The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => Ask The Honored Guests => Topic started by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:28:58 AM



Title: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:28:58 AM
Or am I just having a senior moment and can't find it ?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Pretty Funky on January 20, 2015, 12:40:47 AM
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13147.0.html


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Alan Smith on January 20, 2015, 12:42:28 AM
Yep, Pulled; like Roast Pork!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:42:59 AM
No, the recent one... like yesterday...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Alan Smith on January 20, 2015, 12:44:40 AM
No, the recent one... like yesterday...
Yeah, it's gone.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19570.msg493847/topicseen.html#msg493847 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19570.msg493847/topicseen.html#msg493847)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Pretty Funky on January 20, 2015, 12:45:30 AM
Brian demanded it.  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:48:08 AM
Whatever the reason... good call. Made me feel unclean.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Alan Smith on January 20, 2015, 01:00:24 AM
Lock it. Delete any content that may cause genuine legal exposure for the Chairman of the Board.  Note such reasons or trade offs in the post.

But to vanish an entire, and somewhat visible, thread?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: WWDWD? on January 20, 2015, 01:01:27 AM
I missed it entirely. How do I read the unreadable?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: John Manning on January 20, 2015, 02:07:32 AM
I wouldn't have pulled it. It might have been uncomfortable but it should be kept - locked if need be - as a matter of record.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: smilethebeachboysloveyou on January 20, 2015, 02:22:58 AM
I was also a bit surprised to see it gone.  Not that I think removing the thread, or at least closing it, was a bad idea; he did, after all, start spewing false information and ad hominem attacks (against Marilyn Wilson, of all people!) from his first post.  I was just a bit surprised that it vanished without warning; for a moment, I wondered if I'd imagined the whole thing.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on January 20, 2015, 02:23:57 AM
Lock it. Delete any content that may cause genuine legal exposure for the Chairman of the Board.  Note such reasons or trade offs in the post.   But to vanish an entire, and somewhat visible, thread?

I'm not a lawyer, and anyone can sue anyone, especially here in the United States, but I don't know that I've ever worried about "legal exposure" from something someone else has said on this board.  But thank you for thinking of me.   :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:26:36 AM
I was also a bit surprised to see it gone.  Not that I think removing the thread, or at least closing it, was a bad idea; he did, after all, start spewing false information and ad hominem attacks (against Marilyn Wilson, of all people!) from his first post.  I was just a bit surprised that it vanished without warning; for a moment, I wondered if I'd imagined the whole thing.

Maybe you did...

Maybe we all did...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: halblaineisgood on January 20, 2015, 02:46:04 AM
Did "Lorren Daro"  get the banhammer ?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 20, 2015, 02:50:51 AM
It's unfortunate that it was nuked.  We could have learned something.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on January 20, 2015, 03:04:29 AM
I was also a bit surprised to see it gone.  Not that I think removing the thread, or at least closing it, was a bad idea; he did, after all, start spewing false information and ad hominem attacks (against Marilyn Wilson, of all people!) from his first post.  I was just a bit surprised that it vanished without warning; for a moment, I wondered if I'd imagined the whole thing.

Maybe you did...

Maybe we all did...

For better or worse, you did not imagine it.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Yorick on January 20, 2015, 03:15:46 AM
How certain are people that it was the real Darro?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: c-man on January 20, 2015, 03:23:30 AM
I was also a bit surprised to see it gone.  Not that I think removing the thread, or at least closing it, was a bad idea; he did, after all, start spewing false information and ad hominem attacks (against Marilyn Wilson, of all people!) from his first post.  I was just a bit surprised that it vanished without warning; for a moment, I wondered if I'd imagined the whole thing.

Maybe you did...

Maybe we all did...

Yes, it was a bad acid trip we all took...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: John Stivaktas on January 20, 2015, 04:26:13 AM
It's Over Now!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 04:36:13 AM
A bit of a shame this. I'm presuming this new nervousness is due to Brian's presence on the board. Either that or Brian's people directly requested it.

Wonder if it's worth directing any questions direct to Daro's blog then posting the responses here, just minus the defamatory stuff?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 04:37:31 AM
Is it over?  Why?  Don't want to duplicate the error.  I have to imagine that the SS membership was "pulled" too?  An explanation is due is it not?  The guy's facts were severely off in at least a couple of different cases.  But THAT isn't why the thread didn't fly.  Not the kind of guy Dan Quayle would have described as a "happy camper".

[Sure was highly entertaining though...I gotta say.]


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Woodstock on January 20, 2015, 04:45:29 AM
Pretty sure the Darro thread on the Hoffman board was pulled down too.

Fishy.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 20, 2015, 04:53:52 AM
Even though I didn't agree with the tone of the thread, deleting it and pretending it didn't exist isn't the way it should've been handled.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 05:14:10 AM
A bit of a shame this. I'm presuming this new nervousness is due to Brian's presence on the board. Either that or Brian's people directly requested it.

Maybe Brian will stand up for him and say "yeah, it's all true, I've been lying to everyone all these years".

Not.  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Jay on January 20, 2015, 05:30:23 AM
What a strange thread. He insulted virtually everybody Brian has ever known and worked with. Then he claimed Brian didn't write the lyrics to any of the songs The Beach Boys recorded. My favorite part was when he claimed that Capital records refused to release Smile. How can you release an album that was never finished?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Gregg on January 20, 2015, 05:32:36 AM
A bit of a shame this. I'm presuming this new nervousness is due to Brian's presence on the board. Either that or Brian's people directly requested it.

Wonder if it's worth directing any questions direct to Daro's blog then posting the responses here, just minus the defamatory stuff?

I don't think it's a shame at all. The guy sounded like an angry, bitter, old fart! The name-calling was totally uncool and offensive - even the way he described Brian.

And does he really have that much to add from a historical perspective? I'm more interested in the music and the ones involved in realizing the music.

He won't be missed.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 20, 2015, 05:50:18 AM
I wholeheartedly support the mods' actions on this.  Disclosure: I count Marilyn among my personal friends, but I am open to differing thoughts and opinions on how she and the Wilson family coped with Brian's mental and emotional state -- as long as they are offered tastefully and respectfully.  Daro elected to take the "low road" instead of the "high road," and therefore will never have my respect.

Lee


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 05:52:57 AM
The "low road" Lee?  I thought he took the subway...the 'Underground' in London.  Like WAY LOW.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 20, 2015, 05:53:43 AM
Pretty sure the Darro thread on the Hoffman board was pulled down too.

Fishy.

Not fishy. It will be addressed later but I'll leave it at this...there were several things posted in there that crossed several lines that shouldn't have been crossed.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on January 20, 2015, 05:57:31 AM
I'm sorry, buddhahat, I respect you as a poster, but it's not exactly right to say like "yes, he might be rude about Marilyn, but he was there, it's a 1st-hand account". But then it means others close to Marilyn have been giving wrong impression of her, including Brian. All I ever heard & seen shows the opposite image, that she was 'loving', 'nice lady', 'good wife'... Yes, she hired Landy, but how could she possibly know about his evil intentions? The guy sounded a bit tipsy coming here all of a sudden & posting his gibberish.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Watch a Cave on January 20, 2015, 06:13:14 AM
The comments about Marilyn were totally despicable.  The Mike bashing is getting old and the "idiot savant" comment was insulting as well.

It's a shame because I'm sure he had some interesting stories to tell.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: smilethebeachboysloveyou on January 20, 2015, 06:14:51 AM
Wonder if it's worth directing any questions direct to Daro's blog then posting the responses here, just minus the defamatory stuff?

Would there be anything left once you edited out the defamatory stuff?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike Garneau on January 20, 2015, 06:26:50 AM
deleted comment...

...having a sudden change of opinion on the matter...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 20, 2015, 06:40:55 AM
The "low road" Lee?  I thought he took the subway...the 'Underground' in London.  Like WAY LOW.

Yep, I was way too kind...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: runnersdialzero on January 20, 2015, 06:48:29 AM
That was not Lorren Daro.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: drbeachboy on January 20, 2015, 06:49:13 AM
Is this what everyone is addressing here? lorrendaro.wordpress.com (http://lorrendaro.wordpress.com) I missed what was going on in here, but saw this on Facebook this morning.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on January 20, 2015, 06:52:38 AM
That was not Lorren Daro.
:-X


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 06:53:30 AM
I'm sorry, buddhahat, I respect you as a poster, but it's not exactly right to say like "yes, he might be rude about Marilyn, but he was there, it's a 1st-hand account". But then it means others close to Marilyn have been giving wrong impression of her, including Brian. All I ever heard & seen shows the opposite image, that she was 'loving', 'nice lady', 'good wife'... Yes, she hired Landy, but how could she possibly know about his evil intentions? The guy sounded a bit tipsy coming here all of a sudden & posting his gibberish.

I don't share his beliefs about Marilyn. Agreed - all we ever hear about her is positive so his comments are surprising to say the least.

Nevertheless, if we were to ban all threads and posts that in some way insult The Beach Boys, their friends and family, then this board would be pretty thin on the ground.

I sense that the offence caused by Daro's comments is directly proportionate to people's feelings towards those insulted i.e. the board as a whole likes Marilyn and Brian, therefore what an evil man this Lorren Daro must be. Would he have been so readily chased away had he been solely slating Mike Love and Dr Landy? Personally I doubt it.

My point is, as a board, we either permit negative comments about principal players or we don't. Otherwise we might as well draw up a list of who's ok to bash and who isn't. My guess is, the list would be something like this:

Not OK to insult:
Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, David Marks, Marilyn

OK to insult:
Mike Love, Eugene Landy, Jeff Foskett, Lorren Darro, Charles Manson

Contentious:
Van Dyke Parks, Bruce, Melinda, Darian

^^^ Ridiculous, right? But honestly, I do see evidence of this hypocrisy here.




Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 07:06:23 AM
Also, I see a lot of comments about what a despicable human being Loren Daro is, lower than the low etc. - pretty heavy stuff. Really? Because he called someone he once knew a cow and is willing to explain his reasons? Because he called Brian an idiot savant?? Because he laughed whilst describing Brian's bad trip on Beautiful Dreamer???

All those posters who are such a great judge of character and who are able so confidently to assess Daro's moral worth - have you ever met or spent time with the guy? Again I see a lot of hypocrisy and double standards here.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 07:06:52 AM
A bit of a shame this. I'm presuming this new nervousness is due to Brian's presence on the board. Either that or Brian's people directly requested it.

Wonder if it's worth directing any questions direct to Daro's blog then posting the responses here, just minus the defamatory stuff?

I don't think it's a shame at all. The guy sounded like an angry, bitter, old fart! The name-calling was totally uncool and offensive - even the way he described Brian.

And does he really have that much to add from a historical perspective? I'm more interested in the music and the ones involved in realizing the music.

He won't be missed.

This.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 20, 2015, 07:14:48 AM
All those posters who are such a great judge of character and who are able so confidently to assess Daro's moral worth - have you ever met or spent time with the guy? Again I see a lot of hypocrisy and double standards here.

I initially judged Marilyn's character based on written descriptions, second-hand accounts, and interviews she gave.
Later I met Marilyn in person, and my positive judgment of her character was reinforced.
I initially judged Lorren Daro's character based on written descriptions, second-hand accounts, and interviews he gave.
I have no desire to meet him in person.

Lee


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 20, 2015, 07:15:05 AM
Also, I see a lot of comments about what a despicable human being Loren Daro is, lower than the low etc. - pretty heavy stuff. Really? Because he called someone he once knew a cow and is willing to explain his reasons? Because he called Brian an idiot savant?? Because he laughed whilst describing Brian's bad trip on Beautiful Dreamer???

All those posters who are such a great judge of character and who are able so confidently to assess Daro's moral worth - have you ever met or spent time with the guy? Again I see a lot of hypocrisy and double standards here.
Totally agree, buddhahat, but you're just pissin' in the wind if you're waiting for anyone to actually see your point.  :wall


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: smilethebeachboysloveyou on January 20, 2015, 07:22:57 AM
Also, I see a lot of comments about what a despicable human being Loren Daro is, lower than the low etc. - pretty heavy stuff. Really? Because he called someone he once knew a cow and is willing to explain his reasons? Because he called Brian an idiot savant?? Because he laughed whilst describing Brian's bad trip on Beautiful Dreamer???

All those posters who are such a great judge of character and who are able so confidently to assess Daro's moral worth - have you ever met or spent time with the guy? Again I see a lot of hypocrisy and double standards here.

Nobody on this thread that I've noticed has said that he's lower than low.  What they said is that he took the low road.  That's a very big difference.  Saying someone is "lower than low" is a judgment of character; saying that someone "took the low road" (or the London underground or whatever) is a judgment of specific actions.  In this case, those actions are ones that everyone who saw the thread witnessed.

And call it a double standard if you like, but when someone shows up and says that everything we've been told about Beach Boys history by everyone else is wrong because everyone else is a liar and then starts spewing ad hominem attacks against everyone he can think of in lieu of providing evidence for his new history, my instincts tell me not to trust him.  That in addition to the fact that he was responding to criticisms that no one on this board was making until he showed up and began "responding" to them.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 20, 2015, 07:32:52 AM
The guy sounded like an angry, bitter, old fart!

Good description. Too bad though the thread is gone because over night I had come up with a witty way to tell him what I think of him without actually insulting him, using a collage of quotes of what he wrote.

No, this poster won't be missed. Reminded me of KittyKat in a way.

Billy, when is later? And where?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 07:32:56 AM
Also, I see a lot of comments about what a despicable human being Loren Daro is, lower than the low etc. - pretty heavy stuff. Really? Because he called someone he once knew a cow and is willing to explain his reasons? Because he called Brian an idiot savant?? Because he laughed whilst describing Brian's bad trip on Beautiful Dreamer???

All those posters who are such a great judge of character and who are able so confidently to assess Daro's moral worth - have you ever met or spent time with the guy? Again I see a lot of hypocrisy and double standards here.
Totally agree, buddhahat, but you're just pissin' in the wind if you're waiting for anyone to actually see your point.  :wall

I just think it's lame no one else said what they're saying now to his "face" when he was actually here.

I do get what you two are saying, but at the same time if he really did dislike Marilyn there's ways to express that while still being respectful or at least tactful. To just come in with "she was a moronic cow who ruined everything" is the height of crass and immaturity. Just because he was "there" he shouldn't get a free pass to be rude and careless.

Combined with how he insulted Brian as well, tried to insinuate that everyone Brian ever knew was a jerk (except Darro himself of course) and his story was full of misinformation...I think we can make a few assumptions about what kind of man he is off that. And I don't think anything he'd have told us would have been in any way accurate. Yeah, every first hand account is biased, but the guy really was trying to paint himself as the only good influence in Brian's whole life, the unsung hero of the story and going out of his way to knock everybody down. Was that really worth listening to? I didn't think so. I know some of you did, and it's a shame you didn't get to ask whatever questions you may have had but I say good riddance to him.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cyncie on January 20, 2015, 07:44:34 AM
Oh, come on. The guy, Daro or not,  wasn't here to share insights or provide information. He was here to inflame. The post title was about answering criticism of his "essay" that was written two years ago and that no one had been discussing, much less criticizing,  since it came out in the first place. He cut and pasted the same comments here and in a dead thread about it over at the Hoffman board.  He claimed he was here to defend himself, "taking on all comers" but all he did was spew invective and get everyone riled up.  Then he disappeared from both boards, with no real information given.

The Hoffman board realized this wasn't beneficial and took the thread down yesterday. Our mods did the same today. Probably had zero to do with Brian popping in and everything to do with the trolling nature of the whole thing. No loss, I say.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 07:49:13 AM
I hear you Mujan.  While I didn't appreciate what he said about Marilyn...and while his 'facts' were wrong and while he must have been under the influence of something or other...maybe a libation or 2 too many...I expected there to be some INTERESTING backlash.  And then some entertaining responses.  And while all of this was happening I figured we'd learn something...IF the guy wasn't an imposter.  So I just sort of reacted w/o really saying anything.

But it didn't happen.  It did not continue or unfold as I thought it might.  He came in yesterday.  Saw that Brian had dropped by...likely read a few posts in his thread and left...never to return as it turns out.

I don't need to know a person in order to get an impression.  He made one.  It wasn't favourable.

Like...what a dink.

Really.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ontor pertawst on January 20, 2015, 07:51:25 AM

No, this poster won't be missed. Reminded me of KittyKat in a way.

Very true. The timing of it as well... was it just some crank out to cause trouble, then?  What with the lack of any kind of new information and a similar put down Brian style... we were probably about due for a hoaxer with a grudge.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 07:53:03 AM
I don't need to know a person in order to get an impression.  He made one.  It wasn't favourable.

His appearance in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD told me a lot. I mean, his physical appearance...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: clack on January 20, 2015, 08:55:35 AM
He came across as super-defensive, strident, factually incorrect, and more than a little gaga.

That said, these were his own impressions of people he knew. That's different than some stranger characterizing Marilyn or Brian in insulting terms. If someone were writing a book and interviewed Darro, they might well decide to include those quotes (in context, of course).

Anyway, if the mods decided his thread didn't fit tonally with the board, that's a fair call, imo.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 20, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I don't like all the seeming secrecy recently concerning moderator actions. They should be open and tell us what's going instead of making things disappear without so much as a single word. Besides, it's entirely possible to delete and edit posts to get rid of what they don't think is okay, and not just eradicate an entire conversation that many people took part in.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: puni puni on January 20, 2015, 09:13:23 AM
Would there be anything left once you edited out the defamatory stuff?

The truly defamatory stuff comprised only 15% of the post while the other 85% was about things nobody (I hope) cares about. He wrote a paragraph defending his I-introduced-Brian-to-LSD story, another paragraph about his nobody-asked-me-but-here's-why-I-changed-my-name-from-Schwartz story, a couple sentences denying that he was ever a 'sycophant' to Brian, and a few more sentences which contain several vindictive accusations toward Marilyn. This board doesn't need any more threads like that.

There was also nothing about him calling Brian an "idiot savant", not sure where that came from.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: 37!ws (hint: turn it upside-down) on January 20, 2015, 09:22:01 AM
I didn't see the thread at all, but I WOULD have asked why he changed his name. :)  (And since Beautiful Dreamer came out I thought his last name was changed to "Darg"! Must have been that weird font they used for CG.)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike Garneau on January 20, 2015, 09:24:42 AM
Gotta say that it's hasn't been boring here the last few days...Mike Love checkin' out the board, Loren pissing almost everybody off, Brian says hello...I'm glad I stuck around for it. It surely has broken up the mundane week I've been having.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: puni puni on January 20, 2015, 09:25:43 AM
Well it was to avoid anti-semitic confrontations while living in the "WASP-dominated Monterey Peninsula," in his words. Mystery solved.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Smilin Ed H on January 20, 2015, 09:27:08 AM
Oh, come on. The guy, Daro or not,  wasn't here to share insights or provide information. He was here to inflame. The post title was about answering criticism of his "essay" that was written two years ago and that no one had been discussing, much less criticizing,  since it came out in the first place. He cut and pasted the same comments here and in a dead thread about it over at the Hoffman board.  He claimed he was here to defend himself, "taking on all comers" but all he did was spew invective and get everyone riled up.  Then he disappeared from both boards, with no real information given.

The Hoffman board realized this wasn't beneficial and took the thread down yesterday. Our mods did the same today. Probably had zero to do with Brian popping in and everything to do with the trolling nature of the whole thing. No loss, I say.



I thought it was taken down because there was no mention of the Beatles...   >:D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: joshferrell on January 20, 2015, 09:33:12 AM
Would there be anything left once you edited out the defamatory stuff?

The truly defamatory stuff comprised only 15% of the post while the other 85% was about things nobody (I hope) cares about. He wrote a paragraph defending his I-introduced-Brian-to-LSD story, another paragraph about his nobody-asked-me-but-here's-why-I-changed-my-name-from-Schwartz story, a couple sentences denying that he was ever a 'sycophant' to Brian, and a few more sentences which contain several vindictive accusations toward Marilyn. This board doesn't need any more threads like that.

There was also nothing about him calling Brian an "idiot savant", not sure where that came from.
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Dancing Bear on January 20, 2015, 09:34:49 AM
I'm sorry, buddhahat, I respect you as a poster, but it's not exactly right to say like "yes, he might be rude about Marilyn, but he was there, it's a 1st-hand account". But then it means others close to Marilyn have been giving wrong impression of her, including Brian. All I ever heard & seen shows the opposite image, that she was 'loving', 'nice lady', 'good wife'... Yes, she hired Landy, but how could she possibly know about his evil intentions? The guy sounded a bit tipsy coming here all of a sudden & posting his gibberish.

I don't share his beliefs about Marilyn. Agreed - all we ever hear about her is positive so his comments are surprising to say the least.

Nevertheless, if we were to ban all threads and posts that in some way insult The Beach Boys, their friends and family, then this board would be pretty thin on the ground.

I sense that the offence caused by Daro's comments is directly proportionate to people's feelings towards those insulted i.e. the board as a whole likes Marilyn and Brian, therefore what an evil man this Lorren Daro must be. Would he have been so readily chased away had he been solely slating Mike Love and Dr Landy? Personally I doubt it.

My point is, as a board, we either permit negative comments about principal players or we don't. Otherwise we might as well draw up a list of who's ok to bash and who isn't. My guess is, the list would be something like this:

Not OK to insult:
Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, David Marks, Marilyn

OK to insult:
Mike Love, Eugene Landy, Jeff Foskett, Lorren Darro, Charles Manson

Contentious:
Van Dyke Parks, Bruce, Melinda, Darian

^^^ Ridiculous, right? But honestly, I do see evidence of this hypocrisy here.




Totally agree. Loren's mistake was bashing the wrong people. If he had just written that Mike is "devil-like", "fucking slimeball" and the likes the thread would still be up and running, 18 pages at the least.

This place is like the old Male Ego Board but just for one kind of insults. The other kind is out of line, insulting and verboten.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 09:35:47 AM
I didn't see the thread at all, but I WOULD have asked why he changed his name. :)  (And since Beautiful Dreamer came out I thought his last name was changed to "Darg"! Must have been that weird font they used for CG.)

According to something I read, he changed his name to balance the cyphers.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: puni puni on January 20, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(

Oh, I could only find a cache of the thread on Google which shows the opening post and nothing else.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: joshferrell on January 20, 2015, 09:42:22 AM
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(

Oh, I could only find a cache of the thread on Google which shows the opening post and nothing else.
yup... it looked like he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Brian COULDN'T do Smile without Van Dyke Parks because Van Dyke is a Genius and Brian doesn't know what he's doing (Hence an "Idiot Savant") and that's why Smile was never finished , hence him also saying that Brian didn't write his own lyrics etc, at least that's what I got out of it... maybe others got a different interpretation than I with that remark.. but either way it's disturbing..


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: RONDEMON on January 20, 2015, 10:03:01 AM
That was not Lorren Daro.

I have no reason to believe that wasn't him...
I googled "Loren Daro Productions" and there's a LOT of stuff out there that would seem as though he's legit. He even has a LinkedIn page. I'm not sure if someone would go to those lengths to make Amazon reviews and other stuff attributed to his name.

Anyone want to do some emailing to his gmail account?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 10:09:15 AM
I have no idea if it was Lorren or not.

I do not agree with the choice of words and think some of the opinions are out of line in my opinion.

Je Suis Lorren or fake Lorren.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: puni puni on January 20, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
His statements were reposted on his "Brian Wilson and LSD" Wordpress page as an additional comment, where he also continues to claim that I Just Wasn't Made for These Times and Good Vibrations were written about him and his wife, and that BDW had privately confirmed it to him. Too bad he has little credibility at this point.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 10:14:13 AM
It's unfortunate that it was nuked.  We could have learned something.

Exactly.  

We probably could have learned more. We all feel strongly about the drugs, but let the guy speak. We already read a lot of CRAP here anyway, so what do we have to loose? I think, given at least a warning, that his attitude and slanderous disposition could have been adjusted. If he was warned and he kept doing it, then all bets are off. If it wasn't the real Lorren Shwartz/Daro, then of course all bets are off again.

And Buddahat, your posts were all good ones and each one reflected my thoughts exactly about this.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: drbeachboy on January 20, 2015, 10:14:46 AM
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(

Oh, I could only find a cache of the thread on Google which shows the opening post and nothing else.
yup... it looked like he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Brian COULDN'T do Smile without Van Dyke Parks because Van Dyke is a Genius and Brian doesn't know what he's doing (Hence an "Idiot Savant") and that's why Smile was never finished , hence him also saying that Brian didn't write his own lyrics etc, at least that's what I got out of it... maybe others got a different interpretation than I with that remark.. but either way it's disturbing..
Not what an idiot savant means. It means that Brian was a music genius (Savant), but knows little of anything else, in this case being a lyricist. Just a very harsh way of saying that Brian could not write lyrics close to what Van Dyke Parks did for Smile.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
It's unfortunate that it was nuked.  We could have learned something.

Exactly.  

We probably could have learned more. We all feel strongly about the drugs, but let the guy speak. We already read a lot of CRAP here anyway, so what do we have to loose? I think, given at least a warning, that his attitude and slanderous disposition could have been adjusted. If he was warned and he kept doing it, then all bets are off. If it wasn't the real Lorren Shwartz/Daro, then of course all bets are off again.

And Buddahat, your posts were all good ones and each one reflected my thoughts exactly about this.

"The guy" spoke - he came out of nowhere, allegedly to correct the criticism of an online article that was over two years old and has no listed critical comments anyway.

Strike one...

His chosen mode of expression was, shall we say, ill-chosen ?

Strike two...

There was nothing new that was in any way credible ("Brian confirmed it to me..." doesn't fly, Orville), there were several gross errors of fact and some of the tales related differed significantly from earlier versions.

Strike three - yer out !


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SBonilla on January 20, 2015, 10:21:07 AM
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(

Oh, I could only find a cache of the thread on Google which shows the opening post and nothing else.
yup... it looked like he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Brian COULDN'T do Smile without Van Dyke Parks because Van Dyke is a Genius and Brian doesn't know what he's doing (Hence an "Idiot Savant") and that's why Smile was never finished , hence him also saying that Brian didn't write his own lyrics etc, at least that's what I got out of it... maybe others got a different interpretation than I with that remark.. but either way it's disturbing..
Brian wouldn't have made Smile without Van Dyke Parks. It would have been a different album with a different collaborator. Even if all the melodies existed before the words, the absence of VDP's inspiration and musical input would have made for a very different record.

The term now used for 'idiot savant' is 'autistic savant.' Maybe that is how he sees Brian. I wouldn't have used either term.
I think what he meant is that Brian is highly gifted in the area of music, especially in arranging, harmony, melody writing and production and that he wasn't enough of a lyricist to author a Surf's Up or a Cabinessence.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 10:25:30 AM
He flatly stated that Brian never wrote any lyrics, period, that they were the uncredited work of Mike, Usher, Christian et al, as confirmed - like so much of his piece - by Brian in private conversation. Then, illogically, he gives Mike grief for trying to get that credit recognised. Heads I win, tails you loose.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on January 20, 2015, 10:37:20 AM
He flatly stated that Brian never wrote any lyrics, period, that they were the uncredited work of Mike, Usher, Christian et al, as confirmed - like so much of his piece - by Brian in private conversation. Then, illogically, he gives Mike grief for trying to get that credit recognised. Heads I win, tails you loose.

Perhaps that is the answer?  Something is loose?  Maybe what we saw wasn't an imposter or an attempt to falsely accuse, but instead the actions of someone who can't properly remember the past and is empowered by the internet to display that factual failing?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Jason Penick on January 20, 2015, 10:40:34 AM
Pulling the thread was a positively Hoffmanesque move. Why not just let the guy have his say and debate him if you don't agree? Way too many people here not willing to even listen to a narrative that contradicts their own. Now cue AGD intoning how we can't believe anything he says because he was wrong about Brian never writing lyrics.

EDIT: See he beat me to it.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 10:47:42 AM
Pulling the thread was a positively Hoffmanesque move. Why not just let the guy have his say and debate him if you don't agree? Way too many people here not willing to even listen to a narrative that contradicts their own. Now cue AGD intoning how we can't believe anything he says because he was wrong about Brian never writing lyrics.

EDIT: See he beat me to it.

Hear, hear!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 10:50:44 AM
So Charles...The guy raised some dust...and...as it turned out...still left no tracks?   ???

We're just here...now...following the scent?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 10:52:05 AM
I don't need to know a person in order to get an impression.  He made one.  It wasn't favourable.

His appearance in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD told me a lot. I mean, his physical appearance...

This is exactly what I mean. What has his physical appearance got to do with anything? Call yourself a historian? Do you always factor in somebody's appearance when judging the validity of their recollections?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on January 20, 2015, 10:54:33 AM
So Charles...The guy raised some dust...and...as it turned out...still left no tracks?   ???

We're just here...now...following the scent?

Almost everything has a price to obtain.   


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
I don't need to know a person in order to get an impression.  He made one.  It wasn't favourable.

His appearance in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD told me a lot. I mean, his physical appearance...

This is exactly what I mean. What has his physical appearance got to do with anything? Call yourself a historian? Do you always factor in somebody's appearance when judging the validity of their recollections?


I balance it with what they're saying. He chose to look like a slimeball and giggle his way through a serious and highly contentious topic: doesn't inspire confidence. The bigger question is, WFT was he doing there in the first place ?

As for my credentials as an historian, they may be questionable (many have), but at least I have the balls to post under my own name and not hide behind a pseudonym.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 11:06:03 AM
For those interested, I asked Lorren Daro about his claims that he and his wife inspired IJWMFTT and GV respectively. Here's what he had to say. It's up on his site so I presume he won't mind me sharing it here. I'm sure there'll be a lot of skepticism (and fair enough) but I thought some of you might be interested to read it anyway. As always with these things - who knows for sure (apart from AGD of course)? As he voluntarily withdrew from the threads I urge people not to go over to his page and give him further grief about this but each to their own.

Hi, Buddhahat:

Thanks for your support. I left the Smiley Smile site voluntarily. The invective I got was beyond belief. There were some who were rational and encouraging, but not many. This country is so f***ed up…

At the age I knew Brian, I was out of sync with my time. We talked about it many times. I had quit three major agency jobs, sick from the lying. I hated working nine to five, the LA freeways were driving me nuts. etc, etc. The culture was still in the militant fifties. Brian told me directly that he wrote the song for me — out of pity, I assume. Brian, however, was exactly right for his time. That’s why the group was an instant hit. All of Brian’s songs were pertinent for his young audience. The fit with his audience was perfect.

Brian was in love with my wife, Lynda — many were. Sweet and foxy and gentle. She went around saying, “Good vibes”, all the time. Listen to the lyrics, they’re about a girl he loves from afar and can’t have. Since Brian could never say that he wrote songs about me and mine, he covered by saying the one about me was about him — absurd. He claimed that ‘Vibrations’ was about his mother, Audrey. Even more absurd. And, again, he told me directly that the song was about Lynda.

Why should I lie about this? What’s the advantage to a 77 year old man? I’m not the type to brag or make points by claiming his songs are about me. I never cashed in or profited from my relationship with Brian. I only wish to clear my vilified name for having ‘ruined’ Brian — which I did not. I saved him many times by fending off the villains around him — confronting them when he couldn’t.

Thanks for asking. I’m done with this project. You can’t change people’s minds when they don’t want them changed. The essay was enough. What’s that line from Sam Peckinpah? “I want to enter my house justified.”


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 11:18:34 AM
Well ya...Makes some sense when spelled out THAT way.  But the method he chose to accomplish his goals...wasn't going to get him from here over to point B.  It ain't the people here so much as he himself who sabotaged his intentions'.  As such the chance to enter his house justified was squandered.

Getting another guys attention by hoofing him square in the 'coins' seldom works out as well as the kicker might have envisioned.  Kickees...kick back.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 20, 2015, 11:20:53 AM
I think that it's (unfortunately) a minority opinion that the thread should have stayed up, but it's one that I concur with. While Daro's remarks were immoderate in places, there was an opportunity to possibly learn something new about the events surrounding Brian Wilson's most creative period. That shouldn't be tossed away due to some initial negativity and disrespect. Marilyn Wilson has endured much worse than those remarks--though I want to be clear that I in no way condone them.

Brian has survived so much more than what at most would be a tempest in a teapot that I must wonder about the motivations involved here. While it might turn out that a) this person is a fake or b) this person is real but is so flawed by age and the bitterness of lingering memory that the result of engagement/interrogation would prove fruitless, it was nonetheless an opportunity that was quickly and summarily flushed down the toilet.

It's clear from what buddahat posted that the chances of this person re-engaging are slim; he made a mistake by coming on with such intemperate remarks, but the nuclear response and the moralizing that's followed in its wake is extremely disappointing. Just what is it that we are afraid of finding out? How could it be any worse that what Nick Kent or Steven Gaines have already put out there??


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 11:28:18 AM
For those interested, I asked Lorren Daro about his claims that he and his wife inspired IJWMFTT and GV respectively. Here's what he had to say. It's up on his site so I presume he won't mind me sharing it here. I'm sure there'll be a lot of skepticism (and fair enough) but I thought some of you might be interested to read it anyway. As always with these things - who knows for sure (apart from AGD of course)? As he voluntarily withdrew from the threads I urge people not to go over to his page and give him further grief about this but each to their own.

Hi, Buddhahat:

Thanks for your support. I left the Smiley Smile site voluntarily.

Let's see what the mods have to say.

Quote
The invective I got was beyond belief. There were some who were rational and encouraging, but not many. This country is so f***ed up…

Pot. Kettle. Black... and some of us are not American.

Quote
At the age I knew Brian, I was out of sync with my time. We talked about it many times. I had quit three major agency jobs, sick from the lying. I hated working nine to five, the LA freeways were driving me nuts. etc, etc. The culture was still in the militant fifties. Brian told me directly that he wrote the song for me — out of pity, I assume. Brian, however, was exactly right for his time. That’s why the group was an instant hit. All of Brian’s songs were pertinent for his young audience. The fit with his audience was perfect.

Brian was in love with my wife, Lynda — many were. Sweet and foxy and gentle. She went around saying, “Good vibes”, all the time. Listen to the lyrics, they’re about a girl he loves from afar and can’t have. Since Brian could never say that he wrote songs about me and mine, he covered by saying the one about me was about him — absurd. He claimed that ‘Vibrations’ was about his mother, Audrey. Even more absurd. And, again, he told me directly that the song was about Lynda.

Looks like Darro has - most conveniently - forgotten that he's claimed Brian never wrote any of his own lyrics. Those lyrics are unquestionably Mike's, just as the other set is unquestionably Tony's. I call bull, and sh*t.

Oh, and it's Audree, btw.

Quote
Why should I lie about this? What’s the advantage to a 77 year old man? I’m not the type to brag or make points by claiming his songs are about me. I never cashed in or profited from my relationship with Brian. I only wish to clear my vilified name for having ‘ruined’ Brian — which I did not. I saved him many times by fending off the villains around him — confronting them when he couldn’t.

Thanks for asking. I’m done with this project. You can’t change people’s minds when they don’t want them changed. The essay was enough. What’s that line from Sam Peckinpah? “I want to enter my house justified.”[/i]

Answered his own question.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 11:36:04 AM
I think that it's (unfortunately) a minority opinion that the thread should have stayed up, but it's one that I concur with. While Daro's remarks were immoderate in places, there was an opportunity to possibly learn something new about the events surrounding Brian Wilson's most creative period.

I question that, on these grounds: if one part of his piece can be shown to be totally incorrect, then the credibility of the rest is suspect. So happens he is utterly wrong about Mike & the family influencing the 1991 pseudobiography in any way whatsoever, for the reasons I stated in the original thread, that is that at that time Brian was not in contact with anyone not approved by Landy, and that included the rest of the band and his family, thus there was no possible conduit for any such influence. I doubt Landy would have given it a seconds thought anyway. So, in this respect Darro is at best mistaken, less charitably lying, any way you slice it plain wrong. Ergo, the rest of his narrative is suspect, especially as in places it differs from an earlier version.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: runnersdialzero on January 20, 2015, 11:39:04 AM
Looks like Darro has - most conveniently - forgotten that he's claimed Brian never wrote any of his own lyrics. Those lyrics are unquestionably Mike's, just as the other set is unquestionably Tony's. I call bull, and sh*t.

Oh, and it's Audree, btw.

So yer tellin' me Mike wrote a song about how he found his aunt Audree to be rather saucy?

(I'm just sayin'! I have no idea what to make of Darro and am honestly bored by most of this brand of drama, I just found this to be kinda funny.)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 20, 2015, 11:41:28 AM
Quote
Why should I lie about this? What’s the advantage to a 77 year old man? I’m not the type to brag or make points by claiming his songs are about me. I never cashed in or profited from my relationship with Brian. I only wish to clear my vilified name for having ‘ruined’ Brian — which I did not. I saved him many times by fending off the villains around him — confronting them when he couldn’t.

Thanks for asking. I’m done with this project. You can’t change people’s minds when they don’t want them changed. The essay was enough. What’s that line from Sam Peckinpah? “I want to enter my house justified.”[/i]

Answered his own question.

That's actually funny. :-D I had spotted the inconsistency between claiming Brian wrote no lyrics and Brian writing IJWMFTT and GV about Darro and his wife, but this I overlooked! :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: puni puni on January 20, 2015, 11:46:50 AM
Anyone who was 'there' and is still alive to tell the story should be allowed to share their side no matter how dubious the claims are, but it's in extremely bad taste to leave up his baseless and acidic remarks, let alone post them one day after The Man Himself visited.

At best, Darro could have said his piece about the lyrics, and then after asking Tony Asher/Van Dyke Parks/et. al for corroboration, we can come away all the more enlightened about the history of these songs.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2015, 11:49:42 AM
Short answer: The thread was moved out after word came that the Hoffman forum had deleted the same post and follow-up discussions on their board. The mods who were on board last night discussed this and the decision was made to do the same thing, until further notice. And that is simply what was done. If further clarification is necessary, it can be posted later.

Here's the thing: We all work, we have different schedules, we're not always on board at the same time. Therefore, some of the discussions and decisions that are made can be delayed until another mod or mods can discuss it. Or simply, we may not be on the board when things like this go down, but try to address them when we do get on the board. As in this case. And it's not over.

No one was forced off the board, banned from the board, or in another way asked to leave the board. It was voluntary as indicated.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: drbeachboy on January 20, 2015, 11:50:52 AM
I never felt any real contempt for anybody in the Beach Boys story, except for Manson & Landy. With Landy, only after the second go around. There is so much Bullhonky out there regarding who are the heroes and who are the villains, that I could never come to any definitive conclusions about anybody who hovered around their inner circle.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:07:47 PM
No one was forced off the board, banned from the board, or in another way asked to leave the board. It was voluntary as indicated.

Nonononononononono... that NOT what I told you to say. I want my $100 back.  >:(


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 12:14:06 PM

Looks like Darro has - most conveniently - forgotten that he's claimed Brian never wrote any of his own lyrics. Those lyrics are unquestionably Mike's, just as the other set is unquestionably Tony's. I call bull, and sh*t.


Fair point about the contradiction. However I don't accept your argument that Daro and his wife can't have influenced the songs because Asher wrote one and Love the other.

We know that Brian brought ideas and concepts in for Asher to flesh out. For example could Brian not legitimately claim to have written Caroline No for Marilyn (or Carol Mountain was it? I'm not as up on this stuff as most here), even though Asher wrote the lyrics? One could argue both Brian and Asher were responsible for the subject matter, no? If Daro did share his experiences of being out of step with the times with Brian, Brian could feasibly have taken that concept to Asher, then subsequently confided to Daro that he wrote the song about him. I'm not saying these things definitely happened but just that it's not beyond reason.

Similarly is Brian's claim that GV was inspired by Audree and the dog thing also bs because we all know Mike wrote the hook?

Personally, I don't think your argument holds up here.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
No one was forced off the board, banned from the board, or in another way asked to leave the board. It was voluntary as indicated.

Nonononononononono... that NOT what I told you to say. I want my $100 back.  >:(

That's where it stands currently, I can only offer the truth as of the present time. I'll hold the 100 in escrow... ;)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 12:16:42 PM
I don't need to know a person in order to get an impression.  He made one.  It wasn't favourable.

His appearance in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD told me a lot. I mean, his physical appearance...

This is exactly what I mean. What has his physical appearance got to do with anything? Call yourself a historian? Do you always factor in somebody's appearance when judging the validity of their recollections?


I balance it with what they're saying. He chose to look like a slimeball and giggle his way through a serious and highly contentious topic: doesn't inspire confidence. The bigger question is, WFT was he doing there in the first place ?

As for my credentials as an historian, they may be questionable (many have), but at least I have the balls to post under my own name and not hide behind a pseudonym.

Yeah, that literally made my skin crawl the first time I saw it. What kind of trip-sitter, much less "friend" laughs hysterically at a bad trip (or bad phase of a trip) and continues to do so every time it's brought up*? Definitely not somebody I'd want to be around when my consciousness is being expanded.

And I agree, why was he even invited? What did he even have to offer aside from "yeah I gave him acid and laughed in his face while the trip got dark"? I think some of you are vastly inflating his importance. This is a guy whose sole claim to fame is turning Brian onto psychedelics. Hes so hung up about it he's still acting like it's something great accomplishment. But that's not enough--he has to be the inspiration behind two of the best songs as well. And he was the only one who cared about Brian ever. Uh huh.

If he had any interesting anecdotes outside of the trip itself, he could have mentioned them in the essay or initial response. He did not. He wasn't involved in the music and as far as I can tell was little more than a drug hookup. Maybe he might have something cool to say, but he seemed far more concerned with flinging insults at everyone but himself. When I turned it around on him, he had nothing to say. You'd think he'd have thicker skin based on how casually he dishes it out.

* Peter Carlin mentions him "cackling" about it too in the catch a wave book.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:19:00 PM
If Daro did share his experiences of being out of step with the times with Brian, Brian could feasibly have taken that concept to Asher, then subsequently confided to Daro that he wrote the song about him. I'm not saying these things definitely happened but just that it's not beyond reason.

If...

It's been proven that he's inaccurate in at least one major instance he relates, so what's to say he's being accurate - or honest - here ?  Just as likely.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
Anyone who was 'there' and is still alive to tell the story should be allowed to share their side no matter how dubious the claims are, but it's in extremely bad taste to leave up his baseless and acidic remarks, let alone post them one day after The Man Himself visited.

At best, Darro could have said his piece about the lyrics, and then after asking Tony Asher/Van Dyke Parks/et. al for corroboration, we can come away all the more enlightened about the history of these songs.

Also, this.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 12:22:29 PM
No one was forced off the board, banned from the board, or in another way asked to leave the board. It was voluntary as indicated.

Nonononononononono... that NOT what I told you to say. I want my $100 back.  >:(

That's where it stands currently, I can only offer the truth as of the present time. I'll hold the 100 in escrow... ;)

Goddammit, what's the world coming to when a man won't stay bought ?   :old


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 12:36:32 PM
OK...I'm old.  My mind is clouding over.  Memory...not that good honestly.  So...Did Darro say somewhere in one of the items he posted that he couldn't figure out why the guys writing the books about Brian and the Beach Boys didn't talk to him more...or use him as a resource?  I seem to recall that.  Maybe?

I'm guessing that after talking to him...if his 'take' on facts was so off the mark that they MIGHT have thought..."Uhhh...no...let's not go there...that ain't workin'"  Otherwise...why wouldn't they have included more from a source that close to the action?  I say that because I initially figured that if we sat back and let this guy 'go' that we'd learn something.  That's why I wanted the thread to roll.  Fill in some blanks for us...PLEASE.  But one can't fill in the blanks with fiction.  There's nothing to be gained.

And if the other site yanked down his 'thingy'...they must have done so for a reason.  It, I'm guessin', wasn't merely performed as a bandwidth saving measure.

So what looked like a golden goose about to lay some eggs...may, rather, have turned out to be a bull.  [and those weren't golden eggs.]


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 12:45:08 PM
I think that it's (unfortunately) a minority opinion that the thread should have stayed up, but it's one that I concur with. While Daro's remarks were immoderate in places, there was an opportunity to possibly learn something new about the events surrounding Brian Wilson's most creative period. That shouldn't be tossed away due to some initial negativity and disrespect. Marilyn Wilson has endured much worse than those remarks--though I want to be clear that I in no way condone them.

Brian has survived so much more than what at most would be a tempest in a teapot that I must wonder about the motivations involved here. While it might turn out that a) this person is a fake or b) this person is real but is so flawed by age and the bitterness of lingering memory that the result of engagement/interrogation would prove fruitless, it was nonetheless an opportunity that was quickly and summarily flushed down the toilet.

It's clear from what buddahat posted that the chances of this person re-engaging are slim; he made a mistake by coming on with such intemperate remarks, but the nuclear response and the moralizing that's followed in its wake is extremely disappointing. Just what is it that we are afraid of finding out? How could it be any worse that what Nick Kent or Steven Gaines have already put out there??

I'm the one who was most hostile towards him and I'll tell you right now it's not part of some vast cover-up. If we heard SMiLE was completely plagiarized or Bruce ate a kitten or Carl was adopted...I'd want to know about it. It's not about shutting up an alternate viewpoint so much as knocking a pompous and childish man off his high horse. That's how I saw it. The rest of you don't have to be happy about it, but I said what I felt he deserved to hear. If my remarks made him leave, shame on him for slandering people if he can't deal with the fallout. Don't dish out what you can't take in, etc.

If you're referring to the mods, I'd say give them a break. I once called this board badly moderated myself, a claim I now think was untrue and out of line. They strike me as good intentioned people doing the best they can. Whatever was done was for the best, I'm sure, and again not some conspiracy to shut up a dissenting voice.

Buddhahat, for whatever it's worth coming from me I am truly happy you got your question answered and I hope anyone else who had one can do the same. I still think the guy's full of it, reading that email, but that's just my take. I agree with AGD--it's not Brian who even wrote those lyrics and just because Daro thinks Brian was just right for those times doesn't mean Brian himself felt that way. It's not that GV is about Audree, just that she introduced the phrase/concept in his mind. I believe that over Daro, but to each his own.

And it's not the "idiot savant" comment so much as the claim that he was faking mental illness until the 70s that pissed me off regarding Brian. Totally uncalled for, and I'll bet ANYONE else who knew him then would call bullshit on that. Seeing as how he lied about so much else, I trust them over Daro.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 12:57:47 PM
Pulling the thread was a positively Hoffmanesque move. Why not just let the guy have his say and debate him if you don't agree? Way too many people here not willing to even listen to a narrative that contradicts their own. Now cue AGD intoning how we can't believe anything he says because he was wrong about Brian never writing lyrics.

Correcto mundo!  I'd rather see someone 'debated' off the board and give him/her a chance to argue the facts than be forced off after a few posts.  So many of us have read all the books and are well-versed enough and know how to reference most of the facts, that I think we are qualified to counter (or correct) someone when they post statements that don't have any proof or haven't already been established as fact.  I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

Stuff like........Brian has always said GV was about the time he was with his mother as a kid and walking past a barking dog in the neighborhood and asking her why some bark at some people and others don't (dogs can hear vibrations from people).  I never heard it was about any one person before.

And Marilyn. I met Marilyn twice and she was very nice to me and my daughter. No question there at all. Same with Diane. But Marilyn was also a very young wife and mother to a rock star which wasn't easy....


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: John Manning on January 20, 2015, 01:03:08 PM
My only real regret is that the thread is gone. Even locked, it stood as testament to the degree to which Donnie Darko was acting as knob.

I disliked the way he referred to Marilyn, the "idiot savant" comment and particularly the reference to BW as a "pig" to VDP's silk purse or whatever.

As for the GV inspiration being Brian's secret longing (I wouldnt use the word "love" even though I don't believe the story to begin with…) for his wife… well, that's arse about tit. The LAST person I'd 'fess up about such a lust would be the woman's husband. I'd probably tell him the song was based on something my mum told me about Doog Vibrations…

Still, if the guy's not banned he can come back and explain things in a more civil manner, we'll all learn something (potentially) and he can push his agenda again.

As said in the deleted thread, Mujan stated some very good truths. Much still to be sorted.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 20, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
Sadly, Van Dyke Parks seems to accept Daro's comments as fact. *sigh*
https://twitter.com/thevandykeparks/status/458458606388531200

What the hell happened between Brian and Van Dyke these past few years???


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 01:27:13 PM
Sadly, Van Dyke Parks seems to accept Daro's comments as fact. *sigh*
https://twitter.com/thevandykeparks/status/458458606388531200

What the hell happened between Brian and Van Dyke these past few years???

Notice he's not corroborating them, just saying "oh that's the way it happened? Why am I the last to know?" Definitely a shame he's using this as a passive aggressive dig at Brian. Very disappointing. I'd like to know the answer to that as well, and I have to say between things like this and not offering an essay to the SMiLE box set, I'm really starting to think less of VDP. Maybe whatever happened is Brian's fault but at least he's not wasting his time making passive aggressive digs online and screwing the fans over it, whatever "it" is.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: joshferrell on January 20, 2015, 01:29:02 PM
He called him that in one of his responses.. I saw it myself and it upset me that he said that.. it was like calling him "retarded" or something and I did not like it.. >:(

Oh, I could only find a cache of the thread on Google which shows the opening post and nothing else.
yup... it looked like he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Brian COULDN'T do Smile without Van Dyke Parks because Van Dyke is a Genius and Brian doesn't know what he's doing (Hence an "Idiot Savant") and that's why Smile was never finished , hence him also saying that Brian didn't write his own lyrics etc, at least that's what I got out of it... maybe others got a different interpretation than I with that remark.. but either way it's disturbing..
Not what an idiot savant means. It means that Brian was a music genius (Savant), but knows little of anything else, in this case being a lyricist. Just a very harsh way of saying that Brian could not write lyrics close to what Van Dyke Parks did for Smile.
okay thanks I didn't know that,,thanks for telling me,, ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 01:38:36 PM
I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".

If anything scared him off it was probably Brian joining the forum. Suddenly he can't play up the "I'm the one who was there, I'm the authority on this" angle when Brian could easily come and say "Yeah...none of this is true. And shut up about my first wife, ya knob."


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 01:57:13 PM
Yup, that was a true "piss or get off the pot" moment.  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 20, 2015, 02:04:08 PM
I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".

Andrew, your logic in dismissing this person (mostly) out of hand is flawed. Could any of us stand up to highly pointed, lawyer-like scrutiny about details of events that occurred fifty years previously?? Of course not. But we can apply standards to folks here whenever we choose to, and believe that we are being rational when, in fact, we are not.

Everyone here has some vested interest in the narrative of Brian's life, particularly WRT the cauldron of controversy and chaos that still swirls around the SMiLE project (and yes, more than a decade since the matter was supposedly "settled"). And that does color much of the discussion here. I think buddahat exaggerates a little bit about sacred cows, but IMO he's dead on with respect to how certain parameters ebb and flow throughout the significant discussions that deal with history and personal lives. (The music itself is a different matter.)

I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange. But he was soon overwhelmed by the various escalating flavors of hostility (of which yours, of course, is merely the most pungent...) and he did what almost everyone would do in that situation--he bailed out.

I'm sure you'll disagree about your tone and call it "reasoned"--but it wasn't. It was part of a feeding frenzy that came to an abrupt conclusion because Daro left--as several folks in the thread lamented at the time.

Now did Daro start out with assertions that were uncivil and inflammatory? Oh yes, he did. But let's be honest: is it necessary to resort to similar tactics and tone so quickly, as if we have these itchy, highly sensitive trigger fingers that force us to draw out our verbal Colt-45s or personal nuclear devices at the first sign of offense? No, it isn't. And there were clearly enough people doing just that in the thread to make it into something ugly enough that the moderators here decided to wipe it away without so much as making a formal announcement.

That's bordering on hysterical behavior, and is an unfortunate blight on the records of guys who I think usually do a fine and courageous job of dealing with what goes down here. Again, I ask: just what is it that we are afraid of finding out? That Brian Wilson isn't perfect? That he was troubled? That he may have had to resort to some passive-aggressive tactics to deal with the "frenzy of renown" and his always tetchy relationship with Mike Love and his father? All Daro would do is provide additional details (some of which would doubtless be highly colored by his own point of view) that would fill in a story that has already been sketched out.

Mujan, your last post is highly speculative at best. There's no way to know if Daro ever knew that Brian was here. And we've lost the chance of them actually meeting up here, and having your fantasy exchange between them actually take place. And note that Andrew is conveniently agreeing with you--agreeing about something for which there are no facts in evidence.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: OneEar/OneEye on January 20, 2015, 02:05:45 PM
Not defending whoever the poster was (real or hoax) but it is possible that GV could have linkage to the wife.  Asher wrote his lyrics tuned to what Brian wanted the song to be about, right?  He didn't just write about whatever he (Asher) wanted to.  Brian would say something like, "This song is about  such and such and so I want lyrics that say this and this."  Asher would then write to that topic/idea/whatever.   So it is possible that Brian relayed the thing about this friend of his having a hotty wife who says "good vibes" all the time and also how this connects to a memory he has from childhood of his mom telling him that dogs sensed peoples vibrations (like E.S.P. or whatever)  and this could have been the origination of that song.   IJWMFTT could have been about Daro, or Brian himself - or a lot of people I would imagine (all of the above even).  
I know this is all could have beens and maybes, but it is a possibility.  
Except, I suppose, that Brian states otherwise (and as far as I know always has) - and so, in that event,  this whole post of mine is basically moot and useless.....sigh.  Oh well.    :-\


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 02:09:33 PM
I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".

If anything scared him off it was probably Brian joining the forum. Suddenly he can't play up the "I'm the one who was there, I'm the authority on this" angle when Brian could easily come and say "Yeah...none of this is true. And shut up about my first wife, ya knob."

Nah, Brian (or Melinda or whoever posted for him) is definitely not going to engage in any argument with Daro or make comments on the board. Brian's posts will be all business and all positive and maybe a Q&A before his record is released if we're lucky. Nothing controversial. In fact, I'd be very surprised if "he" posts again here in the near future. Just like his own board (which he hasn't posted on in quite awhile). Touch and go - here he is, then gone. Doubt very much Daro bailed because he saw Brian's one post.

I'm out. Better things to discuss elsewhere.........like bootlegs.  :P


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:14:03 PM
I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange.

A question. Why suddenly decide to respond, and most immoderately, to perceived criticisms of a blog post that was over two years old ? Which criticsms, I might add, were deleted, assuming they ever existed: the blog as I saw it yesterday had precisely two comments, one of which was lauding it and the other begin from Darro himself dated within the last few days.

As for my post being pungently hostile... I merely listed the most annoying/improbable aspects of it. I'd like to eb able to read it again to check, but that's my recollection.

Andrew, your logic in dismissing this person (mostly) out of hand is flawed. Could any of us stand up to highly pointed, lawyer-like scrutiny about details of events that occurred fifty years previously??

