more interesting discussions we've had in a while.

It's most certainly interesting, trust me! .... But after a while it's like that bottomless hole on Oak Island .... folks have been digging for over a century and still nothing ......

I wish someone would just write a book, and I mean it! Guitarfool should write a book about THAT PHOTO!! The one taken in the LAX terminal. Make it sort of an oral history via all the living folks in the pic and go back a bit before the pic was snapped and then trace each person's story from there, all the while telling the story of SMILE as well ..... I think that would be fascinating....

THis thread has woken up since the personal issues were dropped and the conversation went back on topic. I hope it can continue in the right spirit.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ...... Therefore you are simply never going to get this so-called apology.

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

I most certainly didn't question his tears a single iota when I saw him in person making a very heartfelt statement about his family at the Grammy Museum. It was moving.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or for him to have conceded that he was a factor and still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

I don't think Brian would have really valued Mike's opinion that much. At this point, the two hardly worked together on songs like they used to.
I think I read that he even asked Van Dyke to redo Mike's lyrics for "Good Vibrations."

I would guess that Van Dyke, being his current working partner, would have a much greater impact on Brian with his departure and disparaging remarks over the sophistication of Brian's music.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

Not sure why Van thought that his lyrics were thrown away, but.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6JwCmTIEw

I call bullshit on VDP here because he stands there and insinuates that The Beach Boys/Mike had nothing but "surf" "hang 10" lyrics until he arrived...

Well I am glad (honestly) to hear you say the part I bolded in your last post.

I sometimes think, from some of the posters on this board, that some people here hold the opinion that Brian is simply, outright wrong in feeling how he feels. I'm glad to know you don't feel that way (no sarcasm here, just so you know).

I'm not sure Van Dyke is the most reliable source for information. For example, in the interview initially referenced in this thread, he claims that he brought his (now conveniently dead) brother Carson's song "Something Stupid" to the Sinatra's attention. I'd never heard/read that before, and in fact, Carson had more "ins" in the music industry than Van Dyke at that point in time, including helping Van Dyke get into the industry. Van Dyke has always claimed to have named both Three Dog Night and Buffalo Springfield, and neither band has ever said that they got their name from Van Dyke Parks' suggestion. Van Dyke is very talented, but I'm not sure I'd take his word as the last word on anything.

That's actually a fascinating idea, and you've picked the perfect author. Speaking to Guitarfool2002 directly: I'm constantly amazed at your energy level, and the deliberation and sheer joy of the subject matter that fuels your writings here, and it's a shame it's all wasted in such a temporal medium. Posts on a message board are here today, gone tomorrow, searchable maybe but so hard to find wheat amongst chaff...

It's really my loss, but I find myself skimming over 80% of what you write (a better ratio than most other posters though!) because, right or wrong, I just can't approach internet forums with serious consideration: way too much bickering and too much of a time suck into things that are distracting me from what really matters in life (note: that was meant to sound pompous - making fun of my own attitude there). But man, if you wrote a book.......I would spend TIME and THOUGHT reading that...

I hate to speak for others, but I will anyway. :P

CenturyDeprived, I sincerely hope this helps you out and brings you some peace and satisfaction - and maybe closure. I truly believe that every knowledgeable Beach Boy fan, specifically fans who are knowledgeable about SMiLE, believe that Mike Love had something to do with Brian Wilson scrapping SMiLE. Something! However, where we will never agree is how much or the degree or the level. On a scale from 1 to 100, there might be a bunch of fans in the 1-20 range; they believe that Mike had little to no affect on Brian's decision. Others fans, including yourself, would obviously be in the 80-100 range; they obviously believe Mike's words/actions were much more influential.

The same thing applies to the "apology issue"; it's tied in with the above rankings. Of course the fans with the lower rankings don't believe an apology was necessary, and the fans with the higher rankings absolutely do. I don't think we can ever determine the cutoff or median ranking where we feel an apology is necessary, but it's probably pretty low.

Yes, fans' opinions can change over time and their opinions (rankings on that 1-100 scale) will change. Books, interviews, and threads like these CAN CHANGE opinions. You have done a good job making the/your case. But debating the same issues over and over ain't gonna do it; that might actually influence people to "dig in" even more. Make your points, make 'em strong, let the chips fall where they may, and move on. You might not understand it and you might not like it, but that's being a Beach Boys' fan. And, it's OK to bring up the topic again in the future. And don't worry, if you don't, somebody else will. That's what we do!

A great post.

I'm glad somebody else said it before me. Putting aside any talent the man may have, I will never understand why he gets a free pass and Mike gets roasted alive. Although Mike has been a dick frequently over the years, truth be told so has VDP (as we all have been in our lives, including me).  How hypocritical to criticize the lyrics written before he came along and how he 'didn't speak that language', yet get butthurt because Mike didn't get HIS lyrics! There's a REASON why Brian has run hot and cold with him over the years. There's also this (recent)nugget... So he can criticize things he feels is beneath him, but God forbid somebody question HIM.

I appreciate your thoughtfully worded post, Sheriff. And you're right - we are talking about a factor which can't be precisely quantified, of that none of us should have doubt. The one sticking point of mine (which applies to both Mike and just in general in life) is the idea of a given person lacking to acknowledge someone else's feelings on a given subject, essentially in so many words saying that those feelings are negligible (and thus, as it can be inferred, outright wrong).

It's sort of like this: I can stand back as an outsider and acknowledge that I wasn't there at the time, and despite readings on the matter which may give me "evidence" in one direction or another, I can also acknowledge that it's not quite fair to pass judgement on anyone else's business (specifically family business). Since these people are in the public eye, however, and we are all major fans of their art, we all do get more involved, for better or worse.

The thing that gets me riled up, so to speak is when I observe a person not acknowledge another person's feelings (regardless of my outside own thoughts on the subject that these feelings are about). I just think that specific action (or inaction) in and of itself is very, very sad, and that itself probably "bugs" me most - perhaps more than how much I'd be "bugged" by whatever worst case scenario I could hypothesize actually happened during 1966-1967.  And before someone says that there may have been a behind-closed-doors acknowledgement - after re-reading Mike's 2004 Mojo interview, his sharply steadfast statements of denial make me very much doubt such ever happened. It's just friggin sad.

Sorry if any of this is a rehash. See, I don't have any problem with apologizing, maybe that's part of why I have a big problem with people that do! :)