The nonsense about Brian's pseudobiography wasn't 50 years ago, but rather 24. As I've pointed out, there was no possible way that the band or the family could have influenced the content - and that they tried to sue Brian over it is proof they didn't - yet Darro insists, or strongly infers, that this was the case, that he specifically was excluded from the book by orders of 'the family'. Simply put, he's not that important in the BB cosmos, except in his own mind. As someone stated, he's famous as the guy who gave Brian acid, and what did his #1 buddy have to say about that ?

"I should have passed on the LSD and marijuana and all that, It kind of screwed my mind up" [2015]

"I did my dose of LSD... it shattered my mind. I came back, thank God, but I don't know in how many pieces" [1976]


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 02:17:06 PM
Not defending whoever the poster was (real or hoax) but it is possible that GV could have linkage to the wife.  Asher wrote his lyrics tuned to what Brian wanted the song to be about, right?  He didn't just write about whatever he (Asher) wanted to.  Brian would say something like, "This song is about  such and such and so I want lyrics that say this and this."  Asher would then write to that topic/idea/whatever.   So it is possible that Brian relayed the thing about this friend of his having a hotty wife who says "good vibes" all the time and also how this connects to a memory he has from childhood of his mom telling him that dogs sensed peoples vibrations (like E.S.P. or whatever)  and this could have been the origination of that song.   IJWMFTT could have been about Daro, or Brian himself - or a lot of people I would imagine (all of the above even).  
I know this is all could have beens and maybes, but it is a possibility.  
Except, I suppose, that Brian states otherwise (and as far as I know always has) - and so, in that event,  this whole post of mine is basically moot and useless.....sigh.  Oh well.    :-\

No, actually your post addressed good alternate points of view. I thought about that too - Ashers' lyrics tied to the wife. Who knows? We didn't get a chance to clarify or put to rest!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 02:18:33 PM
Well...I disagree a tad...with Don.  There is a way to know that Darro knew Brian was here.  I saw it with my own eyes.  The list of those viewing the board is listed and refreshed every time you move from topic to topic.  Darro was here for at least 10 minutes while Brian was 'in attendance'.  I saw it and took note of it...as i was interested in his continuing with his 'story'.  I was disappointed when he bailed.  And I mentioned it in the thread.  [now erased]

As he progressed initially...his verbiage deteriorated.  It could be that he was in a hurry.  It could be that he was getting tired.  It could be that he was drinking as he hovered and waited to respond to responses.  For whatever reason his level of comprehension or at least the ability to communicate lessened.

Remember this though.  He challenged everyone to come and give him their worst.  Right from the get-go he expected us to talk out of our asses and that he was ready for it...because HE knew the real facts.  But he didn't did he?  He knew BS.  He knew how to slam Marilyn and Mike.  He knew that Murry was a bit of a dink.  No debate there I wouldn't think...although the word "bit" might be changed.

The guy could have been interesting.  He could have been an historical asset.  But he seemed instead to be more of a guy who took too many trips without a suitcase.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:19:03 PM
Not defending whoever the poster was (real or hoax) but it is possible that GV could have linkage to the wife.  Asher wrote his lyrics tuned to what Brian wanted the song to be about, right?  He didn't just write about whatever he (Asher) wanted to.  Brian would say something like, "This song is about  such and such and so I want lyrics that say this and this."  Asher would then write to that topic/idea/whatever.   So it is possible that Brian relayed the thing about this friend of his having a hotty wife who says "good vibes" all the time and also how this connects to a memory he has from childhood of his mom telling him that dogs sensed peoples vibrations (like E.S.P. or whatever)  and this could have been the origination of that song.   IJWMFTT could have been about Daro, or Brian himself - or a lot of people I would imagine (all of the above even).  
I know this is all could have beens and maybes, but it is a possibility.  
Except, I suppose, that Brian states otherwise (and as far as I know always has) - and so, in that event,  this whole post of mine is basically moot and useless.....sigh.  Oh well.    :-\

Interesting and well-considered theory. Alas, it founders on the rock of Asher's "GV" lyrics being merely a place-holder (evident from the clumsy scansion), as he told me when I asked about them. They were never intended to be the final item.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Some of it could both be true at the time possibly. Brian could have had the idea from his Mom and still also been writing it for Linda because she also used the phrase. Anyway he was just saying that is what Brian told him wasn't he?

Marilyn could have been sweet as pie and i believe with no need for proof that she was/is and still sour towards a guy she may not have trusted or thought was the cause of harm toward her husband.

Lorren backed off on the lyrics but really how DO we know Brian wrote any of the lyrics attributed to him? I'm not saying that Lorren is right or that Brian didn't write any lyrics, I beieve he did,  but how do we know? Maybe Brian will answer that one himself. (batting my eyes toward Brian)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 20, 2015, 02:25:19 PM
I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange.

A question. Why suddenly decide to respond, and most immoderately, to perceived criticisms of a blog post that was over two years old ? Which criticsms, I might add, were deleted, assuming they ever existed: the blog as I saw it yesterday had precisely two comments, one of which was lauding it and the other begin from Darro himself dated within the last few days.

As for my post being pungently hostile... I merely listed the most annoying/improbable aspects of it. I'd like to eb able to read it again to check, but that's my recollection.

Andrew, I was merely indulging in some humor there, based on your well-established persona. I refer to the collective effect, and not to you personally. My apologies if it reads another way.

Again, I think to categorically assume that Daro could be dismissed out of hand from one or two pointed questions is unfounded. It reads to me like justifying collective behavior (and rationalizing what appears at the moment to be akin to a "cover-up) after the fact.

It is not one of the board's best moments, and it is odd and sad that it occurred on the same day that Brian posted here. I do not think, however, that it makes sense to try to connect those dots.

Loren Daro is, according to these posts, 77 years old and has probably created more problems for himself "per capita" due to his own personality than any ten of us here. He may have some justification for feeling haunted and hounded: without a more sensitive set of interactions, we likely will never know that (or not). Opportunity missed, even if odds are 70%+ that it would prove a dead end.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 02:33:10 PM
As he progressed initially...his verbiage deteriorated.  It could be that he was in a hurry.  It could be that he was getting tired.  It could be that he was drinking as he hovered and waited to respond to responses.  For whatever reason his level of comprehension or at least the ability to communicate lessened.

You'd be like that too, Lee, if you started receiving incoming flak from posters!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
Ya Mikie...I suppose so.  But I sure as sh*t wouldn't have opened the converstation quite the same way he did.  I mean come on man...as they say in the pre-game NFL shows...come on man.  He said he expected it.  I wanted more from the guy.  I was, at the very LEAST, expecting to be both entertained and informed.  T'was a failure on both counts.

Yet here we are still yackin' about it.  He can SEE that right now if he wants to.  He hasn't been banned.  He can come back and try again...more reasonably.  If he has points to make they can still be made.  If you can teach a 77 year old dog new tricks he can come again...differently.  I would welcome it.  But if he's just gonna make sh*t up and bounce off the walls again?  Forget it.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 02:39:05 PM
I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange.

A question. Why suddenly decide to respond, and most immoderately, to perceived criticisms of a blog post that was over two years old ? Which criticsms, I might add, were deleted, assuming they ever existed: the blog as I saw it yesterday had precisely two comments, one of which was lauding it and the other begin from Darro himself dated within the last few days.

As for my post being pungently hostile... I merely listed the most annoying/improbable aspects of it. I'd like to eb able to read it again to check, but that's my recollection.

Who knows about the timing but his sign off in response to my question suggests a need to tie up loose ends for himself. For all we know he might be ill. Why suspect though that there is any other motivation than a man trying to clear his name? People were pretty negative about him post the beautiful dreamer doc and, in all honesty, I never really understood that reaction. So he giggled? I had a terrible bad trip in a house full of friends as a teenager. These people liked me but still couldn't help pointing out how hilarious my behaviour was the next time I saw them. And I had to concede - there was comedy despite my terror at the time.

Some posters here are way too protective of Brian IMO. I suspect him hiding his head under a pillow or whatever may well have been funny at the time and Daro picturing that moment maybe experienced genuine mirth. Only retrospectively with knowledge of the terrible dark times Brian would encounter does the anecdote take on a more tragic dimension. But why do we demand that everyone be so sensitive around Brian's mental health issues? Why not laugh at some of the craziness like Lorren does in the doc? Wait - we do laugh at Brian's craziness, frequently. Be it the Norbit comment or Brian getting iggy pop and alice cooper to sing shortenin bread or whatever. Just because we see the funny side, doesn't mean we don't care about the tragedy also.

I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".

Andrew, your logic in dismissing this person (mostly) out of hand is flawed. Could any of us stand up to highly pointed, lawyer-like scrutiny about details of events that occurred fifty years previously?? Of course not. But we can apply standards to folks here whenever we choose to, and believe that we are being rational when, in fact, we are not.

Everyone here has some vested interest in the narrative of Brian's life, particularly WRT the cauldron of controversy and chaos that still swirls around the SMiLE project (and yes, more than a decade since the matter was supposedly "settled"). And that does color much of the discussion here. I think buddahat exaggerates a little bit about sacred cows, but IMO he's dead on with respect to how certain parameters ebb and flow throughout the significant discussions that deal with history and personal lives. (The music itself is a different matter.)

I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange. But he was soon overwhelmed by the various escalating flavors of hostility (of which yours, of course, is merely the most pungent...) and he did what almost everyone would do in that situation--he bailed out.

I'm sure you'll disagree about your tone and call it "reasoned"--but it wasn't. It was part of a feeding frenzy that came to an abrupt conclusion because Daro left--as several folks in the thread lamented at the time.

Now did Daro start out with assertions that were uncivil and inflammatory? Oh yes, he did. But let's be honest: is it necessary to resort to similar tactics and tone so quickly, as if we have these itchy, highly sensitive trigger fingers that force us to draw out our verbal Colt-45s or personal nuclear devices at the first sign of offense? No, it isn't. And there were clearly enough people doing just that in the thread to make it into something ugly enough that the moderators here decided to wipe it away without so much as making a formal announcement.

That's bordering on hysterical behavior, and is an unfortunate blight on the records of guys who I think usually do a fine and courageous job of dealing with what goes down here. Again, I ask: just what is it that we are afraid of finding out? That Brian Wilson isn't perfect? That he was troubled? That he may have had to resort to some passive-aggressive tactics to deal with the "frenzy of renown" and his always tetchy relationship with Mike Love and his father? All Daro would do is provide additional details (some of which would doubtless be highly colored by his own point of view) that would fill in a story that has already been sketched out.

Mujan, your last post is highly speculative at best. There's no way to know if Daro ever knew that Brian was here. And we've lost the chance of them actually meeting up here, and having your fantasy exchange between them actually take place. And note that Andrew is conveniently agreeing with you--agreeing about something for which there are no facts in evidence.


Thank you, eloquent voice of reason!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:40:33 PM
Some of it could both be true at the time possibly. Brian could have had the idea from his Mom and still also been writing it for Linda because she also used the phrase. Anyway he was just saying that is what Brian told him wasn't he?

Marilyn could have been sweet as pie and i believe with no need for proof that she was/is and still sour towards a guy she may not have trusted or thought was the cause of harm toward her husband.

Lorren backed off on the lyrics but really how DO we know Brian wrote any of the lyrics attributed to him? I'm not saying that Lorren is right or that Brian didn't write any lyrics, I beieve he did,  but how do we know? Maybe Brian will answer that one himself. (batting my eyes toward Brian)

Oh crap, Mott's batting his eyes again. There goes the neighborhood...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 02:42:45 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 02:43:41 PM
*deleted*

I'm so full of myself I quote my own posts.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:45:06 PM
Why suspect though that there is any other motivation than a man trying to clear his name?

Were I in his situation, I would have been considerably more reasoned and measured: that way folk tend to take you more seriously. Or at least keep the blunderbusses hidden...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:46:21 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?

It's gonna work one of these days.

Uh... Cam, ol' buddy, ol' pal... try quoting the right post.  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?

I have never heard that in my almost 40 years of BB fandom. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Actually, yeah, it does.  :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 02:52:04 PM
Some of it could both be true at the time possibly. Brian could have had the idea from his Mom and still also been writing it for Linda because she also used the phrase. Anyway he was just saying that is what Brian told him wasn't he?

Marilyn could have been sweet as pie and i believe with no need for proof that she was/is and still sour towards a guy she may not have trusted or thought was the cause of harm toward her husband.

Lorren backed off on the lyrics but really how DO we know Brian wrote any of the lyrics attributed to him? I'm not saying that Lorren is right or that Brian didn't write any lyrics, I beieve he did,  but how do we know? Maybe Brian will answer that one himself. (batting my eyes toward Brian)

Oh crap, Mott's batting his eyes again. There goes the neighborhood...

It's gonna work one of these days. (There all is well now)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 02:54:10 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?

I have never heard that in my almost 40 years of BB fandom. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Actually, yeah, it does.  :)

Maybe so. I'll scour my archives.

If you've ever scoured your archives, you know how painful it can be.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:54:37 PM
That VDP twitter comment... anyone looked at the date and time ?

5:13 AM - 22 Apr 2014


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 02:56:54 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?

I have never heard that in my almost 40 years of BB fandom. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Actually, yeah, it does.  :)

Maybe so. I'll scour my archives.

If you've ever scoured your archives, you know how painful it can be.

No, but I once tethered my coconuts: painful, yet strangely exhilarating.*

[* anyone gets this reference, sir, I tip my hat, and upon my demise Bellagio Towers and all therein shall be willed to you]


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 03:01:54 PM
Hasn't Tony Asher or Brian said that initially he or Brian were wanting to use the shortened phrase "Good Vibes" but it ended up as "Good Vibrations" for some reason. Am I remembering that or did I dream it?

I have never heard that in my almost 40 years of BB fandom. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Actually, yeah, it does.  :)

Maybe so. I'll scour my archives.

If you've ever scoured your archives, you know how painful it can be.

No, but I once tethered my coconuts: painful, yet strangely exhilarating.*

[* anyone gets this reference, sir, I tip my hat, and upon my demise Bellagio Towers and all therein shall be willed to you]

Disturbing and no I don't get it.

It doesn't take me long to scour. From e-mail with Tony on April 15 1999:

Me: Did you write your lyric for "Good Vibrations" after that first instrumental tracking session for the song in mid February 1966?<

Tony: No. I don't know exactly when I wrote it in terms of the date. But it was before any sessions. Brian just played a riff on the piano and said that he wanted to write a song about this thing that his mother had told him: that dogs could get vibrations from people, so that's why you shouldn't be scared around a dog when it barks at you. Her theory was that if you acted confident, the dog would get the vibes and leave you alone. All Brian had at the time was a feel and maybe some chord changes.

Me: Was your original title "Good, Good, Good Vibrations"?

Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 20, 2015, 03:04:16 PM
Thanks for sharing that exchange Cam.

As you suggested earlier, maybe both inspirations for GV are valid?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 03:10:35 PM
Thanks for sharing that exchange Cam.

As you suggested earlier, maybe both inspirations for GV are valid?

Is this thread over yet?  Is it gonna be pulled like the last one? 'Cause anybody reading it doesn't have the original reference thread to read anymore so it's kinda hard to tie it to anything.

Who's gonna win the Super Bowl?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 03:11:37 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Ray Lawlor on January 20, 2015, 03:18:09 PM
I mean, AGD usually has a field day with posters and guys like Daro (remember Barbie?) Wouldn't that be more fun than running someone's ass off the board right away?

May I mildly point out that I, personally, ran no-one off in this instance ? I stated my problems with the article and the poster... and next thing I knew, the thread was gone.

That said, he would have jumped ship anyway, as he didn't strike me as someone amenable to correction and reasoned argument. His basic tenets were "I was there" and "Brian told me...".

Andrew ; No , you did not run this guy off the board; I was sitting here watching the Brian thread , I had just read a post , from I think Mujon, and I saw Daro sign in. He was not on the board long enough to read two sentences , and he signed off, and he never came on again. This was about 4:45 my time ( New York).  I think he just saw the Brian thing , and exited stage left. Quickly.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: runnersdialzero on January 20, 2015, 04:23:30 PM
Just how hot is Lorren Daro's wife?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Custom Machine on January 20, 2015, 04:33:47 PM
Yesterday's Daro thread needs to be reinstated and merged with this thread.

I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

The stuff Daro posted yesterday was an update, with some additional info, of stuff he posted on the web in 2012, which was discussed on this board at the time.  Then a big surprise occurred two years later when, after reading Daro's comments, Van Dyke Parks tweeted, "Why am I always the last to know? This explains so much.  Some truth well served."

Personally, I found many of Lorren Daro's comments to come across as vindictive, sophomoric, and inflated in self importance.  His comments about Marilyn Wilson were particularly juvenile and distasteful, and there were obvious inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright bullshit in much of what he said.

In other words, the guy really did himself no favors in posting what he did, but on the other had he was an influential player in BW's life at a pivotal time in BW/BB history, and as students of the history of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys I think it's imperative that we have the opportunity to hear from anyone who played an important role, at one time or another, in the history of the band and its members.

Mods, please reconsider.  Reinstate the original thread, and merge this one with it.  In my opinion Daro further damaged his reputation by posting on this board, but  regardless of what he said, from a historical standpoint Daro's comments need to be part of the discussion on this, the premier Brian Wilson / Beach Boys message board, as do the comments of the SS message board members whose posts were also deleted when the original thread was axed.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 20, 2015, 05:15:00 PM
I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

Exactly.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 20, 2015, 05:49:30 PM
When all is said and done, and it's not yet, I'm going with the one who was there at the time. There is no more authentic take on any subject than being present with the players in the same setting at the time it went down. Nothing...nothing can substitute that experience. You may not like the man, or his point of view but don't judge  him on a few posts, give credit where credit is due. He was infinitely closer to the scene than the majority here. In other words, let's not  shoot the messenger because someone here thinks they know better. Were you there in the mid sixties? Did you experience being with Brian and his family like this guy did, huh? Quite honestly, I'd like to see as much light as he cares to shed about all things Beach Boys because there is much more to learn regardless of who you are or what you think you know. 


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Jim Rockford on January 20, 2015, 05:50:30 PM
The mods made the right choice in my opinion.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike Garneau on January 20, 2015, 05:53:25 PM
Thanks for sharing that exchange Cam.

As you suggested earlier, maybe both inspirations for GV are valid?

Is this thread over yet?  Is it gonna be pulled like the last one? 'Cause anybody reading it doesn't have the original reference thread to read anymore so it's kinda hard to tie it to anything.

Who's gonna win the Super Bowl?

Patriots


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 06:11:06 PM
I read the entire thread as it was happening yesterday and it was clear that Daro was attempting to respond to all comers, doing what anyone who found himself in something akin to a "state of siege" would do--look for those who were responding with what appeared to him to be a civll tone and trying to build some kind of sense of exchange.

A question. Why suddenly decide to respond, and most immoderately, to perceived criticisms of a blog post that was over two years old ? Which criticsms, I might add, were deleted, assuming they ever existed: the blog as I saw it yesterday had precisely two comments, one of which was lauding it and the other begin from Darro himself dated within the last few days.

As for my post being pungently hostile... I merely listed the most annoying/improbable aspects of it. I'd like to eb able to read it again to check, but that's my recollection.

Andrew, I was merely indulging in some humor there, based on your well-established persona. I refer to the collective effect, and not to you personally. My apologies if it reads another way.

Again, I think to categorically assume that Daro could be dismissed out of hand from one or two pointed questions is unfounded. It reads to me like justifying collective behavior (and rationalizing what appears at the moment to be akin to a "cover-up) after the fact.

It is not one of the board's best moments, and it is odd and sad that it occurred on the same day that Brian posted here. I do not think, however, that it makes sense to try to connect those dots.

Loren Daro is, according to these posts, 77 years old and has probably created more problems for himself "per capita" due to his own personality than any ten of us here. He may have some justification for feeling haunted and hounded: without a more sensitive set of interactions, we likely will never know that (or not). Opportunity missed, even if odds are 70%+ that it would prove a dead end.

With all due respect, do you even hear yourself? Cover-up? Really? You're giving the whole situation WAY more gravity than it deserves. A raunchy, delusional old man came, said nothing of value, left and the thread was deleted presumably out of respect for Brian. End of story. The only one who ought to be ashamed of what they said in that thread is Daro himself. Perhaps you could argue the thread be reinstated for historical/curiosity purposes, but there's no conspiracy here as you insinuate.

As far as I know, no sites are hosting critical dialogues on him. No one attacked him on his essay page. If he feels hounded he must be the most sensitive man alive--very ironic considering he has no problem saying whatever rude drivel he can think about anyone else in the beach boys world.

AGD didn't ask him what he had for breakfast April 20, 1966. These are basic, well-established facts that he got wrong. If you're coming here as an authority and trying to set the record straight, you need to know your stuff.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 06:13:49 PM
As he progressed initially...his verbiage deteriorated.  It could be that he was in a hurry.  It could be that he was getting tired.  It could be that he was drinking as he hovered and waited to respond to responses.  For whatever reason his level of comprehension or at least the ability to communicate lessened.

You'd be like that too, Lee, if you started receiving incoming flak from posters!
::)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 06:22:43 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

This is getting ridiculous. Hey y'know what, Brian wrote GV about my uncle Charlie. He told me so in a PM. Yeah, Uncle Charlie would always talk about getting "excitations" from young women. He referred to my aunt rose's vagina as "a blossom room" and always encouraged her to wear colorful blouses.

Uncle Charlie was "there" you see. So we have to take that into account now. He was "there" and you weren't.

Hey you suppose Brian wrote it about the 3 of them? And where does that leave the Lovester's contribution/inspiration?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Jim Rockford on January 20, 2015, 06:38:15 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

This is getting ridiculous. Hey y'know what, Brian wrote GV about my uncle Charlie. He told me so in a PM. Yeah, Uncle Charlie would always talk about getting "excitations" from young women. He referred to my aunt rose's vagina as "a blossom room" and always encouraged her to wear colorful blouses.

Uncle Charlie was "there" you see. So we have to take that into account now. He was "there" and you weren't.

Hey you suppose Brian wrote it about the 3 of them? And where does that leave the Lovester's contribution/inspiration?

He watched. :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 20, 2015, 07:15:10 PM
Yesterday's Daro thread needs to be reinstated and merged with this thread.

I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

The stuff Daro posted yesterday was an update, with some additional info, of stuff he posted on the web in 2012, which was discussed on this board at the time.  Then a big surprise occurred two years later when, after reading Daro's comments, Van Dyke Parks tweeted, "Why am I always the last to know? This explains so much.  Some truth well served."

Personally, I found many of Lorren Daro's comments to come across as vindictive, sophomoric, and inflated in self importance.  His comments about Marilyn Wilson were particularly juvenile and distasteful, and there were obvious inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright bullshit in much of what he said.

In other words, the guy really did himself no favors in posting what he did, but on the other had he was an influential player in BW's life at a pivotal time in BW/BB history, and as students of the history of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys I think it's imperative that we have the opportunity to hear from anyone who played an important role, at one time or another, in the history of the band and its members.

Mods, please reconsider.  Reinstate the original thread, and merge this one with it.  In my opinion Daro further damaged his reputation by posting on this board, but  regardless of what he said, from a historical standpoint Daro's comments need to be part of the discussion on this, the premier Brian Wilson / Beach Boys message board, as do the comments of the SS message board members whose posts were also deleted when the original thread was axed.


I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, but I just got home from work a little bit ago and had to get caught up with the latest posts.

I want to make several things clear. First of all, this decision was one made by us moderators, and *only* us moderators. We weren't pressured or influenced in any way to take it down. In fact, the initial gut reaction I had *was* to take it down, but I decided to keep it up a bit longer to see where it was going to go. Looking at it yesterday with a clear objective head, though, we felt it was prudent to remove it, as there were several things posted by Mr. Daro that were crossing the line in many areas, least of which were the fact that they were out and out falsehoods, and borderline libelous. With that said, he was *not* banned nor asked to leave. The problem wasn't the poster but rather the content (and the delivery). I don't know why the post at the Hoffman board was removed, and quite frankly doesn't concern me. That is the Hoffman board, and this is the Smiley Smile board.

I'm not quoting this post by Custom Machine in response to him, but rather because it touches on several things that were a major factor in the removal of the thread. I understand why there is some doubt, and I do understand why it is indeed important to have it kept rather than destroyed, for archival purposes. Rest assured that the thread has been saved, not erased, and maybe one time in the future it can be revisited. For now, however, please understand that because of the potential damage certain statements could cause, the thread had to be moved for the time being.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 07:20:10 PM
Yesterday's Daro thread needs to be reinstated and merged with this thread.

I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

The stuff Daro posted yesterday was an update, with some additional info, of stuff he posted on the web in 2012, which was discussed on this board at the time.  Then a big surprise occurred two years later when, after reading Daro's comments, Van Dyke Parks tweeted, "Why am I always the last to know? This explains so much.  Some truth well served."

Personally, I found many of Lorren Daro's comments to come across as vindictive, sophomoric, and inflated in self importance.  His comments about Marilyn Wilson were particularly juvenile and distasteful, and there were obvious inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright bullshit in much of what he said.

In other words, the guy really did himself no favors in posting what he did, but on the other had he was an influential player in BW's life at a pivotal time in BW/BB history, and as students of the history of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys I think it's imperative that we have the opportunity to hear from anyone who played an important role, at one time or another, in the history of the band and its members.

Mods, please reconsider.  Reinstate the original thread, and merge this one with it.  In my opinion Daro further damaged his reputation by posting on this board, but  regardless of what he said, from a historical standpoint Daro's comments need to be part of the discussion on this, the premier Brian Wilson / Beach Boys message board, as do the comments of the SS message board members whose posts were also deleted when the original thread was axed.


Ya...This is about exactly where I sit. :hat


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 07:28:05 PM
Yesterday's Daro thread needs to be reinstated and merged with this thread.

I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

The stuff Daro posted yesterday was an update, with some additional info, of stuff he posted on the web in 2012, which was discussed on this board at the time.  Then a big surprise occurred two years later when, after reading Daro's comments, Van Dyke Parks tweeted, "Why am I always the last to know? This explains so much.  Some truth well served."

Personally, I found many of Lorren Daro's comments to come across as vindictive, sophomoric, and inflated in self importance.  His comments about Marilyn Wilson were particularly juvenile and distasteful, and there were obvious inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright bullshit in much of what he said.

In other words, the guy really did himself no favors in posting what he did, but on the other had he was an influential player in BW's life at a pivotal time in BW/BB history, and as students of the history of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys I think it's imperative that we have the opportunity to hear from anyone who played an important role, at one time or another, in the history of the band and its members.

Mods, please reconsider.  Reinstate the original thread, and merge this one with it.  In my opinion Daro further damaged his reputation by posting on this board, but  regardless of what he said, from a historical standpoint Daro's comments need to be part of the discussion on this, the premier Brian Wilson / Beach Boys message board, as do the comments of the SS message board members whose posts were also deleted when the original thread was axed.


I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, but I just got home from work a little bit ago and had to get caught up with the latest posts.

I want to make several things clear. First of all, this decision was one made by us moderators, and *only* us moderators. We weren't pressured or influenced in any way to take it down. In fact, the initial gut reaction I had *was* to take it down, but I decided to keep it up a bit longer to see where it was going to go. Looking at it yesterday with a clear objective head, though, we felt it was prudent to remove it, as there were several things posted by Mr. Daro that were crossing the line in many areas, least of which were the fact that they were out and out falsehoods, and borderline libelous. With that said, he was *not* banned nor asked to leave. The problem wasn't the poster but rather the content (and the delivery). I don't know why the post at the Hoffman board was removed, and quite frankly doesn't concern me. That is the Hoffman board, and this is the Smiley Smile board.

I'm not quoting this post by Custom Machine in response to him, but rather because it touches on several things that were a major factor in the removal of the thread. I understand why there is some doubt, and I do understand why it is indeed important to have it kept rather than destroyed, for archival purposes. Rest assured that the thread has been saved, not erased, and maybe one time in the future it can be revisited. For now, however, please understand that because of the potential damage certain statements could cause, the thread had to be moved for the time being.
:hat Sounds sensible enough to me. I dig the new pic, although I do miss Scarecrow.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 20, 2015, 07:32:22 PM
:lol I wish I could take credit for it, but it came from this board!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 07:39:01 PM
:lol I wish I could take credit for it, but it came from this board!

Yes, from bossaro. Now all we need is for Brian to upload the other to *his* Facebook and it can all come full circle!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: bgas on January 20, 2015, 07:41:02 PM
Yesterday's Daro thread needs to be reinstated and merged with this thread.

I appreciate the work the mods do, but they clearly made a mistake in deleting yesterday's Daro thread after they received news that a similar thread had been taken down on the Hoffman board.  Over on the Hoffman board threads are taken down with regularity, for unexplained and often dubious reasons, but there is no reason for the SS board to follow suit.

The stuff Daro posted yesterday was an update, with some additional info, of stuff he posted on the web in 2012, which was discussed on this board at the time.  Then a big surprise occurred two years later when, after reading Daro's comments, Van Dyke Parks tweeted, "Why am I always the last to know? This explains so much.  Some truth well served."

Personally, I found many of Lorren Daro's comments to come across as vindictive, sophomoric, and inflated in self importance.  His comments about Marilyn Wilson were particularly juvenile and distasteful, and there were obvious inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright bullshit in much of what he said.

In other words, the guy really did himself no favors in posting what he did, but on the other had he was an influential player in BW's life at a pivotal time in BW/BB history, and as students of the history of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys I think it's imperative that we have the opportunity to hear from anyone who played an important role, at one time or another, in the history of the band and its members.

Mods, please reconsider.  Reinstate the original thread, and merge this one with it.  In my opinion Daro further damaged his reputation by posting on this board, but  regardless of what he said, from a historical standpoint Daro's comments need to be part of the discussion on this, the premier Brian Wilson / Beach Boys message board, as do the comments of the SS message board members whose posts were also deleted when the original thread was axed.


I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, but I just got home from work a little bit ago and had to get caught up with the latest posts.

I want to make several things clear. First of all, this decision was one made by us moderators, and *only* us moderators. We weren't pressured or influenced in any way to take it down. In fact, the initial gut reaction I had *was* to take it down, but I decided to keep it up a bit longer to see where it was going to go. Looking at it yesterday with a clear objective head, though, we felt it was prudent to remove it, as there were several things posted by Mr. Daro that were crossing the line in many areas, least of which were the fact that they were out and out falsehoods, and borderline libelous. With that said, he was *not* banned nor asked to leave. The problem wasn't the poster but rather the content (and the delivery). I don't know why the post at the Hoffman board was removed, and quite frankly doesn't concern me. That is the Hoffman board, and this is the Smiley Smile board.

I'm not quoting this post by Custom Machine in response to him, but rather because it touches on several things that were a major factor in the removal of the thread. I understand why there is some doubt, and I do understand why it is indeed important to have it kept rather than destroyed, for archival purposes. Rest assured that the thread has been saved, not erased, and maybe one time in the future it can be revisited. For now, however, please understand that because of the potential damage certain statements could cause, the thread had to be moved for the time being.

Perhaps one, or all, of the mods can explain to us less enlightened folks how Mr Daro posting something possibly libelous is a threat to this very public, un-moderated board; Un-moderated in this sense meaning of course that every post is not first approved by a nod before it can be viewed.
Personally I don't see how any post by anyone here could ever be construed as having been approved by the owner/managent of the board, unless/until each and every post has to pass mod scrutiny before seeing the light of day.  


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2015, 07:45:04 PM
This is now two explanations which have been posted regarding this issue. The decision was made, it was discussed before it was made, and at this point as Billy said the thread has simply been moved. It has to stand as that. I totally understand posting disagreements and opinions, but at some point this cannot become an ongoing complaint department thread on this stuff, out of all things.

Many have complained about the lack of positivity and the overall negative tone of the board, I'd ask that in return those people read this thread and see what good rehashing this for a dozen more pages would bring to this board. Understand that is not the reason behind the actions, as Billy clearly explained, but just consider what this has led to. Or not.

Anyone who wants to read the original message which was reposted here and on the Hoffman board can easily find it. You could even engage the debates and challenges on those pages, and post comments and challenges directly to the author. But the decision was made as far as its third overall online appearance on this board, and as Billy said there were other factors involved. And for the third time stated in this post, no one was asked to leave, driven off the board, banned, or removed in any way. I'd ask those who suggested such things happened in this case reconsider what they posted and possibly consider that such knee-jerk reactions having little or no knowledge of the situation can create a lot of bad vibes. The use of "vibes" was deliberate.

I agree with and support what Billy said 100%, in fact at this point it's more like 110%. This whole thing is sad. 'Nuff said from me.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2015, 07:54:44 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

This is getting ridiculous. Hey y'know what, Brian wrote GV about my uncle Charlie. He told me so in a PM. Yeah, Uncle Charlie would always talk about getting "excitations" from young women. He referred to my aunt rose's vagina as "a blossom room" and always encouraged her to wear colorful blouses.

Uncle Charlie was "there" you see. So we have to take that into account now. He was "there" and you weren't.

Hey you suppose Brian wrote it about the 3 of them? And where does that leave the Lovester's contribution/inspiration?

Oh no, I think it obviously has always only been a love song to a dog.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 20, 2015, 08:04:46 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

This is getting ridiculous. Hey y'know what, Brian wrote GV about my uncle Charlie. He told me so in a PM. Yeah, Uncle Charlie would always talk about getting "excitations" from young women. He referred to my aunt rose's vagina as "a blossom room" and always encouraged her to wear colorful blouses.

Uncle Charlie was "there" you see. So we have to take that into account now. He was "there" and you weren't.

Hey you suppose Brian wrote it about the 3 of them? And where does that leave the Lovester's contribution/inspiration?

Oh no, I think it obviously has always only been a love song to a dog.

I think you all need to take it literally and see it was written about a vibrator.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Shady on January 20, 2015, 08:08:00 PM
It was initially unnerving to say the least seeing his comments about Marilyn. That increased ten fold when Brian posted.

Smart move by the mods pulling the thread.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Matt Etherton on January 20, 2015, 08:19:00 PM
I normally just read and never join in, but I must say, that thread was AWESOME. I was hoping it'd last longer; I love reading all my favorite posters comments...then to have a guy who was borderline nuts yet somehow partially convincing at times was extra fun!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: debonbon on January 20, 2015, 08:32:34 PM
Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Shady on January 20, 2015, 08:35:41 PM
Business just picked up.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 08:38:24 PM
Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

Still I wonder if he means it or is just playing the other side as a passive aggressive "f*** you" to Brian.

Business just picked up.

Yeah...for better or worse this "story" ain't going away so soon.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Shady on January 20, 2015, 08:42:34 PM
Maybe this is how VDP gets his kicks these days


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 20, 2015, 08:43:38 PM
Wait, so does Van Dyke Parks read this forum too???


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Matt Etherton on January 20, 2015, 08:46:17 PM
Van Dyke's twit today is timed too well to think he doesn't read this board.  This place is far more entertaining than watching TV!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
Wait, so does Van Dyke Parks read this forum too???

We ought to lock him, Brian and Mike in a thread until they're all best buds


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: debonbon on January 20, 2015, 08:46:56 PM
I think more what he is getting at is to not believe everything you hear. The man loves word play.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 20, 2015, 08:47:24 PM
Wait, so does Van Dyke Parks read this forum too???

Sure...Van Dyke Parks and Rec. :lol


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 08:48:03 PM
Van Dyke's twit today is timed too well to think he doesn't read this board.  This place is far more entertaining than watching TV!

Hey VDP...Whatchu think of my SMiLE mixes?? :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 08:55:47 PM
Excellent well-worded posts by Jason, Buddahat, Don, OSD, and Custom Machine to show support of the original thread staying intact. Very good responses by Billy and GF to support their views and why they agreed to abscond with the thread. Hopefully we can somehow rejuvenate the original thread and tie it to this one. Maybe the slanderous comments and statements that violated the rules can be edited out somehow. Maybe Mr. Daro will come back for a proper dialogue; I believe it would be entertaining and educational at the same time.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 20, 2015, 08:56:15 PM
Hey VDP...Whatchu think of my SMiLE mixes?? :)

"I heard it as an aromatic medley of opportunistic tranquility." - What Van Dyke Parks might say.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 20, 2015, 09:07:14 PM
Excellent well-worded posts by Jason, Buddahat, Don, and Custom Machine to show support of the original thread staying intact. Very good responses by Billy and GF to support their views and why they agreed to abscond with the thread. Hopefully we can somehow rejuvenate the original thread and tie it to this one. Maybe the slanderous comments and statements that violated the rules can be edited out somehow. Maybe Mr. Daro will come back for a proper dialogue; I believe it would be entertaining and educational at the same time.

I second this.

I really don't understand the majority of responses here.  Everyone wants to know what really happened, but when we get a visit from someone who was there you rage against him.  Sorry, it doesn't make sense.  Because he doesn't like Marilyn?  I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but she doesn't need an army of white knights on the Smiley Smile forum to protect her.  And somebody not liking one of their friend's spouses is hardly unusual.  He's entitled to his opinions, popular or not.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Gerry on January 20, 2015, 09:09:41 PM
So, to sum up, does this mean that Murry was right about Mr. Schwartz?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 20, 2015, 09:31:17 PM
Gerry, if that was really Lorren, I wanted to see if he remembered the Beach Boys recording sessions, specifically the Rhonda session with Murry. On the session tape, you hear Brian ask Lorren to "get the guys" to come back into the studio after their break.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 20, 2015, 09:34:53 PM
what if vdp is actually daro


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 09:47:10 PM
Excellent well-worded posts by Jason, Buddahat, Don, and Custom Machine to show support of the original thread staying intact. Very good responses by Billy and GF to support their views and why they agreed to abscond with the thread. Hopefully we can somehow rejuvenate the original thread and tie it to this one. Maybe the slanderous comments and statements that violated the rules can be edited out somehow. Maybe Mr. Daro will come back for a proper dialogue; I believe it would be entertaining and educational at the same time.

I second this.

I really don't understand the majority of responses here.  Everyone wants to know what really happened, but when we get a visit from someone who was there you rage against him.  Sorry, it doesn't make sense.  Because he doesn't like Marilyn?  I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but she doesn't need an army of white knights on the Smiley Smile forum to protect her.  And somebody not liking one of their friend's spouses is hardly unusual.  He's entitled to his opinions, popular or not.

Because he was abusive and very, VERY likely spinning the truth to such a degree that his input was worthless. Just because he was "there" doesn't make his account reliable. Should he come back though, sure, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone. I never intended to run him off, if my comments were the cause, and I've spoken my peace anyway.

It's not that Marilyn *needs* defending so much as I hate to see a good person so shamelessly put down. Call it whatever you want. Although I detest that particular term, as my understanding of it is where the guy hopes to be "rewarded" for his kindness. And somehow, I doubt Marilyn is interested. I call it being a decent person. Potato po-tah-toe maybe. Either way, that's the mother of Brian's children and he's probably the reason we're all here. Not to start that again, but is it really so crazy to think she deserves to be respected and defended if need be?

In any case, that was just one of many problems with Daro if you read this thread.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 09:52:12 PM
Hey VDP...Whatchu think of my SMiLE mixes?? :)

"I heard it as an aromatic medley of opportunistic tranquility." - What Van Dyke Parks might say.

Uhh...thanks, Van :lol


If he is Daro, that's certainly the best (worst?) trolling of all time and more than a little pathetic...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 20, 2015, 09:53:24 PM
Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

VDP was one of the few people Darro wasn't insulting, in fact praising.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 09:56:07 PM
Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

VDP was one of the few people Darro wasn't insulting, in fact praising.

Him and Brian's stoner friends I believe.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 20, 2015, 10:04:43 PM
There is so much Bullhonky out there regarding who are the heroes and who are the villains, that I could never come to any definitive conclusions about anybody who hovered around their inner circle.

In real life relations there are no heroes and villains, just humans with flaws.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 10:24:05 PM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

Brian has always stated very specifically that his mom told him about dogs & vibrations (just as he's always said it was Danny Hutton's calling everyone "Darlin'" that was responsible for another BB classic title). Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if Darro's wife had inspired him, he'd have told Tony "hey Loren's wife keeps saying "Good Vibes", what a great name for a song!" or some such.

As for VDP's tweet... I'm slightly flattered that he seemingly referenced a post of mine but the fact is, his original tweet on the topic was some 8 months old.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 20, 2015, 10:26:08 PM
He made another tweet on the topic two hours ago.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 10:42:46 PM
When all is said and done, and it's not yet, I'm going with the one who was there at the time. There is no more authentic take on any subject than being present with the players in the same setting at the time it went down. Nothing...nothing can substitute that experience. You may not like the man, or his point of view but don't judge  him on a few posts, give credit where credit is due. He was infinitely closer to the scene than the majority here. In other words, let's not  shoot the messenger because someone here thinks they know better. Were you there in the mid sixties? Did you experience being with Brian and his family like this guy did, huh? Quite honestly, I'd like to see as much light as he cares to shed about all things Beach Boys because there is much more to learn regardless of who you are or what you think you know.  

An excellent and well-expressed post. Aside from his physical appearence and cackling in the DVD (and in this I'm not alone), the problem I have with giving his recent claims due gravitas are that they run counter to what a lot of other folk who were also there at the time have said, and that his sole proof is, in essence, "Brian lied to everyone else, but he told me the truth." The claims about Brian's 1991 book are so very easy to prove to be untrue, and note, he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics... then claimed that Brian wrote "IJWMFTT" and "GV" about him, and his wife, in the latter case actually using the words "listen to the lyrics"... which, aside from directly contradicting what he'd already said, were written by Mike in the latter instance. The relation of Brian's first trip has changed somewhat with each retelling. Based on these grounds, and his unfortunate mode of expression coupled with a disrespect for some key players, it's very hard to take him seriously, the more so when, as Ray noted, he apparently skedaddled as soon as he saw Brian was here. Why not stick around as ask Brian to confirm his claims ?

But to me, the most bizarre aspect of the whole farrago is that two years after the article was posted to seeming general indifference, he turns up here and elsewhere out of nowhere, all guns blazing, saying he's putting the record straight on criticisms that, unless I've missed something, no-one can find, certainly not on his own blog. To crib my ol' drinking buddy Will, methinks he doth protest too much. Before this, Darro was known, perhaps unfairly, for one thing and one thing only in the BB fan world: he was the guy who gave Brian LSD, an experience Brian later said shattered him, blew his mind and not in a good way. Now, suddenly, he's Brian's #1 buddy and the only person to protect him from all the others seeking to hitch a ride on his coattails. On the available evidence, I'd have to say he didn't do much of a job.

A final observation: being there at the time doesn't guarantee accurate recall. I've been that Person X wasn't at a particular session by Person Y (who also was present), yet the former is both listed on the AFM sheet and clearly audible on the session tapes.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 20, 2015, 10:43:56 PM
He made another tweet on the topic two hours ago.

Yes, I know - hence my reference to the original tweet.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 20, 2015, 11:13:03 PM
When all is said and done, and it's not yet, I'm going with the one who was there at the time. There is no more authentic take on any subject than being present with the players in the same setting at the time it went down. Nothing...nothing can substitute that experience. You may not like the man, or his point of view but don't judge  him on a few posts, give credit where credit is due. He was infinitely closer to the scene than the majority here. In other words, let's not  shoot the messenger because someone here thinks they know better. Were you there in the mid sixties? Did you experience being with Brian and his family like this guy did, huh? Quite honestly, I'd like to see as much light as he cares to shed about all things Beach Boys because there is much more to learn regardless of who you are or what you think you know.  

An excellent and well-expressed post. Aside from his physical appearence and cackling in the DVD (and in this I'm not alone), the problem I have with giving his recent claims due gravitas are that they run counter to what a lot of other folk who were also there at the time have said, and that his sole proof is, in essence, "Brian lied to everyone else, but he told me the truth." The claims about Brian's 1991 book are so very easy to prove to be untrue, and note, he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics... then claimed that Brian wrote "IJWMFTT" and "GV" about him, and his wife, in the latter case actually using the words "listen to the lyrics"... which, aside from directly contradicting what he'd already said, were written by Mike in the latter instance. The relation of Brian's first trip has changed somewhat with each retelling. Based on these grounds, and his unfortunate mode of expression coupled with a disrespect for some key players, it's very hard to take him seriously, the more so when, as Ray noted, he apparently skedaddled as soon as he saw Brian was here. Why not stick around as ask Brian to confirm his claims ?

But to me, the most bizarre aspect of the whole farrago is that two years after the article was posted to seeming general indifference, he turns up here and elsewhere out of nowhere, all guns blazing, saying he's putting the record straight on criticisms that, unless I've missed something, no-one can find, certainly not on his own blog. To crib my ol' drinking buddy Will, methinks he doth protest too much. Before this, Darro was known, perhaps unfairly, for one thing and one thing only in the BB fan world: he was the guy who gave Brian LSD, an experience Brian later said shattered him, blew his mind and not in a good way. Now, suddenly, he's Brian's #1 buddy and the only person to protect him from all the others seeking to hitch a ride on his coattails. On the available evidence, I'd have to say he didn't do much of a job.

A final observation: being there at the time doesn't guarantee accurate recall. I've been that Person X wasn't at a particular session by Person Y (who also was present), yet the former is both listed on the AFM sheet and clearly audible on the session tapes.

 :woot Absolutely wonderful response, AGD. You summed it up perfectly. :woot

 :thumbsup We can end this thread here, gentlemen. There's really nothing more to be said after that. :thumbsup


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: luckyoldsmile on January 21, 2015, 12:07:07 AM
Doesn't necessarily mean anything, and sure isn't related to Daro ...

But ...

Doesn't the David Marks "Lost Beach Boys" book have David claiming some of the good vibrations stuff being because of his mother?

Been a while since I read the book, but for the life of me, I have some memory of having read that.

Anyway. Not refuting dogs, Brian's mom, groovy chicks or anything. I wasn't there, and don't PARTICULARLY care about the origin (I love the song on its own merits).



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 04:00:52 AM
Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.

Ah... note, "everyone", not "Loren's hot wife".

"Everyone" would include Lorren's hot wife Linda, ol' pal o' mine. (batting my eyes your way)

Brian has always stated very specifically that his mom told him about dogs & vibrations (just as he's always said it was Danny Hutton's calling everyone "Darlin'" that was responsible for another BB classic title). Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if Darro's wife had inspired him, he'd have told Tony "hey Loren's wife keeps saying "Good Vibes", what a great name for a song!" or some such.

As for VDP's tweet... I'm slightly flattered that he seemingly referenced a post of mine but the fact is, his original tweet on the topic was some 8 months old.

Did Brian say he named after Hutton or did Hutton say it was named after Hutton?

Either way, I'm not arguing with you old friend or the dog story. There is plenty to criticize, doubt, dispute, and argue with but the claim that Brian may have told someone that their wife was also an inspiration of GV has not been discredited yet. Both could be true.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 04:02:52 AM
Aside from his physical appearence and cackling in the DVD (and in this I'm not alone),

Again, I'm astonished to hear you reiterate your belief that his physical appearance on the BD doc somehow undermines the authenticity of his claims. Using your own logic, where you call into question the veracity of a subject's entire recollection of events because you can prove they got one detail wrong (I see you do this time and time again), it should be perfectly acceptable for me to rubbish your opinions of Lorren Daro based on your blatant prejudice towards his physical appearance. Please, I would love to hear how, as an historian apparently dedicated to ideals of truth and factual accuracy, you can defend the act of judging someone's words based on their physical appearance? By your own rationale it should be OK for me to come on here and rubbish all Mike Love's recollections of the BB glory days because I think he looks a bit sleazy on stage these days, or because he was shitty about Brian on that 'Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous' show in the 80s. Trust me, ML comes across far worse on far more archival interview footage than Daro does in that doc.

However, I don't share your 'it's all true or none of it is' philosophy and so therefore wanted to respond to some of the more interesting points you make:

he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics...

As I said earlier, this is a good point. Daro does contradict himself here. However, being that Daro is not a BB fanboy like the rest of us, it's entirely feasible that he was unaware that Brian, during his career, occasionally contributed to the lyrics, or wrote them entirely. I imagine it would be easy to spend a lot of time with Brian during the Pet Sounds/Smile period and leave thinking that Brian never wrote his own lyrics.

then claimed that Brian wrote "IJWMFTT" and "GV" about him, and his wife, in the latter case actually using the words "listen to the lyrics"... which, aside from directly contradicting what he'd already said, were written by Mike in the latter instance.

As I said earlier, we know Brian took concepts in to writing sessions with Asher, so could easily have asked Asher to write a song about being out of step with the times (a concept inspired by discussions with Daro), then told Daro that the song was written about him. If Daro goes on to claim Brian wrote the song about Daro, he could mean 'write' in the loosest of terms i.e. that Brian took the concept to Asher who wrote the lyrics. Daro would therefore not be contradicting himself there. Brian did part-write the lyrical concept inasmuch as he supplied the initial concept. And, no, I'm not claiming that Daro's account of IJWMFTT is true - just creating an example of how, knowing BW's working process with Asher, Daro could simultaneously claim that Brian never wrote his own songs, yet wrote IJWMFTT for Daro. He's not lying - just clumsy with his phrasing and historical knowledge of BW's writing practice.


Me: Was your original title "Good, Good, Good Vibrations"?

Don't remember. Brian wanted the lyric to include "Good Vibes" instead of vibrations. He argued that the expression that everyone used was "vibes" not vibrations. I acknowledged that, but convinced him that using vibes would trivialize the lyric.


As for GV, although it pains me slightly AGD, I need to bow to your superior knowledge of the facts here: How come Asher claims to have written the Good Vibrations bit as per Cam's post above? Do we know for certain the Mike wrote that bit?  Either way, Cam's quote does lend some credence to Daro's claim that GV was about Lynda inasmuch as we have a quote where one of the song's writers (prior to and seemingly unaware of Daro's claim it should be noted) describes it being a phrase everyone was using and that Brian brought it to his attention. Yes, 'everyone' is not the same as 'Lynda' but maybe Brian was thinking of Lynda when he told him 'everyone is using the phrase'. Or maybe Asher is just generalising, or misremembering the fine details of that writing session. Again here, Brian, having taken the intial concept of the Good Vibes phrase in to Asher, could then have told Daro he wrote the song about Lynda. Although it's far from a smoking gun, Cam's quote does strengthen Daro's claim imo.

As for the Audree, dog story - Need we choose one or the other? Why can't both the Audree and Lynda stories be true? Sometimes various sources of inspiration can coalesce to form the basis of a song, surely?

it's very hard to take him seriously, the more so when, as Ray noted, he apparently skedaddled as soon as he saw Brian was here. Why not stick around as ask Brian to confirm his claims ?

I don't understand the reasoning behind the above point. Do any of us really believe that BW would answer anything other than safe, brand-friendly, questions on this board? Why should Daro exiting as BW arrives undermine the honesty of his claims? Daro, although saying some insensitive things about Brian, appears to remember him as a friend. I expect he was embarrassed to see BW show up at the exact same time. Really, what were the odds? If he'd stuck around and said more insensitive things you'd be criticising him for rubbing it in Brian's face. Leaving at that point (if BW's presence was a contributing factor) was a sensible thing to do.  I have been critical of Mike Love on the board and I suspect if he were to show up and start posting, I'd promptly log off in embarrassment. It doesn't mean I don't believe what I was posting, just that I'd rather not make my points direct to Mike Love's face.

A final observation: being there at the time doesn't guarantee accurate recall. I've been that Person X wasn't at a particular session by Person Y (who also was present), yet the former is both listed on the AFM sheet and clearly audible on the session tapes.

Of course witnessing historical events first hand isn't a guarantee for perfect recall of facts. Most of us arguing in support of Daro's presence on the board are suggesting that Daro's being there adds value to the information he's supplying compared to Jo Schmo hypothesising on what ifs 40 years down the line, behind a computer screen in another continent. Daro's is another perspective from a Smile-era insider that, just as we do with the words of Vosse, Anderle, Siegel etc. we can examine and analyse rationally, or at least that was the hope before egos, fear and small-mindness threw a spanner in the works.

Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

Finally, I find it surprising that you haven't at least expressed a passing interest in VDP's latest quote. Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons? Or are you also struggling with the 'inconvenience' that VDP alludes to? I would be interested to hear your take on the comment, and on VDP's integrity. From other corners of the board I can already see it being called into question based on VDP's lack of positivity towards Brian of late.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 05:10:41 AM
I thought that vibes story had been published since I heard it:
http://www.npr.org/2000/06/19/1075634/good-vibrations



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 05:45:06 AM
As far as I know, no sites are hosting critical dialogues on him. No one attacked him on his essay page. If he feels hounded he must be the most sensitive man alive--very ironic considering he has no problem saying whatever rude drivel he can think about anyone else in the beach boys world.

I remember in the wake of the Beautiful Dreamer release that there was quite a lot of negativity directed towards Lorren Daro - Primarily for him having supplied drugs to Brian in the 60s, but also because, to some, he appeared flippant about it on camera. There were also, iirc, questions raised about his name change. I can't remember if people were scathing about it but I wouldn't be surprised.

Unfortunately the search function is currently not my friend as I can't find the exact posts I remember although there are some later ones alluding to the above stuff.

My point is, he quite rightly felt the need to 'set the record straight' as I suspect would you or I if we encountered that sort of vitriol directed towards us online. I don't think he's being over-sensitive at all. I suspect his original essay was a direct reaction to content he read on this board.

If you're coming here as an authority and trying to set the record straight, you need to know your stuff.

I find the above challenge ironic, given you're a relative newcomer and weren't a member when Lorren Daro first became a contentious figure here. I've participated in this board for 9 years and wouldn't dream of accusing anyone here of not knowing their stuff - most of them are far more clued up than me on BB 101 - Even you, I suspect.

Nothing personal, Mujan. We obviously have our differences and I'm not singling you out for any other reason than you're one of the more outspoken on all this and I find your comments more provocative.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 05:45:56 AM
I thought that vibes story had been published since I heard it:
http://www.npr.org/2000/06/19/1075634/good-vibrations



Thanks - I don't think I was aware of this. Interesting reading.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Autotune on January 21, 2015, 06:19:02 AM
I don't know if Daro and Van Dyke remained friends. The Daro thread would have been a good place to ask. However, having seen VDP's twitter, and considering the latter's famous quote about spanking Brian out of his behavior/state of mind, I wonder if those two share the thesis about Brian faking insanity in order to cope with the demands of his life and environment.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 07:46:08 AM
Wasn't VDP Lorren's friend first?

No secret I'm not a fan of VDP (musically...don't know him as a person although I have a very strong feeling we wouldn't get on at all) but maybe the tweet is being analyzed wrong by us.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 07:57:59 AM
Wasn't VDP Lorren's friend first?

No secret I'm not a fan of VDP (musically...don't know him as a person although I have a very strong feeling we wouldn't get on at all) but maybe the tweet is being analyzed wrong by us.

I believe so, I'm pretty sure Asher and Daro knew each other prior to PS. Doesn't LD also say that in the essay?

Could be re. VDP. It also seems like lately VDP's suggesting things weren't as rosey between he and Brian as we fans had wanted to think. Just projecting from Anderle and Vosse's comments about relations between the two in the time period. Maybe one or all of them will comment on the board.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 08:10:44 AM
he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics...

As I said earlier, this is a good point. Daro does contradict himself here. However, being that Daro is not a BB fanboy like the rest of us, it's entirely feasible that he was unaware that Brian, during his career, occasionally contributed to the lyrics, or wrote them entirely. I imagine it would be easy to spend a lot of time with Brian during the Pet Sounds/Smile period and leave thinking that Brian never wrote his own lyrics.

Darro stated that Brian never wrote his own lyrics, and backed that up by claiming Brian had told him that back in the early days it was Mike, Usher & Christian, uncredited. Thus, it's not him misunderstanding. He's very firm on this point: Brian never wrote lyrics, because Brian told him so... and then he cites the lyrics of "GV" as "proof" that it's about his wife. That's the kind of logic that would insult the intellect of a fern. Pretty much all his claims come back to the same refrain: "Brian told me so...".

Van Dyke just posted on twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

Finally, I find it surprising that you haven't at least expressed a passing interest in VDP's latest quote. Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons? Or are you also struggling with the 'inconvenience' that VDP alludes to? I would be interested to hear your take on the comment, and on VDP's integrity. From other corners of the board I can already see it being called into question based on VDP's lack of positivity towards Brian of late.

No, it doesn't strengthen Darro's recollections in any way or form, because it's not about them. VDP says he can "confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s", not that he can confirm the specifics of what Darro has said about Brian. For someone who chooses his words as carefully as he does, that's a significant difference. I didn't comment on it because I figured everyone else would similarly pick up on what Van Dyke said... or didn't.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 08:13:51 AM
he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics...

As I said earlier, this is a good point. Daro does contradict himself here. However, being that Daro is not a BB fanboy like the rest of us, it's entirely feasible that he was unaware that Brian, during his career, occasionally contributed to the lyrics, or wrote them entirely. I imagine it would be easy to spend a lot of time with Brian during the Pet Sounds/Smile period and leave thinking that Brian never wrote his own lyrics.

Darro stated that Brian never wrote his own lyrics, and backed that up by claiming Brian had told him that back in the early days it was Mike, Usher & Christian, uncredited. Thus, it's not him misunderstanding. He's very firm on this point: Brian never wrote lyrics, because Brian told him so... and then he cites the lyrics of "GV" as "proof" that it's about his wife. That's the kind of logic that would insult the intellect of a fern. Pretty much all his claims come back to the same refrain: "Brian told me so...".

Yup, and anybody who knows anything about the BB history knows that when it comes to songwriting credits, one must (in the words of Walter White) 'tread lightly'.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: clack on January 21, 2015, 08:27:08 AM
Eh, I'll give him a pass on the Brian/lyrics question.

Remember, at that time Brian was receiving sole writing credits on many songs that actually had lyrics written or co-written by Mike. Brian might have mentioned that to Darro, information that Darro garbled either then or in memory (it's been 50 years) as Brian never wrote the lyrics.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 08:34:01 AM
he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics...

As I said earlier, this is a good point. Daro does contradict himself here. However, being that Daro is not a BB fanboy like the rest of us, it's entirely feasible that he was unaware that Brian, during his career, occasionally contributed to the lyrics, or wrote them entirely. I imagine it would be easy to spend a lot of time with Brian during the Pet Sounds/Smile period and leave thinking that Brian never wrote his own lyrics.

Darro stated that Brian never wrote his own lyrics, and backed that up by claiming Brian had told him that back in the early days it was Mike, Usher & Christian, uncredited. Thus, it's not him misunderstanding. He's very firm on this point: Brian never wrote lyrics, because Brian told him so... and then he cites the lyrics of "GV" as "proof" that it's about his wife. That's the kind of logic that would insult the intellect of a fern. Pretty much all his claims come back to the same refrain: "Brian told me so...".

Yes but Daro would've been aware of Brian's writing practise I'm sure i.e. taking concepts in to his writing partners as springboards. So Daro could believe that Brian never wrote lyrics specifically, yet had a hand in steering the subject matter i.e. 'wrote' songs in a loose sense.

I don't share your belief that the above contradiction totally undermines the claims. I think your thinking is inflexible to say the least regarding that point and you're getting hung up on a small detail and stubbornly ignoring the bigger, more interesting, question - i.e. could Daro and his wife have feasibly inspired those songs? In the case of GV and Asher's similar comments about Brian originally intending it to be 'Good Vibes' because 'everybody's saying it' I'd say it's not unreasonable at all to consider that he may be telling the truth.

The contradiction you highlight just strikes me as a minor linguistic error at most - the type that occurs when people describe the abstract, alchemical process of 'writing a song'.

Out of curiosity - What is the proof that Mike Love wrote the Good Vibrations hook? I know the story about him coming up with it in a car. It's obviously in conflict with Asher's claims. Have these two stories been reconciled somehow i.e. has one been exposed as false?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 21, 2015, 08:35:13 AM
I see a great deal of "after-spin" going on here, which is understandable. But Andrew continues to attempt to discredit Daro with only a trace amount of evidence--a few comments that he is exploding out of context and examining with a logic that is half induction and half obsessive desperation. Trying to discredit Daro solely on the lyrics question is the type of approach that gets you a D- in debating class. There are broader issues here that are being side-stepped. The fact is that despite what we think we know about the 1966-67 time period, there is still much that we don't. Anderle's discussions with Paul Williams created a set of inchoate scenarios; Tom Nolan tried to go further into the supposed flashpoints for the project; a great deal of research has been done to look at the session logs--and the result of all that is still mysterious and "beautiful even its obscurity."

So here we have someone who was documented as a particularly infamous person in the 1965-67 scene who shows up, possibly suffering from his own demons, who begins very badly (a not-uncommon occurrence, if one examines prior examples here...) and the response is to demonize, marginalize, immediately discredit and dismiss him out of hand. That all might well be the right result but it is impossible to make that claim given what has happened to date. No amount of "geometric logic" is sufficient to draw these conclusions. People need to reexamine their own motives for the behavior being exhibited here.

I am 100% in favor of what the mods did with one major exception--I believe that they should have drawn a straw, and the one who got the short one should have posted here announcing that after careful review from the umpiring crew in New York (and, hey, Brian would love a baseball reference...) that the thread was being pulled. To do so in the "dead of night" was ill-considered IMO. And I hasten to say that this is one of the very few times that the mods have made such a mistake--I have nothing but respect for the work they do here (in addition to being some of the most attuned-to-the-music folks we have here). Making the decision is hard, and I accept the decision even though I personally disagree--it's their call, and I respect that. But we should have been told what that decision was and what was happening at the time, instead of operating as if it could simply disappear without a trace.

Brian and VDP is a long, LONG separate thread that should happen here--or, perhaps, happen again in light of recent developments, even if it's happened before (and I apologize...time constraints really prevent me from checking back through the archives). It is one of the keys to that time frame--and given that Daro (Schwartz) knew VDP before Brian (as Billy was just referencing with his question), it only points out the lost opportunity to examine all that. VDP has been strategically hazy and surreal about SMiLE for years, perhaps because he's still working out the long-term effects of that complicated relationship.

Finally--a lot of the literature touches upon the unique family elements that made life so complicated for Brian. They reference the pressure he was under. It seems that there are acceptable ways to suggest the he was "in over his head" during this great creative surge and there are unacceptable ways--and it occurs that Loren Daro's comments have been examined in the light of the semi-consensual narrative that's built up over time and are being rejected because they potentially disrupt that narrative.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 08:43:12 AM
Finally, I find it surprising that you haven't at least expressed a passing interest in VDP's latest quote. Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons? Or are you also struggling with the 'inconvenience' that VDP alludes to? I would be interested to hear your take on the comment, and on VDP's integrity. From other corners of the board I can already see it being called into question based on VDP's lack of positivity towards Brian of late.

No, it doesn't strengthen Darro's recollections in any way or form, because it's not about them. VDP says he can "confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s", not that he can confirm the specifics of what Darro has said about Brian. For someone who chooses his words as carefully as he does, that's a significant difference. I didn't comment on it because I figured everyone else would similarly pick up on what Van Dyke said... or didn't.

Sorry, I'm not with you. Yes VDP is not being specific by using the phrase "Lorren Daro's account of the 60s" - but it is twitter remember so he doesn't have much room to focus. However, in light of the timing, it's fair to assume VDP is referring to Daro's essay. What else could he be referring to? I wasn't suggesting that VDP was specifically endorsing Daro's claims about GV and IJWMFTT. I was arguing however that VDP's support of Daro and his essay strengthens Daro's claims in the essay and his credibility as a source IF, like me, you trust the credibility of VDP as a source.

If you are seriously arguing that VDP is NOT referring to the essay in question but some other hypothetical account of the 60s that Daro made somewhere off the record, then I really see no point in continuing this discussion with you as that is just not rational imo. Maybe I misunderstood you?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 08:52:14 AM
Trying to discredit Daro solely on the lyrics question is the type of approach that gets you a D- in debating class.

As stated before, several times, it's not just the lyrics contradiction, but also the nonsense about the 1991 book, the reliance on "Brian told me this, but lied to everyone else" and the sudden appearance from nowhere two years after the article was posted, vowing to set the record straight in the face of criticisms that, to date, no-one can actually find. Oh, and the immoderate language and character assassination. In 1966, Marilyn was eighteen years old ! At an age when most girls were still in highschool or junior college, she was running a household and trying to care for an increasingly fragile, easily led husband. When Brian took his first trip, she was just seventeen. And Darro called her a cow. Like I said,  in the now quarantined thread, pure class. Ignoring the inaccuracies and questionable claims, Darro's article was extremely self serving, to the point of obnoxiousness. As I stated before, if he was the only one to try and protect Brian, he did a damn poor job.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: filledeplage on January 21, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
he made much play about Brian not writing his own lyrics...
As I said earlier, this is a good point. Daro does contradict himself here. However, being that Daro is not a BB fanboy like the rest of us, it's entirely feasible that he was unaware that Brian, during his career, occasionally contributed to the lyrics, or wrote them entirely. I imagine it would be easy to spend a lot of time with Brian during the Pet Sounds/Smile period and leave thinking that Brian never wrote his own lyrics.
Darro stated that Brian never wrote his own lyrics, and backed that up by claiming Brian had told him that back in the early days it was Mike, Usher & Christian, uncredited. Thus, it's not him misunderstanding. He's very firm on this point: Brian never wrote lyrics, because Brian told him so... and then he cites the lyrics of "GV" as "proof" that it's about his wife. That's the kind of logic that would insult the intellect of a fern. Pretty much all his claims come back to the same refrain: "Brian told me so...".
Andrew - once this poster, "started" on the lyrics, which were adjudicated, nothing that was said, appeared credible to me.  A full inquiry was made.  

My first thought was "who was driving, while 'trip' impaired?" Who was being responsible? It is hardly anything to have bragging rights over.  I hope I correctly remember (because I can't re-read them) the tale, as inconsistent throughout, and agree. And, find it offensive that with a status as "guest" in Marilyn's home, why he would insult her.  What happens in Vegas...

Maybe there is an agenda (of revisionism) at hand...I'm at a loss to figure what his "goal" might be.

And, I do understand why the thread was pulled and archived.  But since the awful events of the last few weeks, folks are now very sensitive about anything (however inappropriate, insensitive, false or even potentially libelous) being removed, as folks have died for such.  But, maybe the flip side is that it is a privately run and funded forum...

And we are "guests," and should behave accordingly.  ;)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 09:03:29 AM
I see a great deal of "after-spin" going on here, which is understandable. But Andrew continues to attempt to discredit Daro with only a trace amount of evidence--a few comments that he is exploding out of context and examining with a logic that is half induction and half obsessive desperation. Trying to discredit Daro solely on the lyrics question is the type of approach that gets you a D- in debating class. There are broader issues here that are being side-stepped. The fact is that despite what we think we know about the 1966-67 time period, there is still much that we don't. Anderle's discussions with Paul Williams created a set of inchoate scenarios; Tom Nolan tried to go further into the supposed flashpoints for the project; a great deal of research has been done to look at the session logs--and the result of all that is still mysterious and "beautiful even its obscurity."

So here we have someone who was documented as a particularly infamous person in the 1965-67 scene who shows up, possibly suffering from his own demons, who begins very badly (a not-uncommon occurrence, if one examines prior examples here...) and the response is to demonize, marginalize, immediately discredit and dismiss him out of hand. That all might well be the right result but it is impossible to make that claim given what has happened to date. No amount of "geometric logic" is sufficient to draw these conclusions. People need to reexamine their own motives for the behavior being exhibited here.

I am 100% in favor of what the mods did with one major exception--I believe that they should have drawn a straw, and the one who got the short one should have posted here announcing that after careful review from the umpiring crew in New York (and, hey, Brian would love a baseball reference...) that the thread was being pulled. To do so in the "dead of night" was ill-considered IMO. And I hasten to say that this is one of the very few times that the mods have made such a mistake--I have nothing but respect for the work they do here (in addition to being some of the most attuned-to-the-music folks we have here). Making the decision is hard, and I accept the decision even though I personally disagree--it's their call, and I respect that. But we should have been told what that decision was and what was happening at the time, instead of operating as if it could simply disappear without a trace.

Brian and VDP is a long, LONG separate thread that should happen here--or, perhaps, happen again in light of recent developments, even if it's happened before (and I apologize...time constraints really prevent me from checking back through the archives). It is one of the keys to that time frame--and given that Daro (Schwartz) knew VDP before Brian (as Billy was just referencing with his question), it only points out the lost opportunity to examine all that. VDP has been strategically hazy and surreal about SMiLE for years, perhaps because he's still working out the long-term effects of that complicated relationship.

Finally--a lot of the literature touches upon the unique family elements that made life so complicated for Brian. They reference the pressure he was under. It seems that there are acceptable ways to suggest the he was "in over his head" during this great creative surge and there are unacceptable ways--and it occurs that Loren Daro's comments have been examined in the light of the semi-consensual narrative that's built up over time and are being rejected because they potentially disrupt that narrative.
I thought I made it clear that I pulled it when I did because I had just got home from work? It wasn't I'll considered...it was the only time it was feasible. Sorry if I sound harsh...I feel like sh*t and the only reason I'm even online right now is because I called in sick. But yeah, by the time I get home, I literally have maybe two hours tops to eat, put my daughter to bed, shower, get my clothes ready for work the next day, possibly take a sh*t, and read the board. I wish I did post something when it was deleted, but everything happened at a rush; thankfully, my schedule changes to 3-midnight starting Sunday, so I'll have a little more time, but between work and moving, things have been crazy lately.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 09:04:52 AM
Sorry, I'm not with you. Yes VDP is not being specific by using the phrase "Lorren Daro's account of the 60s" - but it is twitter remember so he doesn't have much room to focus. However, in light of the timing, it's fair to assume VDP is referring to Daro's essay. What else could he be referring to? I wasn't suggesting that VDP was specifically endorsing Daro's claims about GV and IJWMFTT. I was arguing however that VDP's support of Daro and his essay strengthens Daro's claims in the essay and his credibility as a source IF, like me, you trust the credibility of VDP as a source.

If you are seriously arguing that VDP is NOT referring to the essay in question but some other hypothetical account of the 60s that Daro made somewhere off the record, then I really see no point in continuing this discussion with you as that is just not rational imo. Maybe I misunderstood you?

Of course Van Dyke is referring to the article, but parts of it are about the 1960s music business culture, and in my mind, this is what VDP is referring to. You asked "Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons?" and my response was that, regarding what he had to say about Brian, no, it didn't.

Twitter affords 140 characters (the main reason I hardly ever use it - that's about hallway through the first sentence for me), more than enough for VDP to have said something like "I confirm that what Loren said about Brian is accurate": that's just over 50 characters. Van Dyke's wording was very specific - "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s". Do you see any mention of Brian Wilson in there ? I don't.

But... we're going round in circles here: you're sure you're right, I'm sure I am. I've had my say, in considerable and doubtless tedious detail. Bottom line - the inaccuracies, the lack of supporting proof, the internal contradictions and the intemperate mode of expression combine to make me have the gravest reservations as to Darro's credibility and trustworthiness, especially at this late remove.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 21, 2015, 09:06:50 AM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 09:07:16 AM
Trying to discredit Daro solely on the lyrics question is the type of approach that gets you a D- in debating class.

As stated before, several times, it's not just the lyrics contradiction, but also the nonsense about the 1991 book, the reliance on "Brian told me this, but lied to everyone else" and the sudden appearance from nowhere two years after the article was posted, vowing to set the record straight in the face of criticisms that, to date, no-one can actually find. Oh, and the immoderate language and character assassination. In 1966, Marilyn was eighteen years old ! At an age when most girls were still in highschool or junior college, she was running a household and trying to care for an increasingly fragile, easily led husband. When Brian took his first trip, she was just seventeen. And Darro called her a cow. Like I said,  in the now quarantined thread, pure class. Ignoring the inaccuracies and questionable claims, Darro's article was extremely self serving, to the point of obnoxiousness. As I stated before, if he was the only one to try and protect Brian, he did a damn poor job.

Not only that, but it seems he only comes out of the woodwork anytime Brian's involved in something major. 2004-2005, 2012, now...notice a pattern? I'm trying like hell to not be a hypocrite and really go off, but it's starting to get extremely difficult.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 09:09:24 AM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.
Thank you. To be fair, though, his other more worthwhile contribution was hooking Brian up with Asher.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 09:10:48 AM
Backing up what Billy posted, again 110%. At this point, we have posted several explanations and clarifications on what is an ongoing issue. Both Billy's posts and my own specifically mentioned the time/schedule factor...where we are simply not able to be on the board 24/7 due to work, family, scheduling, and basically real life everyday issues. Things happen, they're dealt with, we try to explain the big stuff when we are able and after we've discussed it.

At this point, can I post an appeal to let this rest and also in a much lesser way, to trust that everything that happened did in fact happen for a reason? And to again consider letting this one go and not have this continue to be a challenge-the-mods discussion? Seriously, there are terrific things going on in this forum, uplifting and positive things, and it saddens me to see this be the distraction which takes focus away from the best qualities of this board and the people who regularly post here.

Please, that's all I'm asking.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 09:12:49 AM
I'm done, said all I have to.

Several times...  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 21, 2015, 09:17:26 AM
the sudden appearance from nowhere two years after the article was posted, vowing to set the record straight in the face of criticisms that, to date, no-one can actually find.

It's not exactly hard to find this criticism: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13147.0.html


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: filledeplage on January 21, 2015, 09:24:19 AM
Backing up what Billy posted, again 110%. At this point, we have posted several explanations and clarifications on what is an ongoing issue. Both Billy's posts and my own specifically mentioned the time/schedule factor...where we are simply not able to be on the board 24/7 due to work, family, scheduling, and basically real life everyday issues. Things happen, they're dealt with, we try to explain the big stuff when we are able and after we've discussed it.

At this point, can I post an appeal to let this rest and also in a much lesser way, to trust that everything that happened did in fact happen for a reason? And to again consider letting this one go and not have this continue to be a challenge-the-mods discussion? Seriously, there are terrific things going on in this forum, uplifting and positive things, and it saddens me to see this be the distraction which takes focus away from the best qualities of this board and the people who regularly post here.

Please, that's all I'm asking.
The mods are amazing. And more patient and tolerant with squabbling than Job.

I respect the call you made.  The question is why would anyone post such stuff?  

And it is an "observation" and not a "criticism."

One for the mods  :beer

And that would be one of OSD's unopened Bud Lights! (I couldn't resist!)  :lol

(Low alcohol percentage ! )


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 09:25:59 AM
So much for stopping it. Much appreciated.

That May 2012 thread started the day it originally appeared on a blog then was reposted here, on Hoffman, and other boards, and it ended 4 days later. Done, over, case closed. May 31 2012, last post. What happened that next Tuesday, back in June 2012? Check for yourself.

And over two years later, this starts up again...replying to 2+ year old criticisms after a 2 year lag? The only coincidences I believe in are when someone happens to pick the winning numbers in the lottery and wins millions. And stuff like that.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 09:28:08 AM
Backing up what Billy posted, again 110%. At this point, we have posted several explanations and clarifications on what is an ongoing issue. Both Billy's posts and my own specifically mentioned the time/schedule factor...where we are simply not able to be on the board 24/7 due to work, family, scheduling, and basically real life everyday issues. Things happen, they're dealt with, we try to explain the big stuff when we are able and after we've discussed it.

At this point, can I post an appeal to let this rest and also in a much lesser way, to trust that everything that happened did in fact happen for a reason? And to again consider letting this one go and not have this continue to be a challenge-the-mods discussion? Seriously, there are terrific things going on in this forum, uplifting and positive things, and it saddens me to see this be the distraction which takes focus away from the best qualities of this board and the people who regularly post here.

Please, that's all I'm asking.
The mods are amazing. And more patient and tolerant with squabbling than Job.

I respect the call you made.  The question is why would anyone post such stuff?  

And it is an "observation" and not a "criticism."

One for the mods  :beer

And that would be one of OSD's unopened Bud Lights! (I couldn't resist!)  :lol

(Low alcohol percentage ! )

Thank you for the kind words, that is very much appreciated!  :)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 09:29:09 AM
Couldn't the criticism of the mods stops but the discussion of the claims continue?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 09:33:52 AM
Couldn't the criticism of the mods stops but the discussion of the claims continue?

The topics like Darlin and GV exist in other threads, Cam, as recent as last month in the case of the Darlin naming story. They're on the board already.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 21, 2015, 09:37:45 AM
So much for stopping it. Much appreciated.

That May 2012 thread started the day it originally appeared on a blog then was reposted here, on Hoffman, and other boards, and it ended 4 days later. Done, over, case closed. May 31 2012, last post. What happened that next Tuesday, back in June 2012? Check for yourself.

And over two years later, this starts up again...replying to 2+ year old criticisms after a 2 year lag? The only coincidences I believe in are when someone happens to pick the winning numbers in the lottery and wins millions. And stuff like that.



Why the conspiracy theories?  Funny thing happens if you google Lorren Daro: both the 11 page thread here and the one on the SH site are what you get on the first page.  Isn't the easiest, most logical solution that the guy happened to google himself and that's what he found and chose to address it?  


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 09:44:10 AM
Okay...then why would he only google himself and choose to respond *only* when Brian's profile is raised?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 21, 2015, 09:46:56 AM
Couldn't the criticism of the mods stops but the discussion of the claims continue?

The topics like Darlin and GV exist in other threads, Cam, as recent as last month in the case of the Darlin naming story. They're on the board already.

What about the Brian/VDP/Darro relationship in the 60's? Or should we let things settle down first?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 21, 2015, 09:53:36 AM
Okay...then why would he only google himself and choose to respond *only* when Brian's profile is raised?

Sorry Billy, I really think you guys are reaching there.  Brian has been a celebrity since before either of us were born.  I don't see why someone would need a tie-in with a new album to get attention for having associated with him if that's what you're suggesting.   :shrug


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mendota Heights on January 21, 2015, 09:56:14 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/CZ0sgJT.jpg)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 21, 2015, 10:05:41 AM
I absolutely 100% respect the mods' decision to take the thread down although I would have preferred they had kept it up - due to timeshift I went to bed before it was taken off, so I don't know what was written just before it was taken down which may have been even more offensive than its beginning. It's a tough job they do.

As to Darro's credibility: interesting and unusually respectful discussion :wink - my take on this is that though you can't conclude from some wrong claims that ALL other claims are wrong too (I guess even the Badham book though seemingly full of flaws contains more correct info than it contains wrong info), BUT a guy who scatters that many insults over a first posting is not someone I would trust in anything.

Just crossed my mind: Do the board mods wear mod gear?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 21, 2015, 10:09:56 AM
The return of the Mod Squad. :afro :lol ;)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 10:10:28 AM
Just crossed my mind: Do the board mods wear mod gear?

The contract rider specifies we each get matching Vespa scooters.  ;D


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
Said I wasn't going to do this, but f*** it...
Quote
Sorry Billy, I really think you guys are reaching there.  Brian has been a celebrity since before either of us were born.  I don't see why someone would need a tie-in with a new album to get attention for having associated with him if that's what you're suggesting.


Because that's all he's known for.  To the general public, he's done little to nothing worthwhile on his own,and has a serious axe to grind because of it. There's jealousy and bitterness to spare. But don't take my word for it. Why not ask anybody who has interviewed or interacted with him for the past, oh, I dunno, 20 or so years? Do you think they are all lying? Hell, even ignoring that,  from his posts here alone it should've  been obvious that anybody that disagreed with him was immediately 'pulling opinions out of [their] ass ' and yet had the nerve to accuse Rocky of the same? Pot, kettle, black. Everybody's wrong except for him. I can understand the issue with Gaines for obvious reasons, but do you honestly believe that every single person who has ever discussed him on (and off...) the record is making up sh*t about him? Please understand I'm not flaming you and you are indeed entitled to your opinion, but also please understand that he has a reputation for a reason, not because he's the victim and everybody else other than VDP is lying.

Truth be told, I was hoping for more when I saw he registered here.  


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 10:20:10 AM
Quote
Just crossed my mind: Do the board mods wear mod gear?

:lol


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 21, 2015, 10:28:43 AM
Please understand I'm not flaming you and you are indeed entitled to your opinion

No worries bro. :)

As to the rest, I can only speak on what I personally saw.  He certainly had some contentious opinions, but he wasn't exactly welcomed here with open arms either.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 21, 2015, 10:48:10 AM
Please understand I'm not flaming you and you are indeed entitled to your opinion

No worries bro. :)

As to the rest, I can only speak on what I personally saw.  He certainly had some contentious opinions, but he wasn't exactly welcomed here with open arms either.

It's much the same as what happened in May 2012 on each of the boards where that first blog post was reposted and reacted to. The internet is great that way, a lot can be found by a simple search. It's not worth reposting and all of that, but seriously, go back and check the reactions from 2012. It's hard to justify posting a scorched-earth, flamethrower statement with direct personal attacks and name calling included, and expect no one to react just as strong in return. And this has now happened each time when such a message appeared out of the blue, on several forums.

Let me speak to something else, repeating myself I know, but it was upsetting and still doesn't feel right. Some of the reactions posted which suggested things that simply did not happen here on the board, and suggesting anything of the sort that anyone was chased off, or otherwise... going as far as using the term "fanboys" as a derogatory swipe against people here for no reason, is troubling. I'll restate again - It played out exactly to the letter as several others have posted both here and in the other thread. I can back that up directly as I was online to see exactly what happened and when, down to who was logged in and reading the board and when they were not. I hope no more clarifications or explanations are necessary at this point, because what was reported was what happened, it's simple as that. At least be fair and consider that before debating and criticizing based on a reading of events that has no basis in what actually went down in real time.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 21, 2015, 11:05:21 AM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.

Also, also this.

Not to shut buddhahat or anyone else down, but at the end of the day this really is what it all boils down to. I'm sick of seeing these insinuations of a conspiracy to hush up anything that clashes with the established narrative too. I think we're all adults here and open to being proven wrong and learning info that conflicts with what we know. But for the many reasons AGD and Billy has listed, it's clear that Daro is not a credible source and has a clearly self serving agenda. He's a glorified acid/weed hookup looking to make a name for himself. I'd be interested in hearing what he had to say regardless if he weren't so shamelessly abusive and narcissistic in his posts. At the end of the day I don't trust him and doubt he had much worthwhile to say.

Like AGD said, we're going in circles and nobody will convince the other. But there's very valid reasons to discredit Daro's bold claims that don't involve some crazy conspiracy. And with this final post, I'm respecting Guifarfool's wishes and letting this thread die. Anyone who trusts Daro can email him for information, but his thread had no purpose except to witness how pathetic and bitter a man could sink. That's my final word on the subject.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 11:13:52 AM
Couldn't the criticism of the mods stops but the discussion of the claims continue?

The topics like Darlin and GV exist in other threads, Cam, as recent as last month in the case of the Darlin naming story. They're on the board already.

Sure, but those weren't the only claims.

Also, the "vibes" thing with Asher seemed to be new info to some and was on topic of the claims specifically.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 12:22:37 PM
I don't agree that this thread should be shut down at all, much that I respect the mods and the difficult job they have here sometimes. For what reason should this thread be terminated? I don't see any name calling, or swearing, or bullying. Maybe I'm deluded but I thought we were all being pretty respectful towards one another.

Only a few months ago people were bemoaning the lack of quality discourse here, the glut of list and poll threads (some of which I was responsible for I'm afraid). Then we have some serious, challenging discussion crop up about the Smile era and everybody wants it shut down. Confused, to say the least.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SBonilla on January 21, 2015, 12:35:59 PM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.

... it's clear that Daro is not a credible source and has a clearly self serving agenda. He's a glorified acid/weed hookup looking to make a name for himself.
 
He already has a name (well, a few. still...).  He worked for major talent agencies and represented, or had dealings with, well known, signed acts. Additionally, he was friends with the a number of people involved in the Hollywood music scene of that time. He's wasn't a Sunset Blvd. bumpkin.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 12:54:03 PM
Finally, I find it surprising that you haven't at least expressed a passing interest in VDP's latest quote. Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons? Or are you also struggling with the 'inconvenience' that VDP alludes to? I would be interested to hear your take on the comment, and on VDP's integrity. From other corners of the board I can already see it being called into question based on VDP's lack of positivity towards Brian of late.

No, it doesn't strengthen Darro's recollections in any way or form, because it's not about them. VDP says he can "confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s", not that he can confirm the specifics of what Darro has said about Brian. For someone who chooses his words as carefully as he does, that's a significant difference. I didn't comment on it because I figured everyone else would similarly pick up on what Van Dyke said... or didn't.

Sorry, I'm not with you. Yes VDP is not being specific by using the phrase "Lorren Daro's account of the 60s" - but it is twitter remember so he doesn't have much room to focus. However, in light of the timing, it's fair to assume VDP is referring to Daro's essay. What else could he be referring to? I wasn't suggesting that VDP was specifically endorsing Daro's claims about GV and IJWMFTT. I was arguing however that VDP's support of Daro and his essay strengthens Daro's claims in the essay and his credibility as a source IF, like me, you trust the credibility of VDP as a source.

If you are seriously arguing that VDP is NOT referring to the essay in question but some other hypothetical account of the 60s that Daro made somewhere off the record, then I really see no point in continuing this discussion with you as that is just not rational imo. Maybe I misunderstood you?

Why doesn't someone go on Twitter and politely ask VDP to what specifically is he referring to in his tweet?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 12:58:50 PM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.

He's a glorified acid/weed hookup looking to make a name for himself.

I don't see any justification for the narrow minded stereotype being pushed here of Daro as some sort of degenerate drug pusher. Whether you do or don't believe daro's claims that he resisted Brian's requests for drugs for quite some time, what on earth is wrong with Daro supplying cannabis and LSD to Brian in the first place? Really? Should we blame Bob Dylan for turning The Beatles on? Or is that different because the beatles didn't go on to endure severe mental health problems - something that Lorren Daro couldn't possibly have anticipated at the time? Why aren't we piling in to Danny Hutton for supplying Brian with drugs, or whoever else gave him speed and coke (probably far more detrimental to his psychological well being)? The BB story is littered with far worse examples of irresponsibility around drugs. As has been argued before, BW was not a child. He was a fully grown adult. People here seem to blame Daro for somehow not fulfilling his responsibilities as a glorified child minder. These were young, successful men experimenting with drugs IN THE 60s for crying out loud. I had friends hook me up with drugs as a teenager (younger than Brian was at the time) and it didn't play out well for me on several occasions. Who do I hold responsible for those bad trips, bad comedowns etc? Me and me alone.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 01:09:02 PM
Finally, I find it surprising that you haven't at least expressed a passing interest in VDP's latest quote. Does this not also strengthen Daro's recollectons? Or are you also struggling with the 'inconvenience' that VDP alludes to? I would be interested to hear your take on the comment, and on VDP's integrity. From other corners of the board I can already see it being called into question based on VDP's lack of positivity towards Brian of late.

No, it doesn't strengthen Darro's recollections in any way or form, because it's not about them. VDP says he can "confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s", not that he can confirm the specifics of what Darro has said about Brian. For someone who chooses his words as carefully as he does, that's a significant difference. I didn't comment on it because I figured everyone else would similarly pick up on what Van Dyke said... or didn't.

Sorry, I'm not with you. Yes VDP is not being specific by using the phrase "Lorren Daro's account of the 60s" - but it is twitter remember so he doesn't have much room to focus. However, in light of the timing, it's fair to assume VDP is referring to Daro's essay. What else could he be referring to? I wasn't suggesting that VDP was specifically endorsing Daro's claims about GV and IJWMFTT. I was arguing however that VDP's support of Daro and his essay strengthens Daro's claims in the essay and his credibility as a source IF, like me, you trust the credibility of VDP as a source.

If you are seriously arguing that VDP is NOT referring to the essay in question but some other hypothetical account of the 60s that Daro made somewhere off the record, then I really see no point in continuing this discussion with you as that is just not rational imo. Maybe I misunderstood you?

Why doesn't someone go on Twitter and politely ask VDP to what specifically is he referring to in his tweet?

We know VDP doesn't like being pinned down on his words and I reckon that stretches to twitter too. A private email might be a better approach if anybody knows his address?

In honesty though, I don't see any ambiguity in his phrasing. He is making a very public show of support for Daro's essay. Those who can't entertain Daro's side of events conveniently choose to ignore the tweet, or reconstrue it to their own ends. Whether he spells it out or not I think people have chosen their sides on this one.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Fire Wind on January 21, 2015, 01:10:14 PM
He made nasty personal attacks on people he'd actually known.  I don't get why people took it so personally and act like he's attacked their grandmother.  Is it not better to act with a little detachment, remember that he's a part of the history and we're (mostly) just internet dweebs, and learn what you can from such a person, even if he appears dislikable?  Argue with his points, sure, and discount what you don't believe, but I don't see the point of laying into him with such ferocity on a personal level that he then leaves.  He probably would've chilled out a bit.

I wonder sometimes just what and how much VDP is holding back.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 01:19:42 PM
I think some people are giving far too much creedence to the opinions of a guy whose one claim to fame in life is turning Brian Wilson onto acid for the first time.

He's a glorified acid/weed hookup looking to make a name for himself.

I don't see any justification for the narrow minded stereotype being pushed here of Daro as some sort of degenerate drug pusher. Whether you do or don't believe daro's claims that he resisted Brian's requests for drugs for quite some time, what on earth is wrong with Daro supplying cannabis and LSD to Brian in the first place? Really? Should we blame Bob Dylan for turning The Beatles on? Or is that different because the beatles didn't go on to endure severe mental health problems - something that Lorren Daro couldn't possibly have anticipated at the time? Why aren't we piling in to Danny Hutton for supplying Brian with drugs, or whoever else gave him speed and coke (probably far more detrimental to his psychological well being)? The BB story is littered with far worse examples of irresponsibility around drugs. As has been argued before, BW was not a child. He was a fully grown adult. People here seem to blame Daro for somehow not fulfilling his responsibilities as a glorified child minder. These were young, successful men experimenting with drugs IN THE 60s for crying out loud. I had friends hook me up with drugs as a teenager (younger than Brian was at the time) and it didn't play out well for me on several occasions. Who do I hold responsible for those bad trips, bad comedowns etc? Me and me alone.


Just to throw this out there...

Speaking only for myself...

My issue with Mr. Daro has nothing to do with drugs, as #1- Brian was a grown man and could make his own decisions (and would've gotten it from anyone else) and 2) I make Tommy Chong look like Pat Boone, so that'd be hypocritical. My own feelings were stated earlier,so no sense repeating myself, but I wanted to be very clear.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: clack on January 21, 2015, 01:31:47 PM
Bottom line (for me) : he was abusive to a fellow board member -- that is, Brian Wilson, and thus, the mods made a correct decision in deleting the thread. If Brian hadn't joined, should the thread have been deleted? That's another question, one which is thankfully moot.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: John Manning on January 21, 2015, 01:35:37 PM
Is it time to open the bar?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
I don't see any justification for the narrow minded stereotype being pushed here of Daro as some sort of degenerate drug pusher. Whether you do or don't believe daro's claims that he resisted Brian's requests for drugs for quite some time, what on earth is wrong with Daro supplying cannabis and LSD to Brian in the first place? Really? Should we blame Bob Dylan for turning The Beatles on? Or is that different because the beatles didn't go on to endure severe mental health problems - something that Lorren Daro couldn't possibly have anticipated at the time? Why aren't we piling in to Danny Hutton for supplying Brian with drugs, or whoever else gave him speed and coke (probably far more detrimental to his psychological well being)? The BB story is littered with far worse examples of irresponsibility around drugs. As has been argued before, BW was not a child. He was a fully grown adult. People here seem to blame Daro for somehow not fulfilling his responsibilities as a glorified child minder. These were young, successful men experimenting with drugs IN THE 60s for crying out loud. I had friends hook me up with drugs as a teenager (younger than Brian was at the time) and it didn't play out well for me on several occasions. Who do I hold responsible for those bad trips, bad comedowns etc? Me and me alone.

I have never, at least in this discussion, stated that I have any problem with him supplying drugs to Brian. As stated before, several times, my problems are with his changing his story every time its told, contradicting himself when it suits, talking nonsense about the 1991 book (which even you cannot deny), coming across as an obnoxious, self-serving and unpleasantly bitter individual and protesting too much. In court on the witness stand, any half-way competent lawyer would make mincemeat of him.

I note that in the original 2012 thread on this article, you were also supportive of Darro from the beginning. Whilst I applaud your consistency, I also have to consider there might be some kind of a vested interest.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 21, 2015, 01:41:54 PM

My issue with Mr. Daro has nothing to do with drugs, as #1- Brian was a grown man and could make his own decisions (and would've gotten it from anyone else)

Agreed 110%, I posted what I posted eariler because when someone pisses over so many people from such a great height, they need bringing back down to earth somewhat.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 01:42:23 PM
Why doesn't someone go on Twitter and politely ask VDP to what specifically is he referring to in his tweet?

A capital notion, young Cameron. Why are you waiting ?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 21, 2015, 01:53:11 PM
You know, reading the thread from 2012 (which I've just done: thanks Avan Todd) is very illuminating. Andrew dismisses Daro as a fraud in #4 and is absent from that point on. At which point, the next five pages of the thread actually attempt to suss out Loren Daro in the context of the times that he (apparently) just wasn't made for.

Everyone who has been in this thread should go back and read it in its entirety. Because you will see that a great and interesting thread turned sour and filled with snarky one-liners. Prior to that, however, a great deal of informative and open-minded speculation about the 1965-67 period ensues, including this superb post from one of our esteemed (and I do mean that unironically...ESTEEMED) moderators, guitarfool2002. Read it, please, and understand why several of us here are so tenaciously arguing for open-mindedness even in the face of bad behavior (Daro's!!!) and instant skepticism/hostility.

A final note before the quote: should you peruse it (and it does get depressingly familiar to many threads here...), you'll see that ontor was able to initiate an email exchange with Daro that was partially uploaded into the thread. Also worth reading, even in its fragmentary state.

I don't know if this is legit but the first 8 paragraphs are very much like what Loren Darro told me in phone conversation some 10 or 12 years ago. Stuff like the 125 mics of Owsley and the fingering of Terry Sachen for instance were in our conversation and I don't remember that stuff being published anywhere publically. Anyways, whether this was posted by Loren or not I can't say but that first bit is the same things Loren told me save the bit about Brian faking to get off the road I don't remembering coming up.

I urge everyone to read what Cam wrote here, and try to weave it into this newly-posted article supposedly from Loren. I trust Cam Mott's research and history of actually searching out and talking with these people at a time when Smile and the history of it were nowhere near as "open" as the topics as they are now in light of the past 10 years. Listen to Cam!  :)

A few quick points from me: First, the one about Tony Asher. This info can be found in other books and sources, but it remains a fact that Loren and Tony Asher did go to school together and were friends. The anecdote about how Tony and Brian got together either starts at Western Studios as early as 63-64 when Tony was there recording advertising jingles for his agency and Brian was there making his music, and Tony introduced Brian to Loren. OR, it was a case of that meeting being a random, inconsequential thing and Brian connected with Tony during one of the meetings/gatherings being held at Loren's place, which led to Brian getting his number later and asking if he wished to write with him on the album that became Pet Sounds.

This is fact, there was a connection, we can and have established that. No B.S.

About IJWMFTT - Writers carry ideas around on notebooks, slips of paper, or even in their memory sometimes for years until they come out in the right song...it does not seem implausible that, having known each other and traveled in the same circles since they were teenagers, that an Asher lyric which he crafted around something with Loren or his life would later manifest itself in a song he was working on with Brian, and in the Pet Sounds context, a song which took on a meaning about Brian...of course it's speculation, of course one way to confirm would be to ask, but the *possibility* to me is not something to dismiss entirely because of who is saying it. It is very possible, same thing with perhaps lyrical themes or ideas that would come out in that original, more trippy lyric theme of the Pet Sounds "Good Vibrations".

I can't get out of my mind how many of that "inner circle" around 65-66 which became Brian's Smile crew and close confidantes have said there are issues they do not discuss and have not discussed, and how some versions of stories we have all heard are not exactly the way it played out. Look at an older Mark Volman interview for an example of this, mentioning a specific aspect of it that was nowhere to found in his writing for the Smile box set. And several prominent characters in that same Smile saga were regular visitors to and friends of...Loren. It could be said Brian gravitated to that scene and they in turn gravitated toward Brian and what he was doing musically and otherwise. Judge for yourself the results we have seen...

Re: Marilyn. Pure, unbridled speculation here, but hear me out. Several of the Smile crew, including Anderle, have gone on record saying Murry Wilson was waging a not-so-secret campaign against Brian's friends at this time, and drugs were one of the main issues. They said someone did in fact find surveillance devices in Brian's car, and was there not rumor about Murry hiring people to track Brian and his friends? What if it was implied Brian's wife had been involved in something which led to something else which caused some trouble for some of those friends, and it may have been connected to Murry's "War On Drugs" surrounding his sons which was less well-known than his active campaign to criticize Brian and get these newcomers out of his life and music?

Speculation aside, Murry was doing these things...perhaps some felt he had more help than should have been given?

I know, wild, WILD speculation but it is something to consider.

And don't think we know even 1% of what really happened during this time. We can't read interviews and books and even pretend to know anything close to what things were like on, say, a random night in May 1966 when Brian might either be hanging with Loren, eating on the Sunset Strip, watching Gilligan's Island on TV, playing a game of catch, or bowling with the Rovell family, or any normal daily activity which may have had some significance to something much bigger and which we simply will never know.

I wouldn't write it off so easily until we know for sure that the article itself can be authenticated.

NOTE: modified after posting to correct misspelling of Avan Todd's name...


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 21, 2015, 02:09:34 PM
I have never, at least in this discussion, stated that I have any problem with him supplying drugs to Brian. As stated before, several times, my problems are with his changing his story every time its told, contradicting himself when it suits, talking nonsense about the 1991 book (which even you cannot deny), coming across as an obnoxious, self-serving and unpleasantly bitter individual and protesting too much. In court on the witness stand, any half-way competent lawyer would make mincemeat of him.

I note that in the original 2012 thread on this article, you were also supportive of Darro from the beginning. Whilst I applaud your consistency, I also have to consider there might be some kind of a vested interest.

AGD I wasn't directing the above comments at you.

As for a vested interest - no, not at all. I don't know the man and had no contact with him prior to posting on his web page yesterday. Actually, I have a feeling I was defending Daro before the 2012 thread, probably back when beautiful dreamer came out, but I can't find the relevant threads. Back then his (admittedly awkward) comments about Marilyn hadn't been made yet and so the negative reaction I witnessed on this board was, as far as I could tell, based solely on his appearance in the documentary. I interpreted this as prejudice pure and simple and it touched a nerve somewhere. I also feel he was a victim of the editing. I don't see anything in his comments in beautiful dreamer, or his laughing, that warranted the type of vitriol he received prior to his 2012 essay.

As for the Marilyn comments, I can understand why some here were shocked. She comes across in interviews that I've watched as a nice person, one who still cares for Brian - a good egg. But I've never met the woman or spent significant amounts of time with her, during a probably crazy but highly stressful period. Who's opinion is more reliable here - mine or Daro's? I'd argue Daro's by a mile and even if it's refuted by many other acquaintances of Marilyn's, at the end of the day, Mr Daro is entitled to his opinion.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Steve Mayo on January 21, 2015, 02:16:29 PM
did anyone else notice daro was logged in on the board and reading this post a few minutes ago? wonder why he did not post a comment or two.....


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 02:20:03 PM
As for the Marilyn comments, I can understand why some here were shocked. She comes across in interviews that I've watched as a nice person, one who still cares for Brian - a good egg. But I've never met the woman or spent significant amounts of time with her, during a probably crazy but highly stressful period. Who's opinion is more reliable here - mine or Daro's? I'd argue Daro's by a mile and even if it's refuted by many other acquaintances of Marilyn's, at the end of the day, Mr Daro is entitled to his opinion.

You will, however, agree that he is hardly an impartial witness. He sees Marilyn as a prime mover in blackening his name. On the other hand, she saw him as the man who changed her husband forever.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 21, 2015, 02:54:35 PM
Lorren was presenting his experiences and understandings. Sure he could have expressed himself differently and he seemed to be reconsidering that maybe when everything went south. Anyways I hope things can settle down and we get to explore his understandings and opinions further. It should be part of the record.

What little contact I had with Loren a longish while back he was very warm and friendly and intelligent and I believe he had a big influence on Brian's spirituality I guess you could say. Maybe things got off on a wrong foot but I suggest we don't form our opinion of him from what little we know about him now. There is a lot more to him than this I believe.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: runnersdialzero on January 21, 2015, 04:01:45 PM
Can we come to a consensus on how to spell his first name AND his last name, though?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 21, 2015, 04:21:28 PM
Lorren Daro (formerly Loren Schwartz)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 21, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
PLEASE BE KIND AND IGNORE THIS POST. IT WAS DONE IN ERROR WHEN I CLICKED AND COPIED THE WRONG 'WORD' DOCUMENT. IN CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED, THE 5mg DOSE IS FOR PROSTATE PROBLEMS, NOT SEXUAL ONES.


To Eliseo and all that may have helped...

Hooray! Well-Care has approved your request to lower the Tier from Four to Two.

Instead of $225 for 90 tabs of Cialis 5mg, I will now pay $97...

This will have to be approved again in one year, and a prior approval of the prescription will have to submitted again in July, but we'll deal with that later.

Many, many thanks...

Lorren Daro


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 21, 2015, 04:42:15 PM
I'm happy for you, buddy.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 21, 2015, 04:51:10 PM
The f***? Your (daro) brain on drugs????


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PM
The f***? Your (daro) brain on drugs????

Maybe it IS Van Dyke, and now that the secret's out he's just going full-troll?

Edit: Apparently Not


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 21, 2015, 05:09:32 PM
Cialis is a drug, so I guess yeah.

???


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 21, 2015, 05:10:54 PM
I voluntarily withdrew from this site, and not because Brian visited it, of which I was unaware. He appeared after I left. The invective was beyond my ability to respond. Grateful thanks to Don Malcom and Buddhahat, among others, for their reasoned and rational responses.

What else can a historian do than repeat what the principals told him? What else can he do than relate what he observed at the time? I am not here mainly to protect Brian, although I hope I can. I am here to serve the truth as I remember it.

Yes, I was wrong about Brian not writing ‘all’ the lyrics, and I posted that apology long ago. But, many of you don’t read or remember what has been posted, but insist on your own immediate, unfounded and uninformed opinions. Yes, Brian wrote the lyrics to several early songs, but had help that was not attributed due to Murry’s objections. Those early songs were mostly simplistic and elementary. The deeper, more meaningful lyrics that appeared later were credited collaborations.

What is all this ‘old man’ sh*t? I do not drink or use drugs. I am not ill. I smoked my last joint in 1981. I wrote a book on health supplements and lead a clean life. My mind is clear, as is my memory most of the time. Count the celebrities you see on TV that are my age, are they mentally disabled? Is Betty White? Is Barbara Walters? Is John McLaughlin? Is Dan Rather? Is Bill Moyers? Is Sean Connery? Is Clint Eastwood? Etc. Etc…

As to my ‘physical appearance’ on ‘Beautiful Dreamer’, I was 65 at the time. I didn’t look that bad. If  you’re objecting to my facial expressions, that’s who I am. I wonder how many of you would look good on TV. As Popeye said, “I yam what I yam, and that’s what I yam!”

Yes, Marilyn is a lovely, sweet person. But none of you were there when she refused to support Brian, when she yelled hysterically at him for every new thing he pursued that she, Mike, Murry and the Capitol executives objected to. SHE WAS NOT A LOYAL WIFE TO BRIAN! That is what I object to. And how could you know what went on in those days just by meeting her today? There is no insult to her that would be inappropriate. And, I don’t care if she’s the mother of Brian’s children – divorce courts are full of them.

Yes, I spelled Audree wrong. I apologize. Yes, I spelled Sachen wrong, I apologize. Just because few, or none of you, know this history doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Have I used anger and invective to present my case, yes, I intended to do that. Am I angry about the abuse I’ve endured. Yes. Am I angry about the abuse Brian has endured? Double yes. Why so many of you dismiss what I have posted because of the tone of my writing is beyond my understanding. This is my personality, which has grown out the injustice I have seen and experienced in this world. Since my youth, morality has taken a dive in America. I object to that. I am a man of moral seriousness, which is the heritage of my race. Take it or leave it.

Tony Asher was once my best friend. We had a falling out along the way, plus he tried hard to get my wife to leave me. My information about the origins of ‘Good Vibrations’ came directly from Brian. I’m not surprised that Tony refused to confirm my assertions. As for Brian’s appearance on the site, once again, I never read it. I left before he appeared. I would, however, have no problem having a dialogue with him anywhere, any time. As far as I know, we are still friends. We met in San Francisco a few years ago and spent a day together talking over old times. We spoke of much that I have written about and he had no objections or concerns to offer.

I have no objections to my posts being pulled from Steve Hoffman. I never posted them there to begin with. They just appeared there following my posts to this site. I don’t know why.

From ‘The Legendary OSD’:

“When all is said and done, and it's not yet, I'm going with the one who was there at the time. There is no more authentic take on any subject than being present with the players in the same setting at the time it went down. Nothing...nothing can substitute that experience. You may not like the man, or his point of view but don't judge him on a few posts, give credit where credit is due. He was infinitely closer to the scene than the majority here. In other words, let's not shoot the messenger because someone here thinks they know better. Were you there in the mid sixties? Did you experience being with Brian and his family like this guy did, huh? Quite honestly, I'd like to see as much light as he cares to shed about all things Beach Boys because there is much more to learn regardless of who you are or what you think you know.”

Thank you, Legendary, for this. Would that many of your members have the same kindness of heart…

Many of the criticisms I have been trying to answer appeared on the WordPress site when I first posted the essay. My intention was to carry over these issues to this site in order to reach a wider BW audience. I know most of you were not aware of this contentious debate. I’m sorry for the confusion over the timing.

For the record, when I first posted my essay on WordPress, Van Dyke Parks and David Leaf both wrote me praising the piece. For the record: I still love Van Dyke, and I know he loves me.

Van Dyke just posted this on Twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

Van Dyke was there for much of the history I related. His ‘Why wasn’t I told…’ line was a sarcasm. He lived much of it with me. He was there as I was. He felt the same about Marilyn and the entire crew of assholes I wrote about. Again, these were a few terrible people, not everyone around Brian. The villains were, specifically: Mike, Murry, Marilyn, Sachen and the Capitol executives. They are all welcome to charge me with libel. I would be happy to appear in court to defend my positions, or to dialogue with them in any way they choose.

It’s important that you all know that life with Brian in those days was rife with lies. People lying to Brian: Brian lying to protect his real feelings intentions, desires and feelings. I was not the only one he didn’t lie to. He was straight with Anderle, with Van Dyke, with Vosse most of the time, with Carl, and several others.  Most everyone around him had their own agendas. I had none except to be his friend and advisor when he obviously needed one. I was there to confront and take issue with the people around him who wanted to use him, to exploit him, to make money from him. I am trying to expose these bastards for what they were, and probably still are. Murry, the helping father – NOT! Marilyn, the loving and supportive wife – NOT! Capitol, the encouraging executives – NOT! Mike, the protective pal – NOT! Sachen, the helpful assistant – NOT! Faced with this rogue’s gallery, who wouldn’t lie all the time.

Once again, since I was the villain of the piece, Brian could not, once our journey was over, sound supportive of me in any way. Just mentioning my name would find him in a sh*t-storm. He quickly learned cover stories for the songs, the LSD, the ideas I presented. These cover stories have been cast in stone for so long that even Brian must now believe some of them. None of that is my concern. My purpose is to expose these true villains for what they are: the ones who made Brian’s life miserable and helped to drive him to the mental problems that still plague him. One more time, I love and have always loved Brian. I take this sh*t from most of you to help him, to exonerate both he and myself. To show that someone understood what he faced at the time.

Please remember that the three years following his LSD experience were the most creative of his entire artistic life. After that, the bullshit he got from that list of true villains finally got to him, plus the bad drugs, the food, the conflicts with his wife, the problems with his ideas for new albums, and a host of other issues. I was long gone by then. Keep in mind that Mike called “Good Vibrations” “…a bunch of avant-guard sh*t.” Doesn’t that tell you something? So he wrote a 'hook' -- big deal...

For the record: Brian was driving – very well – during the later hours of his LSD trip. It was easy. His habit at the time was to drive around for hours in West Hollywood turning every two blocks, blasting the radio and thinking. It was second nature for him, so there was no danger. If there had been, I’d have stepped in.

All right, enough…

I’ll keep reading the posts, although it’s upsetting. I will keep track of the issues and post a reply when I feel it’s right. Enough support for me has been shown so far that I’m newly encouraged to continue.

Lorren Daro


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 21, 2015, 05:19:22 PM
The Cialis reply was posted in error. I accidentally copied an email to my doctor...  The drug is used for a prostate problem, not for recreational use -- which I don't need it for.  Sorry...  Lorren Daro -- spelled: Lorren Daro


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 21, 2015, 05:54:22 PM
My main concern when all this started was is this guy an imposter, just some "fan" trying to play a game.The board has seen quite a few over the years.
If this is the real Lorren Daro and I think it most probably is, we should respect him for Brian"s sake. In all the years Iv never heard Brian say anything negative about Lorren Daro the person. I've forgotten the interview, it might of been the Charlie Rose interview with the group, Lorren"s name gets brought up and Brian is the only one (other than David marks) that doesn't have anything negative to say.

Lorren I"am just thinking of the timeline, was it after the smile period that you had left or were you still around in the 70"s ?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Les P on January 21, 2015, 06:59:17 PM
Lorren, I am interested to hear your take - including memories of any specific incidents - on the arc of the Smile project, particularly why it was not completed.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: halblaineisgood on January 21, 2015, 07:19:11 PM
The Cialis reply was posted in error. I The drug is used for a prostate problem, not for recreational use -- which I don't need it for. 
Methinks thou doth take boner pills



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Shane on January 21, 2015, 07:21:11 PM
I've just been looking over this entire thread.  People on the board can agree or disagree Mr. Daro's take on things... it's really immaterial.  What we have here is the viewpoint of someone who was there in the 1960s with Brian Wilson... and it's a rare viewpoint to have on this board.  I will gladly read anything he has to say, as it only increases my knowledge and perspective on the Beach Boys history and music.  Any opinions I have are my own business.  

Thank you for taking the time to post here, Mr. Daro.  I think a lot of people, myself included, are fascinated by what you have to say.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Custom Machine on January 21, 2015, 07:33:02 PM
Glad to see that Lorren Daro has rejoined the discussion, continuing to offer his perspective concerning what transpired at the time he and Brian were hanging out in the mid-sixties.  For sure many players at the time would disagree with his take on these events, but since he was there when some when some major stuff was happening from a creative standpoint, it is my hope he'll continue to post and answer questions proffered by SS board members.

I gotta say, though, that the Cialis post baffles me.  If it was cut and pasted in error, is he aware that the post can be edited?  Or was it a subtle way to indicate, after he was referred to as an old guy, that with the benefit of Cialis for Daily Use he's still going strong in the virility dept?

And one more thing - I've had the opportunity to speak with Marilyn Wilson on a few occasions over the years, and she always came across as a very friendly and incredibly nice person.  Plus I absolutely love her singing voice.  Mr. Daro, if you want to be taken seriously, please refrain from the juvenile sounding verbal attacks found in your first post on this board.



Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 21, 2015, 07:38:40 PM
I think this latest post is a much better approach to opening the dialogue.  I too am glad to see that you've returned.  There's much to learn.  So I'll read lots...and post little. :hat


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 21, 2015, 08:19:21 PM
I was one of the individuals who supported the original thread staying up instead of being deleted. I look forward to reading more posts from you, Lorren. Is there something you can tell us that would let us know that you're the real Lorren Daro? Do you remember being at Beach Boys recording sessions in the 60's? I hear your name referred to in the Rhonda vocal session tape, and it sounds like you were a friend of Brian's and his assistant. I'm interested in finding out more about your experiences in the studio with Brian & The Boys.

Thanks!


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: barsone on January 21, 2015, 08:23:21 PM
Well....tomorrow WILL be a very interesting day when the gents (and ladies) across the water wake up for their morning tea...    Nice well thought post/rebuttal Mr. Darro.   I have no commentary either way other than your original post of a couple days ago (if presented like this post) would have caused ALOT less furor/angst/and most of all less stress for ALL concerned.  And especially for the mods who truly do a GREAT job when things get out of hand.  I truly understand you have a lot of pent up anger and emotion relating to your past place in history in the BB story.  I get it.  Sure there will be those on the thread will lash out and not agree with your story, but keep on posting like you did this evening and I think you'll get more positive "good vibes" than the negatives. Sure to be a lot of emotion/commotion tomorrow on the thread.  I going to bed early  to get up early  to read what the pundits have to say.  Again thanks for reposting.    

                                            


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: doinnothin on January 21, 2015, 09:16:33 PM
Glad to see you're back posting, Lorren.

I'm curious what years you were around for so we can better focus our questions for you. Did your time within Brian's scene extend to the Wild Honey or Friends time period at the Bellagio house (those years have always been hard to get much info on)?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 21, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
If this is the real Lorren Daro and I think it most probably is, we should respect him for Brian"s sake.

We should treat him well because he's a fellow human being.  :)

Welcome back Lorren!...Thank you for returning. I'm sorry for the way some of our forum members treated you.

I'm looking forward to hearing about your experiences.

P.S. You can click the modify button on the upper right of any of your post's and edit the content anytime you want to.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 21, 2015, 10:43:37 PM
At least it seems he is willing to learn, as he toned down the insults in his new post. I can't understand though that he doesn't understand that name-calling affects his credibility:

Why so many of you dismiss what I have posted because of the tone of my writing is beyond my understanding. This is my personality, which has grown out the injustice I have seen and experienced in this world. Since my youth, morality has taken a dive in America. I object to that. I am a man of moral seriousness, which is the heritage of my race.

And Mr. Daro, what do you mean with "heritage of your race"?


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2015, 11:36:54 PM
I respect Loren for stepping back into what he knows all too well is a very hostile arena. I also deeply apologise for spelling his surname incorrectly: for someone like me, famously picky/petty about this sort of thing, that's a major misstep on my part,

[edit - I've corrected the spelling in the thread title]


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 21, 2015, 11:49:12 PM
I respect Loren for stepping back into what he knows all too well is a very hostile arena. I also deeply apologise for spelling his surname incorrectly: for someone like me, famously picky/petty about this sort of thing, that's a major misstep on my part,

I don't respect him for coming back in itself. I *do* respect him for coming back with a thorough, well written and non-abusive response, however. Had that been how the last thread began, we'd have had no problems in the first place.

For the sake of the people who wanted to hear more, I am glad you're back. I remain skeptical of many of your claims, but I *am* open to hearing more if they're as well spoken as that last post. I'm sorry for calling you a glorified drug hookup. I took offense at your harsh, black/white, not-tactful phraseology and gave it back to you. But if you're willing to continue to explain why you dislike the people you do in the same tactful, well-explained manner as that last post, I'm willing to listen with an open mind.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 21, 2015, 11:57:54 PM
coming back with a thorough, well written and non-abusive response, however. Had that been how the last thread began, we'd have had no problems in the first place.

Right.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: John Manning on January 22, 2015, 12:02:35 AM
coming back with a thorough, well written and non-abusive response, however. Had that been how the last thread began, we'd have had no problems in the first place.

Right.

Agreed.

Great that this is back on track.  I hope we learn much that adds to the backstory of our favourite band.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 22, 2015, 12:14:33 AM
I agree that my initial posts were too full of anger. I’m sorry I didn’t calm down and moderate the tone. The anger is still there, but enough of you have objected that I now see your point. More with honey than vinegar, right? A lot of this has been pent up in me for years. Thanks for seeing through the dark clouds and urging me to change my approach. Never too late to learn…

Here are answers to posts I thought deserved one:

I moved to Big Sur and then Carmel Valley in 1969. After that, I cut all my ties to Hollywood, Brian included.

I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed. I agree with that decision. The music, and the lyrics written by VDP were great, but Brian’s contributions were ludicrous. I mean, “…I gotta eat my vege-tables.” Indeed…

As if this mattered: Cialis has practically no effect on sexual performance at a dose of 5mg, which is what I take. One needs 25mg at least to accomplish that. The drug comes in 5mg, 25mg, 50mg and 100mg versions. The 5mg helps open the prostate gland to make urination easier, and it allows me to avoid the brutal surgery required in order to fix the problem. If you watch a Cialis commercial, they clearly mention its use for prostate problems. I did post it in error. I don’t need to brag about my sex life, which, thankfully is somewhat normal considering my age. Such cynical people some of you are…

I was not at the ‘Rhonda’ sessions. I went to very few sessions other than that I was there for almost the entire run of sessions for ‘Pet Sounds’. I will say that I sat next to Brian on a plane from New York to LA while he wrote that song. I made no contributions to it. Sessions including Mike Love and the Boys were deliberately avoided by me. There was no purpose in doing that. My relationship was with Brian, not his band.

If I have it right, my years with Brian ran from1963, when I was their Tour Manager for a short while (until Mike drove me away screaming) until the end of 1966, when he moved to Bellagio Road. I visited him there once, where he played me some unfinished versions of “Good Vibrations” and “Smile” No vocals, just music. It sounded nice, but there was nothing to think about them.

As to “…the heritage of my race,” it refers to what Susan Sontag labeled the Jews as “The keepers of moral seriousness.” Jews take morality seriously (some, of course, do not), but the overwhelming heritage of Jewish culture with its philanthropy far exceeding the size of its population, the abundance of great Jewish artists, musicians, writers, scientists, financial experts, legal and educational scholars, and Nobel Prize winners speaks volumes about the sense of right and wrong which prevails in this small society. Jews are three percent of the U.S. population – think of their accomplishments in that light.

Lorren Daro




Title: Posting Question
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 22, 2015, 12:30:20 AM
I have a question:

I would like to post a photo of myself and a process for proving who I am -- since so many members are concerned about this. I tried to post the photo with some text using the 'Attachment' feature, but when I previewed the post, no photo was shown. Can you tell me how to post a Reply with a photo and some text. I don't want to post just the text, it's meaningless without the photo.

Thanks,

Lorre Daro


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 12:42:24 AM
I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed.

The available documented evidence - a memo stating that that Capitol wanted to release a truncated, 10-track version of Smile after they'd put Smiley Smile out - would argue strongly against this, as would Capitol's increasing desperation in trying to get Brian to finish the damn thing. Of course, it's entirely possible that once they heard it, they might not have released it, but... they released - OK, before someone picks me up, they distributed - Smiley Smile, and that may be the single weirdest album ever recorded by a band of the sixties.

As for Mike, as has been noted before, if he really disliked the songs that much, it would have been so much easier for him to just refuse to sing them. But he did, in some cases superbly (try singing his bass line on "Our Prayer": it's a complete bitch).

Quote
I was not at the ‘Rhonda’ sessions.

Then who was Brian talking to when he asks someone called Loren to "get the others in" ? It's on the tape for the legendary Murry-interrupted vocal session. Mystery.

Quote
If I have it right, my years with Brian ran from 1963, when I was their Tour Manager for a short while (until Mike drove me away screaming) until the end of 1966, when he moved to Bellagio Road.

Brian & Marilyn moved to the Bellagio house in April/May 1967 - Cam has a more exact date. I'm not being picky for the sake of it, just establishing an accurate timeline.

I would very much like to know where the notion that the family and/or band in some way influenced what was, and was not, in Brian's 1991 pseudobiography came from. At this point he was firmly under Landy's control and estranged from both. I'd suggest that whoever told you that was being inventive.

I fully appreciate you may not want to respond to me, but the latter question intrigues.


Title: Re: Posting Question
Post by: halblaineisgood on January 22, 2015, 12:46:07 AM
I have a question:

I would like to post a photo of myself and a process for proving who I am -- since so many members are concerned about this. I tried to post the photo with some text using the 'Attachment' feature, but when I previewed the post, no photo was shown. Can you tell me how to post a Reply with a photo and some text. I don't want to post just the text, it's meaningless without the photo.

Thanks,

Lorre Daro
You can upload your photos here:
http://tinypic.com/






Title: Re: Posting Question
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 12:49:32 AM
I have a question:

I would like to post a photo of myself and a process for proving who I am -- since so many members are concerned about this. I tried to post the photo with some text using the 'Attachment' feature, but when I previewed the post, no photo was shown. Can you tell me how to post a Reply with a photo and some text. I don't want to post just the text, it's meaningless without the photo.

Thanks,

Lorre Daro

There's an "insert image" function in the reply box - 2nd row of icons, 2nd left, below the I - but said image has to be online somewhere first as it's the url that needs to be inserted.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 22, 2015, 12:50:16 AM
I too don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking but I asked your timeline because about a year ago I sent an email to you after reading your essay and in your reply to me you said you lost contact with Brian when Dr Landy arrive on the scene, you said there was no more you could do for Brian at that point. Now your saying you cut you contacts at the end of the smile period.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 22, 2015, 12:50:49 AM
Thank you for answering my question about the race issue. Unlike the common view in my country used to be 80 years ago, I do not see Jews being a "race" any different from my own, just a different cultural background. Personally I think we had more than enough of this "race" nonsense, that's why I was confused by someone bringing up that word.


Title: Re: Posting Question
Post by: SMiLE-Holland on January 22, 2015, 01:34:34 AM
I have a question:

I would like to post a photo of myself and a process for proving who I am -- since so many members are concerned about this. I tried to post the photo with some text using the 'Attachment' feature, but when I previewed the post, no photo was shown. Can you tell me how to post a Reply with a photo and some text. I don't want to post just the text, it's meaningless without the photo.

Thanks,

Lorre Daro

Yeah, the attachment option is not very usefull. It's very limited when it comes to kB's, and even when you use a low-res picture, it often results in arror-messages. Sorry.

Depending on where you'd like to post it; ff you'd like to add a picture in a reply, the best way is to upload it, is with www.tinypic.com and copy-paste the url (like halblaineisgood just advised)

If you'd like to add a picture to your profile (an avatar), you can do so by going to your personal settings (Profile info > Forum Profile Information). You can either copy-paste an url link, or directly upload a picture (the last option does require a picture of max. 20kb only)



Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 22, 2015, 03:15:55 AM
This is so interesting!  Some of you have questions regarding exact dates/times etc?  You obviously know your stuff, but how often does a fan know more about the details of their idol than the idol themselves does?  How often does someone remember what month they moved house, let alone when an acquaintance did?  Would I remember what month one of my friends moved house 20 years ago?  Not a chance. A lot of people here know the details of recording sessions etc because they have studied it, researched it and live and breathe it,  you probably know way more than Brian does about it.  Not saying Loren is right or wrong....     Again this is so interesting!!! :)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 03:44:22 AM
This is so interesting!  Some of you have questions regarding exact dates/times etc?  You obviously know your stuff, but how often does a fan know more about the details of their idol than the idol themselves does? 

You'd be surprised. One of the band - no names, no pack drill - was, until someone played him the album in question, convinced that a certain song was never released - which it was - and swore black was white that he didn't sing the lead on it - which he did.

Now, personal, day-to-day life details... that's something else. No, of course we don't.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 22, 2015, 03:50:39 AM
That's exactly what I mean AGD! :)  Fans oftentimes know more.  I wonder if Brian would remember when he moved to Bellagio?   Day to day life details?  Fans wouldn't know and Idols wouldn't remember :)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 22, 2015, 04:00:15 AM
One of the band - no names, no pack drill - was, until someone played him the album in question, convinced that a certain song was never released - which it was - and swore black was white that he didn't sing the lead on it - which he did.

Let's see... which one is known for having a REALLY bad memory on such things... that of course is no other than... ;D


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 22, 2015, 04:02:13 AM
Lorren,

"End of 1966" makes sense. Brian took a contract on the Bellagio house in March 1967 and there is a press account from April 1967 of their moving.  We had a few conversations about 15 ears ago and I remember you telling me then that you sort of withdrew from Brian's scene around the Pet Sounds/SMiLE period.

I'd like to hear more about your "salons" if you care to share sometime.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Steve Mayo on January 22, 2015, 04:16:42 AM

As if this mattered: Cialis has practically no effect on sexual performance at a dose of 5mg, which is what I take. One needs 25mg at least to accomplish that. The drug comes in 5mg, 25mg, 50mg and 100mg versions. The 5mg helps open the prostate gland to make urination easier, and it allows me to avoid the brutal surgery required in order to fix the problem. If you watch a Cialis commercial, they clearly mention its use for prostate problems. I did post it in error. I don’t need to brag about my sex life, which, thankfully is somewhat normal considering my age. Such cynical people some of you are…



Lorren Daro




Cialis is available in 2.5mg, 5mg, 10mg, and 20mg strengths. most men take 10mg or 20mg for boners.
Viagra is available in 25mg, 50mg and 100mg strengths.

just an fyi.......


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 22, 2015, 05:25:50 AM
This is so interesting!  Some of you have questions regarding exact dates/times etc?  You obviously know your stuff, but how often does a fan know more about the details of their idol than the idol themselves does? 

You'd be surprised. One of the band - no names, no pack drill - was, until someone played him the album in question, convinced that a certain song was never released - which it was - and swore black was white that he didn't sing the lead on it - which he did.

Now, personal, day-to-day life details... that's something else. No, of course we don't.

Al and Honkin Down the Highway?  :)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Dancing Bear on January 22, 2015, 05:53:24 AM
I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed. I agree with that decision. The music, and the lyrics written by VDP were great, but Brian’s contributions were ludicrous. I mean, “…I gotta eat my vege-tables.” Indeed…

How did Van Dyke feel about Brian's ludicrous contributions back in the day?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 22, 2015, 06:08:24 AM
I would like to know what artists/styles of music you guys were listening to at your house parties, and did anybody bring music with them, or were you at the helm where that was concerned. (since these were held at your home)

I ask because you made a comment about "Vegetables" being a song you weren't fond of, and I know it's a favorite here, so it made me wonder what kinds of music "turned you on" in your life. I imagine you must be well aware of the entire "culture" that sprang up around the non-release of SMiLE, and I think some of our members are going to be squirming in their seats a bit that someone who was there wasn't completely knocked out by it.

Royce  :)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mendota Heights on January 22, 2015, 06:18:12 AM
Loren, do you suffer from (or do you suspect you suffer from) any mental conditions? Like psychopathy, sociopathy et cetera?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 06:19:45 AM
I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed. I agree with that decision. The music, and the lyrics written by VDP were great, but Brian’s contributions were ludicrous. I mean, “…I gotta eat my vege-tables.” Indeed…

How did Van Dyke feel about Brian's ludicrous contributions back in the day?

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Van Dyke write those lyrics... and didn't Brian never write his own lyrics ?  :angel:


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mendota Heights on January 22, 2015, 06:22:09 AM
I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed. I agree with that decision. The music, and the lyrics written by VDP were great, but Brian’s contributions were ludicrous. I mean, “…I gotta eat my vege-tables.” Indeed…

How did Van Dyke feel about Brian's ludicrous contributions back in the day?

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Van Dyke write those lyrics... and didn't Brian never write his own lyrics ?  :angel:

Seconded, AGD. This Daro canonization is getting weirder and weirder.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: smilethebeachboysloveyou on January 22, 2015, 06:22:36 AM
This is so interesting!  Some of you have questions regarding exact dates/times etc?  You obviously know your stuff, but how often does a fan know more about the details of their idol than the idol themselves does? 

You'd be surprised. One of the band - no names, no pack drill - was, until someone played him the album in question, convinced that a certain song was never released - which it was - and swore black was white that he didn't sing the lead on it - which he did.


Did he forget that he sang the lead vocal on it when he re-recorded it for his own solo album as well?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 22, 2015, 06:26:40 AM
Nothing daro is saying is making sense. It's all contradictary posts that seem to want to put BW in the worst light possible.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: pixletwin on January 22, 2015, 06:53:55 AM
He makes sense to me. I am curious to hear more from him.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 07:08:38 AM
Lorren,

I have just a few questions for now.  You say that Capitol was not going to release the Smile album, even if Brian had finished it.  However, Capitol had already started the promotion machine rolling for the album by late '66, and had hundreds of thousands of album covers and booklets printed up in advance of them (Capitol) receiving any final product from Brian.  At that point, obviously, they were planning on releasing the album, including the song "Vegetables".  Are you saying that at some point in time, they informed Brian that they were not going to release the album even if he finished it, or is that just a feeling that you got from the way things were going?  Did you and Van Dyke ever discuss the direction that Brian was taking with the album in early '67?  Did you ever get the impression that Brian thought that Van Dyke's lyrics were too 'sophisticated' or 'avant garde' for a Beach Boys record? 

I could ask more, but I'll stop here.  If you respond, I may have more questions for you.  Thank you for sharing whatever pieces of information that you remember...I know that was a long time ago.

Artie


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: filledeplage on January 22, 2015, 07:29:18 AM
I voluntarily withdrew from this site, and not because Brian visited it, of which I was unaware. He appeared after I left. The invective was beyond my ability to respond. Grateful thanks to Don Malcom and Buddhahat, among others, for their reasoned and rational responses.

What else can a historian do than repeat what the principals told him? What else can he do than relate what he observed at the time? I am not here mainly to protect Brian, although I hope I can. I am here to serve the truth as I remember it.

Yes, I was wrong about Brian not writing ‘all’ the lyrics, and I posted that apology long ago. But, many of you don’t read or remember what has been posted, but insist on your own immediate, unfounded and uninformed opinions. Yes, Brian wrote the lyrics to several early songs, but had help that was not attributed due to Murry’s objections. Those early songs were mostly simplistic and elementary. The deeper, more meaningful lyrics that appeared later were credited collaborations.

What is all this ‘old man’ sh*t? I do not drink or use drugs. I am not ill. I smoked my last joint in 1981. I wrote a book on health supplements and lead a clean life. My mind is clear, as is my memory most of the time. Count the celebrities you see on TV that are my age, are they mentally disabled? Is Betty White? Is Barbara Walters? Is John McLaughlin? Is Dan Rather? Is Bill Moyers? Is Sean Connery? Is Clint Eastwood? Etc. Etc…

As to my ‘physical appearance’ on ‘Beautiful Dreamer’, I was 65 at the time. I didn’t look that bad. If  you’re objecting to my facial expressions, that’s who I am. I wonder how many of you would look good on TV. As Popeye said, “I yam what I yam, and that’s what I yam!”

Yes, Marilyn is a lovely, sweet person. But none of you were there when she refused to support Brian, when she yelled hysterically at him for every new thing he pursued that she, Mike, Murry and the Capitol executives objected to. SHE WAS NOT A LOYAL WIFE TO BRIAN! That is what I object to. And how could you know what went on in those days just by meeting her today? There is no insult to her that would be inappropriate. And, I don’t care if she’s the mother of Brian’s children – divorce courts are full of them.

Yes, I spelled Audree wrong. I apologize. Yes, I spelled Sachen wrong, I apologize. Just because few, or none of you, know this history doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Have I used anger and invective to present my case, yes, I intended to do that. Am I angry about the abuse I’ve endured. Yes. Am I angry about the abuse Brian has endured? Double yes. Why so many of you dismiss what I have posted because of the tone of my writing is beyond my understanding. This is my personality, which has grown out the injustice I have seen and experienced in this world. Since my youth, morality has taken a dive in America. I object to that. I am a man of moral seriousness, which is the heritage of my race. Take it or leave it.

Tony Asher was once my best friend. We had a falling out along the way, plus he tried hard to get my wife to leave me. My information about the origins of ‘Good Vibrations’ came directly from Brian. I’m not surprised that Tony refused to confirm my assertions. As for Brian’s appearance on the site, once again, I never read it. I left before he appeared. I would, however, have no problem having a dialogue with him anywhere, any time. As far as I know, we are still friends. We met in San Francisco a few years ago and spent a day together talking over old times. We spoke of much that I have written about and he had no objections or concerns to offer.

I have no objections to my posts being pulled from Steve Hoffman. I never posted them there to begin with. They just appeared there following my posts to this site. I don’t know why.

From ‘The Legendary OSD’:

“When all is said and done, and it's not yet, I'm going with the one who was there at the time. There is no more authentic take on any subject than being present with the players in the same setting at the time it went down. Nothing...nothing can substitute that experience. You may not like the man, or his point of view but don't judge him on a few posts, give credit where credit is due. He was infinitely closer to the scene than the majority here. In other words, let's not shoot the messenger because someone here thinks they know better. Were you there in the mid sixties? Did you experience being with Brian and his family like this guy did, huh? Quite honestly, I'd like to see as much light as he cares to shed about all things Beach Boys because there is much more to learn regardless of who you are or what you think you know.”

Thank you, Legendary, for this. Would that many of your members have the same kindness of heart…

Many of the criticisms I have been trying to answer appeared on the WordPress site when I first posted the essay. My intention was to carry over these issues to this site in order to reach a wider BW audience. I know most of you were not aware of this contentious debate. I’m sorry for the confusion over the timing.

For the record, when I first posted my essay on WordPress, Van Dyke Parks and David Leaf both wrote me praising the piece. For the record: I still love Van Dyke, and I know he loves me.

Van Dyke just posted this on Twitter. "I confirm Lorren Daro's account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!"

Van Dyke was there for much of the history I related. His ‘Why wasn’t I told…’ line was a sarcasm. He lived much of it with me. He was there as I was. He felt the same about Marilyn and the entire crew of assholes I wrote about. Again, these were a few terrible people, not everyone around Brian. The villains were, specifically: Mike, Murry, Marilyn, Sachen and the Capitol executives. They are all welcome to charge me with libel. I would be happy to appear in court to defend my positions, or to dialogue with them in any way they choose.

It’s important that you all know that life with Brian in those days was rife with lies. People lying to Brian: Brian lying to protect his real feelings intentions, desires and feelings. I was not the only one he didn’t lie to. He was straight with Anderle, with Van Dyke, with Vosse most of the time, with Carl, and several others.  Most everyone around him had their own agendas. I had none except to be his friend and advisor when he obviously needed one. I was there to confront and take issue with the people around him who wanted to use him, to exploit him, to make money from him. I am trying to expose these bastards for what they were, and probably still are. Murry, the helping father – NOT! Marilyn, the loving and supportive wife – NOT! Capitol, the encouraging executives – NOT! Mike, the protective pal – NOT! Sachen, the helpful assistant – NOT! Faced with this rogue’s gallery, who wouldn’t lie all the time.

Once again, since I was the villain of the piece, Brian could not, once our journey was over, sound supportive of me in any way. Just mentioning my name would find him in a sh*t-storm. He quickly learned cover stories for the songs, the LSD, the ideas I presented. These cover stories have been cast in stone for so long that even Brian must now believe some of them. None of that is my concern. My purpose is to expose these true villains for what they are: the ones who made Brian’s life miserable and helped to drive him to the mental problems that still plague him. One more time, I love and have always loved Brian. I take this sh*t from most of you to help him, to exonerate both he and myself. To show that someone understood what he faced at the time.

Please remember that the three years following his LSD experience were the most creative of his entire artistic life. After that, the bullshit he got from that list of true villains finally got to him, plus the bad drugs, the food, the conflicts with his wife, the problems with his ideas for new albums, and a host of other issues. I was long gone by then. Keep in mind that Mike called “Good Vibrations” “…a bunch of avant-guard sh*t.” Doesn’t that tell you something? So he wrote a 'hook' -- big deal...

For the record: Brian was driving – very well – during the later hours of his LSD trip. It was easy. His habit at the time was to drive around for hours in West Hollywood turning every two blocks, blasting the radio and thinking. It was second nature for him, so there was no danger. If there had been, I’d have stepped in.

All right, enough…

I’ll keep reading the posts, although it’s upsetting. I will keep track of the issues and post a reply when I feel it’s right. Enough support for me has been shown so far that I’m newly encouraged to continue.

Lorren Daro

There are some glaring issues that I find beyond outrageous.  

First, you knew or should have known that Brian was in a somewhat fragile state (after largely leaving the live shows) when you allegedly helped provide an "experience" to "enhance creativity."  Many "show biz" boomers have been similarly exploited, by predatory managers, etc.

Second,  there appears a complete refusal and failure to appreciate the "collateral damage" that was inflicted on those who were in Brian's "sphere" including a spouse, children, extended family, band members, and corporate entity, alongside Brian as a result of this or these events.  There appears to have absolutely no remorse for the harm inflicted.

Third, an attempt to contort an "epiphany" 1981 with some "healthy lifestyle choices" as a sort of self-absolution is ridiculous.

And, fourth, blaming those in this "sphere" as "non-supportive." This appears to be classic "victim-blaming."  It is the rapist blaming the rape event on a "short skirt." It is the murderer of a doctor blaming the death of his mother on the surgeon.  

And, I would liken it to a spouse who comes home drunk, and incapacitated to function as a responsible parent, breadwinner, and supportive spouse, and all happening with a "new best friend."  I would liken it to someone who gets your kid hooked on drugs, wreaking havoc on an entire family, his or her friends, a job, a school experience that becomes an overnight failure, etc.  Over 80 of my former students are dead from drugs. That is about a funeral or two, a month for the last 10 years, and math is not my strong suit.  "Collateral damage" from predators.

Following this reported "event," there are disconnected relationships, hospitalizations and stress that is unending, aggravating an apparent preexisting condition, and no apparent remorse forthcoming. If you were an interloper in my life, with a family member, you'd hear plenty of "Italian-style" hollering.  The whole concept of positioning Marilyn in an "enemy" concept is beyond absurd.  And, I do not know her, except from her reputation of a singer, good mom, and spouse who appears to have been supportive. I am not a witness but suspect, as with these "inconsistencies" this is not credible.

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described. The book is written for the benefit of the general public as well as for professionals, in the hope of helping people obtain treatment."  This is the book promo.

This "creativity defense" is utter and irresponsible nonsense that has been propagandized by those who did not have to live with the consequences and who seek to "study" and "publish" studies.  People can be creative without the "benefit" of drugs.  In the interest of fairness, I have read that LSD has been used in a very limited context in the medical context for difficult-to-treat depression, to be fair.  However, this is different from "street dispensation" of a then-known dangerous substance. ***

***"Lysergic acid diethylamide comes from ergot mold, synthesized by Albert Hoffman in 1938. In the 1950's the CIA thought the drug would be applicable for mind control and chemical warfare." (Wiki)

JMHO


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 22, 2015, 07:31:39 AM
Excellent well-worded posts by Jason, Buddahat, Don, and Custom Machine to show support of the original thread staying intact. Very good responses by Billy and GF to support their views and why they agreed to abscond with the thread. Hopefully we can somehow rejuvenate the original thread and tie it to this one. Maybe the slanderous comments and statements that violated the rules can be edited out somehow. Maybe Mr. Daro will come back for a proper dialogue; I believe it would be entertaining and educational at the same time.

I second this.

I really don't understand the majority of responses here.  Everyone wants to know what really happened, but when we get a visit from someone who was there you rage against him.  Sorry, it doesn't make sense.  Because he doesn't like Marilyn?  I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but she doesn't need an army of white knights on the Smiley Smile forum to protect her.  And somebody not liking one of their friend's spouses is hardly unusual.  He's entitled to his opinions, popular or not.
My thoughts exactly. Information about Brian and the rest of them is what we all are looking for here, aren't we? We may not like some of it but oh well. We are getting some first hand experiences handed to us on a silver platter. How often does that happen? As with Ray's posts, we're getting gifts that don't happen in Smiley Smiledom nearly enough.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mendota Heights on January 22, 2015, 07:31:53 AM
I have not much to add but I just wanna point out the only way you can be sure to sell a million units... in January... is by releasing the album. And you claim they did not wanna release the album? Then why promote it?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 22, 2015, 07:36:22 AM
I was not at the ‘Rhonda’ sessions. I went to very few sessions other than that I was there for almost the entire run of sessions for ‘Pet Sounds’. I will say that I sat next to Brian on a plane from New York to LA while he wrote that song. I made no contributions to it. Sessions including Mike Love and the Boys were deliberately avoided by me. There was no purpose in doing that. My relationship was with Brian, not his band.

Maybe you just forgot about being at the session, Lorren. It's on the session tape, though we don't hear your voice. There was nobody else named Lorren or even "Laura" in the Beach Boy world at that time. Also, the original version of Rhonda was recorded in early January, 1965, which means it had to have been written in late 1964, or very early 1965 when he was resting at home in L.A. after the nervous breakdown in December.

If I have it right, my years with Brian ran from1963, when I was their Tour Manager for a short while (until Mike drove me away screaming) until the end of 1966, when he moved to Bellagio Road. I visited him there once, where he played me some unfinished versions of “Good Vibrations” and “Smile” No vocals, just music. It sounded nice, but there was nothing to think about them.

It's interesting that you were The Beach Boys' tour manager in 1963. I know Murry played an active roll in touring with them and being their manager in '63, then handed the reigns to David Marks' Dad for awhile until Murry re-assumed responsibility, then was ousted in early 1964. Do you remember any stories from being their tour manager back then?




Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 22, 2015, 07:43:46 AM
we're getting gifts that don't happen in Smiley Smiledom nearly enough.

Among them Brian Wilson himself on the board as a member and answering questions.

Just keeping it in perspective.  ;)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 22, 2015, 07:49:08 AM
we're getting gifts that don't happen in Smiley Smiledom nearly enough.

Among them Brian Wilson himself on the board as a member and answering questions.

Just keeping it in perspective.  ;)
Absolutely! What a great time to be a member of this board as it unfolds into a new era. Love it! :woot :woot :woot


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Paul J B on January 22, 2015, 07:53:13 AM
Please remember that the three years following his LSD experience were the most creative of his entire artistic life. After that, the bullshit he got from that list of true villains finally got to him, plus the bad drugs, the food, the conflicts with his wife, the problems with his ideas for new albums, and a host of other issues. I was long gone by then. Keep in mind that Mike called “Good Vibrations” “…a bunch of avant-guard sh*t.” Doesn’t that tell you something? So he wrote a 'hook' -- big deal...

/quote]

Mike only wrote the hook? Huh?  Mike was a Beach Boy from day one. Just because he had "issues" at times with Brian and/or the Band does not make him a villain. All bands do that stuff. Mike has stated again and again that "some" of that late 60's stuff was not his cup of tea. That's all. He still performed on the tracks as Brian directed him and worked hard to keep the Band relevant. 50 years after the facts why anyone else feels the need to once again drudge up the old Mike Love had a lot to do with ruining Brian narrative is beyond me.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 22, 2015, 07:56:38 AM
Lorren,

I was one of those who castigated you for taking the "low road" instead of the "high road" in your first post.  I disclosed that I am a personal friend of Marilyn Wilson-Rutherford, however I have only known Marilyn for the last 25 years, so I can't speak to her actions 50 years ago, other than what she has told me in personal conversations (which are obviously from her perspective).  I'll admit that I was offended by your tone and choice of words directed at my friend -- and at a lady in general.  Down south (I was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, less than two hours away from Hattiesburg where Van Dyke was born -- he and I have discussed this several times) we just don't do that to a lady -- at least in public!  I felt that you could have gotten your point across in a public forum with less offensive terms such as "naive," "immature," "over-protective" "ill-prepared to be a wife at 16 years old," "ill-prepared to be the wife of a musical genius at 19," etc., and even with regards to your personal relationship with her, "disliked me," "didn't trust me," even perhaps "hated me."  All of which I could have tolerated, and most of which I would probably agree with.

I respect your decision to return to this board, and I will try to read with an open mind -- as long as the blows remain "above the belt."

Lee


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 22, 2015, 08:12:30 AM

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described.


In all fairness, back in the mid 60s when people started popping trips like it was going out of fashion, few had any idea of what the long term effects of LSD could do to them.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 08:31:31 AM

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described.


In all fairness, back in the mid 60s when people started popping trips like it was going out of fashion, few had any idea of what the long term effects of LSD could do to them.

And, I might add, in 1965 LSD was not yet an illegal substance.  I was going to comment on some of filledeplage's comments, but I thought better of it.  I will say this...during the '90s I played in a band with a guy who had grown up in L.A. in the '60s.  He, in fact, became a member of a very famous group, and they had several hit records in the late '60s / early '70s.  I spoke with him often about his own experiences with various substances back then, and he said that virtually everyone who was a musician in L.A. in the '60s did one drug or another (or several, of course).  It was the norm, rather than the exception.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 22, 2015, 08:40:48 AM

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described.


In all fairness, back in the mid 60s when people started popping trips like it was going out of fashion, few had any idea of what the long term effects of LSD could do to them.

Plus it was undiluted acid back then, very strong, and much different than today's LSD.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 22, 2015, 09:07:19 AM
Hi Lorren,

Thanks for taking the trouble to return. Quite daunting I'm sure, so respect to you.

I've said my bit in your defense so won't clog this thread up any more with that stuff. I hope your time here is not entirely unpleasant and can see there is quite a lot of interest in what you have to say which is heartening.

My question, which may have already been asked, is a broad one really. Do you have any specific or fond memories of your time with Brian and Van Dyke Parks relating to their work on Smile? Do you remember Brian's sandbox for instance? Or did you ever see them discussing, or working on specific Smile songs?
 
Perhaps the following titles might jog your memory but no worries if not:

Surf's Up
Heroes and Villains
Do you Like Worms
Cabinessence
Wonderful
Fire
The Elements

Best,

Buddhahat


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: filledeplage on January 22, 2015, 09:08:31 AM

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described.

In all fairness, back in the mid 60s when people started popping trips like it was going out of fashion, few had any idea of what the long term effects of LSD could do to them.

And, I might add, in 1965 LSD was not yet an illegal substance.  I was going to comment on some of filledeplage's comments, but I thought better of it.  I will say this...during the '90s I played in a band with a guy who had grown up in L.A. in the '60s.  He, in fact, became a member of a very famous group, and they had several hit records in the late '60s / early '70s.  I spoke with him often about his own experiences with various substances back then, and he said that virtually everyone who was a musician in L.A. in the '60s did one drug or another (or several, of course).  It was the norm, rather than the exception.
Mikes Beard and Lost Art - I do get what went on in the 1960's, being a 60's kid and went to college and grad school in the 70's. Dr. Tim Leary wrote and espoused this transhumanist concept involving "space migration, intelligence increase and life extension." (SMI2LE ) (the 2 should be as in 2 squared and I'm on an ipad.) He was involved with LSD experimentation. They knew in the 40's and 50's it was dangerous.  If the CIA was contemplating using if for mind control and chemical warfare and Leary was a PhD, he should have known the risks. Leary was not an MD. I'm not looking at legal issues but moral issues.

What I have just read on Tim Leary is that he used psilocybin (Mexican mushroom) with psychedelic properties on a "cohort" of Concord prison inmates, and Andover Theological Seminarians as subjects.  His career is a very checkered one, to say the least, from what I have read, and allegedly inflating his research results. This is a huge oversimplification.  And yes, it is widely known that lots were involved.  

But I guess my point and question would be the collateral damage to the whole "sphere."  And whether there was some kind of "agency relationship" between the two persons.  Meaning as between Brian and Mr. Daro.  Did he have a duty, by extension, to the band, if he was a manager to protect him, and thus protect the band as well, by extension? Now, I'm looking at legal and moral issues.  

And Mikie is correct on potency.

This guy is 75. Brian appears to be so forgiving of so much, without formal apologies.  One only needs to look at him while being serenaded at the Kennedy Center a few years ago.  I think Mikie linked that the other night. Thanks.

Maybe Mr. Daro should say he is sorry, even if he was "asked" to procure the stuff for his "error in judgment."  Brian is on our forum!

Maybe it is time. Just sayin'.   ;)


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: bgas on January 22, 2015, 09:17:23 AM
we're getting gifts that don't happen in Smiley Smiledom nearly enough.

Among them Brian Wilson himself on the board as a member and answering questions.

Just keeping it in perspective.  ;)

Brian potentially answering questions, as to date , he hasn't answered any. 

Just keeping it in perspective.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 22, 2015, 09:23:00 AM
Concerning the lyric issue:  he did, it seemed to me, acknowledge his error on this, or at least his error in how he worded himself, in his last, long, post.

It seems incredible to me that just in these past few days we suddenly have Lorren Daro, Mike Love and Brian Wilson all presenting themselves here.   This is really by chance, coincidence, synchronicity?   Now that's groovy!  
This is the most exciting thing to happen on this board since....since....well, for me, ever!   :happydance

Agreements with others though who have stated that we can all have a discussion without resorting to truly repugnant means of expression.  There are ways to express negative/contrary opinions and/or thoughts without being stupid and foul mouthed.

Question for Lorren:  What have you against Vega-Tables, exactly?   That it is, seemingly, a silly, child-like song?   Does everything need to be so serious and lofty?   What about some good old fashioned goofy, silly fun?   Just asking.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 09:55:27 AM
But I guess my point and question would be the collateral damage to the whole "sphere."  And whether there was some kind of "agency relationship" between the two persons.  Meaning as between Brian and Mr. Daro.  Did he have a duty, by extension, to the band, if he was a manager to protect him, and thus protect the band as well, by extension? Now, I'm looking at legal and moral issues.  

And Mikie is correct on potency.

Maybe Mr. Daro should say he is sorry, even if he was "asked" to procure the stuff for his "error in judgment."  Brian is on our forum!

Maybe it is time. Just sayin'.   ;)

Mr. Daro said that he was a tour manager for a brief time in 1963.  By 1965 he was no longer working for the band, and was just a friend of Brian's.  No legal issues there.

While Mikie is correct that LSD was more potent then, it was also a cleaner dose.

As much as we do know now about how LSD can affect some people, we do not know exactly how it affected Brian.  We know that it may have played a role in Brian's downward slide, but considering all the other substances that he and half of L.A. were taking, and the mental health issues that he was born with, we just don't know.  But let's for a minute assume that the LSD played a significant role in Brian's decline.  Does Mr. Daro owe Brian an apology?  Well, he said that they spent the day together in the Bay area a few years ago talking about old times.  Perhaps he apologized then.   


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 22, 2015, 09:57:00 AM

Ex.  The Post-LSD Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment by Irwin I. Roth. "The author proposes the recognition of a condition, which he terms The Post LSD Syndrome, in which patients who have had prior experience with LSD experience a triad of distressing symptoms, the triad of unique symptoms consists of a sleep disturbance, anxiety and forms of mental instability which are described in detail.  These symptoms can occur after decades of even one exposure to LSD.  The author describes in detail a variety if case studied which illustrate the various forms of pathology which the condition can manifest.

Typical cases which consist of a fairly clear and direct presentation of the basic triad of symptoms are described, as are atypical cases in which other symptoms may appear to predominate, such as depression and addictions.  Situations in which other conditions may coexist with The LSD-Syndrome and in which they reenforce each other, such as PTSD, are also described.


In all fairness, back in the mid 60s when people started popping trips like it was going out of fashion, few had any idea of what the long term effects of LSD could do to them.

Plus it was undiluted acid back then, very strong, and much different than today's LSD.

I was under the impression that LSD back then is basically the same as it is now. That 125ug from the 60's would be the same as 125ug today, provided they were dosed correctly.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Nope. It was much, much purer, much more potent.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 10:12:43 AM
Mr. Daro said that he was a tour manager for a brief time in 1963. 

I checked with two people on that. Fred Vail vaguely recalled the name (Lorren Schwartz, not Daro) and allowed that he might have been tour manager for a short time... David Marks had never heard of the name at all.


Title: Re: Darro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 10:19:08 AM
Mr. Daro said that he was a tour manager for a brief time in 1963. 

I checked with two people on that. Fred Vail vaguely recalled the name (Lorren Schwartz, not Daro) and allowed that he might have been tour manager for a short time... David Marks had never heard of the name at all.

Hmmm.  Might have been, then?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 10:32:02 AM
Fred says maybe, David says never heard of him. Go figure.

Somewhat more pertinent was Lorren's response on his blog last night when informed that VDP had tweeted “I confirm Lorren Daro’s account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!”

"Wow! What a relief that VDP posted that Twitter! What a slap in the face for all those mindless pricks that inhabit that Website. I love him so much…

Thanks for letting me know, dear Buddhahat…"

Odd how buddhahat neglected to clue us in about that...  still, nice of Mr. Daro to come back to straighten things out with us mindless pricks. I may be a prick now and then, but I'm not mindless.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: ontor pertawst on January 22, 2015, 10:37:24 AM
Nope. It was much, much purer, much more potent.

To prove this we'll have to run some experiments on Andrew using current LSD and a stack of Carol Kaye documentation in a controlled environment.

(http://www.xolton.com/images/DRLSD1.jpg)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 10:38:09 AM
Fred says maybe, David says never heard of him. Go figure.

Somewhat more pertinent was Lorren's response on his blog last night when informed that VDP had tweeted “I confirm Lorren Daro’s account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!”

"Wow! What a relief that VDP posted that Twitter! What a slap in the face for all those mindless pricks that inhabit that Website. I love him so much…

Thanks for letting me know, dear Buddhahat…"

Odd how buddhahat neglected to clue us in about that...  still, nice of Mr. Daro to come back to straighten things out with us mindless pricks. I may be a prick now and then, but I'm not mindless.

You're not a prick...just a hard workin' guy.  ;)



edit:  There are some mindless pricks here, though.


Kidding...I kid. :angel:


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 10:43:28 AM
According to him, I'm a mindless prick - we all are - and he knows. He was here.  ;D

Seriously, if you're trying to rebuild an already tarnished image, that's really, really not going to help.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 22, 2015, 10:44:52 AM
I bet our guests don't expect the Spanish Inquisition when they come here to share.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, fetch the Comfy Chair!


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: LostArt on January 22, 2015, 10:49:35 AM
I bet our guests don't expect the Spanish Inquisition when they come here to share.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, fetch the Comfy Chair!


And a cup of coffee at 11:00.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: buddhahat on January 22, 2015, 10:49:49 AM


Somewhat more pertinent was Lorren's response on his blog last night when informed that VDP had tweeted “I confirm Lorren Daro’s account of the 60s: an inconvenient truth, in its candor. Never judge a book by its movie!”

"Wow! What a relief that VDP posted that Twitter! What a slap in the face for all those mindless pricks that inhabit that Website. I love him so much…

Thanks for letting me know, dear Buddhahat…"

Odd how buddhahat neglected to clue us in about that...  still, nice of Mr. Daro to come back to straighten things out with us mindless pricks. I may be a prick now and then, but I'm not mindless.

You've made many derogatory remarks about Lorren Daro here so I'm sure you're one if the people he's referring to. Does his response surprise you? Can you really claim it's unjustified in light of the vitriol you've directed towards him, in part, about his appearance - something he has no control over?

And why would I post his comments here? What good would it do? It might seem like I was suggesting you are all mindless pr*cks (which I'm not btw). There's just no rational reason I would share that info with you when you can find it out for yourself. The only info I recounted from his site was stuff I thought would be interesting to the board.

I throw the towel in here. I think it's a great shame that some seem hell bent on stirring up more controversy when we have an opportunity of maybe finding out some more interesting details about this period.

Looking forward to BW on Monday. Let's hope AGD, the human fact-checker, doesn't sabotage that opportunity too.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 10:56:58 AM
As I said, for anyone wanting to improve their perceived image, it's a really dumb thing to do.

And yes, of course it's directed at me, and all the others looking at his piece and thinking either "that sort of language isn't necessary" or "something not quite right here", or both. It's very hard to have an unbiased view on someone who's just called you a mindless prick, essentially behind your back. My name's not Mohandas K. Ghandi.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 22, 2015, 11:09:40 AM
Nope. It was much, much purer, much more potent.

But weight is weight, 125ug back then is still 125ug today.

Sure it was more readily available and reliably dosed back then, but that same chemical still exists today.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 22, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
I, for one, vote in favor of hearing everything Daro has to say.  The bickering going on here is needless noise.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 22, 2015, 11:16:52 AM
Me too...Let's not chase the guy away again...or do something to spark him into typing a response that'll get this thread closed and removed too.  Been there.  Done that.  Got the T-Shirt...and it reads "We're Habitually Stupid!!!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just to ne 100% clear here..."WE'RE" is pointed at ALL of us and not at ANY single entity particiapting in this or in the previous thread.  We all share in the collective vibe...me included.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 22, 2015, 11:19:46 AM
Nope. It was much, much purer, much more potent.

But weight is weight, 125ug back then is still 125ug today.

Sure it was more readily available and reliably dosed back then, but that same chemical still exists today.

Beer is beer, but there's 2.1%. 3.0%. 4.4%...


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 22, 2015, 11:24:46 AM
Nope. It was much, much purer, much more potent.

But weight is weight, 125ug back then is still 125ug today.

Sure it was more readily available and reliably dosed back then, but that same chemical still exists today.

Beer is beer, but there's 2.1%. 3.0%. 4.4%...

I mean, I get that. But the point I'm trying to make is that LSD doses of the same 60's purity still do exist, even if they're not as common.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Jesse Reiswig on January 22, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

One specific comment: It's not really so surprising Daro might not remember being at the "Help Me, Rhonda" session, even if he was, in fact, there. After all, the infamous dialogue tape suggests very little of value was recorded that day. Perhaps Daro has no memory of being at a Rhonda session because it wasn't even apparent what they were recording that day?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Bubba Ho-Tep on January 22, 2015, 12:13:57 PM
Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

One specific comment: It's not really so surprising Daro might not remember being at the "Help Me, Rhonda" session, even if he was, in fact, there. After all, the infamous dialogue tape suggests very little of value was recorded. Perhaps Daro has no memory of being at a Rhonda session because it wasn't even apparent what they were recording that day?


Finally a voice of reason. What he said.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 22, 2015, 12:22:46 PM
I would like to suggest also, the idea that "being right" or "correct" as far as ones opinions on nouns (e.g. people, places and things) such as Daro has presented, is often dependent on each persons particular view point/perspective.   Meaning: when it comes to events that happen there is often not simply one black and white "truth" to it.

Not to pick on Marilyn at all, but by way of example: in the moment and time of some of these events she may have impressed some people as, shall we say - "not at her best".  Even though really, and particularly NOW, she is very likely an incredibly sweet and wonderful human being.  
We really are all "heroes and villains".   This human condition we all inhabit is a ridiculously intricate, nuanced and malleable thing.   There could never be a coin with enough sides to flip on the variables involved.  


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 22, 2015, 12:24:35 PM
Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

One specific comment: It's not really so surprising Daro might not remember being at the "Help Me, Rhonda" session, even if he was, in fact, there. After all, the infamous dialogue tape suggests very little of value was recorded. Perhaps Daro has no memory of being at a Rhonda session because it wasn't even apparent what they were recording that day?


Finally a voice of reason. What he said.

What they said.  :)


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 22, 2015, 12:25:27 PM
As I said, for anyone wanting to improve their perceived image, it's a really dumb thing to do.

And yes, of course it's directed at me, and all the others looking at his piece and thinking either "that sort of language isn't necessary" or "something not quite right here", or both. It's very hard to have an unbiased view on someone who's just called you a mindless prick, essentially behind your back. My name's not Mohandas K. Ghandi.

I agree. I understand being angry with me, but "mindless pricks" seems like a particularly juvenile and somewhat unwarranted insult. "Overzealous" "SJW" "moral crusader" even "white knights" I could understand. But mindless? The complaints against him were entirely warranted considering what he said. Pricks? Well, you started the name-calling, not I. I think I'm a pretty even-tempered, conciliatory person for the most part. Only times when I lost my cool were to Mikie and you, Daro, and I believe I was completely justified in both instances.

I have to agree, that insult and the further inaccuracies and contradictions in your story, only further reinforces my initial impression. Just sayin'.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: SMiLE-Holland on January 22, 2015, 12:38:49 PM
... okay, we already locked and removed one Daro-thread; please don't let this one derail any further resulting in another topic we have to close. Please move on, agree-to-disagree, etc.

Btw, the 'mindless pricks' remarks was quoted directly from Daro's blcok (if I recall correctly), so it's mentioning here wasn't a direct call out from one board member to another to begon with. Yet we take it personal again... sheehs....


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: AvanTodd on January 22, 2015, 01:17:31 PM
Well said SMiLE Holland.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mike Garneau on January 22, 2015, 01:20:52 PM
Touchy bunch, ain't we?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Les P on January 22, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
I believe ‘Smile’ wasn’t completed because of objections to it by both Mike Love and the record company, which refused to release it, even if it was completed. I agree with that decision. The music, and the lyrics written by VDP were great, but Brian’s contributions were ludicrous. I mean, “…I gotta eat my vege-tables.” Indeed…


Lorren, thank you for your reply.  Are you aware of any instances of Brian destroying or erasing tapes out of frustration, anger, discouragement, etc?  

And do you have an opinion why Brian started re-recording 'Smile' tracks almost obsessively; for instance, was it his personal creative perfectionism that drove him, or some other reason (self-doubt due to criticism, commercial pressure, pressure from group, etc)?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 22, 2015, 02:46:42 PM
One specific comment: It's not really so surprising Daro might not remember being at the "Help Me, Rhonda" session, even if he was, in fact, there. After all, the infamous dialogue tape suggests very little of value was recorded that day. Perhaps Daro has no memory of being at a Rhonda session because it wasn't even apparent what they were recording that day?

That specific Rhonda session has been on collector's cassette tapes, then CD's, then YouTube, and web sites and blogs all over the internet. It's been public domain for many years. If I knew The Beach Boys and/or someone else knew that I knew The Beach Boys and this tape was brought to my attention and they asked, "Mike, is that you that Brian Wilson is talking to on this Beach Boys session tape along with his drunk father?", I'd know it right away. When I first heard the tape and Brian was heard calling for "Lorren", I immediately knew it was Lorren Schwartz, the guy I'd previously read about in articles and books related to The Beach Boys. There aren't that many guys with the first name "Lorren" out there.  Plus, Lorren says he was at the Pet Sounds sessions, which were only one year after the the Rhonda sessions. I'm thinking pretty much anybody who was there would remember Murry coming in (first time since he was fired the year before?) and all but ruining the session. Another memorable event would be Brian throwing Murry up against the wall during an "I Get Around" session.

But I don't fault Mr. Daro for not remembering the Rhonda session specifically. It was a long time ago, and my memory is starting to fade about 1965 events and highlights too!  Some things you remember and some you don't, that's all. I would hope he'd remember, though.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 22, 2015, 03:04:39 PM
The "Rhonda" sessions are epochal to the people THAT WEREN'T THERE. For Daro, it was probably just another argument between Brian and Murry, and hence, not overly memorable. This whole "Gotcha! You were actually there on 6/24/64, liar!" nonsense is tiresome. I get the need to get the facts right, but this insane obsession with specific dates and events just isn't how people remember their lives.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 22, 2015, 03:08:52 PM
Nobody here has ever called Lorren a liar for not remembering the Rhonda session, there, Cohen of Controversy. Get your facts straight.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 22, 2015, 03:15:15 PM
When he first appeared, people were questioning if it was a hoax for those sorts of reasons. That's what I was referring to.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Catbirdman on January 22, 2015, 03:21:40 PM
Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

I, too, couldn't agree more with the above post.

I have found it mystifying how much ire has been thrown back at Lorren Daro. Only Lee Dempsey to me articulated his perspective with any real emotional truth. I now get where Lee was coming from and it makes total sense. Others, not so much. This place felt a bit like a Wild West posse. Did Lorren murder all of our daughetrs or something? Sheesh.

Most everyone seems to agree (even Lorren himself now) that his initial post crossed the line in the tact and respect department. So yeah, guilty as charged. So he may have some facts wrong (from 40-50 years ago). So he may have an agenda, a bias. Who doesn't? So as long as he makes an effort to work more toward a respectful dialogue, please, for the love of God, let's not chase him off again just because we might not agree with everything or even mistrust some of it.

That said I totally support the mods. Pulling the thread isn't something i would have done personally (I think - hard to say as an observer), but I respect their decision, given some of the more scathing personal remarks that were made there.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 22, 2015, 04:03:04 PM
One thing really cracks me up here. All the Johnny-Cum-Lately's that have made comments who weren't even around to read the first thread. They comment on the comments of the posters who were actually there to read Mr. Daro's initial posts with their own observations and after-the-fact comments. Some jump on the ol' proverbial bandwagon and some make it known that they're clearly not going to jump. It's just funny.  :-D


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 22, 2015, 05:05:15 PM
I would like to respectfully suggest at this point that we try to shift the emphasis here to asking Lorren Daro as many questions as we can regarding his experiences, impressions--and opinions--with respect to the time he was Brian's friend.

I would suggest that we compile the questions and then refrain from replying until Lorren (if he is so inclined) completes answering the entire list of questions or indicates to us that he's completed what he is willing, alble and ready to address. I am confident he will candid, possibly in ways that will be uncomfortable to some. But, as has been stated, this is a fascinating and rare opportunity, and we should understand that and act accordingly.

I believe that this group can compile an incredible, highly encompassing set of queries and this would make for a fascinating parallel with the analogous event that is apparently going to occur with Brian.

Once that is completed, then fur may fly--or not--it will be a Smiley Smile free-for-all. In anticipation of that, I have just acquired a flak jacket that rumor has it was formerly owned by a Mr. A.G. Doe, who outgrew it and now is sporting even more formidable attire.

 :hat


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Dancing Bear on January 22, 2015, 05:28:11 PM
I think asking Lorrem questions is totally ok. It's up to each one of us to filter the answers to our liking. No insider carries the gospel or real truth on two stone tablets, no matter how much he's been or currently is Brian's friend. Everyone's biased.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 22, 2015, 07:06:08 PM
So Lorren...Good evening to you.  Hope you're feelin' OK...and a little more relaxed.  I want to pick your brain a touch.  Back when Brian had 'Pet Sounds' pretty much ready for the rest of the group to add in their vocals...thats after he'd recorded most if not all of the instrumentation and had already recorded his own vocals onto most of the tracks...what was going through his head?  THEY were coming back from being on the road...in Japan was it?  He was sitting there with a bold new expression for a group hopefully looking forward to a brighter future.  Was he excited or apprehensive about the reaction he was going to get?  What did he expect to hear from them collectively and individually?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Cam Mott on January 22, 2015, 09:03:19 PM
That was weird.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Custom Machine on January 22, 2015, 09:12:59 PM
Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

Excellent point.  Let's not forget that Brian and Mike can't agree when and where they wrote Fun, Fun, Fun, with Brian telling Mike, "Your brain is getting senile!"


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 22, 2015, 10:16:24 PM
I too don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking but I asked your timeline because about a year ago I sent an email to you after reading your essay and in your reply to me you said you lost contact with Brian when Dr Landy arrive on the scene, you said there was no more you could do for Brian at that point. Now your saying you cut you contacts at the end of the smile period.

Mr Daro can you please explain this to me. The time you explained the timeline to me is vastly different to what you had said previously to me, about a decades difference.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 22, 2015, 10:39:07 PM
And earlier he said he'd been in contact with him a couple of years ago :/


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Custom Machine on January 22, 2015, 11:57:48 PM
OK, here's my question - Lorren, do you have any particularly memorable experiences you'd like to share of time spent hanging out with Brian Wilson, Tony Asher, and/or Van Dyke Parks?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 23, 2015, 12:00:54 AM
According to him, I'm a mindless prick - we all are -

To be hairsplittingly correct, he only said there are mindless pricks inhabitating this forums but not specifically that all posters here are. But I guess we can take it as very likely that he included you in this category. ;D Probably me too, as I do not have a favorable opinion on people who expectorate insults like "mindless pricks" at such a rate. That doesn't mean his perspective wasn't interesting to know, as other posters pointed out.


Touchy bunch, ain't we?

Taht would be a good alternate name for the Beach Boys. "Dave Marks And The Touchy Bunch" :-D


But I don't fault Mr. Daro for not remembering the Rhonda session specifically. It was a long time ago, and my memory is starting to fade about 1965 events and highlights too!

Many people from the 60s say they don't remember much of the time due to some substances... ;D


Excellent point.  Let's not forget that Brian and Mike can't agree when and where they wrote Fun, Fun, Fun, with Brian telling Mike, "Your brain is getting senile!"

Were Brian and Mike even there when they wrote it? :-D


I bet our guests don't expect the Spanish Inquisition when they come here to share.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal Fang, fetch the Comfy Chair!

THE COMFY CHAIR??!? :o :o :o :o


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 23, 2015, 12:58:37 AM
And earlier he said he'd been in contact with him a couple of years ago :/

What, are you questioning his wisdom? Well obviously you sir, are a mindless prick!  ;D


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 23, 2015, 01:08:08 AM
One thing really cracks me up here. All the Johnny-Cum-Lately's that have made comments who weren't even around to read the first thread. They comment on the comments of the posters who were actually there to read Mr. Daro's initial posts with their own observations and after-the-fact comments. Some jump on the ol' proverbial bandwagon and some make it known that they're clearly not going to jump. It's just funny.  :-D

Just like when you've liked a band your whole life and then someone comes along and starts liking them too, and it's just soooo annnoying, right?  Cos you discovered them first,  and who are they to have an opinion...  THEY WEREN"T THERE AT THE BEGINNING!  ;)

Anyway,  Lorren,  maybe  Marilyn was just scared to death of drugs, rather than trying to hold him back? Maybe she also didn't fit in with the crowd and felt intimidated?


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 23, 2015, 01:27:55 AM
The following is a comment posted on WordPress by ‘Johann’

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, some of those self-styled historians at the Smiley Smile board come off as a bit creepy, and can't see the forest for the trees.

How any of them could possibly know how Brian's wife treated him or Lorren behind closed doors 50 years ago  is beyond me.
 
I found the following passage on page 134 of the Steven Gaines "Heroes and Villains" book to be interesting:

”According to Marilyn Wilson, Loren Schwartz began to rule Brian's life. "Brian was just completely taken with him," she said. Feisty and dedicated (LD: Wrong), Marilyn kept up an active campaign for Brian to end their friendship. "(Brian) would always want me to go over to Loren's house, and I would say, "No, I'm not comfortable with those people." (LD: Lynda and her got along fine)

When the fighting over Loren became explosive, Marilyn threw up her hands.
 
The book goes on to say Marilyn separated from Brian, who didn't seem to care about the separation, at first. Marilyn said, "He wasn't devastated at all." (LD: She’s right, he wasn’t – she wasn’t Diane)

Ultimately they reconciled but "Brian's fascination with Loren Schwartz and drugs did not end, and soon Loren was a daily visitor to Laurel Way."
----
If even half of this scene is true, then it's not difficult to see why Lorren doesn't view Marilyn in the same way as many of her supporters at the Smiley Smile board, most of whom have likely never met her, or know her beyond fawning over her during a short meeting, or being a Facebook 'friend' of hers.

Continue to fight the good fight, Lorren.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone wishes to read the original essay I posted on WordPress, which began this whole controversy, here is the Website:

https://lorrendaro.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/brian-wilson-and-lsd/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGD: As to asking me to ‘…get the others in.’ It’s long ago, but I think I was in the studio with Brian and some musicians and Murry, over the PA, asked me to bring them into the booth to hear a playback. Aside: After I had confronted Murry (before this) and got in his face, he realized that I wouldn’t take any sh*t from him, he became sort-of friendly with me. I think because I had more sway with Brian at that point then he did. Brian either had just, or was about to, fire Murray as manager. I can’t recall the dates or the sequence. Perhaps some of you can fill me in.

As to the Bellago move, I was on the road with some group in early 1967. It makes sense that Brian moved from Laurel Way in April, 1967. What I should have said was that I left my relationship with Brian at the end of 1966, even though he didn’t make the move until April, 1967. I saw him once more later in 1967 when I heard the tapes I described. I had been living in Japan. It was just a visit to the new house and not a continuation of our relationship. Hope this makes sense. I can’t speak to the autobiography or Landy. I was long gone by then.

Micha: I used the word ‘race’ as an easy metaphor for Jewish culture and society. We use the word among ourselves because we feel like one. I should have used a different word, but it comes so easily.

MrRobinsonsFather: I’m sorry but I can’t remember the dates involved with Landy and when I left. That period is too hazy for me, and was also when I replied to your email. I think I left before, or just as, Landy’s invasion. I remember conversations with our mutual friends about Landy, and I smelled a rat immediately. I wasn’t wrong.

To Cam: I don’t know if you ever read my essay, but I think there’s enough there to describe the ‘salons’. If you need more, I can dredge up some details.

Thank you, Wild Honey, you describe my calendar predicament perfectly. I was inside it all, not outside taking notes. Maybe I need a hypnotist…

Dancing Bear: VDP would tell you this: He agreed with me about how ludicrous Brian’s lyrics were, but his collaborations were seen by him as furthering his career – and VDP isn’t shy about saying so. He recently wrote an article for TheDailyBeast.com describing Brian as being a ‘bully’ when he worked with him. Some of you may not know it, but VDP is an international star. He is welcome in Japan and all over Europe to give concerts, and his records sell well everywhere but here. He, too, is a musical genius, but not an idiot. If he put his mind to it, he’d be a major poet. Why SS members hate him, I can’t understand…

Tricycle: I’m sorry, but ‘Smile’ is a mess. There’s no accounting for taste. At my home, the stars were The Beatles, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Motown, Ray Charles (‘Drown in My Own Tears’ Wow!), a number of folk groups, Brian’s acetates – straight from the machine, Dylan, of course… I’ll try to think of others.

Modern Cargo: At times, I have described myself as a ‘benign sociopath.’ I don’t particularly like society, with its herd mentality and rampant violence, bigotry and greed. I have never had a breakdown or a mental illness. I prefer one-to-one relationships. The minute you’re with more than two people, it all falls apart. I’m an only child accustomed to being alone – preferring it, actually. I always had one best friend and one woman in my life. I was married for seventeen years to Lynda, two kids, boy and girl, now in their forties. Always a bit strange, no small talk, philosophical mind, drawn to metaphysics. Always felt out of place, corporations seemed like monasteries to me. Could read and write at two. Skipped a year in school. Grad of UCLA. Lived by my wits, free from nine to five. Mom thought I was crazy. Sent me to a shrink. He told me it was my Mom who was crazy. Kicked me out after three months, saying I didn’t need him. Lovely guy. I hope your question was serious and not sarcasm…

Oh, AGD: You know that Brian fed his ideas to his collaborators and they wrote the lyrics for him – ask Tony Asher. Brian usually knew what he wanted to say, but couldn’t fit the words into the music. The people he worked with knew how to do that. Do you really think that VDP would write a song about how much he loved vegetables. Stop provoking me or I’ll revert to my evil twin.

LostArt: I never discussed the direction of VDP’s collaboration with Brian at the time. Everyone thought that VDP’s lyrics were too sophisticated to work with ‘Smile.’ I don’t know who told me that Capitol refused to release it. But it was very clear at the time that they did. This was at the end of my journey with Brian, so I wasn’t deeply in enough to know the details. Am I wrong in thinking that VDP and Brian collaborated on ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Sail On Sailor’? I loved those cuts. If so, those collaborations worked while ‘Smile’ didn’t. I’m sorry if SS members aren’t happy that I don’t like ‘Smile.’ I’m determined to be honest here, for good or ill. I owe that to both you and myself. I try not to bullshit anyone.

Filledeplage:  You are about as full of sh*t as anyone I have ever had contact with. You are so far off the mark that it’s truly astonishing. Obviously, you have never taken LSD, and you read too many books and believe them without true contemplation. You folks think I’m full of bile and invective. This guy makes me feel like a saint. Please don’t write to me again as I will ignore you.

Modern Cargo: My impression was that Capitol was ready for a blockbuster, but when they heard the finished product, they wrote off the PR and bailed out. Again, I don’t blame them. This used to happen a lot when groups were like demigods and had great influence with the record companies. They learned quickly to rein them in.

As I said, Mikie, I’m confused about the dates. Knowing the date Brian fired Murry might help. Did I start being Tour Manger after he was fired, or in between somewhere? I only did one tour with the BB’s. Stayed in New York, toured New England. Hanging with Mike Love once was enough for me. Greener pastures lay beyond. No particular memories. Just another bunch of concerts like the hundreds that were ahead of me for eight more years.

Paul J B: Hey, Paul, did you ever meet ML? If you had you would sing a different tune. Of course, he did his work. Why not? It made him a fortune. His resentment of Brian and his toxic jealousy of him created a poisonous stew. Did you know that ML hired a virtual army of lawyers who pursued Brian for years demanding royalties for songs he never contributed to? It made Brian sick. I saw the pain and sorrow it caused him. And I think it contributed strongly to his drift into hard drugs and mental illness. So many people hate ML. Do you think we’re all crazy?

LeeDempsey: Would you prefer to write my responses for me?

My pal Buddhahat: I wasn’t around when VDP and Brian worked together. I was around when he worked with Tony Asher, however. Yes, of course I remember the sandbox. Also the blue gym mats lining the entire living room floor in the Laurel Way house. The famous tent had no opening in the top. The smoke was unbearable. I told Brian to open it up, but he said having it closed was the point. The pro jukebox was some Beatles, but mostly Phil Spector. We went to his house together one evening. He met us at the door wearing large foam ears and feet, but we never mentioned them. The conversation was awkward. Two more different people you could not imagine. See my previous comments about ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Heroes and Villains’. I loved those songs…

Filledeplage: I’m 77 and I have nothing to apologize for. Please don’t ask again. I know what I did, and it was right.

Senorpotatohead: No, dear Senor, we can’t. No room in this seriously screwed up world for childish nursery rhymes. We need a deeper understanding of ourselves and our motives and actions in this life. Artists are here to help us, to enlighten us, to drive us forward into love and understanding. What the hell do we need an ode to vegetables for? Just asking…

Lost Art: Once again, no problems, only superb creativity for three years following his trip. The lack of understanding and compassion of the people around him – Marilyn and ML included – drove him down. The coke, the speed, the food, the agoraphobia conspired to finish him off. I often think of him today as a great oak, hollowed out, as if from a fire…

AGD: I knew Fred Vail from my agency work with GAC and Ashley-Famous. I founded their rock divisions in 1963 and 1966, respectively and booked many a group with the concerts he promoted. Ask him if he remembers the Four Seasons West coast tour in 1963. He made a fortune. I booked it. I never knew David Marks.

AGD: I didn’t mean you, AGD. I meant those other mindless pricks that inhabit this site. Ask Buddahat about them…

Cam: You are too cool for school…

Everyone: Oh, stop with the paranoia for crissakes! Just because I used the word, ‘we’re’, aren’t you guys hip enough to know that I meant the mean-spirited, mindless asses that spew vindictive and uniformed criticism, and not those of you with rational and reasonable minds? You know who you are, and, unfortunately, the asses don’t know who they are…

Jesse Reiswig:  Oh, Jesse, I love you…

Mujan: Oh, Mujan, can I ever get you to love me…?

Michael Paul Garneau: You are SO right!

Les P: I wasn’t aware of Brian destroying tapes. My impression during that visit to Bellagio, was that Brian was frantic and falling apart. All those negative forces were falling in on him. I didn’t get the music I heard. He played several different versions but I couldn’t sort them out. He was clearly on drugs, and it was the last time I was interested in seeing him. There was nothing I could do to help him…

Don Malcolm: Again, you save the day! I love you, too…

Add Some: Good question. Yes, Brian was apprehensive, and he was right to feel that way. He knew how difficult it was going to be with ML. Carl and Al, and Dennis for the vocals, not the drums, of course, weren’t going to be a problem. But anything that wasn’t going to drag in more groupies (many ultimately wives) for ML wasn’t going to sit well with him. If I remember correctly, his first question was, “How are we going to perform this?, and he was right to feel that way, too. A big change that changed everything.

MrRobinsonsFather: I’m not sure what you mean. I left the relationship just before he moved from Laurel Way. I saw him the last time much later for one day at the Bellagio house. I had been living in Japan for a year in between. We met again around 1998 (I said a ‘few years,’ not a couple) in San Francisco for a day. You’ll have to help me to fill in the blanks you are perceiving…

Custom Machine: Every day with Brian was thrilling. A true musical genius and the sweetest person one could ever know. His greatest charm was his self-effacement. Tony Asher was my best friend for nine years and I loved him. Van Dyke is a true poet and a genius in his own right. In a town full of uneducated charlatans in a business dominated by the Mafia, Van Dyke and I were almost alone on a desert island. He spoke in poetry, and I am proud to say that I was one of the few around him who understood virtually everything he said. It is why we became friends. Both highly educated, we understood each other’s language. I was eager to introduce him to Brian, and it made his fortune.

Micha: My hero was Humphrey Bogart, a famous expectorator of insults. It’s in my DNA. Can you handle it? As for the Sixties, it has been said that if you remember it, you weren’t there. The ‘comfy chair’ and the lines quoted are from a sketch by Monty Python. If you don’t know who Monty Python is, you are truly a mindless prick. Don’t faint, just kidding…

Wild-Honey: I’m not sure I understand what you mean about being first to like a band. Can you elaborate? It sounds like a question I would like to answer.  As to the second: “Anyway,  Lorren,  maybe  Marilyn was just scared to death of drugs, rather than trying to hold him back? Maybe she also didn't fit in with the crowd and felt intimidated?” Yes, all of that is true, and I don’t fault her for that. What I object to is that she was his wife, his life’s companion. If she wasn’t up to it, why did she marry him and take on the responsibility (a true and heavy burden at the time) of covering for him, for supporting him, for backing him up in difficult situations, to act as if she truly loved him instead of being completely obsessed with herself and her own needs? It is unforgivable, and I won’t give her an inch. If you can’t handle the job, Marilyn, get out and let him find someone like Melinda who can…

Lorren Daro






Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Micha on January 23, 2015, 01:58:29 AM
Thank you for the mindful reading of our posts and the calm response.

Micha: My hero was Humphrey Bogart, a famous expectorator of insults. It’s in my DNA. Can you handle it? As for the Sixties, it has been said that if you remember it, you weren’t there. The ‘comfy chair’ and the lines quoted are from a sketch by Monty Python. If you don’t know who Monty Python is, you are truly a mindless prick. Don’t faint, just kidding…

Actually "THE COMFY CHAIR??!? :o :o :o :o" is Terry Gilliam's response line (wiggling his eyes like those smileys) to Michael Palin's line "Cardinal Fang, fetch the Comfy Chair!" This was one of the first sketches from the Monty Python's Flying Circus TV series I ever saw, and thanks a lot to Terry Jones for buying the orignal tapes from the BBC who would have erased them hadn't he bought them. Seems like I know a lot more about Monty Python than you do, Mr. Daro. Still thanks to you for sharing your perspective of the mid-1960s events in Brian's life.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 23, 2015, 02:00:56 AM
Thank you, Lorren, for taking the time to answer my question and so many others. Even, it might be pointed out, those from your detractors.

If anyone still doubts that you are who you say you are, I don't think there's much that can be done at this point.

I love the thought of you and VDP (I assume that's who you meant) arriving at Brian's front door, him opening it in foam ears and feet and then, awkwardly, nobody mentioning it. Priceless, and worth the price of admission alone!

I think there's more than enough here to keep us going for a while.

There's been suggestions by AGD on the board that I have some sort of vested interest in clearing your name. Far from it. Just disagreed with the tone and basis of the insults hurled your way since Beautiful Dreamer was released. Rather than pollute this thread further I will happily discuss that in the sandbox with anyone who suspects the same.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: AvanTodd on January 23, 2015, 02:01:23 AM
Yeah, that was a great post Lorren.  I really enjoyed it.  Though I will point out, you'll find quite a few of us here that adore the works of VDP - with Brian or otherwise.  Anyway, thanks for taking the time to share with us.  I'm looking forward to reading more.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 23, 2015, 02:09:03 AM




Wild-Honey: I’m not sure I understand what you mean about being first to like a band. Can you elaborate? It sound like a question I would like to answer.  As to the second: “Anyway,  Lorren,  maybe  Marilyn was just scared to death of drugs, rather than trying to hold him back? Maybe she also didn't fit in with the crowd and felt intimidated?” Yes, all of that is true, and I don’t fault her for that. What I object to is that she was his wife, his life’s companion. If she wasn’t up to it, why did she marry him and take on the responsibility (a true and heavy burden at the time) of covering for him, for supporting him, for backing him up in difficult situations, to act as if she truly loved him instead of being completely obsessed with herself and her own needs? It is unforgivable, and I won’t give her an inch. If you can’t handle the job, get out and let him find someone like Melinda who can…

Lorren Daro


Thanks for your reply :)   And thanks for describing your life and yourself, you seem like an interesting person who's had a very interesting life, lucky you!   My first post was a cheeky reply to Mikie (about the band etc) .   I could argue a little bit with the supportive marriage bit (two way st etc), and I do think she was way too young to even comprehend what she was getting in to, but I get you are firm in your beliefs and you may be right for all we know :)  Thanks again for taking the time and effort to reply.  







Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 23, 2015, 02:25:51 AM
To Buddhahat:   I'm surprised at you. It was Brian and myself that showed up at Phil Spector's door. Spector was wearing the foam ears and feet. Thanks again for your support, and the check is in the mail...  LD


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 23, 2015, 02:26:50 AM
I find this all a little unsettling and have no idea why we are all so fixated with the past. The present is so exciting and for me far more rewarding as a "fan". I am more referring to the personal stuff.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 23, 2015, 02:29:07 AM
Those are a lot of answers! Thank you
I think I understand now. Your saying that you left late 60's then came back for a visit around 76 when the Landy scene started.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 23, 2015, 02:44:20 AM
MrRobinsonsFather:  If it was 1976 that Landy showed up, then I'm really wrong about the timeline. I wish my memory was more specific. Yes, I left Brian in 1966. Since I was gone, I am very hazy about what happened later. The news was all second hand. Sorry. Maybe you can write out a clear timeline for me that would help jog my memory. I seem to remember the days events, but not the calendar...


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 23, 2015, 02:59:38 AM
To Buddhahat:   I'm surprised at you. It was Brian and myself that showed up at Phil Spector's door. Spector was wearing the foam ears and feet.

Aah - I misunderstood your reply. Phil Spector in the foam ears and feet! No less entertaining a mental image.

Thanks again for your support, and the check is in the mail...  LD

 8)


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 23, 2015, 03:15:09 AM
I find this all a little unsettling and have no idea why we are all so fixated with the past. The present is so exciting and for me far more rewarding as a "fan". I am more referring to the personal stuff.

I find the personal aspect the most interesting..  I like knowing what inspires someone to do something, or not do something.  Though, I remember reading Heroes and Villains and the David Mark's book and wincing at descriptions of Carl's. early um, "encounters"  I don't actually like reading or want to know that kind of thing.     I love this thread,  Lorren is describing what was happening around him and nothing really private is being told about anyone else,  mostly his opinions about people and events.   The past is interesting because it's what created the present :)

One more question from me:   Do you think Marilyn and Murry (possibly others)  were actively working with each other  in regards to  oppressing Brian's different direction with music/life? (This is kind of what I'm picking up from you??)   I understand this. Not saying I agree, but I understand (Fear does funny things to people).  Okay,  now I will leave the questions for the technical, far more informative and knowledeable SS'ers.  :)


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 23, 2015, 05:02:22 AM
Thanks for that great post Lorren.  Worth the wait...and what I had hoped for from outset 1.  Hopefully this will satiate our various needs here while, at the same time, it helps you to realize your goal.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Woodstock on January 23, 2015, 05:13:53 AM
Lorren Daro has contradicted so much in his short time posting...I just can't take him seriously.

If he'd have come to the board on day one sharing his side of the story in a normal, respectful way, I'd have sympathized with him and listened to him. But how many times has he contradicted his own stories so far? As well as being rude to so many here....

I think he's full of sh*t.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on January 23, 2015, 05:14:32 AM
Say, Lorren, please tell us about Mike and why you dislike him so. Just curious.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Woodstock on January 23, 2015, 05:20:53 AM
He's made very few posts containing any substance...it's like he forgot all the interesting stuff he could have shared!! what sad, what shame  :(


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 23, 2015, 05:42:37 AM
Lengthy posts from someone who constantly makes me think of the phrase, `The empty vessel makes the most noise`...


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 23, 2015, 05:45:30 AM
He's made very few posts containing any substance...it's like he forgot all the interesting stuff he could have shared!! what sad, what shame  :(

Well, maybe if he hadn't had to spend so much time defending himself he could have spent more time indulging our questions. As it is, I find his answers, coupled with his essay, prove very revealing and offer an alternative and fascinating insight into that period.

You could levy your disappointment at any number of interviews with BB insiders from the golden days. How much did we really learn from The Smile Sessions book, for example, where quite a few key players were interviewed (with one notable exception)? Astonishingly little, although I'm grateful for what we got.

Maybe the simplest answer is that a lot of this was so long ago that it has already been forgotten, or that those involved just never placed the same significance on those events than we expect them to. If I was asked off the cuff about my university days (less than twenty years ago) I might be able to recall a handful of amusing or interesting anecdotes from a three year period that was one of the more exciting of my life. A little coaxing and I could probably dredge up some more. Remember Lorren would not have hung out with Brian every single day during his time with him, I'm sure. I think people have unrealistic expectations of how memory works. "You were there - tell me all about it in minute detail and make sure it's all 100% accurate!"


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 23, 2015, 05:49:53 AM
Mr. Daro - I appreciate your reply to my, admittedly not all that important question regarding Vega-Tables.   I do see your point somewhat, it is a pretty screwed up world, but maybe that's why taking a moment to have some just plain fun is worthwhile?  I don't know, I guess I have always looked at Vega-Tables as akin to say, Yellow Submarine by that other band  :P .   Perhaps it is also that I remember first hearing Vega-Tables as a child and, like Yellow Submarine, was a particular favorite at that time.  Sentimentality, I suppose.  What can I say?   ;)
Anyway, vegetables are good for us!   :-D


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Fire Wind on January 23, 2015, 06:21:33 AM
Mr. Daro, given your opinion about Smile, what were your thoughts about the Smiley Smile album when it came out?


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 23, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
If Lorren Daro was the band's tour manager in 1963 but never knew David, then he was TM for 12 gigs, all but two in California, from October 19th... which would account for Fred's vague recollection and for David having never heard of him. Any other scenario in 1963 is entirely impossible.

And, to paraphrase Brian's words on early October 2012, while it's nice to know I'm not a mindless prick, it sure felt like that was what I was being called. I appreciate that some here find my logic & fact based approach to such recollections, at best, annoying but without a framework that (more or less) accords with established fact, they're hard to accept. I admire that Lorren has admitted some of his recall has been inexact: there are other players in the BB game who still won't budge even when shown unequivocal documentation. They know, they were there... even when they weren't.  ;)

I'm not going to comment on this topic any more, if only because I've already said too much and sailed perilously to the rocks of tedium nor, despite what buddahhat fears, will I chime in to the BW Q&A to correct him on this topic or that. Already done that.  ;D


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 23, 2015, 07:02:09 AM
Interesting about your view of VDP's work with Brian, Daro. I thought the genius of the whole proceedings was the combination of Brian's simplicity with VDP's baroque stylization. Part of what makes Smile so interesting is that you go from "columnated ruins domino" to "I'm gonna be 'round my vegetables". Listening to VDP's Song Cycle, there are some absolutely BRILLIANT songs there, but I can't help but think that some moments of true levity would have taken the album up to another level of accessibility.
I think VDP even adopted some of that sensibility, as on his next album he had songs like "Four Mills Brothers",  which is a very funny song.  "Palm Desert" has some zingers, but it's darn opaque.

Of course, if VDP heard this he might think I'm a blowhard. But that's OK, as Syd Barret once sang: "And the wind, you can blow it."


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Mike Garneau on January 23, 2015, 07:18:44 AM
Thanks for all your input and dealing with us, Lorren.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Paul J B on January 23, 2015, 07:29:20 AM
Paul J B: Hey, Paul, did you ever meet ML? If you had you would sing a different tune. Of course, he did his work. Why not? It made him a fortune. His resentment of Brian and his toxic jealousy of him created a poisonous stew. Did you know that ML hired a virtual army of lawyers who pursued Brian for years demanding royalties for songs he never contributed to? It made Brian sick. I saw the pain and sorrow it caused him. And I think it contributed strongly to his drift into hard drugs and mental illness. So many people hate ML. Do you think we’re all crazy?



Thanks for the reply. Most people that "hate" Mike Love are misguided followers that have never met him either. I have met Brian twice and I sure don't claim to know him. Anyone that follows the Beach Boys closely is well aware that Mike sued over song royalties. Has it not been documented that Mike indeed wrote many lyrics for Beach Boys classics that he had not received compensation for back in the day? That did not happen when you were "hanging'" with Brian or when Brian withdrew and stopped producing hits for the Band and instead spent a great deal of time doing drugs.

In short yes, I think most people that hate Mike Love are crazy. Most people that hate Murry Wilson are crazy. I find it ridiculous that a minority of Beach Boys fans who claim to love Brian, (a man that uses love and mercy as his slogan) and grew up in the supposed generation of love, find joy in hating a man they too have never met.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 23, 2015, 07:58:08 AM
Interesting about your view of VDP's work with Brian, Daro. I thought the genius of the whole proceedings was the combination of Brian's simplicity with VDP's baroque stylization. Part of what makes Smile so interesting is that you go from "columnated ruins domino" to "I'm gonna be 'round my vegetables". Listening to VDP's Song Cycle, there are some absolutely BRILLIANT songs there, but I can't help but think that some moments of true levity would have taken the album up to another level of accessibility.
I think VDP even adopted some of that sensibility, as on his next album he had songs like "Four Mills Brothers",  which is a very funny song.  "Palm Desert" has some zingers, but it's darn opaque.

Of course, if VDP heard this he might think I'm a blowhard. But that's OK, as Syd Barret once sang: "And the wind, you can blow it."

I would agree that part of  the brilliance of Smile lies in that delicate counterpoint between high art and dumb whimsy, although I don't believe for a minute that Brian purely handled the simplistic part (not directed at you Mr Cohen). Lyrics aside, his music for Smile explores the counterpoint between complexity and simplicity with nursery-rhyme style melodies such as as Barnyard and the Bach-like complexity of Wonderful. I think Anderle was bang-on when he described Smile as Brian's 'cubist period' as it explores the same territory imo.


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Mikie on January 23, 2015, 10:12:30 AM
Just like when you've liked a band your whole life and then someone comes along and starts liking them too, and it's just soooo annnoying, right?  Cos you discovered them first,  and who are they to have an opinion...  THEY WEREN"T THERE AT THE BEGINNING!  ;)

Well, I just want to say right here that............I think you're a cute little booger.  ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 23, 2015, 10:43:34 AM
Mikie, the original silver-tongued charmer.  ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: smiler21 on January 23, 2015, 11:46:50 AM
Thank you Lorren for your time. I really like reading your posts. I have two questions. What were the books, movies, music that fueled creatively Brian while you were in the picture with him. Also, could you describe a typical evening with him during and/or special anecdotes. Best regards, J.F.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Custom Machine on January 23, 2015, 01:16:49 PM

Modern Cargo: At times, I have described myself as a ‘benign sociopath.’ I don’t particularly like society, with its herd mentality and rampant violence, bigotry and greed. I have never had a breakdown or a mental illness. I prefer one-to-one relationships. The minute you’re with more than two people, it all falls apart. I’m an only child accustomed to being alone – preferring it, actually. I always had one best friend and one woman in my life. I was married for seventeen years to Lynda, two kids, boy and girl, now in their forties. Always a bit strange, no small talk, philosophical mind, drawn to metaphysics. Always felt out of place, corporations seemed like monasteries to me. Could read and write at two. Skipped a year in school. Grad of UCLA. Lived by my wits, free from nine to five. Mom thought I was crazy. Sent me to a shrink. He told me it was my Mom who was crazy. Kicked me out after three months, saying I didn’t need him. Lovely guy.


Thanks for sharing your insights and perspectives, Lorren.  You self description (above) helps one to understand why Brian found you an intriguing guy to hang out with.

My next question - What was a typical evening like at your "pad" circa 1964-66 with various people such as Asher, Parks, and Wilson in attendance?  Music?  Food?  Drink?  Topics of conversation?  Various illegal (e.g., marijuana) and legal (e.g., LSD prior to 10-66 in California) drugs?

Edit:  Just noticed my question is similar to part of Smiler21's above.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 23, 2015, 02:31:06 PM
Wild-Honey:  Oh, yes, cute one. Murry and Marilyn and Mike – the three M’s, as in murderous mf’ers, were the troika of villains in Brian’s life. And, they won the trifecta, bringing him down like a giant sequoia. My mission is to expose them.

Buddhahat: You score for me once again!

SenorPotatoHead: Yes, sentimentality. As opposed to sentiment. Two very different things.  Isaiah Berlin once wrote that sentimentality is the cause of all the violence in the world.

Fire Wind: Listened to it once. Didn’t like it.

AGD: Will you please get over the ‘mindless prick’ business. You’re beginning to sound insecure. I didn’t mean you. You know whom I meant. What will you do when someone calls you an asshole? Will you faint dead away? I quit GAC in June of 1963. Brian brought me on for one short tour in the winter of that year. It was not twelve dates, but just a few. We flew to New York and did gigs in New England, none in NYC. That was the one and only TM job I did. We were home before Christmas as I recall. For God’s sake, AGD, this was fifty years ago…

Mr. Cohen: What a breath of fresh air! Yes, that’s it exactly. It worked well with ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Heroes and Villains’, but not with ‘Smile’, or much of the other stuff they did together. Also, spot on with the ‘Song Cycle’ comment. I feel exactly the same way about it. I think it’s why that album never broke through. Another thing, several of my musician friends have commented that VDP’s sense of melody is deficient. They think that contributed to the problem, as well. VDP;s genius is with words, after all. Also, am I wrong that they collaborated on ‘Sail On Sailor’, too? Can you inform me about that?

Paul J B: Crazy to hate MURRY!!! Where the f* is your head? A more brutal, narcissistic, insane psychopath is difficult to imagine. Please leave me alone.

Smiler 21 and Custom Machine: So much to think about with this. At my ‘salon’, it was only marijuana – coke didn’t show up until the early eighties and ruined the whole scene. No alcohol. Normal snacks. No discussion themes, but everyone talking with each other in their own conversations. Yes, Asher, VDP, Brian, David Crosby, Roger McGuinn, Steve Stills, various film actors/actresses, ad agency creatives, Jack Nicholson once, Peter Fonda (with Crosby) twice. Dennis Hopper once. So many I can’t remember it all…  With Brian, the most influential subject was metaphysics. I began with easy books: Gibran, Krishnamurti, Gina Cerminara’s bio of Edgar Cayce, Alan Watts on Zen. Then came a lot of talk about those ideas and going deeper along the way. Brian lapped it up like ambrosia. I helped him apply those ideas of universal love, logic and justice to his frustrations and a lot of it worked for him. He began to see things in a larger way. It calmed him down and created a base for thinking in a philosophical way. I saw the results in his songs later on. Note: A fellow named Larry Geller, whom I knew and liked, did the same thing for Elvis Presley.

One More Thing: I’m not going to get specifically into my opinions about Mike Love. If I wrote down what I really feel about him, he’d have his lawyers on me like a pack of wolves. There is enough on the record elsewhere about his actions and character. Too many SS members are ML partisans to confront them here. I will say that the grief ML has given Brian over these many years created the most injury he has had to sustain.

Lorren Daro


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: barsone on January 23, 2015, 02:33:42 PM
Again thanks for all the posts Lorren and yes its a bitch getting old.  I do have one question.  During that short period where you were the tour manager,  how was your perception of Al Jardine within the context of the group in the 63-66/67 timeframe.  Obviously at the early part of BB history, he was in  then out  then back in, which is probably why Marks has no idea who you are.  Could you sense back then that Al was an outsider (not family) and not a relevant member of the group and maybe not taken seriously.  Like when the group came back for their voices on the PS tracks.  Curious what Al was like during those sessions ?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 23, 2015, 02:42:00 PM
Barsone:  Yes, I've been waiting for this question: I loved Al Jardine. He was the sweetest of them all. I could talk straight to him and get straight answers. He was always on the outside of the group, but made superb contributions to their music. Carl and Dennis, after all, were not terribly bright. ML easily ruled them. My impression is that Al went along, but had barriers that ML wouldn’t cross. He had integrity and a clear sense of himself and his talent. I spent more time with him than any of the band, excluding, of course, Brian. Thanks for asking…

Lorren Daro


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 23, 2015, 02:55:42 PM
AGD: Will you please get over the ‘mindless prick’ business. You’re beginning to sound insecure. I didn’t mean you. You know whom I meant. What will you do when someone calls you an asshole? Will you faint dead away?

Been called that, and far worse, on here and other fora over the years.  ;D

Quote
I quit GAC in June of 1963. Brian brought me on for one short tour in the winter of that year. It was not twelve dates, but just a few. We flew to New York and did gigs in New England, none in NYC. That was the one and only TM job I did. We were home before Christmas as I recall. For God’s sake, AGD, this was fifty years ago…

Ian Rusten (concert historian without peer) has no fall New England shows documented - if you could recall just the towns, he'd have something to work on. This is what he's got thus far:

October   
11 - Timers session: No-Go Showboat (RCA - BW bvs)
18 - session: Bobby Left Me/Little St. Nick/Drive-In [Western]
19 - Y-Day Concert, Hollywood Bowl, Hollywood CA
        [w/The Routers, Mike Clifford, The Cornells, Paul Petersen, Soupy Sales,
        The Mixtures, Keith Colley, Eddie & The Showmen, Dodie Stevens, The
        Fleetwoods, Vic Dana, Duane Eddy, The Honeys, The Challengers,
        Jan & Dean, The Surfaris & Bobby Rydell]
20 - single session: Little St. Nick/The Lord's Prayer (vocals) [Western]
?? - Jan & Dean session: Drag City vocals (BW)
?? - Jan & Dean session: Little Deuce Coupe
23 - Santa Maria HS Gym, Santa Maria CA* [w/Jan and Dean and the Honeys]
31 - Loyola University, Loyola CA [2 shows]
?? - Jan & Dean session: Drag City

November
  6 - session: I Do [RCA]
14 - Jan & Dean session: Dead Man's Curve 
15 - Wallich's Music City grand opening, South Bay Center, Los Angeles CA*
        [w/host Bob Crane, Jan and Dean, Dodie Stevens, The Lennon  Sisters, Dick Dale,
        Wayne Newton, Rose Marie, Jack Jones, Tim Morgan, Gene McDaniels,  The
        Righteous Brothers, The Surfaris, The Ventures and Kay Starr]
16 - Jan & Dean session: Dead Man's Curve
17 - Jan & Dean session: Dead Man's Curve
22 - Dick Clark's American Bandstand Celebrity Party ABC TV [w/Frankie Avalon,
        Annette, Jan & Dean, Dick Dale, Wayne Newton, Dick & Dee Dee, Trini
        Lopez, Johnny Mathis, Connie Francis, The Challengers & Donna Loren]
22 - Memorial Auditorium,  Marysville CA [w/Freddy & The Statics]
23 - Memorial Auditorium, Sacramento CA [cancelled]
29 - National Guard Armory, Indio CA*
30 - Channel 18 Saturday Night Bandstand Dance, Municipal Auditorium, San Bernadino
       CA [w/The Torquays, The Astronauts and The Dave Pell Octet]
13 - Sharon Marie session: The Story Of My Life/Thinkin' 'Bout You Baby [Western]
20 - Civic Auditorium, Stockton CA
21 - Memorial Auditorium, Sacramento CA* [recorded for Beach Boys Concert]
27 - The Terrace, Salt Lake City UT*
28 - The Terrace, Salt Lake City UT*
31 - Cinnamon Cinder, San Bernardino CA*


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 23, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
"SenorPotatoHead: Yes, sentimentality. As opposed to sentiment. Two very different things.  Isaiah Berlin once wrote that sentimentality is the cause of all the violence in the world."

Right.  Now that you mention it, I have witnessed a particularly large amount of hostility in the produce section of the market.    
  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 23, 2015, 03:05:41 PM
On the other hand, Andrew (who recused himself from this thread previously, I might note...) it's possible that:

1--these are dates not documented for some reason (Ian notes this phenomenon in his book);
2--Lorren's memory may be playing enough tricks on him that the dates he's remembering are actually from fall 1964 (Rochester NY, New Haven CT, Cleveland OH, Detroit MI, Cincinnati OH).

Lorren--I hope someone interviews you on camera in a more free-form; it's clear from your writing style that in the right setting you'd be very articulate (and opinionated!!) on camera. I hope to ask a few questions a bit later on, hope everyone will continue in the spirit that has (mostly) coalesced.

And kudos to Guitarfool for most appropriately moving this thread over the the "Honored Guests" section.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 23, 2015, 04:10:54 PM
Lorren...thanks for your previous response.  2 questions this time...

1.  At any time leading up to completion of 'Pet Sounds' did Brian wonder out loud whether or not he might make it a solo project?
2.  With the inner mental image of HOW he wanted his music to sound on record...was Brian disappointed that THAT sound could not be replicated live on stage?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 23, 2015, 11:43:03 PM
On the other hand, Andrew (who recused himself from this thread previously, I might note...) it's possible that:

1--these are dates not documented for some reason (Ian notes this phenomenon in his book);
2--Lorren's memory may be playing enough tricks on him that the dates he's remembering are actually from fall 1964 (Rochester NY, New Haven CT, Cleveland OH, Detroit MI, Cincinnati OH).

Both very fair points. Ian admits that there are still gigs missing - principally in 1962 - but a whole new 1963 tour would be some find. As for it being 1964...  Lorren says shows in New England, not the midwest, and specifically says no shows in NYC. Business as usual in the BB world. I'm sure Ian is on this as we speak.  ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: AvanTodd on January 23, 2015, 11:50:20 PM
Lorren, I was wondering if you could comment a bit on the Pet Sounds sessions.  What was the mood like at the time?  Was there a vibe that something very special was happening or was it seen as just another album?  Also, did you get the sense that the band was resistant to the material or did that only come later?  Any thoughts you'd like to share would be interesting...  Thanks!


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 24, 2015, 12:32:39 AM
Don Malcolm: Oddly enough, David Leaf recorded the interview with me for almost two hours, of which he used about ten minutes. Much of what I’ve written here was said before on during those two hours. David sent me a copy.

AGD: As I remember it, and as I said, this was in cold December, not November. Thinking it over, it might have been 1964. Same month. So much of this is lost to me because, high most of the time, I never kept track of dates and years. I was in Chicago with Lynda when Kennedy was killed in 1963, another reason why it must have been 1964. I don’t know why this matters, but I hope it does. Leave it to Don Malcolm to come through again…

Add Some: I am quite sure that Brian never intended ‘Pet Sounds’ to be a solo project. His ideas for the vocals were there from the beginning. He wasn’t ready to walk away from the Boys. Also, I don’t think he cared about presenting the album onstage. This was a studio album with the Wrecking Crew and was meant to be just that. That’s why ML hated it. He thought the golden eggs from his golden goose were gone forever…

 Avon Todd: ‘Pet Sounds’ was certainly something special for Brian. It was his big departure from the old ways. The Wrecking Crew was absolutely in awe of Brian, and many said it was one of the high moments of their careers. I can’t say for sure, but I believe that the Boys weren’t fully aware of what he was doing. ML, or any of the others were not at the sessions, at least I never saw them there, and I was there for almost all of them. (Vosse was there, too. You can ask him about this). I believe he told them that they would put vocals on the tracks when he was done. Murry was there for one or two and tried to bully Brian as best he could. Brian eventually asked him to leave the studio and not come back.  

One remarkable moment was when Brian went into the studio to consult with one of those incredible musicians and I was in the booth with Murry and some Capitol executives. Here’s what I heard him say: “Brian isn’t the real talent in the family, I am. I write much better songs than he does. He can’t hear stereo. He’s deaf in one ear, you know. I taught him everything he knows. If it wasn’t for me, he’d be nothing.” Murry, as Brian told me, had hit him in the side of his head with a 2X4 when he was a boy. That’s what caused his deafness.

An added note: I’m sure you all know this, but I’ll say it anyway. Dennis stopped playing the drums on the records very early on. Brian would have a session with him and never use it. Brian usually sang each of the vocal parts into the earphones of all of them but ML and, I think, Al Jardine during recordings. Many of the tracks include almost all Brian’s vocals and very few of the Boys.

Lorren Daro


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 24, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
Hi Lorren,

When you say you were there for the entire Pet Sounds sessions, did you mean the sessions for Pet sounds the album or Pet Sounds the song?

Do you have any other recollections about specific Pet Sounds songs - God Only Knows for example?

Did you witness Brian and tony Asher collaborating at any point?

Finally, did Brian ever play you any of his compositions at the piano?

As ever, thanks for your patience with all these questions.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
AGD: As I remember it, and as I said, this was in cold December, not November. Thinking it over, it might have been 1964. Same month. So much of this is lost to me because, high most of the time, I never kept track of dates and years. I was in Chicago with Lynda when Kennedy was killed in 1963, another reason why it must have been 1964. I don’t know why this matters, but I hope it does.

Lorren, you're new here - here's why it matters, to me and several other fact-geeks here. The incomparable music of Brian Wilson & The Beach Boys has given me immeasurable pleasure over the years, has materially altered the course of my life and gotten me places I would never have otherwise gone. Yet they command far less respect than they should and there are so, so many misapprehensions about them and their music. Everyone knows they never played on their hits of the 60s. It's a Quixotic quest, but I want their history accurately documented and to this end, I'm doing the best I can: others are doing far better. Win a few, loose a few. Does any given recollection have to be "right" ? Would be nice, but that it fits into the accepted framework of known, documented dates helps a lot (although those very dates can be open to question and have, in the past, crumbled on closer scrutiny). I've made some appalling errors of fact and deduction, some enshrined in print. That's why it matters. Because the music deserves nothing less. That's why I sometimes seize upon an erroneous recollection - by anyone, Brian included - and worry the living bejeezus out of it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gertie J. on January 24, 2015, 01:00:38 AM
Vosse has passed away.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2015, 01:23:18 AM
Murry, as Brian told me, had hit him in the side of his head with a 2X4 when he was a boy. That’s what caused his deafness.

Audree said it was congenital, a damaged 9th nerve and that they noticed it when Brian was very young, under two. You're suggesting Murry hit a toddler around the head with a 2x4 ? Brian told you that ? He's also said it was a kid down the block. Brian said he burned the "Fire" tapes. Brian denied there was going to be any reunion in 2012. You see my point.

Quote
An added note: I’m sure you all know this, but I’ll say it anyway. Dennis stopped playing the drums on the records very early on. Brian would have a session with him and never use it. Brian usually sang each of the vocal parts into the earphones of all of them but ML and, I think, Al Jardine during recordings. Many of the tracks include almost all Brian’s vocals and very few of the Boys.

No, we don't know this... because it's not true. See my previous post. You're propagating a long-discredited canard, discredited by not only the session contracts but also by the session tapes. I think David Leaf claimed Brian went through agonies about how to tell Dennis he wasn't drumming on "Little Deuce Coupe". Touching story, unfortunately entirely untrue. Far better people than I have researched this topic and, for example, the complex drum pattern on "When I Grow UP..." ? That's Dennis. Lorren, this is the single thing that adhering to will seriously damage your credibility here, because it's simply demonstrably not true. And this is an instance when being right does matter.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 24, 2015, 01:35:14 AM
Great Lorren.  Thanks again.  I asked about Brian keeping Pet Sounds as a solo venture I guess because of his possibly anticipating negative reactions from some of the guys and also because he did such a fine job doing all of the vocals on his own...but you futher explained that with your response to Avon Todd.

Brian was never one for being 'on camera was he?  I know I react badly when it happens infrequently to me.  I'm remembering the bit he did with the Boys, Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Uncomfortable.  [and then some]  Any stories there?

You've mentioned a few times that Capitol didn't like Smile and wouldn't release it...YET...they accepted Smiley Smile?  How the heck would they think that Smile was anywhere near as 'ODD' as the replacement record?  Smiley Smile is the one that's way off base isn't it?  I thought, according to David Anderle [and Paul Williams was it?], that Capitol was freaking out because Brian couldn't meet any of the passing deadlines with the completed Smile album and that they were entirely pissed of that there was nothing to release.   Smiley Smile was like a WTF last minute replacement  I don't think Smile ever got close to completion until Brian sat down and, with some assistance, mapped out a Smile finish line about 12 years ago...???


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2015, 02:43:49 AM
You've mentioned a few times that Capitol didn't like Smile and wouldn't release it...YET...they accepted Smiley Smile?  How the heck would they think that Smile was anywhere near as 'ODD' as the replacement record?  Smiley Smile is the one that's way off base isn't it?  I thought, according to David Anderle [and Paul Williams was it?], that Capitol was freaking out because Brian couldn't meet any of the passing deadlines with the completed Smile album and that they were entirely pissed of that there was nothing to release.   Smiley Smile was like a WTF last minute replacement  I don't think Smile ever got close to completion until Brian sat down and, with some assistance, mapped out a Smile finish line about 12 years ago...???

It's surely one of the bigger WTF ? moments in BB history, and lord knows, there are enough of those, but bear in mind that Capitol didn't actually release Smiley Smile, rather they distributed it for the bands Brother label. That said, they sure as hell funded several months worth of Smile sessions, so I'm guessing they were looking to recoup something, anything. That or someone spiked their coffee. Oh to have been in the tower the first time they heard it...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on January 24, 2015, 03:01:42 AM
Thanks for your recollections about Al. What was Bruce like, Lorren?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 24, 2015, 04:51:23 AM
Just like when you've liked a band your whole life and then someone comes along and starts liking them too, and it's just soooo annnoying, right?  Cos you discovered them first,  and who are they to have an opinion...  THEY WEREN"T THERE AT THE BEGINNING!  ;)

Well, I just want to say right here that............I think you're a cute little booger.  ;)

That made me laugh, out loud :)   (adopting it)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 24, 2015, 06:52:02 AM
AGD: I’m beginning to understand what’s going on here. It seems that I’m as much of a victim of bad rumors as anyone else. I lot of what I’ve said was from Brian’s mouth – the 2X4 deafness, Dennis’s drumming, the journey of the ‘Smile’ records, etc. And, no, AGD I’m not going to cling to these ‘facts’. I’m here to learn, as well as to relate what I think I know. My distant memories are suspect. I see that now. Good thing you’re here to keep me on the path. I didn’t think I would run into all this scientific analysis…

Buddhahat: I was at the instrumental sessions, never the vocals. No specific info about ‘God Only Knows.’ I watched Brian and Tony work at the grand piano at the Laurel Way house a couple of times. Boring to watch, actually. Brian played stuff for me all the time. Every time I was at the house, he’d sit down and play fragments of songs and asked what I thought. It was hard to have opinions because they hadn’t taken form yet.

Notice how all this is slowing down? I’m not the new novelty any more. It’s okay. Glad to have had this experience. Some very fine people here…


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 24, 2015, 07:01:53 AM
Quote
An added note: I’m sure you all know this, but I’ll say it anyway. Dennis stopped playing the drums on the records very early on. Brian would have a session with him and never use it.  Brian usually sang each of the vocal parts into the earphones of all of them but ML and, I think, Al Jardine during recordings. Many of the tracks include almost all Brian’s vocals and very few of the Boys.

No, we don't know this... because it's not true.

Well, there's the "Holidays" session Dennis drummed on, and Brian never used it. :angel:


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 24, 2015, 07:02:56 AM
Just like when you've liked a band your whole life and then someone comes along and starts liking them too, and it's just soooo annnoying, right?  Cos you discovered them first,  and who are they to have an opinion...  THEY WEREN"T THERE AT THE BEGINNING!  ;)

Well, I just want to say right here that............I think you're a cute little booger.  ;)

That made me laugh, out loud :)   (adopting it)

Is there another meaning of "booger" that I'm not aware of? :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 24, 2015, 07:04:35 AM
Well, yes, "cute" (leaving the other part for others to contemplate...) is actually an understatement when it comes to Wild-Honey...I think we are all happy to have her back from a bit of a hiatus here, and not just because of her looks, either.

As for the Wrecking Crew/Dennis issue that Prosecutor Doe has referenced, I think that (again) there may be a plausible explanation for all that. Please take into account that during the major portion of the time Lorren was intensively involved with Brian, particularly 1965 and 1966, it was indeed the time frame when the Wrecking Crew became the primary "studio instrument" for Brian (and, of course, that means Hal Blaine).

Also consider that it's very possible that Brian felt several ways about this changeover, and, being an emotional guy, may well have expressed several differing points of view about it to confidantes at that time. Very likely he could have felt guilty about it, while also justifying the change as necessary because of the evolution his songs were undergoing, particularly in late 1964 through Pet Sounds. I think we can see how that would have been a matter of concern, and a topic of conversation.

The context of the times and the context of the friendship are two things that need to be taken into consideration when digesting and evaluating these reminiscences. I must admit to being a bit taken aback by Lorren's note that Dennis and Carl weren't all that bright---but I stopped to think about the 1964-66 period and remembered just how young they were then--Dennis was 19-21, Carl 17-19. Lorren would have been around 26-28 at this time, and personally I cannot think of a time in life (17-27) that makes more difference in terms of becoming aware of the world and harnessing one's mind and talents in response. It wouldn't be until 1968 for Dennis to write songs, though we can see him becoming more interested in the piano in the photos in Bill Yerkes' great volume about the '66 tours. Carl would soon evolve into the band's musical leader, but there were only inkling of that in this time frame and it makes sense (to me at least) that these signals simply may not have sufficiently manifested themselves.

Remember that Lorren's world was the one thet Brian went to in order for a respite from the Beach Boys, as he sought other forms of life experience. While some (not D.A. Doe!!)  have the urge to disparage some of those activities (cough-DRUGS-cough), this was the zeitgeist and it's clear that no one was going to keep Brian Wilson down on the farm (you can complete the rest of lyric on your own...)

It's possible that Brian actually magnified his fears about the band's ability to cope with the changes. But that there was a jealous, possessive cast to this tug of war is clearly the case (documented dozens of times over by just about everyone who's written about the band), and the push-pull there was nothing more or less than a maelstrom. I can think of no better illustration of that than in the great photo back in the "official" photo thread (I hope someone with skills at reposting it will do so here; I'm afraid it's beyond my skill set at this point...) where Brian and Mike are on either side of Phil Spector at one of his sessions. One only needs to look at the expression on Mike's face to grasp the "territorial" undercurrents swirling around at the time. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense--many vested interests, many competing impulses. That is what happens when one is at the center of the "frenzy of renown."


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 24, 2015, 07:24:21 AM
Well, yes, "cute" (leaving the other part for others to contemplate...) is actually an understatement when it comes to Wild-Honey...I think we are all happy to have her back from a bit of a hiatus here, and not just because of her looks, either.


Thanks Don,  that made me beam with happiness. I've had a tough time lately and I'm happy to be back here too :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 24, 2015, 07:39:48 AM
AGD: As I'm just about to slip into bed, it occurred to me that Audree had plenty of reason to lie about the deafness issue. If she blamed Murry for it, he would have hit the ceiling. Audree was classically passive, and we all know how dangerous Murry was. If what Brian told me was not true, why would he lie to me? What would be the advantage to him? He trusted me. I was the last person he would lie to. Our relationship was built on truth-telling. The whole point is that he could tell me things that he couldn't tell anyone else around him. He was isolated...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 24, 2015, 07:49:09 AM
Quote from: Lorren Daro
Another thing, several of my musician friends have commented that VDP’s sense of melody is deficient. They think that contributed to the problem, as well. VDP;s genius is with words, after all. Also, am I wrong that they collaborated on ‘Sail On Sailor’, too? Can you inform me about that?
They collaborated on "Sail On Sailor". Other people here are probably better with the details on that.

As for VDP's melodic sense, I'd say he composes as he talks. Dense and breezily overflowing with ideas. I like it, but it's not like what you hear on pop radio.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 24, 2015, 09:27:17 AM
Notice how all this is slowing down? I’m not the new novelty any more. It’s okay. Glad to have had this experience. Some very fine people here…

I don't know about anyone else, but I wanted to wait until it got a little less intense so you wouldn't feel so overwhelmed!

I'd like to hear about your experiences with Danny Hutton. He seems like a sincere and interesting guy.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 24, 2015, 09:35:56 AM
Well, yes, "cute" (leaving the other part for others to contemplate...) is actually an understatement when it comes to Wild-Honey...I think we are all happy to have her back from a bit of a hiatus here, and not just because of her looks, either.

Yes we are!  Looking forward to many more posts from her in the future.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Jesse Reiswig on January 24, 2015, 09:52:55 AM

It worked well with ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Heroes and Villains’, but not with ‘Smile’, or much of the other stuff they did together.


Hi Lorren,

Based on my reading of the above and another post, I think you may not realize that "Surf's Up" and "Heroes and Villains" were both part of Smile. I point this out only to reemphasize to the group that it still seems we're expecting you to have a command of the kind of facts that come so naturally to us, but that are less meaningful from your perspective.

"Sail on Sailor" was worked on by Brian and Van Dyke a number of years after their Smile collaboration. Recent evidence that I've seen relayed here suggests that the kernel of the idea for that song was much more Van Dyke's than Brian's. Later the song was worked on by several other writers, with the final product being a true example of a song written by committee.

I, for one, am really enjoying these posts and our interactions with you.

If you want a good timeline of B. Boys/Brian activities that might jog your memory, I suggest you visit Andrew Doe's gigs and sessions timeline (with much of the background research done by Ian Rusten and Craig Slowinski, both members of this site, among other people Andrew names on the landing page) at http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs.html

Nothing any of us could reconstruct for you here could possibly compare.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Les P on January 24, 2015, 10:03:56 AM

With Brian, the most influential subject was metaphysics. I began with easy books: Gibran, Krishnamurti, Gina Cerminara’s bio of Edgar Cayce, Alan Watts on Zen. Then came a lot of talk about those ideas and going deeper along the way. Brian lapped it up like ambrosia. I helped him apply those ideas of universal love, logic and justice to his frustrations and a lot of it worked for him. He began to see things in a larger way. It calmed him down and created a base for thinking in a philosophical way. I saw the results in his songs later on.

Lorren, thanks for all the interesting posts.   Can you please name some songs in which you see this direct metaphysical influence?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 24, 2015, 12:33:01 PM

Is there another meaning of "booger" that I'm not aware of? :)

It doesn't really mean booger Micha.  It's like calling someone a 'good sh!t'...or an 'old fart'...or a 'little booger'...the 'word' loses it's  usual meaning and it becomes 'cute'.  Probably better not to experiment with THESE though.  Sometimes it works.  Sometimes it doesn't.  And it depends WHO it is saying 'it' to which whomever.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 24, 2015, 12:37:04 PM
Then there's the word "bugger" which has a whole other meaning.

Lorren, you awake yet?  :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 24, 2015, 12:45:27 PM
Hope he is.  In bemoaning the fact that the torrent of questions has died down...Lorren missed my last 2.  Back by AGD's posts on the previous page Lorren.  You aren't 'old news' by the way.  The place quiets down on the weekend.  So anyway...while I'm here...a 3rd question to go with the one about Bob Hope/Jack Benny and the other about Smile/Smiley Smile...

....In the group of artistically inclined folks who congregated...did they give Brian the respect he was due...or did they do that thing that the self-proclaimed 'special' people do and pretty much just USE him 'til he was no longer 'amusing'?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 24, 2015, 01:14:56 PM

Buddhahat: I was at the instrumental sessions, never the vocals. No specific info about ‘God Only Knows.’ I watched Brian and Tony work at the grand piano at the Laurel Way house a couple of times. Boring to watch, actually. Brian played stuff for me all the time. Every time I was at the house, he’d sit down and play fragments of songs and asked what I thought. It was hard to have opinions because they hadn’t taken form yet.

Notice how all this is slowing down? I’m not the new novelty any more. It’s okay. Glad to have had this experience. Some very fine people here…


Hi Lorren,

Thanks for answering another of my questions.

The slowdown is probably a combination of factors - often I notice less traffic here at the weekend but also the thread has cooled down emotionally a bit which is no bad thing imo. I sense those of us who are here are really valuing your contributions, candour and humility in admitting the difficulties in recalling this stuff 50 yrs later. I hope you stick about for a bit longer.

It's ironic to hear that you found it boring watching Tony and a Brian at work at the piano, creating Pet Sounds! I could practically hear the collective jaw of the message board hitting the floor as I read that. I think for many here that period of creativity is charged with a sort of mystical aura but it seems fitting that you are so matter of fact about it. If only somebody had recorded their writing sessions though! As far as I'm aware there's only one recording of Brian demoing a Pet Sounds song - A solo piano version of Don't Talk that appears on the Pet Sounds sessions. It is stunning though.

I have been driving around today with a mental picture of your and Brian's encounter with a foam-eared Phil Spector. Can you remember any other details of that night? What had brought you there - was he a friend of yours, perhaps? Was it just you and Brian or were there others there? We know Brian was in awe of Spector. Did he ask Phil about his work or was he pretty tongue-tied around him? Spector was obviously a huge influence on Brian. Do you remember any resentment from Spector towards Brian, or a sense that he was threatened by this young pretender?!

Best,

Buddhahat


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 24, 2015, 01:31:01 PM


It's ironic to hear that you found it boring watching Tony and a Brian at work at the piano, creating Pet Sounds! I could practically hear the collective jaws of the message board hitting the floor as I read that.


No way Budd.  Not a chance.  The floor?  The desk stopped my jaw cold. ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SBonilla on January 24, 2015, 02:02:20 PM


It's ironic to hear that you found it boring watching Tony and a Brian at work at the piano, creating Pet Sounds! I could practically hear the collective jaws of the message board hitting the floor as I read that.


No way Budd.  Not a chance.  The floor?  The desk stopped my jaw cold. ;)
I found his comment to be about right. Watching people write songs is, indeed, boring. It's work, not entertainment.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 24, 2015, 02:15:46 PM


It's ironic to hear that you found it boring watching Tony and a Brian at work at the piano, creating Pet Sounds! I could practically hear the collective jaws of the message board hitting the floor as I read that.


No way Budd.  Not a chance.  The floor?  The desk stopped my jaw cold. ;)
I found his comment to be about right. Watching people write songs is, indeed, boring. It's work, not entertainment.

Indeed, I can imagine this. That jean luc Godard film of the stones recording sympathy for the devil is periodically fascinating and tedious if memory serves ...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 24, 2015, 02:16:40 PM


It's ironic to hear that you found it boring watching Tony and a Brian at work at the piano, creating Pet Sounds! I could practically hear the collective jaws of the message board hitting the floor as I read that.


No way Budd.  Not a chance.  The floor?  The desk stopped my jaw cold. ;)

 ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 24, 2015, 03:44:14 PM
Les P: For me, the metaphysical influences began with ‘Pet Sounds’ It was a different style of songwriting. The rocknroll was virtually gone and much deeper issues were being dealt with. This continued with the ever more obscure and non-commercial content of the songs he wrote with VDP. I’m reminded of the career of Herman Melville: He began by writing pure adventure stories that became, little by little, spiritual ones. ‘Moby Dick’ was the perfect blending of the two. The books after that were more and more spiritual, and sales fell off until he wasn’t read at all. Something like this has happened to Brian.

Add Some: Good question: Almost everyone around him, except ML, were in utter awe of Brian. They knew what he was – some kind of musical genius – but appearing in the form of a (don’t go crazy now) simple-minded teenager – kind of like Mozart (another idiot-savant with a stern father).  Brian was never comfortable on television or with celebrities, not even in my living room. Brian’s gifts, which are stunning to us, was just his normal state of being – nothing special, just what he does. Never once did I see evidence of a ‘big head’ on Brian’s shoulders, in fact, he was completely self-effacing.

Buddhahat: “I have been driving around today with a mental picture of your and Brian's encounter with a foam-eared Phil Spector. Can you remember any other details of that night? What had brought you there - was he a friend of yours, perhaps? Was it just you and Brian or were there others there? We know Brian was in awe of Spector. Did he ask Phil about his work or was he pretty tongue-tied around him? Spector was obviously a huge influence on Brian. Do you remember any resentment from Spector towards Brian, or a sense that he was threatened by this young pretender?!”

I didn’t arrange the meeting. Brian had talked to him on the phone and he invited him over. It was just Brian and myself. I think he wanted moral support. Brian was tongue-tied. No real conversation. Spector didn’t know what to make of him. No resentment, no threats. It was Phil Spector, for crissakes. He wasn’t threatened by anything.

Note to All: You may not like what I’m going to say here, but I owe both you and myself the truth as I see it, feel it, believe it. Many of you are asking me the wrong questions. Maybe this will help:

I loved the Beach Boy’s records, but I was not a fan-boy. I didn’t keep track of all the details of their lives and careers, or even the music. I lived in a different social and educational environment. I grew up in Beverly Hills, I graduated from UCLA with a degree in English Literature and worked on a Master’s for a year before I joined MCA as a Junior Agent in 1960. At GAC in early 1963, I founded their first rock department because they asked me to. I was a Beatnik, jazz-loving, Lenny Bruce-loving hipster and an over-educated quasi-intellectual. That’s why me and VDP hit if off immediately.

I say all this because, in light of it, maybe you can understand that I wasn’t interested in a bunch of lower middle class teenagers from the LA suburbs. I was interested in an orchid amongst the dandelions – Brian. I immediately sensed, as many did, that this was a very special person who needed to know more about the world, about what great writers were saying, and about himself. I was a mentor, advisor and protector, not a playmate or pal.

As soon as I got to know him, I realized what he was up against with the troika of Murry, ML and Marilyn. I saw his complete inability to confront them. I saw that I could help him do that, as much for posterity as for myself. I faced off all three of them, which drove them nuts. I built a kind of mental fence around him. I showed him how they were using him, abusing him, exploiting him for their own purposes. Murry wanted to feed off  his fame. Marilyn wanted to mold him into the kind of man she was taught to want growing up in an old-fashioned Jewish household. ML wanted fame, money, chicks and power, and to tell everybody else to f*** off.

I didn’t perceive Brian’s social or musical environment they way you all are doing. I wasn’t collecting minutiae, I was doing social work and therapy. I wanted to give him the balls to stick up for himself and to understand the magnitude of his talent. After the LSD, he began to see things in a different way, and the troika didn’t like it at all. They saw the changes as all my fault, and I became the villain. But, I will tell you here: I don’t give a sh*t what they, or anyone else, thinks or thought. I’m not a fool. I knew what I was doing. Aside from a coat and a nail clipper, I never took a thing from Brian. It was my contribution to the world that I bring it a strong, fully self-aware, enlightened artist. I only got partway there, but it was enough for him to get rid of Murry, to divorce Marilyn, to stop taking sh*t from ML and to find his own artistic path, beyond all the commercial expectations of everyone around him. I helped him do that, and I’m proud of it.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 24, 2015, 04:15:13 PM
Fascinating to get your perspective Lorren, especially as your strong feelings towards the characters involved make the telling feel very much alive for me.

I have read about the tensions that existed and the pressures Brian was under at this time but usually through the writings of a detached third party. It's a different thing entirely to hear a personal, emotional account such as yours.

Unfortunately I have to turn in now but thanks again for taking the trouble to answer all my questions.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ontor pertawst on January 24, 2015, 04:16:13 PM
Lorren, can't you expand on the Mike Love angle from where you were sitting? Are you really afraid he's going to set his legal dogs on you over a thread on Smiley Smile? He's have to sue hundreds of people online if so. Curious about the song credits thing...

Any incident with Mike Love that sticks out after all these years and captures his essence? A bit sulphurous, a bit sweaty: essence of Love. Ask for it by name at fine stores.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: smiler21 on January 24, 2015, 04:39:53 PM
Lorren, do you have any picture of Brian during that era. Any pics of the famous sandbox?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 24, 2015, 04:57:35 PM
Hi Lorren,

Random questions:

1. How obvious were Marylin, Murry and Mike in their desire to control Brian?

2. Was it to his face, or behind his back?

3. What methods did each of them use, and was it coordinated in any way?

4. How long after you befriended Brian did you point these things out to him?

5. Did he already seem aware of some of this, and what was his initial reaction to you telling him these things?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: clinikillz on January 24, 2015, 05:37:07 PM
Lorren,

You noted earlier that Brian needed help conveying his thoughts into lyrics, but did he need help coming up with melodies, instrumental arrangements or vocal arrangements?

Thanks, and sorry if this question has already been asked.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: runnersdialzero on January 24, 2015, 07:22:34 PM
Lorren,

Can you find this thread now that it's been moved?


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Les P on January 24, 2015, 09:30:55 PM

My impression during that visit to Bellagio, was that Brian was frantic and falling apart. All those negative forces were falling in on him. I didn’t get the music I heard. He played several different versions but I couldn’t sort them out. He was clearly on drugs, and it was the last time I was interested in seeing him. There was nothing I could do to help him…


That's a very sad picture.  As his mentor of sorts, did you try to tell him what you saw happening to him?   Was he at all aware that he was falling apart, or was he too caught up in it to realize there was a problem?



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 24, 2015, 10:25:01 PM

Buddhahat:  Thank you, as usual, my defender…

Ontor pertwast:  With his money, anger and insecurity, ML wouldn’t hesitate to sue whomever he felt insulted him. If I name incidents, I open myself to legal action. Don’t all of you know who and what he is by now? Essence of Mike Love? Try Zyklon B.

Smiler21: I have a few proof sheets from that era. I showed them to David Leaf. He didn’t find them usable, and he was right. I didn't want to seem like a fan snapping pictures. I have no shots of the piano, but I’ve seen some…

Tricycle Rider:

1. How obvious were Marilyn, Murry and Mike in their desire to control Brian?

As obvious as a train wreck.

2. Was it to his face, or behind his back?

Both…

3. What methods did each of them use, and was it coordinated in any way?

Anger, argument, insults, derision -- all planned in advance.

4. How long after you befriended Brian did you point these things out to him?

It took about a month to perceive the lay of the land.

5. Did he already seem aware of some of this, and what was his initial reaction to you telling him these things?

He was aware of all of it. It was driving him nuts. Why were they all so disloyal? Weren’t they supposed to love and honor him? His reaction when I finally sat down with him and told him what I thought, was like a great weight lifted off his shoulders. Here is someone who understands and can probably help me. Things got better from that moment on.

Clinikillz: As far as I could tell, Brian needed no help whatsoever with any musical aspects. The lyrics were a different thing: He had ideas, but they had to be converted into rhythm, hooks and meter. Brian’s musical education came from the leader of a famous singing group, The Four Freshman. I forget his name. He taught Brian modern harmony and song construction. Without him, Brian would have been lost. He owes him everything. I met him once in the studio.

Runnersdialzero: What thread is that? I’m on ‘The Lorren Daro’ thread right now. Is there another?

Les P: See my answer to Tricycle Rider. Brian wasn’t falling apart. He was frustrated and nerve-wracked and isolated. And he was definitely aware of the problem but didn’t know how to deal with it.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Ron Burns on January 24, 2015, 10:48:25 PM
Hey Lorren,

You stated - "I was interested in an orchid amongst the dandelions - Brian"

So my question is - what are your thoughts on Dennis Wilson's musical abilities / contributions to the BB's?  Have you heard his 1977 solo album "Pacific Ocean Blue"?  In my opinion, Brian wasn't the only genius in that family.

Thanks,
OHD


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 25, 2015, 12:04:44 AM

I didn’t perceive Brian’s social or musical environment they way you all are doing. I wasn’t collecting minutiae, I was doing social work and therapy. I wanted to give him the balls to stick up for himself and to understand the magnitude of his talent. After the LSD, he began to see things in a different way, and the troika didn’t like it at all. They saw the changes as all my fault, and I became the villain. But, I will tell you here: I don’t give a sh*t what they, or anyone else, thinks or thought. I’m not a fool. I knew what I was doing. Aside from a coat and a nail clipper, I never took a thing from Brian. It was my contribution to the world that I bring it a strong, fully self-aware, enlightened artist. I only got partway there, but it was enough for him to get rid of Murry, to divorce Marilyn, to stop taking sh*t from ML and to find his own artistic path, beyond all the commercial expectations of everyone around him. I helped him do that, and I’m proud of it.



1, You clearly do as proven by many of your posts.

2, Yes, you really were a wonderfully positive influence.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 25, 2015, 02:49:51 AM

 I wasn’t aware of Brian destroying tapes. My impression during that visit to Bellagio, was that Brian was frantic and falling apart. All those negative forces were falling in on him. I didn’t get the music I heard. He played several different versions but I couldn’t sort them out. He was clearly on drugs, and it was the last time I was interested in seeing him. There was nothing I could do to help him…


Yes, clearly you loved Brian so very much. Are you too over educated to understand the term 'fairweather friend'?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 25, 2015, 04:35:49 AM
Speaking here, not as Lorren Daro's self-appointed defender (a role that has probably outstayed its welcome for all involved) but for myself, as somebody who is enjoying the opportunity to ask him questions:

This is obviously an open forum but is it really necessary to keep butting in with this petty moralising? It's not even that clear what's being railed against from these last two posts.

Some members took offense at Lorren's intial comments and expressed their ill feeling. Fair enough. Lorren has had the decency to explain the motivation behind his more controversial comments, to take reponsibility for that which he agreed was too angry in tone, and even to temper his subsequent replies here so as not to cause unnecessary offence. He even offered a disclaimer before some of his recent answers:

Note to All: You may not like what I’m going to say here, but I owe both you and myself the truth as I see it, feel it, believe it. 

I guess my point is some of us here are clearly benefitting from the chance to pick Lorren's brains. Is it too much to ask that:

1. If you really feel offended by what he has to say, you at least word it in a less petulant way?

2. Ask yourself if your contribution has any value other than attempting to derail the thread?


Title: Re: Daro thread pulled ?
Post by: Micha on January 25, 2015, 04:39:36 AM

Is there another meaning of "booger" that I'm not aware of? :)

It doesn't really mean booger Micha.  It's like calling someone a 'good sh!t'...or an 'old fart'...or a 'little booger'...the 'word' loses it's  usual meaning and it becomes 'cute'.  Probably better not to experiment with THESE though.  Sometimes it works.  Sometimes it doesn't.  And it depends WHO it is saying 'it' to which whomever.

Thanks for explaining! :) No, I won't experiment, as English is not my first language so I'm not aware of all subtleties. I'm aware of some, I recall an incident on German TV when a show host called an American guest a "big woman", innocently meaning "tall woman", unaware of that "big" can mean "fat" in a way, causing ill feelings.


I’m reminded of the career of Herman Melville: He began by writing pure adventure stories that became, little by little, spiritual ones. ‘Moby Dick’ was the perfect blending of the two. The books after that were more and more spiritual, and sales fell off until he wasn’t read at all. Something like this has happened to Brian.

IIRC "Moby Dick" wasn't a success until after Melville's death (Coincidentally, I re-read it last year or the year before, and I can see why that was), while Brian got to witness the deserved appreciation Pet Sounds and SMiLE received. I guess we're all happy about that. :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 25, 2015, 05:24:54 AM
These explanations of what 'went down' back in 1966ish are quite revealing Darren.  In a sense it's almost NOT 'our' business yet the information helps us to see things, which are imprtant to us, more clearly.  So...we investigate.

It's difficult to react to parents as an ADULT/a peer which is what Brian needed to do to get Murry off his case and away from detracting from the work at hand.  We've learned enough to see that Murry was pretty much a bully.  Too bad no one was able to control him BEFORE he impacted so negatively on his family.  As for Marilyn...I'm sure she felt empowered to 'join in' having watched the others close to Brian 'play' him in order to try and run the show to their own advantage.  Looks, ultimately, like THAT backfired.  Brian dealt with them both...eventually.  Well...you did point out way back when you first joined us that Brian wasn't confrontational.

Perhaps in becoming somewhat moreso in that regard, thanks in part to guidance you seem to have provided, he did step up to be counted but still wasn't really all that  adept at doing it?  Yes?  No?

Anyway I'm getting to the question.  It's one thing to deal with the father figure...who clearly deserved what he got.  I think we knew that before you arrived.  It's also one thing to deal with your 'life partner' when that scenario turns out to be seen as a one-way street...but what about Mike?  He wasn't just a cousin...he was an important and key component of a very successful unit which was working to Brian's benefit in different ways.  You two must have talked about THAT?  Did Brian ever consider firing Mike?  As it was Mike's 'place' in the group began to slide from view at THAT time.  He sang a lower and lower percentage of leads.  He wrote fewer lyrics used by the group going forward and his presence on stage became less and less commanding at least until the mid 70s when suddenly everything shifted back in his direction...thanks to Endless Summer and 15 'Over Inflated' Ones.  Was there a specific effort...under the table so to speak...to put Mike in his place...or at least to move him back into the shadows?  It couldn't have been a coincidence that he sort of faded back into the 'pack'.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 25, 2015, 06:02:00 AM
Hi Lorren,

Somebody has to ask:

Did you ever get a sense of Brian's competitiveness with The Beatles? In particular did you witness a sense of defeat in him when they released the Strawberry Fields Forever single, or Sgt Pepper album, in relation to his own inability to complete Smile?

You said there were Beatles records in the Jukebox at Brian's at that point. What were his (and your) favourites at the time?

Many thanks


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 25, 2015, 06:58:43 AM
MrRobinsonsFather:  If it was 1976 that Landy showed up, then I'm really wrong about the timeline. I wish my memory was more specific. Yes, I left Brian in 1966. Since I was gone, I am very hazy about what happened later. The news was all second hand. Sorry. Maybe you can write out a clear timeline for me that would help jog my memory. I seem to remember the days events, but not the calendar...

Sorry my mistake, Landy first appeared in 1975. I was going to do a quick timeline but remembered you can go to straight to Andrew's website and find more than enough detail there :
http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/bbtimeline.html

I just thought of 2 questions

1. When you visited Brian in the mid 70's did you notice his vocal change from the previous time you had seen him. Everyone's voice changes with age but Brian had done damage to his vocal chords in just a matter of a couple of years (much like Harry Nilsson).
Could you describe that visit.

2. How many lsd trips would you say Brian took without you. There are different accounts with how many trips he took. Brian says in recent years it was only the one trip, but most accounts including his wife Melinda say it was at least more than three.


Thanks Lorren


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 25, 2015, 09:41:27 AM
Coca Cola or Pepsi?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 25, 2015, 10:15:19 AM
2. Ask yourself if your contribution has any value other than attempting to derail the thread?

And correcting someone's recall and providing an accurate framework/timeline is attempting to derail this thread... how, exactly ?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 25, 2015, 12:25:14 PM
Lorren,

What about Capitol Records?

1. How did they pressure Brian, and was he the only one they hounded?

2. Did they ever show up at the studio and hassle him while he was trying to record?

3. Did you ever see, or did Brian ever say, that he was encountering trouble at the studio(s) in regards to him "touching" the consoles/studio equipment? (you know, Union Rules and all that)

4. Are you aware of any hassles Brian encountered with them regarding "Singles" releases?

Thanks, Royce :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: OneEar/OneEye on January 25, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Lorren - I don't believe this has been asked yet, but have you any information regarding the handwritten list (which has been determined not be in Brian's handwriting, but possibly Carl's or Diane Rovell's) of tracks which was used to create the (temporary?) back cover of the Smile album?   It would have been written (as far as I know) sometime around December of 1966.  There has been a lot of controversy over this list for a long time.    
Thanks.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 25, 2015, 01:01:48 PM
2. Ask yourself if your contribution has any value other than attempting to derail the thread?

And correcting someone's recall and providing an accurate framework/timeline is attempting to derail this thread... how, exactly ?

It obviously wasn't clear but the post you quoted was directed towards the two posts previous to it. Not yours.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Autotune on January 25, 2015, 01:35:51 PM
buddhahat, you have played a fundamental role in bringing Daro back, or keeping him here. You have pacified what seemed a derailed thread. For that, I must thank you. I'm sure most people here -Lorren Daro included- share my thoughts. Nevertheless, your baroque and relentless praising (cheering?) for him, and your generaly unnecessary defense, is dangeroulsy starting to resemble this:


(https://studrunningback.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/spike-and-chester.jpg?w=640)


I'm affraid you are becoming Daro's Chester. Please, do not.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 25, 2015, 02:12:46 PM

 .....Daro's Chester......


This just struck me as a nifty name for a band  :lol 



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 25, 2015, 03:22:12 PM
buddhahat, you have played a fundamental role in bringing Daro back, or keeping him here. You have pacified what seemed a derailed thread. For that, I must thank you. I'm sure most people here -Lorren Daro included- share my thoughts. Nevertheless, your baroque and relentless praising (cheering?) for him, and your generaly unnecessary defense, is dangeroulsy starting to resemble this:


I'm affraid you are becoming Daro's Chester. Please, do not.

If you're going to insult me, at least spare me the condescending preamble but ...



point taken  :shrug


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 25, 2015, 04:00:59 PM
buddhahat, you have played a fundamental role in bringing Daro back, or keeping him here. You have pacified what seemed a derailed thread. For that, I must thank you. I'm sure most people here -Lorren Daro included- share my thoughts. Nevertheless, your baroque and relentless praising (cheering?) for him, and your generaly unnecessary defense, is dangeroulsy starting to resemble this:


I'm affraid you are becoming Daro's Chester. Please, do not.

If you're going to insult me, at least spare me the condescending preamble but ...



point taken  :shrug

I don't think that was intended as condescention. I think he was just saying, you stuck up for Daro when no one else would and helped bring him back, which is good. But now you're being overly protective of him (while calling out others for being too protective of Brian) and its kinda off-putting. There's such thing as healthy criticism and fact-checking, so just relax. Daro's a big boy and can defend himself.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 25, 2015, 06:17:51 PM
I think he was just saying, you stuck up for Daro when no one else would and helped bring him back

That is incorrect. If you look back on the thread, you'll see quite a few of us that "stuck up for Daro" and wanted him to come back. It was the right thing to do.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 25, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
I think he was just saying, you stuck up for Daro when no one else would and helped bring him back

That is incorrect. If you look back on the thread, you'll see quite a few of us that "stuck up for Daro" and wanted him to come back. It was the right thing to do.

Yeah, it is nice he came back, whether you believe him or not.

I guess a better way to phrase it is buddhahat took up the cause more passionately than anyone else. Which is nice, but it's kinda weird and unnecessary at this point where you can't say anything even slightly critical of the man without buddhahat (in his own words, more or less, but in reference to me) charging in on his white horse to save the day. that's been my perception lurking through the thread, and evidently I'm not alone. I mean, it's not a big deal, but it is a valid point to raise against someone who criticizes the rest of us for being too protective of Brian. Since he's come back, no one has been abusive or even overtly hostile to Daro. So...just let the man defend himself. I'm sure he's quite capable


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
Why even bring it up I think many of us are wondering.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Jesse Reiswig on January 25, 2015, 07:44:22 PM
***Deleted Post***


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 25, 2015, 08:03:30 PM

I didn’t perceive Brian’s social or musical environment they way you all are doing. I wasn’t collecting minutiae, I was doing social work and therapy. I wanted to give him the balls to stick up for himself and to understand the magnitude of his talent. After the LSD, he began to see things in a different way, and the troika didn’t like it at all. They saw the changes as all my fault, and I became the villain. But, I will tell you here: I don’t give a sh*t what they, or anyone else, thinks or thought. I’m not a fool. I knew what I was doing. Aside from a coat and a nail clipper, I never took a thing from Brian. It was my contribution to the world that I bring it a strong, fully self-aware, enlightened artist. I only got partway there, but it was enough for him to get rid of Murry, to divorce Marilyn, to stop taking sh*t from ML and to find his own artistic path, beyond all the commercial expectations of everyone around him. I helped him do that, and I’m proud of it.



1, You clearly do as proven by many of your posts.

2, Yes, you really were a wonderfully positive influence.


 I wasn’t aware of Brian destroying tapes. My impression during that visit to Bellagio, was that Brian was frantic and falling apart. All those negative forces were falling in on him. I didn’t get the music I heard. He played several different versions but I couldn’t sort them out. He was clearly on drugs, and it was the last time I was interested in seeing him. There was nothing I could do to help him…


Yes, clearly you loved Brian so very much. Are you too over educated to understand the term 'fairweather friend'?


I dunno. I think the above reactions to Lorren were inappropriate. Would you treat someone like that to their face? I think Buddahat was right to respond to those posts the way he did and I think those that are now piling on Buddahat should seriously examine their motivations.

Well, not to derail the thread, as I was just trying to get buddhahat to consider that he wasn't being condescended to, and the other guy had a valid point, but I'd like to respond to this.

I said far worse to Daro on the thread that was pulled. I have no regrets about it and I'd absolutely say it to his face had he also said what he had in my physical presence. I'm sure these guys would to. Just because they're not positive comments doesn't make them hostile or abusive.

If buddhahat wants to be Daro's "cheerleader/defender" for lack of better terms, that's his business. But it's kinda unnecessary, and apparently I'm not alone in thinking so. This is a grown man here. Let him defend himself. I've endured far worse on this board and elsewhere and I'm sure I'm not alone. He chose to come back, knowing what to expect. Give him a little credit. Especially if you're going to raise the point that I and others are "too protective of Brian."

But, I really don't want to shift focus here. Daro came back to answer questions and that's what this thread is for now. I just thought that since someone else brought it up, and buddhahat brushed it off, that I should reiterate that it really does seem unnecessary, to be someone else's second mouth every time they get a reply that isn't 100% lauditory.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Les P on January 25, 2015, 08:17:58 PM

Les P: See my answer to Tricycle Rider. Brian wasn’t falling apart. He was frustrated and nerve-wracked and isolated. And he was definitely aware of the problem but didn’t know how to deal with it.


Thanks again.  I am trying to get a handle on how Brian ended up isolated.  You, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Van Dyke Parks, and Derek Taylor all left the scene eventually.  Was it just an untenable and hopeless situation to stay around (that is the impression I get) or did Brian initiate cutting some ties as well?  

Also, you've talked about Brian's romantic feelings for Diane Rovell, but she also served a role coordinating musicians for sessions, etc.  Did you consider her to be supportive of Brian?

Edit:  I don't remember seeing this discussed (sorry if I missed it), but do you remember Brian being disappointed by the sales of 'Pet Sounds' and perhaps by Capitol's lack of support?   Although he went into the "Good Vibrations" and 'Smile' projects, did that cause self-doubt for him?   (Capitol released a greatest hits album less than 2 months after 'Pet Sounds' release).



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 25, 2015, 10:21:07 PM
Aside from the now-obvious impossibility of asking Michael Vosse to confirm Lorren's presence during the Pet Sounds sessions, there's something else lurking in the deeper, darker recesses of my mind about him (Vosse) and said album. Got some reading & Googling to do after work.

Later: OK, from what I know of when Brian first met Vosse - for the latter to do an interview for Teen Set - and what Vosse himself said about the Frank Zappa interview that preceded it (and that it was printed in the 12/66 issue), I'm getting the very strong impression that Michael first met Brian after Pet Sounds was released.  Corrections, thoughts, additions, heartfelt requests to STFU ?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 25, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
 I am trying to get a handle on how Brian ended up isolated.  You, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Van Dyke Parks, and Derek Taylor all left the scene eventually.  Was it just an untenable and hopeless situation to stay around (that is the impression I get) or did Brian initiate cutting some ties as well?  

It's long been documented that Brian forced at least Vosse and Siegel out of the picture by his (to them) irrational behaviour: the former by refusing to see him at a delicate point in negotiations with Capitol over the release of "H&V" on Brother, the latter because he got it into his head that Siegel's gf was a witch and messing with his head. I think Van Dyke officially left when offered an album deal by Warners but he's also stated that he walked away from an apparently impossible (family/band) situation.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Les P on January 25, 2015, 11:33:57 PM
I am trying to get a handle on how Brian ended up isolated.  You, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Van Dyke Parks, and Derek Taylor all left the scene eventually.  Was it just an untenable and hopeless situation to stay around (that is the impression I get) or did Brian initiate cutting some ties as well?  

It's long been documented that Brian forced at least Vosse and Siegel out of the picture by his (to them) irrational behaviour: the former by refusing to see him at a delicate point in negotiations with Capitol over the release of "H&V" on Brother, the latter because he got it into his head that Siegel's gf was a witch and messing with his head. I think Van Dyke officially left when offered an album deal by Warners but he's also stated that he walked away from an apparently impossible (family/band) situation.

Thanks, Andrew.  I am familiar with these accounts (though I had forgotten the Vosse negotiations bit), but I am curious if Lorren has additional information or opinions about these departures.


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 25, 2015, 11:34:05 PM
 
Mujan - I was responding to two posts only, which I found unnecessarily sarcastic and didn't really bring anything to the discussion imo and felt like a thread crap. I have no problem with people flagging up inaccuracies in Daro's account, providing it's not the usual mindless  'this guy's full of sh*t' approach. This is less about being Daro's Chester (nice one, Putin) and more about just trying to defend the thread itself so Daro is more inclined to post here.

All the above said however I accept the accusations of hypocrisy on my part. I may have gone too far and can see that this itself is now distracting and has become an irritant to some, hence my 'point taken' comment.  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 26, 2015, 03:54:54 AM
Are you the one who turned Brian on to the comedy LP "How To Speak Hip" by Del Close and John Brent?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6a7X96L0Y4

Royce


Title: Re: Lorren Daro thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 26, 2015, 05:04:33 AM

Mujan - I was responding to two posts only, which I found unnecessarily sarcastic and didn't really bring anything to the discussion imo and felt like a thread crap. I have no problem with people flagging up inaccuracies in Daro's account, providing it's not the usual mindless  'this guy's full of sh*t' approach. This is less about being Daro's Chester (nice one, Putin) and more about just trying to defend the thread itself so Daro is more inclined to post here.

Hardly that.

Anyone who starts a sentence with, `It was my contribution to the world...` is asking for an awful lot more than he has received so far. People have generally been understanding and accepting in the face of plenty of antagonism and inaccuracy.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Paul J B on January 26, 2015, 09:00:24 AM
Wild-Honey:  Oh, yes, cute one. Murry and Marilyn and Mike – the three M’s, as in murderous mf’ers, were the troika of villains in Brian’s life. And, they won the trifecta, bringing him down like a giant sequoia. My mission is to expose them.


Paul J B: Crazy to hate MURRY!!! Where the f* is your head? A more brutal, narcissistic, insane psychopath is difficult to imagine. Please leave me alone.


My head is right where it should be.... You seem to not know that we've heard all of this crap before from a guy named Landy, who also promoted himself as a great guy that only had Brian's best interest at heart. Good luck with your agenda. I will leave you alone now.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 26, 2015, 09:11:41 AM
OK, found it - in the legendary Fusion piece, Vosse states that he wanted to talk to Brian about Pet Sounds, and that Brian was then working on Smile. So... even if he were still with us, Vosse couldn't confirm Lorren was present at the Pet Sounds sessions because he himself wasn't.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 26, 2015, 10:25:52 AM
Thanks, Andrew. I definitely understand the desire for and necessity of establishing a timeline that contextualizes and corroborates these accounts with other known facts.

IMO the several hours of David Leaf interview material with Lorren might be worth transcribing as additional background material. To the extent that it sheds light on any details not covered in questions posed here, it might prompt some other directions for discussion that would prove more satisfactory to the various flavors of skepticism that continue to manifest themselves here.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2015, 01:36:24 PM
OK, found it - in the legendary Fusion piece, Vosse states that he wanted to talk to Brian about Pet Sounds, and that Brian was then working on Smile. So... even if he were still with us, Vosse couldn't confirm Lorren was present at the Pet Sounds sessions because he himself wasn't.

You had mentioned earlier Vosse's leaving and I believe that Michael told me that he left because he didn't have anything to do or nothing was getting done or he otherwise didn't feel like he was earning his money as the TV/movie guy and he left to help with Monterey. They did give him the Ford Mustang they had provided for him to use in the job I remember.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 26, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
I was remiss in not mentioning that Michael didn't just walk away from Brian, but from Brother Records entirely.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on January 26, 2015, 02:54:09 PM
Lorren – thank you very much sincerely for all of your recollections on this board. Count me in as someone who greatly values your point of view and stories.

Do you recall any info about why the “Caroline No” single (released pre-Pet Sounds) was released as a “Brian Wilson” solo single? Was this Brian’s idea or Capitol’s? Was it a way to test the waters to see if he was a viable solo artist (and for what reason - to break away from the band?), or perhaps a passive aggressive maneuver to show that he could carry a song without needing the band’s name?

Side note  (I don’t know if you’re aware of this, since you weren’t in Brian’s circle anymore in late 1967) - I’ve always found it interesting that after the failure and non-release of SMiLE, Brian reverted back to primarily writing with Mike for Smiley Smile and Wild Honey, and a single for the song “Getting’ Hungry” from 1967 was oddly very specifically credited as by “Brian and Mike”, which to me seemed to be a very specific attempt to “undo” the solo “Brian can do it on his own” aspect that had been built up over the past couple of years. My outside opinion is that this crediting (and reverting to Mike as the main collaborator) seemed like the actions of a defeated and bullied man.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 26, 2015, 10:46:50 PM
Add Some:  No, Brian didn’t ‘…get there’. I could take him only so far. That’s why I said ‘partly there’ in my post. But, as I wrote, it was enough to get rid of Murry, Marilyn and at least put ML at a distance. Brian couldn’t get rid of ML. He controlled the band, he was the lead singer, ML was ‘the band.’ Lose ML and you lose the road. He couldn’t do that to Carl, Dennis and Al. It was an institution that he would have to work around. Which is what he ultimately did. Little by little, and with the help of the media, ML began to understand that his contribution to the material was trivial, and that Brian was increasingly perceived as a genius. I think he faded because there were no more battles to be won.

Buddhahat: Brian was intimidated by The Beatles from their first records. At first, they were just rockers, but what knocked him off his feet was ‘Revolver’ -- whole new change in tone and artistry. From that album on, he felt competitive, and I think the roots of ‘Pet Sounds’ were planted by it. With the production values of Spector, combined with the depth of ‘Revolver’, ‘Pet Sounds’ was his answer to The Beatles. His listened to them constantly, but none hit him deeper than ‘Revolver’. He knew that even with his own great talent (and he was aware of it), he would never reach the heights they had flown to.

MrRobinsonsFather: Sorry, dear friend, I never visited Brian in the Seventies. I moved to Big Sur in 1969 and never looked back. I didn’t notice any change in his voice as long as I knew him. Sorry.

Tricycle Rider: As far as I could tell, Capitol was always supportive. They often appeared at the ‘Pet Sounds’ sessions, but said nothing. He was the Golden Goose, so why hassle him? I never heard of any issues of Brian touching the board. I was in the booth with him for many hours and he often moved the controls on the board. The engineer never seemed to mind. Fairy dust, I think.

OneEar/OneEye: I have no information on this subject. As I recently posted, my interest was in Brian, not in the music. Questions like this are not relevant to my experience.

Les P: I don’t remember Derek Taylor being that close to ‘the scene’. Van Dyke, Vosse and Anderle were. I don’t know if Brian cut ties with those I named, I doubt it. He never cut ties with me. After visiting him at the Bellagio house, as I previously wrote, he was on edge, a little frantic and unhappy. I felt it was time to go. I had done all I could by then. As for Diane, I’m sure Brian did all he could to keep her around. I know this: She was not in love with Brian and would never be. They were two very different people. She was regal, intelligent and gorgeous, and my impression was, like any Jewish girl of that kind, she wanted to marry someone sane and professional who could provide her and their family with a stable, affluent environment. Brian certainly was affluent, but stable he was not. As for Brian’s ‘self doubt’, I never perceived that in him. Like any true artist, he believed in his visions.

AGD: Correction: I had met Michael Vosse at Brian’s house a number of times before the ‘Pet Sounds’ sessions. We became good friends. I hung out with him for a time when David Leaf was interviewing both of us for the ‘Beautiful Dreamer’ documentary in San Francisco. He didn’t look well to me – haggard, weak and covered with extreme dandruff. Michael was at almost as many of the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions as I was. We talked a lot during that time. He told me that he was there writing a story for ‘Rolling Stone’. I don’t know if it was true, but he said it was. Michael always seemed trustworthy to me. I liked him a lot. I don’t know anything about Vosse and Siegel leaving Brian, or being thrown out, for that matter. As for troubles with the 'family band,' I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute, what with ML and all.

Tricycle Rider: Yes, I am proud to say that I turned Brian on to ‘How To Speak Hip’. Del Close and Jon Brent were acquaintances of mine – we had mutual friends. I also introduced him to Lenny Bruce, Lord Buckley, Mort Sahl and Brother Dave Gardner. He didn’t get much of what they were saying, but remember that Brian didn’t know who Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant were. Talk about isolated…

Paul J B: There is nothing you could have said that could have hurt me more deeply than to be compared to Eugene Landy. Landy isolated Brian more than ever before – I tried to free him. Landy fed Brian injurious drugs and kept him in stupor to control him – I tried to free Brian’s mind with deep conversations, and, reluctantly, with pot and LSD, and I believe I did. Landy was a charlatan and a quack in for the fame and the money – I was the opposite. Paul, you are one cruel SOB to have the nerve to post what you did. I’m shaken by your sadism.

AGD: You don’t need Vosse to verify that I was at those sessions. Just ask Brian. God, you’re hard to please…

Century Deprived: Yes, ‘defeated and bullied.’ It was a downward slope after that. He has never fully recovered. He’s in the hands of his keepers now and forever…

Note to All: Please read, or re-read, my Reply #411 on: January 24, 2015. Perhaps this will result in my being asked questions that I can answer with experience and relevance instead of those that are beyond my ability to address.




Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on January 26, 2015, 10:52:05 PM
What Nicko & the camp said 10fold.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 26, 2015, 11:50:07 PM
AGD: Correction: I had met Michael Vosse at Brian’s house a number of times before the ‘Pet Sounds’ sessions. We became good friends. I hung out with him for a time when David Leaf was interviewing both of us for the ‘Beautiful Dreamer’ documentary in San Francisco. He didn’t look well to me – haggard, weak and covered with extreme dandruff. Michael was at almost as many of the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions as I was. We talked a lot during that time. He told me that he was there writing a story for ‘Rolling Stone’. I don’t know if it was true, but he said it was. Michael always seemed trustworthy to me. I liked him a lot. I don’t know anything about Vosse and Siegel leaving Brian, or being thrown out, for that matter. As for troubles with the 'family band,' I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute, what with ML and all.

Vosse from the Fusion article he wrote shortly after Smile crashed and burned:

"I first met Brian when I was sent to do an interview for Teen Set magazine (Capitol puff rag)... I wanted to talk about Pet Sounds because I felt he wanted to do soem sort of religious music... He was telling me about some of the things he was working on... In the press releases the album was referred to as Dumb Angel but he told me the record was going to be called Smile."

Quote
AGD: You don’t need Vosse to verify that I was at those sessions. Just ask Brian. God, you’re hard to please…

Yet you originally stated that he could verify your presence. And yes, I am.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 27, 2015, 12:33:39 AM
Add Some:  No, Brian didn’t ‘…get there’. I could take him only so far. That’s why I said ‘partly there’ in my post. But, as I wrote, it was enough to get rid of Murry, Marilyn and at least put ML at a distance. Brian couldn’t get rid of ML. He controlled the band, he was the lead singer, ML was ‘the band.’ Lose ML and you lose the road. He couldn’t do that to Carl, Dennis and Al. It was an institution that he would have to work around. Which is what he ultimately did. Little by little, and with the help of the media, ML began to understand that his contribution to the material was trivial, and that Brian was increasingly perceived as a genius. I think he faded because there were no more battles to be won.



In what way exactly did you help to get rid of Marilyn? You mean in convincing them to divorce a few short years later in 1979?

And what sort or excrescence feels pride at supposedly wrecking somebody else`s marriage?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on January 27, 2015, 02:47:46 AM
How could Pet Sounds be inspired by Revolver, when Revolver came out 3 months after Pet Sounds?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2015, 03:48:40 AM
Evidently Brian was once more lying to all of us when he said Pet Sounds was his response to Rubber Soul.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: James Hughes-Clarke on January 27, 2015, 04:04:38 AM
How could Pet Sounds be inspired by Revolver, when Revolver came out 3 months after Pet Sounds?

....although, in fairness, even ex-Beatles have been known to confuse Revolver and Rubber Soul.  That's the trouble with the 60s, the people who 'were there' often have the worst recall.  If only they'd kept daily journals for the archivists of the future; what were they thinking...?  ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 27, 2015, 04:53:27 AM
I agree...on THAT one...Revolver/Rubber Soul...I think Lorren just got 'em mixed up.  Anyway he has pointed out twice now that he would prefer that the questions come from a different angle and referenced a thread number this time.  So I'm going to check that out.

I went to the same high school as former National Baseball League MVP Joey Votto.  Can't tell you a thing about him though.  The timing's way off.  [but only by about 30 years]


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: OneEar/OneEye on January 27, 2015, 09:16:19 AM

OneEar/OneEye: I have no information on this subject. As I recently posted, my interest was in Brian, not in the music. Questions like this are not relevant to my experience.



Fair enough, though I would think that having an interest in Brian might naturally lead one to the music as well. 
Guess not, at least in your case anyway.   
   


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: doinnothin on January 27, 2015, 09:57:11 AM
Lorren -

As an improvisor in the style pioneered by Del Close, I'm also very interested in any experiences with him you'd care to share. Are you aware of Brian and Del ever crossing paths? I remember being amazed the first time I heard about Brian being a fan.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on January 27, 2015, 09:59:40 AM
How could Pet Sounds be inspired by Revolver, when Revolver came out 3 months after Pet Sounds?

....although, in fairness, even ex-Beatles have been known to confuse Revolver and Rubber Soul.  That's the trouble with the 60s, the people who 'were there' often have the worst recall.  If only they'd kept daily journals for the archivists of the future; what were they thinking...?  ;)

If the people who 'were there' have the worst recall, why are we even asking this guy any questions at all? This seems to be just another thing that he's contradicted himself on.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 27, 2015, 11:49:30 AM
Tony Asher said that he introduced Brian to How to Speak Hip
Quote
"There was an album out called How to Speak Hip ... a lampooning of the language instruction albums," Asher explained. "I played it for Brian, and it destroyed him, killed him. Brian picked up a couple of references on the album. One of them was this hip character that said if everyone were 'laid back and cool, then we'd have world peace.' So Brian started going around saying, 'Hey, would somebody get me a candy bar, and then we'll have world peace.'" Asher said Brian "even made an acetate disc with a label on it with the title. He talked about calling Let's Go Away For Awhile 'And Then We'll Have World Peace.'"

If the people who 'were there' have the worst recall, why are we even asking this guy any questions at all? This seems to be just another thing that he's contradicted himself on.
I'm also wondering why the hell anybody would think Daro would remember the meaning behind a single handwritten note he hasn't seen in 50 years -- if ever at all.

Daro, I do have to ask about this comment:
Buddhahat: Brian was intimidated by The Beatles from their first records. At first, they were just rockers, but what knocked him off his feet was ‘Revolver’ -- whole new change in tone and artistry. From that album on, he felt competitive
In a 1995 TV documentary, Brian said:

"I was flipping out. I couldn't understand how a group could be just yelled and screamed at. The music they made, 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' for example, wasn't even that great a record, but they just screamed at it. ... It got us off our asses in the studio. We started cutting – we said 'look, don't worry about the Beatles, we'll cut our own stuff."

What do you make of this comment? It doesn't sound like he was actually intimidated by their music, at least until Rubber Soul (...or "Revolver").


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 27, 2015, 01:05:20 PM
Daro,

If you have the time, it may be a good refresher to peruse some texts that have been written over the years involving the epochs you were around for. Besides the Wikipedia pages for Pet Sounds and Smile, there is also a website that reprints the 200-some-odd-pages liner notes that were published with The Pet Sounds Sessions box set in 1997. I will attach some links:

-Mike Love's preface written for The Pet Sounds sessions booklet (http://albumlinernotes.com/The_Making_of_Pet_Sounds.html)
-Tony Asher's comments from The Pet Sounds Sessions (http://albumlinernotes.com/Tony_Asher_Interview.html)
-Marilyn Wilson comments from The Pet Sounds sessions (http://albumlinernotes.com/Marilyn_Wilson_Comments.html)
-Pet Sounds article on Wikipedia (written by the public, not any single editor) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sounds)
-Smile article on Wikipedia (written by the public, not any single editor) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile_(The_Beach_Boys_album))

Feel free to quickly skim through these pages. Maybe they'll conjure up some additional thoughts, memories, or inconsistencies from your POV that have yet to arise in the thread. At best, you'll be brought up to speed with the rest of the board's knowledge.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 27, 2015, 01:20:54 PM
Nicko1234: What I meant by getting rid of Marilyn was he distanced himself from her, and no longer took her hysterics personally. It eventually led to divorce. Do I regret breaking up that marriage? Not for a second…

Mr Verlander: Yes, I may have been wrong about ‘Revolver’. It may have been ‘Rubber Soul’. These are all slightly dim memories. I’m doing my best, but I screw up now and then.

AGD: Please read the above about the Beatles album mistake.

I didn’t imagine that Vosse was at the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions. I don’t know or care why he states differently. He may have had his own reasons for doing that. I don’t imagine human beings where they don’t exist. I wish I had someone else to verify this, but I don’t. I guess we’ll have to live with it. You’re a snide f***, aren’t you, AGD? You don’t get out much, do you?

OneEar/OneEye: I said that I love the BB records, and a lot of other music, as well. I used to be a professional musician. But, my interest doesn’t include the technical aspects of music. My true interest is in human beings and their behavior. My greatest loves are for literature and philosophy. Sorry…

Doinnothin: Del Close, and Jon Brent, for that matter, never met Brian that I know of.

Puni puni: I introduced the ‘How To Speak Hip’ album to Tony Asher. We played it many times together in my living room. He passed it on to Brian, as I did. I know I was the first to play it for him.

Note: I’m getting tired of this nit-picking and dumb questions. People trying to bust me at every turn. This is no longer fun – or meaningful. Yes, I’m an old man. I don’t have the clear memory or the patience for this anymore. Yes, I make mistakes, but they’re usually technical ones – dates, etc. – I ask for depth and I get shallow. I’m drifting away…









Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 27, 2015, 01:50:50 PM
Thanks for the clarification on How to Speak Hip. Again, I agree that some of the questions you've been asked are unforgivingly trivial, like dates or specific track information. I can hardly distinguish what I did in the months of 2012 between the months of 2013, let alone 2002 or 2003, or in your dramatically understated case, 1964 and 1965.

I also would not consider the publications written by Vosse or other people from that era to be gospel. Even though most people treat such contemporary articles as 100% truth, I've found some of them susceptible to bias, falsehoods, or other inaccuracies. It'd be a shame if you do decide to leave.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 27, 2015, 01:56:34 PM

Note: I’m getting tired of this nit-picking and dumb questions. People trying to bust me at every turn. This is no longer fun – or meaningful. Yes, I’m an old man. I don’t have the clear memory or the patience for this anymore. Yes, I make mistakes, but they’re usually technical ones – dates, etc. – I ask for depth and I get shallow. I’m drifting away…









I think anyone can understand an older person making some factual errors. But not somebody constantly contradicting himself from one post to the next.

And asking for details is hardly shallow is it. Simply accepting everything (including the completely false stuff) that anyone posts would hardly be `deeper` would it...



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 27, 2015, 02:12:52 PM
Nicko1234: What I meant by getting rid of Marilyn was he distanced himself from her, and no longer took her hysterics personally. It eventually led to divorce. Do I regret breaking up that
Note: I’m getting tired of this nit-picking and dumb questions. People trying to bust me at every turn. This is no longer fun – or meaningful. Yes, I’m an old man. I don’t have the clear memory or the patience for this anymore. Yes, I make mistakes, but they’re usually technical ones – dates, etc. – I ask for depth and I get shallow. I’m drifting away…


And some of us questioned the quality of the queries put forward in yesterdays Q and A?  Child's-play.  I kind of look at Lorren as a mine.  [Sorry Lorren...I know you're actually blood, flesh and bone...with feelings too]  The thing is...THIS is an opportunity...chalk full of gems.  Yes sifting is required.  Some of you?  Good thing you're not miners.  You'd have starved to death after your supplies ran out.

There is work to be done here.  Let those who can...do it.

Or is it just another means to once again chase information away and into hiding...never to be accessed again?   The man is in the second half of his 70s for gawd sake.  This shyte happened  when he was in his late 20s.  Who sat next to YOU in your Grade 1 class picture?  Both sides?  And who's that behind you?  Got the answers?  Can you name the crossing guards?  Don't expect perfect.  Expect some gems.  Doctor Gee Zeus!!!!

Un-fucking-believable. :angry


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 27, 2015, 02:20:05 PM
Nicko1234: What I meant by getting rid of Marilyn was he distanced himself from her, and no longer took her hysterics personally. It eventually led to divorce. Do I regret breaking up that marriage? Not for a second…

Mr Verlander: Yes, I may have been wrong about ‘Revolver’. It may have been ‘Rubber Soul’. These are all slightly dim memories. I’m doing my best, but I screw up now and then.

AGD: Please read the above about the Beatles album mistake.

I didn’t imagine that Vosse was at the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions. I don’t know or care why he states differently. He may have had his own reasons for doing that. I don’t imagine human beings where they don’t exist. I wish I had someone else to verify this, but I don’t. I guess we’ll have to live with it. You’re a snide f***, aren’t you, AGD? You don’t get out much, do you?

OneEar/OneEye: I said that I love the BB records, and a lot of other music, as well. I used to be a professional musician. But, my interest doesn’t include the technical aspects of music. My true interest is in human beings and their behavior. My greatest loves are for literature and philosophy. Sorry…

Doinnothin: Del Close, and Jon Brent, for that matter, never met Brian that I know of.

Puni puni: I introduced the ‘How To Speak Hip’ album to Tony Asher. We played it many times together in my living room. He passed it on to Brian, as I did. I know I was the first to play it for him.

Note: I’m getting tired of this nit-picking and dumb questions. People trying to bust me at every turn. This is no longer fun – or meaningful. Yes, I’m an old man. I don’t have the clear memory or the patience for this anymore. Yes, I make mistakes, but they’re usually technical ones – dates, etc. – I ask for depth and I get shallow. I’m drifting away…









And we asked for reliable insight and are getting nothing but contradictions and inaccuracies. I don't want to see you go, but drop the woe is me attitude. Nobody has said anything uncalled for, and AGD is just trying to tie what you're saying into what else we know as best he can. Petty insults his way only make you look worse.

But, I've got a question. I asked this to Brian and (predictably) got no response. So, were you one of the people who was involved in the Psychedelic Sounds comedy sketches by any chance? I'm not sure who all was. They were recorded in December '66. If you were there, if you remember...what can you say about them? Did Brian talk about how they might fit into SMiLE or if they were for something else?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 27, 2015, 02:32:14 PM
AGD and others - relax, man. That's all I have to say about that.

Hey, Daro, what I'm really interested is what the LSD experience was like back then. I know growing up in the '90s, I had tons of information on esoteric topics thanks to the internet. I was logging in by about '96, and that really opened worlds of new thought to me.

Growing up in the '50s, I'd imagine access to unconventional information was much harder to come by. Knowing where to look for and how to find all the heady ideas circulating back then almost required knowing the right people. Growing in Hawthorne like Brian did, it would've been tough to plug in. Who would've planted the seeds of greater ideas in one's head in a town like that?

So when you did meet the right people, read the right books, and perhaps dabbled in the psychedelic experience, it must've been mind-blowing on a level I can't imagine. I know my first psychedelic experience was very shocking, even though I was thoroughly versed on what to expect. For someone like Brian, it must've been like - well - seeing idea.

I'm curious about what sorts of philosophical ideas relating to music and life were being passed around then in the "hip" circles. People must've felt they were right at the stage when one grand epoch transitions into another one. It was, undoubtedly, monumental. I sense Brian combing all sorts of eras in his music in a very intelligent way, sort of like this expansive vision of everything that was America at that time.

I guess I don't know where I'm ultimately heading with this one, but I thought maybe it could spark an interesting discussion.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on January 27, 2015, 02:47:15 PM
One persons "trivial" may be another's "meaningful".   If he doesn't know the answer to something or feels it is beneath him (or whatever) to address it, that's fine - don't answer it, but there's no need to be insulting those who are asking questions is there?   Just because you feel they aren't worthy enough questions?   ::)
As far as I have seen so far there hasn't been anything "deep" being presented.   This is being blamed on the questions being posed, but maybe it's just a matter of there not being much depth there in the first place.   All I have read thus far is the same old "people around Brian (family/wife/record company) were not nice to him and he wasn't allowed to flourish, etc.  
All that may very well be true - but it's nothing new or deep.  

Sorry if you don't appreciate my post here, but I am little rankled by some of this crap.   I will excuse myself from any further participation in this thread.
So please carry on you miners of gems, you lofty, deep thinkers  :thumbsup


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2015, 02:52:04 PM
Hello, mods - someone's just called me a snide f***. I'm guessing they're going to get banned for that, right ? Because those are the rules, aren't they ?

AGD: Please read the above about the Beatles album mistake.

I didn’t imagine that Vosse was at the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions. I don’t know or care why he states differently. He may have had his own reasons for doing that. I don’t imagine human beings where they don’t exist. I wish I had someone else to verify this, but I don’t. I guess we’ll have to live with it. You’re a snide f***, aren’t you, AGD? You don’t get out much, do you?

OK... all I've been doing is looking into what you've claimed to tie it into the established timeline (or for internal credibility), and pretty much every time, you've come up short.

The tour you managed was 1963... oh. no, it was 1964, dates which no-one has documented...

You last met Brian in 1967... oh no, you told someone else it was 1981...

Vosse can confirm you were at the Pet Sounds sessions... aside from his being two years dead, his contemporary account proves that he wasn't at those sessions. yet you still claim he, and you were.

You claim the family and band influenced the content of Brian's 1991 book to keep your name out of it... a good trick as he was under Landy's thumb by then and estranged from pretty much everyone.

And you expect me to take your claims seriously ? You came here with one agenda, as you stated - to "clear" your name. There's an increasing number of folk here not buying that, due in no small part to your antagonistic manner. You make think me a snide f***, but at least I'll not go down in BB history as the man who blew Brian's mind with acid and laughed about it. Stay classy.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 27, 2015, 02:55:36 PM
So, were you one of the people who was involved in the Psychedelic Sounds comedy sketches by any chance? I'm not sure who all was. They were recorded in December '66. If you were there, if you remember...what can you say about them? Did Brian talk about how they might fit into SMiLE or if they were for something else?

By "Psycodelic Sounds", he means these recordings, Daro: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTHzKFd1KI


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 27, 2015, 03:02:32 PM
Lorren,
There are those of us that are enjoying your company, trying to ask decent questions, and trying above all, to learn some things. Please consider staying around a bit longer for US. Perhaps you could just stop replying to those only interested in antagonism of one sort or another?

The "How To Speak Hip" LP is a riot isn't it? I suppose that whole culture began with "fast talking" (a phrase most will not get these days)

My mind is blown about Brian not knowing who Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant were! I mean, how could ANYBODY be that isolated? (a rhetorical question) It must have been something to see that kind of musical mind wrapped in such an uncultured young man.

This brings something to mind. (for me anyway) What the F**K has happened to education in this country? How did we get from the International Geophysical Year to here in such a short time?. I had a long discussion with my dear departed friend Rick Jaeger (drummer for Dave Mason, Pointer Sisters, Crosby Stills and Nash etc...) and he was just beside himself over it. People (warning, sweeping generalization) are so stupid these days it's painful. I suppose any culture infatuated with famous people and money is bound to turn out like this.

Did you ever try to turn Brian on to other musical artists, or did you think he didn't need that?

What instrument(s) do you play? What were your musician experiences? Is it OK to talk about things other than Brian?

Turn Signal:

What do you think about anti gravity technology and other life in the universe? (seriously)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 27, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
Hello, mods - someone's just called me a snide f***. I'm guessing they're going to get banned for that, right ? Because those are the rules, aren't they ?

What, are you five? "Teacher, teacher! He called me a bad name!"

You guys are unbelieveable. I doubt banning is even necessary at this point. I don't see why he would possibly be compelled to post anything more after the repeated rudeness and hositility directed at him.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2015, 03:08:28 PM
Just reminding folk of the rules here, which apply to all posters.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Theydon Bois on January 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
A historian, there, trying to get a historical figure banned from the discourse.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 27, 2015, 03:43:05 PM
I'll try to answer posts after a few accumulate. I appreciate the support some of you have posted.

I have a question: In 1963, I met a man at Brian's house who was a prominent writer about the Beach Boys. He was an older man, skinny, with a beard. His name was Earle Leaf. Brian liked him and favored his writing. In 2003, when I was interviewed for 'Beautiful Dreamer', I asked David Leaf if he was any relation to Earle Leaf. He said he wasn't. It's one hell of a coincidence that two major writers on the BB's have the same last name.

Can anyone fill me in on the truth in this matter? I never read David Leaf's books -- first one, 1978, and updated in 1985. I'm interested if David trashed me in that book. He was certainly nice to me in the interview. Out of almost two hours, he only used ten minutes -- and those ten showed me in the usual bad light. I don't blame him for using the most flashy material, but I'd like to know if I was exploited. I won't do anything about it, I'm just curious.

 Lorren Daro


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 27, 2015, 03:52:49 PM
This is the difficulty with this particular period in Brian's life--it is still controversial and contentious. The competing impulses that existed at that time actually seem to be dwarfed by the competing impulses of those who apparently want to be the ones to "write the history." It's more than a bit surreal, in fact.

It would be priceless for the mods to have pulled a thread, then have AGD himself start a new one on the topic and vacillate between recusing himself and bulking up into the "DA on steroids," have the thread moved into the "Honored Guest" section and THEN ban the guest because he gets fed up with the relentless DA and calls him a bad name?

Luis Bunuel would love this!!  :3d

Lorren, I haven't read David's book in a long time, and I'm away from my copy, but my recollection (which I fully expect to be corrected) was that you were mentioned as a "notorious" character--and let's face it, you are!!--but that it didn't go further than that. David's book was sympathetic to Brian as an artist, championing the notion that he shouldn't have been interfered with in his quest to visit the "places where new things might be found."

David was from the NYC area and didn't move to California until 1975 or so. Earl Leaf was a long-time West Coast photographer who'd been around for a long time on the Hollywood scene. He switched to rock'n'roll in the sixties. They aren't related.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: AvanTodd on January 27, 2015, 03:57:40 PM
Vosse can confirm you were at the Pet Sounds sessions... aside from his being two years dead, his contemporary account proves that he wasn't at those sessions. yet you still claim he, and you were.

He died 1 year, 7 days ago.  If your entire post is based on pointing out the inaccuracies of others, it might help to get your own facts straight first.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 27, 2015, 04:13:16 PM
Vosse can confirm you were at the Pet Sounds sessions... aside from his being two years dead, his contemporary account proves that he wasn't at those sessions. yet you still claim he, and you were.

He died 1 year, 7 days ago.  If your entire post is based on pointing out the inaccuracies of others, it might help to get your own facts straight first.

 :lol


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 27, 2015, 04:15:54 PM
Vosse can confirm you were at the Pet Sounds sessions... aside from his being two years dead, his contemporary account proves that he wasn't at those sessions. yet you still claim he, and you were.

He died 1 year, 7 days ago.  If your entire post is based on pointing out the inaccuracies of others, it might help to get your own facts straight first.
Objection, argumentative and irrelevant my client is not on trial.
Sustained


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 27, 2015, 04:18:16 PM
No, Avan, AGD referenced Vosse's death in that particular round of "gotcha." The syntax is a little tortured, but he didn't make a misstatement of fact.

It looks to me as though he's trying to expose some kind of "smoking gun" that will reveal the person signing these posts as "Lorren Daro" to be a hoaxter--which was Andrew's original position back in 2012 when the material first surfaced (in the thread you linked to earlier).


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 27, 2015, 04:38:31 PM
 Sent to me in an email by Lee Marshall [Add Some]

"Lorren, I am one of the Smiley Smile crew who very much appreciates what it is you are OFFERING us at the site.  I just can't believe how narrow-minded, shortsighted and childish some of the reaction has been to your attempts to enlighten.Honestly?  At first I thought that it was merely going to be entertaining and that it would turn out to be something there to generate amusement. I quickly discovered that it had the potential to be much, much more than that and I kept asking people to back off and let the opportunities unfold.  Then it all got shut down.  Thankfully you came back to offer 'the great unwashed' a second chance.

Looks like that hourglass is running out of its grains of sand too.  You stated initially that you needed a place to, and wanted an opportunity to, clear up some misconceptions, and to maybe distance yourself from some of the bullshit that has been planted next to your name all these years. How can I help you do that?  What is it that your specifically want to touch on.  What do you need to get off your mind and onto the 'page' for all to see, digest and understand?  Right now I feel like I'm guessing incorrectly and about to miss the boat."

Yours truly, Lee Marshall [Add Some]

Dear Lee: I’m posting this on SS from an email you sent me. I hope you don’t mind.

First, thanks for the supporting statement. I appreciate it very much. Second, I will say that the one subject I have been trying to deal with, besides my giving pot and LSD to Brian -- the right way, is the misinformation about the roles of Murry, Mike Love, and Marilyn.

Murry has been well-covered here and elsewhere, and he was even worse than the writing about him – a true monster, and, I believe, the primary cause of the later problems such as the mental condition of Brian, and the deaths of Dennis and Carl, both of whom were deeply flawed.

Mike Love, although lionized here, is quite the opposite in real life. None of you has been around him in personal situations and are unable to make clear judgements about his behavior. I was there, Van Dyke Parks was there, Tony Asher was not there, David Anderle was there, but is too nice to trash anyone. The rest don’t dare to talk.

As for Marilyn, I was one of the very few who was there to observe the treatment of her husband, whom she professed to love. I don’t care if she was young, afraid, lonely, inexperienced or stupid. She made Brian miserable when he needed her support most of all. Melinda does this for him. Marilyn would not. She has been covering for herself for decades, and I’ve had enough of it. We come home for comfort, relief and understanding. Marilyn gave him none of them. I heard it and saw it.

I must add to this list, Terry Sachen, who fed Brian coke, speed, meth, hash, LSD and anything else he could get his hands on, and did more to set Brian on the wrong road than any other person, including Eugene Landy. Sachen is a non-entity. It’s not worth the time and trouble to say anything more about him. He knows what he did and can’t, or won’t, answer for it.

It’s true, my time with Brian was limited. It’s true that I can’t answer the trivial and technical questions that a lot of you ask. I can only address the personal experiences I had with him, for as long as it lasted. There were some important issues there at the time, and I am trying to open the door to them and to set some of the record straight.

When Van Dyke says, “Don’t judge the book by the movie,” what he’s saying is that I am the book, the movie is all the crap that has been written about me. Van Dyke understands, I wish more of you did…

All right, SS’ers (an appropriate title) fire away…Lorren Daro

PS: AGD, please leave me alone...       




Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2015, 04:40:54 PM
I hope we can soon practice a little more civility towards each other. Our questions and answers and corrections could all be kinder and in a spirit of cooperation. Let's all lighten.

Now you can direct all of your ire towards me.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Lorren,

Mr. Sunshine here. Terry Sachen passed away recently also.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: JakeH on January 27, 2015, 04:46:48 PM

Can anyone fill me in on the truth in this matter? I never read David Leaf's books -- first one, 1978, and updated in 1985. I'm interested if David trashed me in that book. He was certainly nice to me in the interview. Out of almost two hours, he only used ten minutes -- and those ten showed me in the usual bad light. I don't blame him for using the most flashy material, but I'd like to know if I was exploited. I won't do anything about it, I'm just curious.

 Lorren Daro

I happened to read David Leaf's book ('78 version) not too long ago - Yes, Loren Darro is mentioned (as Schwartz); I don't recall reading anything too negative about Lorren personally, but that's of course only my recollection.  Lorren's recollections of Murry mouthing off about Brian during Pet Sounds (which have been repeated in this thread) are in the book; Lorren is specifically mentioned by name as personally witnessing Murry's behavior in the control booth. For what it's worth, I believed what I read here; I believed that Murry would say these things about Brian, because these comments were so consistent with other people's impressions of Murry and because we can hear Murry himself put out similar negative vibes on that notorious "Rhonda" tape.

Now, about Marilyn Wilson -  Leaf's book was notable for a number of things, one of them definitely being that it is virtually the only source in which negative opinions of her are expressed. Leaf leaves reader with the decision whether to give these opinions credence (sort of like this thread). These opinions about Marilyn are from unidentified sources; Leaf doesn't name anyone specifically here, just uses phrases like, "another friend of Brian's claims that..." For what it's worth, the claims about Marilyn (and Mike Love) in Leaf's book sound very much like what's been expressed here in this thread. In fact, the battle lines that have been discussed here - Hawthorne vs. Hipsters - were set out very clearly in the David Leaf book.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 27, 2015, 04:55:19 PM
I was typing this while Jake made his post. Doesn't add much but here it is anyway....

I just found my copy of David Leaf's book and he's not unkind to you at all, Lorren ("Loren Schwartz" in the book). He quotes you - almost verbatim, the same thing you said earlier about Murry stabbing Brian in the back and what Murry said about Brian in the control room while Brian was in the studio instructing the musicians during a Pet Sounds session. "Brian doesn't know what he's doing - no talent... I taught him everything he knows,...."

He mentions Brian taking LSD for the first time several pages before but makes no mention of Lorren. He quotes a 1966 Tom Nolan article where Brian talks very positively about taking LSD for the first time, calling it a "very religious experience", but then talks how Brian made a contradictory statement on the Mike Douglas Show in 1976, saying it "shattered my mind".


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 27, 2015, 05:29:55 PM
That's true, interviews at the time show Brian speaking very positively about his first LSD experience. Brian saying "I did my dose of LSD it shattered my mind" in 76 was probably in relation to all the LSD he took, not specifically that first time.
I read David Leaf's book months ago. Lorren's posts are very similar to David Leaf's point of view of the people around him.

Lorren, Derek Taylor years ago mentioned he set up a get together between Brian and Paul McCartney around 66 or 67. Do you recall Brian saying anything to you about the this meeting ?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 27, 2015, 07:06:12 PM
but at least I'll not go down in BB history as the man who blew Brian's mind with acid and laughed about it.

The nit-picking on dates, timelines and who said what when is not the real issue certain folks here have with Mr. Daro. It's this. It's a moralistic judgement issue. You guys are pissed that Lorren provided Brian with LSD and is not only unapologetic, but actually has the audacity to believe he did Brian a favor. Maybe we should discuss that.

I will say two things here and leave it at that. First, like someone once said, judge not lest ye be judged (or something like that). Second, Brian was a big boy and did what he wanted to do. Moreover, I think we've all heard the recordings of him in the studio working on Pet Sounds. He sounds like a young guy bursting with creativity, in complete control. Not someone whose mind is "blown". Any real damage came later.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 27, 2015, 07:52:36 PM
David Anderle was there, but is too nice to trash anyone.

You referred to David Anderle in present tense, so I hate to presume that you probably aren't aware that he's also passed on.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: bgas on January 27, 2015, 07:59:19 PM
but at least I'll not go down in BB history as the man who blew Brian's mind with acid and laughed about it.

The nit-picking on dates, timelines and who said what when is not the real issue certain folks here have with Mr. Daro. It's this. It's a moralistic judgement issue. You guys are pissed that Lorren provided Brian with LSD and is not only unapologetic, but actually has the audacity to believe he did Brian a favor. Maybe we should discuss that.



OH, if only that were the truth! But , of course, its not. WE ( the ones that like all our ducks in a row) just want the facts to be, well, facts. The issue is whether his dates,timelines, memories jibe with KNOWN FACTS, which unfortunately, most of them don't.
  So, if you  don't care if he can remember exactly what happened then simply enjoy his posts.  DON'T attack  the others that want a correct history. Take your trips (vicariously) with one who was there, but don't expect all of us to let sham pass for fact. It's just NOT good enough.
 


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 27, 2015, 08:05:50 PM
Lorren I can see why Parks and Asher say little or nothing.  You don't bite the hand that feeds you and while 'units' containing their songs with Brian continue to sell...their songs and lyrics also continue to be performed by both Brian and the Beach Boys and, as such, Mike is augmenting their pay days.  David Anderle was part of an enlightening piece I read in Crawdaddy [I think it was] WAY back when...along with Paul Williams and maybe a 3rd contributor to the lengthy article about Brian and Smile...or the lack of Smile.

At any rate...the other guy you mentioned is apparently no longer 'with us'...so that is THAT.

Not sure I saw anything in your response to my e-mail...which I was a little surprised to see posted HERE...that you haven't already said in this and also in the previous thread.  Minutia is not your thing and why would I expect it to be?  I don't.   You want to help drop the yoke you carry of being the guy who got Brian started on drugs.  It would have happened anyway.  GREAT to be able to drop a tab with someone who won't abandon you or play with your head while you're exposed to the unbelievable and unknown.  It can be VERY frightening.  And then there's the stuff laced with unwelcome extras.  So that came later.  Anyone who blames you personally is a fool.  It would have happened...and sooner than later.

In a nutshell then...you provided Brian with a few drugs of the era...known to perhaps enable creative people to take their 'craft' a little further.   Maybe see that which beforehand you had previously overlooked.   You did so somewhat unwillingly but provided clean safe...or at least safer/clean...pot and 'acid' so that Brian could experience the best there was available at the time.  Otherwise he would have and subsequently did go for more street level renditions and untimately that overtook him.  Fairly accurate?

You've pointed out that Murry was an even worse Dad than most of us would have imagined...although I think many figured that Murry was a bad man and a lousy father before you joined us here..  When your sons don't come to your funeral...well...THAT suggests something.  Burn in hell might be too strong...but close.

You have suggested that from your vantage point Marilyn let Brian down seemingly left, right, and centre and that...although she'd like it if we thought otherwise...she gets more, make that WAY more, credit than is really due.  She did raise the girls though right?  And not with a whole heap o' help from Dad.  Of course Brian didn't have any examples worth following in that regard and subsequently came up short.

You've pointed out that Mike is a champion for Mike and anyone who intercedes in that will bear the wrath of Mike.  You've given us to believe that Mike is worse than unscrupulous in that regard.  You haven't gone a whole lot further than to suggest that it's worse than we would imagine.  Mike's popularity isn't across the board.  There are those who give him varying degrees of credit for the success of the group  especially early on and then again over the past 15-20 years.  I would think that Brian, Van Dyke and Tony might well be 3 of those people...at least to a degree. [however small a degree and depending on which of the 3 you're talking about]

I know you don't want to put yourself in line for a lawsuit and as such you will not be taking this a whole lot further.  Is that safe to say?  That Brian was. seemingly misdiagnosed in terms of his illness and prescibed incorrectly with drugs which didn't help but perhaps hindered him instead...that Brian got tied up using 'sh*t' [as did his brothers?] which dragged him down and made his creative life [and personal life] a mess is docmented...and not your fault.

So?  Is there really anything left to discuss?  Based on your response to the e-mail I sent you...I'd say we're pretty much done here?  Thanks for your time.  Don't let anyone make you the scapegoat.  Anyone who buys THAT is far too easily conned.

Walk good Lorren.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 27, 2015, 10:17:50 PM
He mentions Brian taking LSD for the first time several pages before but makes no mention of Lorren. He quotes a 1966 Tom Nolan article where Brian talks very positively about taking LSD for the first time, calling it a "very religious experience", but then talks how Brian made a contradictory statement on the Mike Douglas Show in 1976, saying it "shattered my mind".

I seem to recall an interview with Brian in the early 90's (maybe Diane Sawyer?) where Brian said "I took the LSD and it tore my head off!"


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tab Lloyd on January 27, 2015, 11:38:05 PM
Thought I'd come down off my lurking perch and join the fray....not to flog a dead horse (hopefully).
There are so many agendas (hidden and otherwise) shining through on this thread, the glare gets a bit intense sometimes.
What is this great need to pass judgement all about anyway? We all have the wonderful opportunity to have a window into history, whether stained glass or clear according to interpretation, and we try to smear bird poop all over it. Why not just sit back and enjoy conversing with a wonderful character, maybe even pivotal character, from Brian's past prime and seminal era. I can't speak for you, but I'm stoked to hear anything remembered from this living horse's mouth. So f****ing what if he has Rubber Soul and Revolver backwards? Does that somehow prove he doesn't exist?
Sing on sweet horse, we are all ears.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Alan Smith on January 28, 2015, 12:34:34 AM
Sing on sweet horse, we are all ears.
:lol
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, Sing on sweet horse, we are all ears.
- John Keats/Tab Lloyd


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 28, 2015, 12:56:43 AM

So?  Is there really anything left to discuss?  Based on your response to the e-mail I sent you...I'd say we're pretty much done here?  Thanks for your time.  Don't let anyone make you the scapegoat.  Anyone who buys THAT is far too easily conned.

Walk good Lorren.

Are you telling Lorren not to post here any more?  That's kinda what it sounds like. 


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 28, 2015, 01:32:20 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 01:55:19 AM
As much as I'm appalled by Mr. Daro's general attitude towards people, you can't expect anybody to remember a timeline correctly after 50 years. If he had kept a journal, he may be able to, but obviously he hasn't. There must be a presumption of innocence for anybody, it is as likely that Daro misremembers as that Vosse slightly warped the truth in his contemporary article to cloud the fact he is a friend of Brian's. Just because it was written down back then doesn't mean it's all 100% true. Everybody has an agenda.

I once attended a lecture where a university professor compared the production techniques of Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's. He confused Revolver and Rubber Soul, too, but immediately admitted his mistake when I pointed it out to him, just as Daro did.

Despite of Mr. Daro's inconsistencies in remembering and/or misrememberings, his perspective of things is interesting and adds to the whole picture. You just have to be aware that he, like everyone else, remembers things in a way that is convenient to him, so don't take it as gospel.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 28, 2015, 02:20:08 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)

It wouldn't be SS if it didn't ;) 


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 28, 2015, 02:25:37 AM
You got THAT right! :lol


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)

I'll leave you two alone now, three's a crowd! ;D

(Nah, just going for lunch! :angel:)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 28, 2015, 02:53:52 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)

I'll leave you two alone now, three's a crowd! ;D


Don't be silly Micha, three is what we were HOPING for.  ;)





Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 28, 2015, 02:54:31 AM
Hello, mods - someone's just called me a snide f***. I'm guessing they're going to get banned for that, right ? Because those are the rules, aren't they ?

How is that any different from the following:

If there was one person on this earth who should never, ever have been offered acid, it was Brian. Which I why I will despise Loren Schwarz with all my soul until the end of my days. I don't watch the "Beautiful Dreamer" doc because I just know that I'll kick the screen in the instant his smug, sweaty, self-important face appears. To consider it amusing that he was instrumental in instigating the downfall of Brian's creativity...

And undying shame on David Leaf, and Brian's people, for allowing this maggot any screen time.

It's a quote from 2009, I know, but I think it's entirely relevant in exposing your hypocrisy and obvious moral agenda here, besides the extreme (and imo incomprehensible) bitterness you apparently feel towards the man. Also, let's not forget: You actually have been banned before so I wouldn't be summoning the banhammer too readily if I were you ...

(The above quote, as an example of the anti-Daro feeling here, is also relevant to help us understand just why Lorren may have felt the need to clear his name in the first place.)

I find it impossible to take you seriously AGD. By all means flag up factual inaccuracies but your approach is so openly hostile at times, it becomes less about the facts and more about your own conflict with these people - counter productive to say the least. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of secondary benefit to these conflicts i.e you enjoy the battle more than the actual verification of facts.

I can *almost* understand your heavy-handed approach with, for example, Carol Kaye because she sticks to her guns after her claims have clearly been disproven. We argued about this before and I will concede there is value to pursuing that historical quest IF one approaches her with consideration.

However every time Lorren has been called out here he's admitted that the mistakes are down to the limitations of his recall. Should he be hounded from the board for this or can we create an environment where he attempts to answer question to the best of his knowledge and we politely pull him up on the perceived inaccuracies? Everybody is free to choose what value they take from the q & a at the end of the day.

To those of you who's feeling towards Daro have been coloured by his appearance on the BD doc, I would at least urge you to re-watch daro's section with an open mind and consider the following: Does he  come across less badly if you remove the Brian Wilson interview that it's inter-spliced with? Brian is simultaneously re-telling the same trip but appears fragile and refers to being scared. If BW and Daro were in the same room and Daro still laughed at the end, then I might agree with you that he was insensitive. But these are separate interviews. For example, we don't actually know what Daro says between:

"This is wonderful - he puts his head under the pillow" ...

and

... "about an hour and a half later he burst out of the bedroom and says 'well that's enough of that!'"

Leaf fills that space with BW saying: "I'm afraid of my mom, I'm afraid of my dad, like it heightens your awareness, y'know"

but for all we know Daro might be recounting some different, more amusing details in that space.

Or he may be exactly corroborating BW's account.

My point is, the editing does not do Lorren any favours and I sometimes wonder if all those immediately criticising Daro post 2004 had considered that they might have been, even slightly, manipulated by David Leaf's editing. Also, if Daro had been afforded more screen time to recall other events, he may not have been characterised (in some minds) solely as the pantomime villain that gave BW LSD.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 28, 2015, 03:25:22 AM

So?  Is there really anything left to discuss?  Based on your response to the e-mail I sent you...I'd say we're pretty much done here?  Thanks for your time.  Don't let anyone make you the scapegoat.  Anyone who buys THAT is far too easily conned.

Walk good Lorren.

Are you telling Lorren not to post here any more?  That's kinda what it sounds like.  

Heck no.  Lorren has told me, I think, all I wanted to know.  I have no more questions for him.  So, in that regard...unless something else comes up...he and I are pretty much done.  I have no interest in the actual 'trips' taken.  I'm sure others have things to ask and Lorren will, perhaps, have answers for them.  I just don't have another question for him.

It's not my place nor is there a reason to suggest that anyone not post here anymore.  I did get the impression from the post previous to the one I'm responding to that he's had about enough.  Just in case he 'split'...I  wanted to wish him well.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 28, 2015, 03:35:11 AM

How is that any different from the following:


I`m not AGD but the difference is obvious.

The rules of the board state that insulting comments towards random people are a completely different thing to insults towards members.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 28, 2015, 03:56:10 AM

How is that any different from the following:


I`m not AGD but the difference is obvious.

The rules of the board state that insulting comments towards random people are a completely different thing to insults towards members.

Wow. If Mike Love registered here, what would we actually talk about?!


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2015, 04:07:07 AM
I'm sure the Mods will enforce their rules as they see fit and then I hope we can get back to allowing Lorren to express his viewpoint with us being helpful. The "gotcha" style is getting tiresome to me.
  
Lorren,

I'd be interested in specifics about your allegations against Murry, Mike, and Marilyn but I understand we may not get them. Do you or can you allow that their actions may have been done with a good heart from their viewpoint?



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 28, 2015, 04:19:07 AM

How is that any different from the following:


I`m not AGD but the difference is obvious.

The rules of the board state that insulting comments towards random people are a completely different thing to insults towards members.

Wow. If Mike Love registered here, what would we actually talk about?!

His favorite pizza


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 28, 2015, 04:29:06 AM

How is that any different from the following:


I`m not AGD but the difference is obvious.

The rules of the board state that insulting comments towards random people are a completely different thing to insults towards members.

Wow. If Mike Love registered here, what would we actually talk about?!

His favorite pizza

or cutlery


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 04:29:43 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)

I'll leave you two alone now, three's a crowd! ;D


Don't be silly Micha, three is what we were HOPING for.  ;)

Ah, I get it now - Tricycle Rider! :-D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 28, 2015, 04:38:43 AM
Looks like you and I are the only ones awake tonight Wild-Honey!
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn the last few posts, hasn't it?

Royce  :)

I'll leave you two alone now, three's a crowd! ;D


Don't be silly Micha, three is what we were HOPING for.  ;)

Ah, I get it now - Tricycle Rider! :-D

 :lol


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 28, 2015, 04:46:42 AM
Hello, mods - someone's just called me a snide f***. I'm guessing they're going to get banned for that, right ? Because those are the rules, aren't they ?

How is that any different from the following:

If there was one person on this earth who should never, ever have been offered acid, it was Brian. Which I why I will despise Loren Schwarz with all my soul until the end of my days. I don't watch the "Beautiful Dreamer" doc because I just know that I'll kick the screen in the instant his smug, sweaty, self-important face appears. To consider it amusing that he was instrumental in instigating the downfall of Brian's creativity...

And undying shame on David Leaf, and Brian's people, for allowing this maggot any screen time.

It's a quote from 2009, I know, but I think it's entirely relevant in exposing your hypocrisy and obvious moral agenda here, besides the extreme (and imo incomprehensible) bitterness you apparently feel towards the man. Also, let's not forget: You actually have been banned before so I wouldn't be summoning the banhammer too readily if I were you ...

(The above quote, as an example of the anti-Daro feeling here, is also relevant to help us understand just why Lorren may have felt the need to clear his name in the first place.)

I find it impossible to take you seriously AGD. By all means flag up factual inaccuracies but your approach is so openly hostile at times, it becomes less about the facts and more about your own conflict with these people - counter productive to say the least. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of secondary benefit to these conflicts i.e you enjoy the battle more than the actual verification of facts.

I can *almost* understand your heavy-handed approach with, for example, Carol Kaye because she sticks to her guns after her claims have clearly been disproven. We argued about this before and I will concede there is value to pursuing that historical quest IF one approaches her with consideration.

However every time Lorren has been called out here he's admitted that the mistakes are down to the limitations of his recall. Should he be hounded from the board for this or can we create an environment where he attempts to answer question to the best of his knowledge and we politely pull him up on the perceived inaccuracies? Everybody is free to choose what value they take from the q & a at the end of the day.

To those of you who's feeling towards Daro have been coloured by his appearance on the BD doc, I would at least urge you to re-watch daro's section with an open mind and consider the following: Does he  come across less badly if you remove the Brian Wilson interview that it's inter-spliced with? Brian is simultaneously re-telling the same trip but appears fragile and refers to being scared. If BW and Daro were in the same room and Daro still laughed at the end, then I might agree with you that he was insensitive. But these are separate interviews. For example, we don't actually know what Daro says between:

"This is wonderful - he puts his head under the pillow" ...

and

... "about an hour and a half later he burst out of the bedroom and says 'well that's enough of that!'"

Leaf fills that space with BW saying: "I'm afraid of my mom, I'm afraid of my dad, like it heightens your awareness, y'know"

but for all we know Daro might be recounting some different, more amusing details in that space.

Or he may be exactly corroborating BW's account.

My point is, the editing does not do Lorren any favours and I sometimes wonder if all those immediately criticising Daro post 2004 had considered that they might have been, even slightly, manipulated by David Leaf's editing. Also, if Daro had been afforded more screen time to recall other events, he may not have been characterised (in some minds) solely as the pantomime villain that gave BW LSD.

Hook, line and sinker... Your opening examples are pathetic in their extreme differences. 


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 28, 2015, 05:32:31 AM

Hook, line and sinker... Your opening examples are pathetic in their extreme differences. 

I'm not with you (pathetic???). Maybe Nicko in his earlier post is referring to a different set of rules, but all I can find on insults is the following:

Harassment of members is not tolerated.

I don't see anything specific about insulting non-members being permissible, or new members not being able to return insults to those who insulted them prior to them being a member. It would be a little unfair, don't you think if Lorren Daro was now banned? You rule and fact freaks are getting ridiculous.

At the very least if I spewed the same sort of vitriol about somebody as AGD had I would definitely not be calling them out for insulting me or, worse still, bleating to the mods about it. 

I've had enough of this. Some of you people seem insane. I think there is an inherent problem with having an Honoured Guest thread where posters do their best to hound the guest off.

Try to imagine what a Mike Love Honoured Guest thread would look like and ask yourselves how you'd feel if I turned up and took a dump in it. Repeatedly.

As such I've posted a suggestion on the 'Welcome' board that there be some rules about how we treat honoured guests. Worth considering since BW was here recently and ML has expressed an interest in the board.

Thanks to Mr Daro for his thick skin and patience with our questions and f you to all the mindless, moral-crusader mofos that have dogged this thread from the start.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 28, 2015, 05:41:06 AM
Hook, line and sinker... Your opening examples are pathetic in their extreme differences. 

I mean damn, one's a 2 word insult, the other is a half paragraph describing hatred of another person's soul. Very different!

But anyway, can't we all just get along?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Autotune on January 28, 2015, 05:59:18 AM
I don't like seeing this derail into an anti-AGD thread. Not long after it derailed into an anti-Daro thread. That doesn't help; it doesn't inform, nor does it add anything new to our fandom. It makes us vile and little else.

Daro, appeared as a villain in the BD video. He has every right in the world to try and clean up his image in BB world. He seems like an interesting guy to hang out with. Controversial, witty and occasionally gracious. I'm sure he is very well-read and great at conversations. He probably has many insights to share about the era we are discussing, its culture, literature and philosophy. Unfortunately, so far, other than personal opinion on the people involved, I don't think he's added meat for the fans, and just came across as a very short-time friend of Brian's, whose involvement was of relative importance to him and left a weak imprint in his memory for whatever reason (drug-induced or not). I think if they asked me with nerd-like minutia about a guy I knew for a couple of years 50 years ago, I probably couldn't respond any better.

AGD can be tough to deal with. He is obsessive, relentless, sometimes hurtful, occasionally uncalled-for. But he knows his sh*t, is generous and open about it (e.g. the Bellagio site), and is quick to acknowledge his wrong when appropiately pointed at. Not that I'm interested in becoming AGD's Chester.

Let us treat these two with respect, learn when possible, and move on, guys.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 28, 2015, 06:10:24 AM
Just warning everyone, I'm Bruce Johnston's unrepentant Chester. Say what you want about the other BBs, but you drag the Brucester through the mud and I will destroy you.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 06:19:57 AM
He seems like an interesting guy to hang out with.

Partially I disagree: Actually I would rather read what he has to say right here instead of hanging out with him. And the reason is not because he gave Brian the drugs: Mr. Daro's notion that Brian would have gotten them elsewhere seems plausible to me.


AGD can be tough to deal with. He is obsessive, relentless, sometimes hurtful, occasionally uncalled-for. But he knows his sh*t, is generous and open about it (e.g. the Bellagio site), and is quick to acknowledge his wrong when appropiately pointed at. Not that I'm interested in becoming AGD's Chester.

This is a description I think that fits absolutely, both in good and unfortunately bad too.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 28, 2015, 08:41:26 AM
Nicko1234: What I meant by getting rid of Marilyn was he distanced himself from her, and no longer took her hysterics personally. It eventually led to divorce. Do I regret breaking up that marriage? Not for a second…

Mr Verlander: Yes, I may have been wrong about ‘Revolver’. It may have been ‘Rubber Soul’. These are all slightly dim memories. I’m doing my best, but I screw up now and then.

AGD: Please read the above about the Beatles album mistake.

I didn’t imagine that Vosse was at the ‘Pet Sounds’ instrumental sessions. I don’t know or care why he states differently. He may have had his own reasons for doing that. I don’t imagine human beings where they don’t exist. I wish I had someone else to verify this, but I don’t. I guess we’ll have to live with it. You’re a snide f***, aren’t you, AGD? You don’t get out much, do you?

OneEar/OneEye: I said that I love the BB records, and a lot of other music, as well. I used to be a professional musician. But, my interest doesn’t include the technical aspects of music. My true interest is in human beings and their behavior. My greatest loves are for literature and philosophy. Sorry…

Doinnothin: Del Close, and Jon Brent, for that matter, never met Brian that I know of.

Puni puni: I introduced the ‘How To Speak Hip’ album to Tony Asher. We played it many times together in my living room. He passed it on to Brian, as I did. I know I was the first to play it for him.

Note: I’m getting tired of this nit-picking and dumb questions. People trying to bust me at every turn. This is no longer fun – or meaningful. Yes, I’m an old man. I don’t have the clear memory or the patience for this anymore. Yes, I make mistakes, but they’re usually technical ones – dates, etc. – I ask for depth and I get shallow. I’m drifting away…








:woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot Tell it like it is Lorren!!! :rock :rock :rock :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 28, 2015, 11:30:24 AM
I will join C.P. in NOT joining in - in terms of pounding on Andrew.  In reference to Lorren's treatment here RECENTLY [as I had absolutely NO idea of the previous AGD post added in to this thread well after the fact...] I was speaking in general terms.  Hell's bells...the whole initial thread was turfed...and phase two was beginning to flounder as well.

But to take part in an AGD bashing?  Not I.  Not interested.  The good outweighs the bad by TONS.  [I hope that can be said of all of us over the long haul.]  Does he piss me off?  Sometimes.  Likely as often as I raise his eyebrow...and ire.  Big deal.  I'd sit down and share [oh ya he doesn't drink] a breaking of the bread with him any time.  There are a LOT of cornfields and a LOT of crows in THIS neck of the woods.  

I'd break bread with Lorren too.  If we could remember, between the 2 of us, how to get to the restaurant.  [and what it was called. ;)] 

As for the 2 of them sitting down together?  I'd cancel those reservations...at least for the time being.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: clinikillz on January 28, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
What a strange thread. Here we have a guy who was around Brian during arguably his creative peak and saw a lot of what went on at that time and he's nearly driven away by detractors. Weird. Weird. Weird.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: James Hughes-Clarke on January 28, 2015, 02:21:13 PM
For my part, I find all this 'You're the evil man who gave Brian acid' a bit prissy and weird.  What next.... Do we light our flaming torches and go after the guy who served Dennis his first beer, on the grounds that Dennis would never have thought of finding a drink anywhere else?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 28, 2015, 02:49:18 PM
I am only going to say this once and you can all take it however you want. AGD's contribution to this board has been immense and if you have noticed that other well respected and honoured guests have stayed well away from Lorren Daro and his contributions here.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 28, 2015, 03:07:26 PM
What a strange thread. Here we have a guy who was around Brian during arguably his creative peak and saw a lot of what went on at that time and he's nearly driven away by detractors. Weird. Weird. Weird.

With the possible exception of AGD, I don't think anyone wants Daro driven off the board. However, the fact remains, he's offered very little of value so far, and people are beginning to notice.

Either way, can we stop this fawning over someone just because they were "there." Please? It's getting annoying, especially when their account is most vague when it doesn't outright contradict the established word of others and even itself from post to post. Just because they were "there" doesn't necessarily mean they're a credible witness, or that their behavior warrants admiration. This isn't even a dig at Daro necessarily, just speaking generally. If Murry were alive, would we all be super-respectful and good-naturedely asking him for info?

AGD's always struck me as a good guy. You may say he's being overzealous in his attempt to poke holes in Daro's stories, but at the end of the day I trust him more than Daro and value his input more in general. No contest.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 28, 2015, 04:57:43 PM
he's offered very little of value so far, and people are beginning to notice.
Speak for yourself.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 28, 2015, 05:01:29 PM
he's offered very little of value so far, and people are beginning to notice.
Speak for yourself.

"People" doesn't mean everyone.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 28, 2015, 05:11:43 PM
For my part, I find all this 'You're the evil man who gave Brian acid' a bit prissy and weird.  What next.... Do we light our flaming torches and go after the guy who served Dennis his first beer, on the grounds that Dennis would never have thought of finding a drink anywhere else?
Outstanding, logical response. Here, here!!  :h5


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Watch a Cave on January 28, 2015, 07:30:08 PM
A few comments..

Did the great artists and composers of the 18th and 19th centuries need the help of LSD and hash to expand their creativity?   I think not.  To imply that Brian’s peak period was mostly a result of the use of these drugs is selling his creative and musical talent short.  Before he had smoked his first joint he had already logged an impressive track record of hit singles and beautiful music, and had shown a tremendous progression from album to album. 

My main point is this..  even if Brian had never dropped acid I still believe that he would have achieved the same extreme high level of success that he attained from 65-67.  The growth in sophistication in the music,  arrangements and production etc. that was shown from 61-64 show this progression clearly.  And… one could argue that his creative peak may have lasted even longer had he never taken drugs in the first place.

Regarding Marilyn and Murry..  I am not doubting Mr. Daro’s personal accounts of these two, and I can completely understand how he could feel ill will towards them.  However, if one was to step into their shoes and see things from their perspective, maybe their actions and behaviors toward Mr. Daro would be more understandable.  I mean could you imagine just marrying the love of your life and then finding out that your new spouse had just started taking drugs?  This has to be more than a little frightening for a newly-wed.  Also imagine being Murry.. what father wouldn’t feel very upset or even devastated after discovering that their son (somebody that they have loved since day one) was suddenly taking mind-altering chemicals?  I’m sure most fathers on this board could agree that they would react in a similar manner.  Am I way off base here?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 28, 2015, 08:34:14 PM
 Some Notes:

An essay is reportage with opinions. Reportage is just the facts. I wrote an essay about Brian on WordPress. Understood?

My two books were self-published, not published by a ‘vanity press.’ One pays a vanity press to publish a book. I paid for the publishing of my books. This has become common practice today. Almost half the books are self-published. Why? Because instead of getting a maximum of 15% of the earnings a publisher will give you (after expenses), self-publishing will give you 80% of them. I chose the 80%. Do you blame me? Both my books did very well.

I was not a press agent or a publicist for the agencies I worked for. I was an actor’s agent for MCA, and a booking agent for GAC and Ashley-Famous. Later on, I was a publicist for Johnny Mathis, a record promoter for Liberty Records, and a concert promoter for several acts, including Ray Charles. Finally, I became a Tour Manager for eight years because it didn’t involve lying or deception, which tore me apart.

Do you guys know that it’s a ‘jester’, as in court jester, and not a ‘chester’? Am I wrong to bring this up?

For the record: I took LSD several times and then quit, having learned enough from it. I tasted, but never was habituated to, coke. I had some experience with methamphetamine for a while, but it wore me out and I quit. I smoked pot for almost twenty years, from 1962 until 1981, when I quit to raise my son. My memory is not impaired by drugs, but by 77 years of living. Drugs did not wound me or addle me or cripple me. I enjoyed every minute of them.

I was born Loren Darro Schwartz. I changed it in 1976 to Lorren Daro. The difference in spelling was due to a consultation with Greg Tiffen, the most prominent numerologist of the day. My wife and children had changes in spelling, as well. The point was to give added strength to our presentation to the world. It seems odd today, but then it was common to do that. Subud, an oriental spiritual practice at the time was known for this, too -- Jim McGuinn became Roger McGuinn, Tad Diltz became Henry Diltz, etc. I also worked as a folk singer during and in between these professions for about three years. I wasn't really that good and finally gave it up.

Okay, enough….

MrRobinsonsFather: Yes, Brian mentioned that he had met Paul McCartney. I don’t think they were on similar wavelengths. Brian didn’t say much about it that I can remember, nor did he seem impressed. The Beatles, I think, were a mystery to him.

Puni Puni: I wasn’t aware of either the death of Terry Sachen or David Anderle. I’ve already written about my love for Michael Vosse. You’ll think this is cruel, but I’m glad to see Sachen in his grave. Maybe now he’ll be able to face the damage he has done.

As for Anderle: I went to grammar school with him – Carthay Circle in West LA (the Oscars and all the big premiers used to be held there). I loved and admired him greatly, and he and our young sons used to go to movies together often. We saw the first ‘Star Wars’ pic together. Head of A&R at A&M records for decades, and the inventor of the rocknroll soundtrack, beginning, I believe with ‘Car Wash’. I loved him. He painted the most moving and accurate portrait of Brian anyone has ever done – it’s spiritual and moving.

Add Some:

“In a nutshell then...you provided Brian with a few drugs of the era (LD: only two)...known to perhaps enable creative people to take their 'craft' a little further.   Maybe see that which beforehand you had previously overlooked. You did so somewhat unwillingly, but provided clean, safe...or at least safer/clean...pot and 'acid' so that Brian could experience the best there was available at the time. Otherwise he would have, and subsequently did, go for more street level renditions and that ultimately overtook him.  Fairly accurate?”

Yes, accurate. But it wasn’t just ‘clean drugs’, it was a clean and safe environment. The pot: yes, I held Brian off it for a full year. Others smoked it around him, but I never saw a joint offered to him in my living room after I asked that that not be done. The LSD: The best at the time. Owsley 125mcg, transparent blue liquid in a small vial. The important thing was that I knew how to be a ‘psychedelic guide’. I didn’t take the drug. I watched over him and created a calm space for him to experience it in. I was there to answer questions, if he had any, and to keep him from going off on any tangents. The ‘pillow’ incident at the beginning only lasted about an hour. From then on, he had control (as much as one can have) of the process.

Murry burn in hell? Right on! And, you get a cigar…

Mike Love? It’s worse than you can imagine. I once called him a demon in human form. I was not exaggerating…

“Is that safe to say?  That Brian was, seemingly, misdiagnosed in terms of his illness and was prescribed incorrectly with drugs which didn't help but perhaps hindered him instead.”

Yes…

Brian: My dates have been notoriously wrong, but I can make a good guess that Brian was okay for at least three years after taking LSD (only once with me) and staying on marijuana (not from me). The problems started with, a) Terry Sachen giving every drug he could find to Brian. b) At first, pretending to be mentally ill to keep off the road, and then, with food, more drugs, isolation in his bedroom, Marilyn unable to understand him, and agoraphobia. c) And, finally the introduction of Eugene Landy into his life when his supposed mental illness began. A, B, C. Three strikes and you’re out. I sincerely believe that Brian was never truly seriously mentally ill. He may have been borderline schizophrenic, but, as someone carefully explained on this site, he never appeared to have crossed over into full-blown disease. Landy’s drugs, a crew of keepers, Marilyn’s hysterics, and other elements I can’t speak to, put him in a child-like state of dependence that knocked him off balance that was sustained for years.

Yeah, Lee, I’m about done…

Mikie (and others): Yes, Brian said LSD ‘…tore his head off ‘– everywhere. But that came much later when he realized that the easiest way to deal with his keepers was to claim he was injured by it. As has been quoted here recently by several people, Brian spoke very highly of the experience – especially early on. Quit ragging on this, please…

Wild Honey: No, Add Some isn’t saying that. I think he wants to save me from the acidic invective being hurled my way, and asking if I haven’t had enough of it already.  Almost, but not quite…

Buddhahat: It sounds like AGD is the one with his head under the pillow by refusing to watch ‘Beautiful Dreamer’. By the way, I looked sweaty on film because of the lighting. Vosse, who was interviewed at the same time in the same studio in San Francisco, looked as greasy as I did. You’ll notice that no one else in the doc looks that way because they were filmed in LA. I didn’t like it either.

Once again, for the record, I laughed about Brian’s LSD experience because it was funny and charming and sweet. It wasn’t somber or serious for either of us. We both laughed and giggled for hours. Brian always made jokes about everything, and I did, too. In remembering it during filming of the doc, it all came back that way. I wasn’t ridiculing either Brian or the event. I was celebrating them! Can’t you people see that???

“Wow. If Mike Love registered here, what would we actually talk about?!”

If he does, you all had better be careful what you say…

Cam Mott: I’m surprised at you, Cam. I have listed my specific allegations about all three of them here many times in great detail. Read my posts, dear friend. I cannot ascribe good intentions or a good heart to any of the three. They are, or were, all self-serving, selfish and purposely destructive to Brian, whom they envied and tried to take down – Marilyn included, out of her profound insecurity.

Watch a Cave: That was a great post! Yes, I agree, I believe Brian would have continued to be a successful artist if he had not taken any drugs at all. Although, I must mention that many great writers and artists have used opium, ether, hash, coffee, tobacco and alcohol to try to enhance their creativity. It’s pretty much an artistic given.

You obviously have a kind heart to consider the inner feelings of Murry and Marilyn during this time. I wish I could agree with you. Murry was a true bastard from both the day he married Audree and the births of his sons. I know you can’t imagine someone being that bad a person, please take mine and other’s word for it, he was a viscous, bullying, rampaging, purblind, hateful monster of immense proportions. His abuse of his children alone nominate him for being turned on a BBQ spit in the deepest circle of hell. And, I’m probably being kind here. Marilyn was so caught up in her own valid insecurities that there was no room for empathy toward Brian. She was no Murry, but so lacking in character that she was blind to her husbands needs. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to consider the needs of others around them when they call out for help. Other than that, I appreciate your attempt at forgiveness for these deeply flawed people.

Lorren Daro



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 28, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
he's offered very little of value so far, and people are beginning to notice.
Speak for yourself.

 ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 28, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
A few comments..

Did the great artists and composers of the 18th and 19th centuries need the help of LSD and hash to expand their creativity?   I think not.  To imply that Brian’s peak period was mostly a result of the use of these drugs is selling his creative and musical talent short.  Before he had smoked his first joint he had already logged an impressive track record of hit singles and beautiful music, and had shown a tremendous progression from album to album. 

My main point is this..  even if Brian had never dropped acid I still believe that he would have achieved the same extreme high level of success that he attained from 65-67.  The growth in sophistication in the music,  arrangements and production etc. that was shown from 61-64 show this progression clearly.  And… one could argue that his creative peak may have lasted even longer had he never taken drugs in the first place.

Regarding Marilyn and Murry..  I am not doubting Mr. Daro’s personal accounts of these two, and I can completely understand how he could feel ill will towards them.  However, if one was to step into their shoes and see things from their perspective, maybe their actions and behaviors toward Mr. Daro would be more understandable.  I mean could you imagine just marrying the love of your life and then finding out that your new spouse had just started taking drugs?  This has to be more than a little frightening for a newly-wed.  Also imagine being Murry.. what father wouldn’t feel very upset or even devastated after discovering that their son (somebody that they have loved since day one) was suddenly taking mind-altering chemicals?  I’m sure most fathers on this board could agree that they would react in a similar manner.  Am I way off base here?


I understand your point but a lot of the classical composers of the 18th & 19th centuries did use a substance at the time, opium. I do agree that no artist NEEDS to take marijuana or anything else to be creative but it does help.
Brian has said marijuana helped his creative path ways, as have other musicians, writers, comedians. George Carlin not too long before he passed away said he still took a joint after he would write a sketch to make the final product.

Just read Lorren's post to you watch a cave, he says pretty much what I say about opium. I'll post anyway.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 28, 2015, 09:10:24 PM
Interesting, thanks for your response.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 28, 2015, 09:13:31 PM
Mikie (and others): Yes, Brian said LSD ‘…tore his head off ‘– everywhere. But that came much later when he realized that the easiest way to deal with his keepers was to claim he was injured by it. As has been quoted here recently by several people, Brian spoke very highly of the experience – especially early on. Quit ragging on this, please…

Lorren, just to be clear, it's the first time I addressed LSD here. I wasn't "ragging". I just replied to Gregg's post concerning Brian's contradictory statements over the years about LSD's advantages and disadvantages. You have examples - the Rolling Stone article, where he had somewhat positive things to say about it, then he seems to counter his statement on the Mike Douglas show in 1976 and then the Diane Sawyer interview, and I'm sure there's others. When asked on "The Q" (CBC) back in 2011, Brian told of the advantages of LSD, taking an 8 hour dose, and writing songs (i.e. California Girls). He concludes that LSD helped him in the short run, but it didn't in the long run.
 
I hope these guys don't scare you away, Lorren. I think it's cool that you're addressing each and everyone's questions and comments here.

Hang On To Your Ego, hang on but I know that you're gonna lose the fight! - Brian Wilson


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Matt Etherton on January 28, 2015, 09:13:41 PM
Lorren: I appreciate you being on the board; I can't image posting knowing you'll take a beating from some on these things!

So my question is: what exactly did Mike Love do that upset you so much? I have spent about a grand total of 90 minutes around the man in the last dozen years, and personally I found him to be sharp, funny, polite, and of course he does love the ladies, but I saw no malice towards anyone (and he spoke nicely of Brian). But do you suppose the way he was around you back then was because of the drugs? He hated what drugs did to his cousins...and probably hated those who brought drugs to them. What do you think?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 28, 2015, 09:34:34 PM
Lorren do you recall a book called Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Malts ? There's a photo of Brian holding that book.
Was there one particular piece of literature that he was in awe of. Brian has mentioned The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Jason Penick on January 28, 2015, 10:25:37 PM
Hi Lorren; thanks for sticking around!

I was curious to know about your impressions of both Dennis and Carl during the time you knew them. I was also interested to know more about the Subud movement and numerology, particularly in regards to their popularity with Hollywood-type folks in the sixties and seventies. I'm assuming they were part of a broader "new age movement" if you will that sought to displace traditional 1950s-style morality with a type of new enlightenment? Why do you think that movement ultimately peaked and then crashed?

I really appreciate the time you're taking to share your insight with us. Thanks again.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 11:23:02 PM
I think he wants to save me from the acidic invective being hurled my way

Hasn't it occurred once in your 77 years of living that the reason you get an acidic reception is that you yourself spew acid and hatred all the time? Haven't you read the back cover of the Smiley Smile cover where it says "The smile that you send out returns to you"? You have no right to complain about people "hurling acidic invectives" at you because that's what you do. I have never seen more hateful and angry posts on this board than yours, especially your first post in the original thread that was rightfully removed from the board by the responsible mods. You may say I can't handle insults, but you can't make me think people should behave this way.

The ironic thing is that you came here raise people's opinion of you into a more positive way. I had no opinion of you before, despite seeing you in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary, but now after reading your posts in which you display your character, my opinion of you is so low that if I believed there was a hell I'd be convinced you'd join Murry, Sachen, and Landy in their own room down there. As I don't, I pity you, it must be tough to carry that much anger and grudge.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 28, 2015, 11:37:54 PM
I think he wants to save me from the acidic invective being hurled my way

Hasn't it occurred once in your 77 years of living that the reason you get an acidic reception is that you yourself spew acid and hatred all the time? Haven't you read the back cover of the Smiley Smile cover where it says "The smile that you send out returns to you"? You have no right to complain about people "hurling acidic invectives" at you because that's what you do. I have never seen more hateful and angry posts on this board than yours, especially the one in your first post in the thread that was right fully removed from the board by the responsible mods. You may say I can't handle insults, but you can't make me think people should behave this way.

The ironic thing is that you came here raise people's opinion of you into a more positive way. I had no opinion of you before, despite seeing you in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary, but now after reading your posts in which you display your character, my opinion of you is so low that if I believed there was a hell I'd be convinced you'd join Murry, Sachen, and Landy in their own room down there. As I don't, I pity you, it must be tough to carry that much anger and grudge.

*applause*

So much this. Thank you, Micha. With all the "no c'Mon guys, he was 'there.' So be nice to him" responses, I was feeling like I'm in some kind of bizarro world.

Daro, if I missed it in that exceedingly long post, I apologize, but are you deliberately avoiding answering my question? If so, is it just because you don't like me? I figured you dont considering all that's happened, but I'd hoped we could put aside personal rancor in the spirit of divulging information. Guess not. Pity, as that seems to be everyone else's excuse for ignoring your behavior this far. If you won't answer an honest question out of pettiness like that...what's the point?

Thinking about it more though...would that be you on the Lifeboat Tape at least? The one introducing the concept? If so, that couldn't be you in any other skits as the voice sounds completely different. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but in the lack of insider info I'm forced to guess about this.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2015, 11:57:53 PM
When I reread my post in yours, I found a grammatical flub that could be misleading which I now corrected in my original post.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 29, 2015, 12:32:23 AM
Haven't you read the back cover of the Smiley Smile cover where it says "The smile that you send out returns to you"?

Evidently, you haven't. If you browse Daro's post history, he hasn't made any remarks toward any member of this forum who didn't provoke him with hostility first. If you have anything you want to say to Daro concerning his personal ethics, why don't you just email him privately with your thoughts? The purpose of a board called "Ask the Honored Guests" is so that questions and answers can be readily available in an open, public space where others can follow with additional inquiries. There must be others besides me who care more about what Daro has to say concerning Brian's specific intellectual occupations when composing Pet Sounds and Smile than what Daro has to say in response to you wanting him to burn in hell. Just drop it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2015, 12:42:11 AM
If you have anything you want to say to Daro concerning his personal ethics, why don't you just email him privately with your thoughts?

Good idea, will do so next time.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 29, 2015, 01:01:52 AM
Jeez can't we move on. Aren't we adults.
I too thought it was a little harsh what Lorren said about Marilyn but he himself has apologised. If you asked Marilyn what she thinks of Lorren I don't think she would have kind words either. She is entitled to her opinion just as much has he is.
I didn't understand Lorren's anger in his first posts but I would understand his anger now.
Every time it seems we're going to move on someone has to start trashing him. We're just going around in circles.

Like Mikie said he is taking the time to address our posts. Most of use have only heard his opinions from the short snippets from the documentary.
If you don't care for what he has to say then I wouldn't even bother reading the thread but some of use want to hear his side.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 29, 2015, 01:15:00 AM

Evidently, you haven't. If you browse Daro's post history, he hasn't made any remarks toward any member of this forum who didn't provoke him with hostility first. If you have anything you want to say to Daro concerning his personal ethics, why don't you just email him privately with your thoughts? The purpose of a board called "Ask the Honored Guests" is so that questions and answers can be readily available in an open, public space where others can follow with additional inquiries. There must be others besides me who care more about what Daro has to say concerning Brian's specific intellectual occupations when composing Pet Sounds and Smile than what Daro has to say in response to you wanting him to burn in hell. Just drop it.

Nah...

He came on the board bursting with splenetic fury with his machine gun of ire firing in all directions (he later at least had the good grace to apologize for exactly this and all these posts have all been deleted I guess).

He did, when he was playing the tough guy, post that, `he doesn`t give a f*** what anyone thinks` though so I can`t see how anybody could provoke him anyway.

Admittedly he also stated, when we was playing the sympathy card, `you couldn`t have hurt me more` however...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 29, 2015, 01:32:00 AM
This might be a silly question Lorren, but did you ever think about picking up music yourself? I can imagine seeing Brian work could be quite inspirational.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2015, 01:47:35 AM
but some of us want to hear his side.

Even me.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lorren Daro on January 29, 2015, 03:42:17 AM
To all SS members on this Thread:

It seems clear to me now that this has all gone too far. Someone wrote that almost all the influential members have left this Thread. Only a very few are left to argue with each other over the same ideas – my defenders on one side, my detractors on the other – a vicious circle.

My intent was to get a couple of concepts across, and you’ve read them over and over now. Everyone has thrown in their two cents. I think it’s time for me to leave. I think things began to change when Van Dyke made his opinion of my crusade clear. The Thread began to thin out at that point. How can one argue with VDP? One of the dearest and sweetest human beings on earth, and certainly one of the smartest. And one who was there when I was.

I am grateful to those who seem to understand what I have been trying to say, and for forgiving my trespasses. I salute the nay-sayers for sticking with their positions. I admire anyone who perseveres – even if I don’t agree with them.

I would stay if I thought there was any more progress to be made, but I really don’t think there is. Now, you can all think about the three mf’ers I’ve tried to reveal here: Murry, well-known. Marilyn, not so well-known. And Mike, who is a mystery to most of you, and whom I wish I could have said more about. I’m willing to accept the mistakes I’ve made. I just wanted them to have to face their own – perhaps for the first time.

Please don’t address any more posts to me. I won’t be returning to this site to read them. Talk among yourselves, if you like.

If any of you, like Add Some, Buddhahat, and Don Malcolm, wish to correspond with me. I will be happy to do so through email.

Thank you all for spending time with me. I learned a lot.

Lorren Daro

lorrendaro@gmail.com




Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 29, 2015, 03:45:26 AM
Well that's a bummer


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Heywood on January 29, 2015, 03:58:33 AM
Way to go fellas. Back to bickering about same  old same old.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 29, 2015, 04:06:48 AM
 :-\    Just because he was hot headed (ok, rude initially too) doesn't mean what he said didn't have some merit.   


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2015, 04:39:36 AM
Well, that's why we can't have nice things around here.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Ang Jones on January 29, 2015, 04:45:32 AM
It is always interesting to get the input of people who had personal experience.  Memories are flawed and it's OK to try and correct errors but not really easy to just dismiss everything on account of  some mistaken recollections.

I stayed out of this one but I read it and I'm sorry that Lorren has now decided not to post here any more.

As for his introduction of drugs to Brian, I recently read this: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/likely-cause-addiction-has-been-discovered-and-it-not-what-you-think   In a nutshell, it's drugs PLUS a bad environment that cause the problem.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 29, 2015, 05:08:26 AM
That'll enhance the Smiley Smile reputation. ::)

Not.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 29, 2015, 05:29:06 AM
Now, you can all think about the three mf’ers I’ve tried to reveal here: Murry, well-known. Marilyn, not so well-known. And Mike, who is a mystery to most of you, and whom I wish I could have said more about. I’m willing to accept the mistakes I’ve made. I just wanted them to have to face their own – perhaps for the first time.

Classy to the end.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 06:18:57 AM
Oh come on...

Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Psychedelic Sounds was all about??


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: JK on January 29, 2015, 07:09:41 AM
Oh come on...

Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Psychedelic Sounds was all about??
This is a start, I suppose. Hopefully an erudite poster will jump in after that:

http://warnakeysbeachboysblog.blogspot.nl/2007/06/psychadelic-sounds.html


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 29, 2015, 07:21:56 AM
I stayed out of posting in this thread. I was really torn about how I felt personally, but I knew that what Lorren talked about had to be said, and I tried to stay objective about it. Overall, it was kind of like David Leaf's thought. The thread could just as well have been called "Brian Wilson and the Four Assholes". It really is amazing to me that most of Brian's friends from that time frame think that way. With Daro at least, Al was the only one to come away clean through all of the posts. Must have been tough for Brian being stuck in between these two worlds. The forces from which each side was pulling must created a lot of confusion and tension in his piece of the world. His friends and family couldn't have been any more different.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 29, 2015, 07:36:51 AM
Quote from: mujan
Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Psychedelic Sounds was all about??
Uh, isn't Brian just goofing around? I don't get what's so mysterious about it. He loves music and records weird stuff when he's stoned. Maybe some of the ideas filtered in later during Smile sessions.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 29, 2015, 07:41:36 AM
Honestly (and this is a bit of an aside), I think Smile mysteries are played out. If you read all of the interviews and listen the music, pretty much everything there is to know is already out there. At this point, the only mysteries left are perhaps figuring out EXACTLY what Brian thought on a specific day about how the songs should be sequenced. Which, of course, we'll never know, and I don't think it's that important. I don't think Brian ever had an exact sequence down and it appears the Smile back covers were printed more out of exasperation by the record label than anything else.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: rattfink on January 29, 2015, 07:56:00 AM
Mr. Cohen (or anyone who may have a sense of what happened),

There are a few SMiLE mysteries that I hope to better understand.

Did VDP quit in early March of 67?
Was it the plan for so much of March to be devoted to Carl's Tune X, or did Brian temporarily bail until April?
Did VDP return in early April, only to quit again?
Did Brian purposely remove VDP lyrics (three score and five, stripped the stalk, or changing He Gives Speeched to She's Goin Bald) because VDP quit? Or were they merely "evolutions" of Brian's whims?

If I am interpreting the SMiLE Sessions recording info correctly (per the accompanying box set book), it would seem that VDP was present through the early March HV sessions and returned briefly for the April Vega sessions. Was this intended, or did he quit, change his mind briefly, and quit again? If he quit, did it derail Brian, thus Tune X was fiddled with while waiting for Brian to return?

Any insight is greatly appreciated in advance.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2015, 08:34:29 AM
I think things began to change when Van Dyke made his opinion of my crusade clear. The Thread began to thin out at that point.

Seems I missed what VDP said. What exactly was his opinion?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Woodstock on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: mujan
Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Psychedelic Sounds was all about??
Uh, isn't Brian just goofing around? I don't get what's so mysterious about it. He loves music and records weird stuff when he's stoned. Maybe some of the ideas filtered in later during Smile sessions.

Nah man!! Each sketch was based on hieroglyphics hidden on each of the US bills of the time (1, 5, 10, 50, 100), and rumors have circulated for years about the code hidden within the Psycodelic Sound skits that can be used to translate the hieroglyphics into coordinates that lead to the Wilson's treasure chest.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 08:59:51 AM
Mr. Cohen (or anyone who may have a sense of what happened),

There are a few SMiLE mysteries that I hope to better understand.

Did VDP quit in early March of 67?
Was it the plan for so much of March to be devoted to Carl's Tune X, or did Brian temporarily bail until April?
Did VDP return in early April, only to quit again?
Did Brian purposely remove VDP lyrics (three score and five, stripped the stalk, or changing He Gives Speeched to She's Goin Bald) because VDP quit? Or were they merely "evolutions" of Brian's whims?

If I am interpreting the SMiLE Sessions recording info correctly (per the accompanying box set book), it would seem that VDP was present through the early March HV sessions and returned briefly for the April Vega sessions. Was this intended, or did he quit, change his mind briefly, and quit again? If he quit, did it derail Brian, thus Tune X was fiddled with while waiting for Brian to return?

Any insight is greatly appreciated in advance.

It's my understanding that VDP quit in January, then returned briefly in March then quit for good.

If Brian were to scrap his lyrics as a passive aggressive gesture then he'd have to scrap the whole album (which, I guess he did) I think he just didn't like those particular lyrics after awhile. The reconnected telephone lyrics for Cabin Essence too.

Not sure about Tune X. My intuition is Carl was trying to make something for the album to help speed things along since it was already a solid 4 months later with no end in sight. Who knows.

Quote from: mujan
Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Psychedelic Sounds was all about??
Uh, isn't Brian just goofing around? I don't get what's so mysterious about it. He loves music and records weird stuff when he's stoned. Maybe some of the ideas filtered in later during Smile sessions.

Well, that's been the primary interpretation thus far, but I don't buy it. I think the chants and crazy sound collages (Basketball Sounds, Bob Gordon's Trip) were experiments he'd planned to tinker with more in the future, either for SMiLE or something else. I think certain skits like the Vegetable Fight, George Fell, Taxi Cabber and maybe Smog, were intended to be trimmed down and used as links between certain tracks on SMiLE. Some of the other conversations were probably working ideas that were dropped. And then some things, like the Lifeboat Tape, are definitely just goofing off.

I'd hoped to get clarification or contradiction about this from Brian or Daro. Without their input though, this is my best guess.

Honestly (and this is a bit of an aside), I think Smile mysteries are played out. If you read all of the interviews and listen the music, pretty much everything there is to know is already out there. At this point, the only mysteries left are perhaps figuring out EXACTLY what Brian thought on a specific day about how the songs should be sequenced. Which, of course, we'll never know, and I don't think it's that important. I don't think Brian ever had an exact sequence down and it appears the Smile back covers were printed more out of exasperation by the record label than anything else.

Yes and no. And this goes beyond the sequence.

Based on what is out there, I think we can make pretty good assumptions for the ultimate plan of each track. But then we could be completely wrong and there'd be no way to know. The biggest mystery for me at this point, is the psychedelic sounds and how, if at all, they'd tie into it. If they were included, it'd *completely* change the character of the album.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:00:44 AM
I think things began to change when Van Dyke made his opinion of my crusade clear. The Thread began to thin out at that point.

Seems I missed what VDP said. What exactly was his opinion?

Something about root beer, right?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Woodstock on January 29, 2015, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: mujan
I think certain skits like the Vegetable Fight, George Fell, Taxi Cabber and maybe Smog, were intended to be trimmed down and used as links between certain tracks on SMiLE.

Why? Has Brian ever mentioned the psycodelic sounds since??


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:08:24 AM
Quote from: mujan
I think certain skits like the Vegetable Fight, George Fell, Taxi Cabber and maybe Smog, were intended to be trimmed down and used as links between certain tracks on SMiLE.

Why? Has Brian ever mentioned the psycodelic sounds since??

No. I was hoping to get confirmation or denial, but he didn't answer me.

Veggies, George, Brian fell into a Piano and Moaning laughter were all included on the boxset tho, and the veggie fight and chants were on Hawthorne. Brian said there'd be spoken word humour on the album and I believe floated the idea of recording a bar fight for h&v. It's not *that* crazy to think that maybe some of these ideas were serious, and not just goofing around. I don't think he'd waste Hal's time or the other session musicians who did George Fell.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 29, 2015, 09:11:57 AM
Things I learned from this thread

Lorren Daro takes Cialis.
Lorren has festered a nasty, irrational hatred for Marilyn for 50 years.
Through the lyrics of Mike Love, Brian wrote Good Vibrations for Lorren's wife.
For an under educated, working class square from Hawthorne, Al Jardine was okay.
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.
People can be the reason other people get divorced from their wives, even if they haven't seen each other for over 12 years.
Like 99.999999% of the population, Lorren doesn't know who David Marks is.
A 2 year old child getting clubbed round the head with a 2x4 will only make the child half deaf and not, as you'd expect, send them on a one way trip to the morgue.
Lorren will do anything for a dear friend except wish to see them again if they start showing signs of a stress induced breakdown.
Lorren sweats a lot when in LA.
Lorren will make zero attempt to engage Brian Wilson in conversation when both men are on the board at the same time.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:17:58 AM
Things I learned from this thread

Lorren Daro takes Cialis.
Lorren has festered a nasty, irrantional hatred for Marilyn for 50 years.
Through the lyrics of Mike Love, Brian wrote Good Vibrations for Lorren's wife.
For an under educated, working class square from Hawthorne, Al Jardine was okay.
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.
People can be the reason other people get divorced from their wives, even if they haven't seen each other for over 12 years.
Like 99.999999% of the population, Lorren doesn't know who David Marks is.
A 2 year old child getting clubbed round the head with a 2x4 with only make the child half deaf and not, as you'd expect, send them on a one way trip to the morgue.
Lorren will do anything for a dear friend except wish to see them again if they start showing signs of a stress induced breakdown.
Lorren sweats a lot when in LA.
Lorren will make zero attempt to engage Brian Wilson in conversation when both men are on the board at the same time.

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but yeah that about sums it up.

I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 29, 2015, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: Woodstock
Why? Has Brian ever mentioned the psycodelic sounds since??
Right. We make up all these crazy hypotheticals with nary a shred of real evidence and assume Brian would know exactly what we're talking about. It's very possible that in a flight of fancy he may have considered throwing a skit on the album. Someone (others, I'm sure, will remember exactly who that was) said Brian wanted to record a bar fight, and from the way it was explained it seems he was considering throwing that fight or recreation of it onto H&V.  Others report that Brian would be doing weird sound experiments with friends and say stuff like "this should be on the album", but no one knew if he was serious or not.

So what's the mystery? I don't think Brian ever had a definitive track list, and he's never going to say "yes, 'Gorge Fell' would've gone onto the second part of 'Surf's Up'". You really think he would? He didn't know. Maybe he thought it for a second and forgot about it.

The vibe I get was that Brian was recording all kinds of stuff and assumed it'd come together as an album, just like "GV" did as a song. When that didn't happen as quickly as he thought it would, he seemingly panicked under the pressure of a release date. He tried to cobble together a single to give himself time, but couldn't do that to his satisfaction. And so the project collapsed.

Again, what's the mystery? Exactly how much some objections from the BBs added to his panic?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Woodstock on January 29, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
I don't think he'd waste Hal's time or the other session musicians 

One time Brian assembled a full session of musicians, said hello, and then dismissed them  8)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:27:14 AM
Quote from: Woodstock
Why? Has Brian ever mentioned the psycodelic sounds since??
Right. We make up all these crazy hypotheticals with nary a shred of real evidence and assume Brian would know exactly what we're talking about. It's very possible that in a flight of fancy he may have considered throwing a skit on the album. Someone (others, I'm sure, will remember exactly who that was) said Brian wanted to record a bar fight, and from the way it was explained it seems he was considering throwing that fight or recreation of it onto H&V.  Others report that Brian would be doing weird sound experiments with friends and say stuff like "this should be on the album", but no one knew if he was serious or not.

So what's the mystery? I don't think Brian ever had a definitive track list, and he's never going to say "yes, 'Gorge Fell' would've gone onto the second part of 'Surf's Up'". You really think he would? He didn't know. Maybe he thought it for a second and forgot about it.

The vibe I get was that Brian was recording all kinds of stuff and assumed it'd come together as an album, just like "GV" did as a song. When that didn't happen as quickly as he thought it would, he seemingly panicked under the pressure of a release date. He tried to cobble together a single to give himself time, but couldn't do that to his satisfaction. And so the project collapsed.

Again, what's the mystery? Exactly how much some objections from the BBs added to his panic?

Lighten up, fella. Just trying to get a feel for what may have been based on what we have. I'm not claiming to know for certain, and I'm certainly up for being proven wrong. Personally, I give Brian a bit more credit than just recording everything Willy nilly with no plan at all. I think there was some sense of a structure laid out, even if it wasn't set in stone and changed week by week.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:30:10 AM
I don't think he'd waste Hal's time or the other session musicians 

One time Brian assembled a full session of musicians, said hello, and then dismissed them  8)

Because of bad vibes. Yes, I've heard that story. But in this case, the vibes were good. Good enough to record a funny skit. And listening to the whole 22 minutes, Brian actually *does* sound focused like he knows exactly how he wants the conversation to go. Not word for word, of course, but there are definitely "phases" of the argument he wants to get on tape and is fairly specific about.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 29, 2015, 09:31:20 AM
Things I learned from this thread

Lorren Daro takes Cialis.
Lorren has festered a nasty, irrantional hatred for Marilyn for 50 years.
Through the lyrics of Mike Love, Brian wrote Good Vibrations for Lorren's wife.
For an under educated, working class square from Hawthorne, Al Jardine was okay.
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.
People can be the reason other people get divorced from their wives, even if they haven't seen each other for over 12 years.
Like 99.999999% of the population, Lorren doesn't know who David Marks is.
A 2 year old child getting clubbed round the head with a 2x4 with only make the child half deaf and not, as you'd expect, send them on a one way trip to the morgue.
Lorren will do anything for a dear friend except wish to see them again if they start showing signs of a stress induced breakdown.
Lorren sweats a lot when in LA.
Lorren will make zero attempt to engage Brian Wilson in conversation when both men are on the board at the same time.

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but yeah that about sums it up.

I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*
Whether you believe that what he says is bullshit, or not liking his tone, anyone whose is researching that point in history needs to hear what he has to say. To simply ignore him would do the history an injustice. You listen to what he has to say, then compare it to what others have stated to determine its validity.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
Things I learned from this thread

Lorren Daro takes Cialis.
Lorren has festered a nasty, irrantional hatred for Marilyn for 50 years.
Through the lyrics of Mike Love, Brian wrote Good Vibrations for Lorren's wife.
For an under educated, working class square from Hawthorne, Al Jardine was okay.
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.
People can be the reason other people get divorced from their wives, even if they haven't seen each other for over 12 years.
Like 99.999999% of the population, Lorren doesn't know who David Marks is.
A 2 year old child getting clubbed round the head with a 2x4 with only make the child half deaf and not, as you'd expect, send them on a one way trip to the morgue.
Lorren will do anything for a dear friend except wish to see them again if they start showing signs of a stress induced breakdown.
Lorren sweats a lot when in LA.
Lorren will make zero attempt to engage Brian Wilson in conversation when both men are on the board at the same time.

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but yeah that about sums it up.

I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*
Whether you believe that what he says is bullshit, or not liking his tone, anyone whose is researching that point in history needs to hear what he has to say. To simply ignore him would do the history an injustice. You listen to what he has to say, then compare it to what others have stated to determine its validity.

I have. I'm not impressed. AGD did a wonderful job pointing out the inaccuracies and contradictions, as did others. I didn't try to shut him up or chase him away, but if he's gonna leave just because he wasn't 100% venerated by everyone, then I say nothing of value was lost.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 29, 2015, 09:54:37 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 29, 2015, 09:55:20 AM
Things I learned from this thread

Lorren Daro takes Cialis.
Lorren has festered a nasty, irrantional hatred for Marilyn for 50 years.
Through the lyrics of Mike Love, Brian wrote Good Vibrations for Lorren's wife.
For an under educated, working class square from Hawthorne, Al Jardine was okay.
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.
People can be the reason other people get divorced from their wives, even if they haven't seen each other for over 12 years.
Like 99.999999% of the population, Lorren doesn't know who David Marks is.
A 2 year old child getting clubbed round the head with a 2x4 with only make the child half deaf and not, as you'd expect, send them on a one way trip to the morgue.
Lorren will do anything for a dear friend except wish to see them again if they start showing signs of a stress induced breakdown.
Lorren sweats a lot when in LA.
Lorren will make zero attempt to engage Brian Wilson in conversation when both men are on the board at the same time.

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but yeah that about sums it up.

I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*
Whether you believe that what he says is bullshit, or not liking his tone, anyone whose is researching that point in history needs to hear what he has to say. To simply ignore him would do the history an injustice. You listen to what he has to say, then compare it to what others have stated to determine its validity.

I have. I'm not impressed. AGD did a wonderful job pointing out the inaccuracies and contradictions, as did others. I didn't try to shut him up or chase him away, but if he's gonna leave just because he wasn't 100% venerated by everyone, then I say nothing of value was lost.
I agree. He has had his say, now the time has come to validate. While I can understand him being confused on dates, I cannot understand why he would come here ill-prepared. If someone is looking to vindicate themselves, they should make sure of the facts before presenting them.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 29, 2015, 09:58:22 AM



I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*


Please don't 'cue' me. It's a fairly transparent preemptive strike that won't stop me responding to your idiotic posts.

So let me understand the situation here: the guy has bowed out of the thread due, in no small part, to your relentless thread crapping. Rather than being satisfied with this outcome you feel it necessary to continue to insult him? What exactly is the point of this other than getting the last word in with that nauseatingly self-important 'summing-up' that seems to be one of your signatures?

And you 'tried giving him another chance' ????!

How exactly? By asking him your psychedelic sounds question, then having a go at him because he had the gaul not to answer ...... after you insulted him?!

This is exactly the type of insanity I referred to earlier. You single-handedly make a terrific case for this board to adopt the 'ignore' function.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 10:10:17 AM



I tried giving him another chance when he came back, but the man said absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and had a nasty, bitter attitude to boot. Some will lament the loss, after all he was "there" and apparently that's all that matters no matter how awful of a person or unreliable a witness you are, but all in all...no great loss.

*Cue buddhahat and others blasting me and acting like it's the end of Smiley Smile as we know it*


Please don't 'cue' me. It's a fairly transparent preemptive strike that won't stop me responding to your idiotic posts.

So let me understand the situation here: the guy has bowed out of the thread due, in no small part, to your relentless thread crapping. Rather than being satisfied with this outcome you feel it necessary to continue to insult him? What exactly is the point of this other than getting the last word in with that nauseatingly self-important 'summing-up' that seems to be one of your signatures?

And you 'tried to give him a another chance' ????!

How exactly? By asking him your psychedelic sounds question, then having a go at him because he had the gaul not to answer ...... after you insulted him?!

This is exactly the type of insanity I referred to earlier. You single-handedly make a terrific case for this board to adopt the 'ignore' function.



Funny enough, that ignore button was actually my idea :lol

You seem to conveniently forget that your friend Daro insulted myself, AGD, and just about everyone in the BB universe, but I guess that's ok because he was "there" right?

I only "cued" you because you've been the guy's self-appointed body guard since this whole bizarre situation began. You did not disappoint. Not sure what you see in him considering he offered no worthwhile info. I guess at this point, it's a pride thing?

I said numerous times I didn't actually want him to leave. I said nothing particularly mean or uncalled for, especially considering he called me a "mindless prick" behind my back. Again, funny how a man who spews so much vitriol can take so little.

Yes, I did actually. I aapologize for some of what I had said earlier and said I was glad he came back. And he proceeded to prove that my initial read on him was right on the money.

Sorry your buddy couldn't take the proverbial heat. He brought it on himself.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 29, 2015, 10:15:36 AM
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.

I'd be chickenshit too if I were the slightest bit concerned about being sued for libel. Mike Love has a track record.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 29, 2015, 10:21:07 AM

Funny enough, that ignore button was actually my idea :lol



No it wasn't, but ironic that you should suggest it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 29, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Whether you believe that what he says is bullshit, or not liking his tone, anyone whose is researching that point in history needs to hear what he has to say. To simply ignore him would do the history an injustice. You listen to what he has to say, then compare it to what others have stated to determine its validity.

Right!  And out of nine (9) "Honored Guests", we have only two left that still post here periodically. A tenth honored guest just joined and it's expected that he will rarely post with the exception of promotion or Q&A once in awhile.

Congratulations!  ::)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 29, 2015, 10:48:27 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 29, 2015, 11:00:22 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded, bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least - Clearly not for all the other AGD flag wavers. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 11:05:45 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded and bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.



I've tripped 7 times, all amazing experiences, and Daro's interview, general demeanor, outright refusal to concede that Brian himself considered it a negative experience, pride at driving a wedge between a husband and wife, etc all rubbed *me* the wrong way too. Go figure.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 29, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded and bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.



I've tripped 7 times, all amazing experiences, and Daro's interview, general demeanor, outright refusal to concede that Brian himself considered it a negative experience, pride at driving a wedge between a husband and wife, etc all rubbed *me* the wrong way too. Go figure.
I was rubbed the wrong way with just about all of it, but I thought that that didn't matter. What mattered was if what he was saying was true or not. Daro's pov is just that and whether we like or not, need to accept it. No one says we had to like it. At least we now have it and we know where he stands. Now, it is fact check time.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 11:34:26 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded and bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.



I've tripped 7 times, all amazing experiences, and Daro's interview, general demeanor, outright refusal to concede that Brian himself considered it a negative experience, pride at driving a wedge between a husband and wife, etc all rubbed *me* the wrong way too. Go figure.
I was rubbed the wrong way with just about all of it, but I thought that that didn't matter. What mattered was if what he was saying was true or not. Daro's pov is just that and whether we like or not, need to accept it. No one says we had to like it. At least we now have it and we know where he stands. Now, it is fact check time.

AGD has done a fantastic job proving his account is just as faulty from a reliability standpoint as a morality one. We let him say his say, I'm glad we got it, but just because he was "there" doesn't mean his story is worth much.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 29, 2015, 11:43:55 AM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded and bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.



I've tripped 7 times, all amazing experiences, and Daro's interview, general demeanor, outright refusal to concede that Brian himself considered it a negative experience, pride at driving a wedge between a husband and wife, etc all rubbed *me* the wrong way too. Go figure.
I was rubbed the wrong way with just about all of it, but I thought that that didn't matter. What mattered was if what he was saying was true or not. Daro's pov is just that and whether we like or not, need to accept it. No one says we had to like it. At least we now have it and we know where he stands. Now, it is fact check time.

AGD has done a fantastic job proving his account is just as faulty from a reliability standpoint as a morality one. We let him say his say, I'm glad we got it, but just because he was "there" doesn't mean his story is worth much.
Well, if nothing else we got a bit about his personal relationship with Brian. It just amazed me that he really didn't like anyone but Al in the Beach Boys sphere. He trashed Murry, Mike and Marilyn. Seems he didn't think much of Carl or Dennis either. No wonder there was all this animosity over all these years.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on January 29, 2015, 11:48:40 AM
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/stop_dont_come_back_willy_wonka.gif)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 29, 2015, 11:54:55 AM
(http://goodfootproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/May-The-Schwartz-Be-With-You-Spaceballs.jpg)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 29, 2015, 12:25:08 PM
Seriously, I respect the fact that Lorren blunted his attack somewhat in this second thread, and although I took most of what he said with a grain of salt, I was hoping for a few nuggets of new, relevant information as his recollection improved.

Lee


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 29, 2015, 12:25:24 PM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded, bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least - Clearly not for all the other AGD flag wavers. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.

Was he an active participant in the thread at the time? You fail to see the stark contrast between the two.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: SinisterSmile on January 29, 2015, 12:28:38 PM
Everyone in the BB camp should toss AGD a bone. Once he's on your side he's a bulldog.

My "side" is that of accuracy & documentation. When someone says, here of all places, "of course you know Dennis only played on the earliest songs", that loud thump you hear is their credibility hitting the floor. Before anyone says it, no one chased him away: he elected to depart rather than stay and face having his stories held up to the light. Nothing new was contributed. The "salon" stuff... it was a drug house, pure and simple.

As for someone resurrecting a five year old post with which to berate me... really ?  If you have to resort to that, you're grasping at straws passing on the breeze.

It was completely relevant as evidence of the brainless knee-jerk prejudice (mostly your own) I immediately encountered on this board post beautiful dreamer. Your anti-drugs schtick is narrow-minded, bewildering and undermines your own credibility. For me at least - Clearly not for all the other AGD flag wavers. Still staggered by the 'appearance' comments. But keep us posted Columbo.

Was he an active participant in the thread at the time? You fail to see the stark contrast between the two.

I thought the whole point of this thread was to crucify people for past actions  :angel:


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 29, 2015, 01:56:28 PM
Lorren is chickenshit to say anything about Mike Love.

I'd be chickenshit too if I were the slightest bit concerned about being sued for libel. Mike Love has a track record.
You got that right, Mikie.  :woot :thumbsup


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 29, 2015, 02:05:38 PM
Thank you, Lorren. It's clear that your involvement with Brian was pivotal to a series of events that led to great achievements/efforts--and, most unfortunately, a series of difficult times that only got worse because the folks who tried to get him "help" in the 70s were either callous, indifferent, or way out of their depth. No one in their right mind can possibly blame you for what went down in the years after your friendship with Brian came to an end. And no one should now still hold the misguided notion that Brian's initial LSD trip is the trigger for his downfall.

Thank you, Lee Dempsey, for reading through this torturous thread--where several otherwise capable and intelligent folks have sullied their own reputations far more than they have succeeded at character assasination--and recognizing that despite his (occasionally very) rough edges, Lorren is someone who should be allowed to speak his mind without being constantly hounded by the so-called "fact police."

I think the most surprising aspect of this thread is the fact that no one (including yours truly) thought to ask Lorren about his observations concerning the odd "triangle" relationship between Brian, Marilyn and Diane. That is a dynamic that is worth exploring from several directions--unless, of course, it might offend those folk who want to wave away the possibility that a flawed marriage was in any way a factor in Brian's ongoing difficulties. The inner world of the BBs in these years was already a tangled web, to be sure, and we may never know all of the details that contributed to how things played out, no matter how obsessive any of us might become in pursuit of them.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 29, 2015, 02:10:47 PM
Thank you, Lorren. It's clear that your involvement with Brian was pivotal to a series of events that led to great achievements/efforts--and, most unfortunately, a series of difficult times that only got worse because the folks who tried to get him "help" in the 70s were either callous, indifferent, or way out of their depth. No one in their right mind can possibly blame you for what went down in the years after your friendship with Brian came to an end. And no one should now still hold the misguided notion that Brian's initial LSD trip is the trigger for his downfall.

Thank you, Lee Dempsey, for reading through this torturous thread--where several otherwise capable and intelligent folks have sullied their own reputations far more than they have succeeded at character assasination--and recognizing that despite his (occasionally very) rough edges, Lorren is someone who should be allowed to speak his mind without being constantly hounded by the so-called "fact police."

I think the most surprising aspect of this thread is the fact that no one (including yours truly) thought to ask Lorren about his observations concerning the odd "triangle" relationship between Brian, Marilyn and Diane. That is a dynamic that is worth exploring from several directions--unless, of course, it might offend those folk who want to wave away the possibility that a flawed marriage was in any way a factor in Brian's ongoing difficulties. The inner world of the BBs in these years was already a tangled web, to be sure, and we may never know all of the details that contributed to how things played out, no matter how obsessive any of us might become in pursuit of them.

Yup. :hat


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 29, 2015, 02:13:05 PM
Seriously, I respect the fact that Lorren blunted his attack somewhat in this second thread, and I was hoping for a few nuggets of new information as his recollection improved.

Lee
I'm sure there are many here who would have enjoyed those nuggets, but there are those here who's ego just wouldn't allow that. Bottom line? He was there and they were not.  ::) ::)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 29, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
Thank you, Lorren. It's clear that your involvement with Brian was pivotal to a series of events that led to great achievements/efforts--and, most unfortunately, a series of difficult times that only got worse because the folks who tried to get him "help" in the 70s were either callous, indifferent, or way out of their depth. No one in their right mind can possibly blame you for what went down in the years after your friendship with Brian came to an end. And no one should now still hold the misguided notion that Brian's initial LSD trip is the trigger for his downfall.

Thank you, Lee Dempsey, for reading through this torturous thread--where several otherwise capable and intelligent folks have sullied their own reputations far more than they have succeeded at character assasination--and recognizing that despite his (occasionally very) rough edges, Lorren is someone who should be allowed to speak his mind without being constantly hounded by the so-called "fact police."

I think the most surprising aspect of this thread is the fact that no one (including yours truly) thought to ask Lorren about his observations concerning the odd "triangle" relationship between Brian, Marilyn and Diane. That is a dynamic that is worth exploring from several directions--unless, of course, it might offend those folk who want to wave away the possibility that a flawed marriage was in any way a factor in Brian's ongoing difficulties. The inner world of the BBs in these years was already a tangled web, to be sure, and we may never know all of the details that contributed to how things played out, no matter how obsessive any of us might become in pursuit of them.
Just a hunch but I think you will find that those closest to Brian, have a great deal MORE respect now for those that "hounded" Lorren. "Fact police" or as I refer to them "truth seekers" are welcome anytime in my world! I prefer the truth as opposed, to bloated, self-indulgent and factual incorrect fallacy.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 29, 2015, 02:37:16 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on January 29, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
It's clear that your involvement with Brian was pivotal to a series of events that led to great achievements/efforts
Quote

Pivotal?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 29, 2015, 03:01:14 PM
Yes, pivotal. Out of this group of people came Asher and Parks. Lorren was, at the very least, a conduit.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 29, 2015, 03:13:27 PM
Yes, pivotal. Out of this group of people came Asher and Parks. Lorren was, at the very least, a conduit.
But not so pivotal, that "Brian would've taken it anyway", kinda pivotal!!


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: puni puni on January 29, 2015, 03:46:00 PM
Lorren Daro quickly apologized for his tone and inaccurate recall.
I agree that my initial posts were too full of anger. I’m sorry I didn’t calm down and moderate the tone. The anger is still there, but enough of you have objected that I now see your point. More with honey than vinegar, right? A lot of this has been pent up in me for years. Thanks for seeing through the dark clouds and urging me to change my approach. Never too late to learn…
AGD: I’m beginning to understand what’s going on here. It seems that I’m as much of a victim of bad rumors as anyone else. I lot of what I’ve said was from Brian’s mouth – the 2X4 deafness, Dennis’s drumming, the journey of the ‘Smile’ records, etc. And, no, AGD I’m not going to cling to these ‘facts’. I’m here to learn, as well as to relate what I think I know. My distant memories are suspect. I see that now. Good thing you’re here to keep me on the path. I didn’t think I would run into all this scientific analysis…

Since there are some who don't believe he had anything worthwhile to share, I've compiled and whittled the parts that I thought were interesting for their own merit.

http://pastebin.com/7cgmXwTK

Next on the list: someone ought to email Lorren all of the questions he missed in this thread. There were plenty of good ones.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 04:00:18 PM
Yes, pivotal. Out of this group of people came Asher and Parks. Lorren was, at the very least, a conduit.
But not so pivotal, that "Brian would've taken it anyway", kinda pivotal!!

 :lol
Exactly!


Seriously guys, we're really saying Loren Daro was pivotal to Brian's career? A resounding bullshit I say!


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 29, 2015, 04:26:14 PM
Geez man.  He's gone.  Can we ease up in terms of urinating on him?  He was an IMPORTANT link...a KEY stepping stone...in terms of how it all evolved...at least for 2 of the absolutely MOST important albums in Beach Boys history.  Tony?  Van Dyke?  The SMiLE you cherish and spend so much time wondering and caring about?  Without the intoductions?  Where would you be right now?  And still you stand there with your fly undone?

Geez zuis Mujan.  Read before you press the POST button!!!


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Tricycle Rider on January 29, 2015, 04:39:28 PM
Geez man.  He's gone.  Can we ease up in terms of urinating on him?  He was an IMPORTANT link...a KEY stepping stone...in terms of how it all evolved...at least for 2 of the absolutely MOST important albums in Beach Boys history.  Tony?  Van Dyke?  The SMiLE you cherish and spend so much time wondering and caring about?  Without the introductions?  Where would you be right now?  And still you stand there with your fly undone?

Geez zuis Mujan.  Read before you press the POST button!!!

This.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 29, 2015, 05:29:02 PM
Geez man.  He's gone.  Can we ease up in terms of urinating on him?  He was an IMPORTANT link...a KEY stepping stone...in terms of how it all evolved...at least for 2 of the absolutely MOST important albums in Beach Boys history.  Tony?  Van Dyke?  The SMiLE you cherish and spend so much time wondering and caring about?  Without the intoductions?  Where would you be right now?  And still you stand there with your fly undone?

Geez zuis Mujan.  Read before you press the POST button!!!

Well from my understanding he did not attend a SMiLE nor Pet Sounds Session.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 05:38:04 PM
Geez man.  He's gone.  Can we ease up in terms of urinating on him?  He was an IMPORTANT link...a KEY stepping stone...in terms of how it all evolved...at least for 2 of the absolutely MOST important albums in Beach Boys history.  Tony?  Van Dyke?  The SMiLE you cherish and spend so much time wondering and caring about?  Without the intoductions?  Where would you be right now?  And still you stand there with your fly undone?

Geez zuis Mujan.  Read before you press the POST button!!!

Why? He had no problem sh!tting on anyone else he pleased. Say what you will about Mike, at least he wrote some good lyrics. Marilyn probably genuinely loved Brian even if she wasn't the "best" most experienced wife. What is Daro? The guy who gave him some drugs, and hosted drug parties where he happened to meet some cool, talented people. A role I think just about any other person may have filled had they also been in the right place at the right time. And without becoming a bitter old man bragging about (helping to) break up a marriage to boot. Probably without making a big show of coming here to clear their name only to expose their true colors as well.

And, as someone else insinuated, if he's such good friends with Brian...why did he ditch him when he needed friends most? Why not try to make amends now? Because, I strongly suspect, he's only playing up his association with Brian now as a way of getting his own 15 minutes of fame. Aside from being wholly inaccurate, his narrative is so shamelessly self-serving and overly derogatory to everyone else it makes me sick. I think I was decent enough, if highly skeptical, while he was here out of respect for others who may have had questions. But now that he's gone again--turnedTandy ran rather than defend his own story--I'm assessing everything that's been said and calling it as I see it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 29, 2015, 05:49:33 PM
"I strongly suspect..." The most overused and abused coupling of three words on this board by those who think they know better which comfortably validates their opinion.  ::)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 05:58:26 PM
"I strongly suspect..." The most overused and abused coupling of three words on this board by those who think they know better which comfortably validates their opinion.  ::)

It fits the pattern of behavior he's followed. Why else come to defend against non-existent criticisms to an article nobody read or cared about, claim he's Brian's best friend and all the best songs are about him, knock everyone else in Brian's life down to look more important by comparison and then leave when we all don't mindlessly fawn over the magnificence of the guy whose proudest accomplishment is giving someone else acid that they later said shattered their mind?

Run on sentence.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: 18thofMay on January 29, 2015, 06:06:34 PM
"I strongly suspect..." The most overused and abused coupling of three words on this board by those who think they know better which comfortably validates their opinion.  ::)
Ok well here you go then, he's only playing up his association with Brian now as a way of getting his own 15 minutes of fame.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 29, 2015, 07:15:08 PM
"I strongly suspect..." The most overused and abused coupling of three words on this board by those who think they know better which comfortably validates their opinion.  ::)

It fits the pattern of behavior he's followed. Why else come to defend against non-existent criticisms to an article nobody read or cared about, claim he's Brian's best friend and all the best songs are about him, knock everyone else in Brian's life down to look more important by comparison and then leave when we all don't mindlessly fawn over the magnificence of the guy whose proudest accomplishment is giving someone else acid that they later said shattered their mind?

Run on sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Don Malcolm on January 29, 2015, 07:41:21 PM
Yes, pivotal. Out of this group of people came Asher and Parks. Lorren was, at the very least, a conduit.
But not so pivotal, that "Brian would've taken it anyway", kinda pivotal!!

A conduit to better lyricists, who by supplanting him turned Mike Love into a demon in human form (one literally green with envy).

But note that all this competition did make Mike (temporarily, at least) into a better lyricist.

Without Asher and Parks, the desire to integrate music with more meaningful lyrics might not have happened, and...guess what? That means that we wouldn't be here--running off the folks who have the temerity to "hang on to their ego" in the face of the self-appointed "fact police"....
:thud


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on January 29, 2015, 08:13:33 PM
Yes, pivotal. Out of this group of people came Asher and Parks. Lorren was, at the very least, a conduit.
But not so pivotal, that "Brian would've taken it anyway", kinda pivotal!!

A conduit to better lyricists, who by supplanting him turned Mike Love into a demon in human form (one literally green with envy).

But note that all this competition did make Mike (temporarily, at least) into a better lyricist.

Without Asher and Parks, the desire to integrate music with more meaningful lyrics might not have happened, and...guess what? That means that we wouldn't be here--running off the folks who have the temerity to "hang on to their ego" in the face of the self-appointed "fact police"....
:thud
More like self anointed. ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 29, 2015, 08:40:10 PM
"I strongly suspect..." The most overused and abused coupling of three words on this board by those who think they know better which comfortably validates their opinion.  ::)

It fits the pattern of behavior he's followed. Why else come to defend against non-existent criticisms to an article nobody read or cared about, claim he's Brian's best friend and all the best songs are about him, knock everyone else in Brian's life down to look more important by comparison and then leave when we all don't mindlessly fawn over the magnificence of the guy whose proudest accomplishment is giving someone else acid that they later said shattered their mind?

Run on sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk

I admit, I laughed


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Jesse Reiswig on January 29, 2015, 08:52:38 PM
I would like to speak for a moment, and I hope cogently, neither as a defender of Lorren Daro nor as an antagonist, because I'm really neither. Earlier in this thread, I tried to put forth the idea that it doesn't really matter whether we agree with anything this particular figure is saying, nor does it matter whether we think what he says is irredeemably skewed by a bias or agenda. The potential for nuggets of interest to come through was still there.

Unfortunately, too much of this thread was spent with people attacking each other rather than trying to encourage an interesting dialogue. Maybe nothing more would have come of it if we had  been better behaved, but it's also possible more interesting things would have been discussed. And that is absolutely our failing. Why do we spend so much time trashing each other? Seriously, it gets sickening to read some of the venom here. I get so riled up reading other people's anger (and no, I'm not going to fall into the trap of naming any particular usernames), that I start to want to post venomous posts myself and luckily talk myself down before I do. But seriously, can't we TRY to change the culture here, folks? I mean, this is so counterproductive!

Lorren's statements made me interested, for instance, to find out more about Terry Sachen and why he was such a terrible enabler. If I'd had more presence of mind to crystallize those thoughts better, I might have been able to ask a good question even amid all the sturm und drang (Micha, please forgive my horrible pseudo-German!). And maybe something of interest would have come of that.

But back to the main point: I really feel Andrew Doe made a great point (I think it was he who said this) when he said that people feel insulated from reality when they use usernames on a board like this. They feel they can behave in a way that they wouldn't face to face because they're hiding behind a pseudonym. That's why I decided to use my real name here. I don't want to ever say anything off the record, that I wouldn't own and stand by. And if I make mistakes and say the wrong thing, say something inappropriate, I want to face actual consequences to my person, so I can learn from it.

I'm not saying any of this to act superior, so I hope it doesn't come off that way. It's just that being a member of this board is so wonderful and educational and collaborative in so many ways, but it comes close to being truly spoiled at times by all the juvenile behavior that happens here. I hope that by my posting this some people will be encouraged to think more fully about how to express opinions vigorously and fully without resorting to personal bile.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: MrRobinsonsFather on January 29, 2015, 09:06:18 PM
I would like to speak for a moment, and I hope cogently, neither as a defender of Lorren Daro nor as an antagonist, because I'm really neither. Earlier in this thread, I tried to put forth the idea that it doesn't really matter whether we agree with anything this particular figure is saying, nor does it matter whether we think what he says is irredeemably skewed by a bias or agenda. The potential for nuggets of interest to come through was still there.

Unfortunately, too much of this thread was spent with people attacking each other rather than trying to encourage an interesting dialogue. Maybe nothing more would have come of it if we had  been better behaved, but it's also possible more interesting things would have been discussed. And that is absolutely our failing. Why do we spend so much time trashing each other? Seriously, it gets sickening to read some of the venom here. I get so riled up reading other people's anger (and no, I'm not going to fall into the trap of naming any particular usernames), that I start to want to post venomous posts myself and luckily talk myself down before I do. But seriously, can't we TRY to change the culture here, folks? I mean, this is so counterproductive!

Lorren's statements made me interested, for instance, to find out more about Terry Sachen and why he was such a terrible enabler. If I'd had more presence of mind to crystallize those thoughts better, I might have been able to ask a good question even amid all the sturm und drang (Micha, please forgive my horrible pseudo-German!). And maybe something of interest would have come of that.

But back to the main point, I really feel Andrew Doe made a great point (I think it was he who said this) when he said that people feel insulated from reality when they use usernames on a board like this. They feel they can behave in a way that they wouldn't face to face because they're hiding behind a pseudonym. That's why I decided to use my real name here. I don't want to ever say anything off the record, that I wouldn't own and stand by. And if I make mistakes and say the wrong thing, say something inappropriate, I want to face actual consequences to my person, so I can learn from it.

I'm not saying any of this to act superior, so I hope it doesn't come off that way. It's just that being a member of this board is so wonderful and educational and collaborative in so many ways, but it comes close to being truly spoiled at times by all the juvenile behavior that happens here. I hope that by my posting this some people will be encouraged to think more fully about how to express opinions vigorously and fully without resorting to personal bile.

One of the most intelligent posts on this thread. I didn't understand all the trashing that went on either. If you want to accept or not accept what Lorren had to say thats fine but why start fighting over it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mikie on January 29, 2015, 09:50:17 PM
Well, that's why we can't have nice things around here.

That's funny!  Like talking to people in a Correctional or Mental Health facility!  Ha Ha Ha Ha!  ;D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2015, 11:37:51 PM
Daro's pov is just that and whether we like or not, need to accept it.

I was interested in his point of view and accepted that, but his demeanor just drove me nuts. I regret having in my indignation lowered myself to his niveau in a phrase or two in my last post before his exit, ill decision by me, even though my opinion on him still stands. I rather should have worded it more like this (taken from another thread):

Quote
It's fine to disagree, to voice opinions, to say what you liked or didn't like about something, but at least try to do it with some level of respect and tact!

There was no respect or tact in any of Daro's posts. That made him so dubious and shady for me, not his mixing up timelines or voicing opinions that didn't go with the facts or that it was him who gave Brian LSD first. I don't miss him, but he was an interesting experience.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2015, 11:40:08 PM
Seriously, I respect the fact that Lorren blunted his attack somewhat in this second thread,

I looked up "blunt" in an online dictionary, and the first thing that came up was "a joint made from a cigar" - never heard of that, perfect choice of word, Lee! :-D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 29, 2015, 11:45:47 PM
I would like to speak for a moment, and I hope cogently, neither as a defender of Lorren Daro nor as an antagonist, because I'm really neither. Earlier in this thread, I tried to put forth the idea that it doesn't really matter whether we agree with anything this particular figure is saying, nor does it matter whether we think what he says is irredeemably skewed by a bias or agenda. The potential for nuggets of interest to come through was still there.

Unfortunately, too much of this thread was spent with people attacking each other rather than trying to encourage an interesting dialogue. Maybe nothing more would have come of it if we had  been better behaved, but it's also possible more interesting things would have been discussed. And that is absolutely our failing. Why do we spend so much time trashing each other? Seriously, it gets sickening to read some of the venom here. I get so riled up reading other people's anger (and no, I'm not going to fall into the trap of naming any particular usernames), that I start to want to post venomous posts myself and luckily talk myself down before I do. But seriously, can't we TRY to change the culture here, folks? I mean, this is so counterproductive!

Lorren's statements made me interested, for instance, to find out more about Terry Sachen and why he was such a terrible enabler. If I'd had more presence of mind to crystallize those thoughts better, I might have been able to ask a good question even amid all the sturm und drang (Micha, please forgive my horrible pseudo-German!). And maybe something of interest would have come of that.

But back to the main point: I really feel Andrew Doe made a great point (I think it was he who said this) when he said that people feel insulated from reality when they use usernames on a board like this. They feel they can behave in a way that they wouldn't face to face because they're hiding behind a pseudonym. That's why I decided to use my real name here. I don't want to ever say anything off the record, that I wouldn't own and stand by. And if I make mistakes and say the wrong thing, say something inappropriate, I want to face actual consequences to my person, so I can learn from it.

I'm not saying any of this to act superior, so I hope it doesn't come off that way. It's just that being a member of this board is so wonderful and educational and collaborative in so many ways, but it comes close to being truly spoiled at times by all the juvenile behavior that happens here. I hope that by my posting this some people will be encouraged to think more fully about how to express opinions vigorously and fully without resorting to personal bile.

Well said, Jesse.

I admit, I have *major* issues with several things posted by Daro (most of them were in the archived thread) that were at best demonstrably false (and go beyond simple memory lapses), and at worst, libelous. I left this thread open because  I did want Daro to have his say, and to state his side of things, regardless of accuracy or, indeed, motive/agenda. What bothers me more than anything else was that anything that was critical of him was immediately responded to with an attack by members here I really expected more from. Mujan did raise some valid concerns (ones I can back up 100% in most cases) but it was like there was a wall put up...I guess what I'm trying to say is it bothers me that there is such a level of inflexibility here where one only believes something that ties into what they already believe, and all else is 'lies and bullshit'.   To put it bluntly...there is a prevailing 'all insiders here are full of sh*t, except the ones who say what I want to hear..then those are infallible'.  I mean, hell, I could (hypothetically speaking) state that his IP address just so happened to match a member known for being full of sh*t and just so happened to be banned the day before, put up a damn screen shot,  and then immediately be accused of doctoring in Photoshop, because it wouldn't be what one wanted to hear. Hypothetically, of course.

To me, Daro himself was irrelevant (in regards to this rant); it was the way things were handled amongst each other. I stayed out of this for a reason...I stated my case, was suitably ignored, and then I moved on. No biggie. What IS a biggie is the petty sniping at each other.

Well said, Micha (in your first post...as for the 2nd, just some information, but blunted in this case also means 'toned down') and MrRobinsonsFather, I agree as well.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 30, 2015, 12:08:50 AM
Unfortunately, too much of this thread was spent with people attacking each other rather than trying to encourage an interesting dialogue.

Should anybody on this thread other than Daro feel attacked by me, point it out to me, and I will apologize.


amid all the sturm und drang (Micha, please forgive my horrible pseudo-German!)

Nothing to forgive there, it's not pseudo, everything's good, Jesse! :)


But back to the main point: I really feel Andrew Doe made a great point (I think it was he who said this) when he said that people feel insulated from reality when they use usernames on a board like this. They feel they can behave in a way that they wouldn't face to face because they're hiding behind a pseudonym.

Daro behaved that way actually using his real name! :-D As for me, I only use the first five letters of my real name, you can look up the full one in my profile, there's a link to my website too which features my home address so you can come up to my house and beat me up.


I'm not saying any of this to act superior

I think you act superior in a very good way. :thumbsup


just some information, but blunted in this case also means 'toned down'

Yup, that information was supplied by the online dictionary, too, it was just so funny the first translation was drug related! :-D


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 30, 2015, 01:33:34 AM
Thank you, Lorren. It's clear that your involvement with Brian was pivotal to a series of events that led to great achievements/efforts--and, most unfortunately, a series of difficult times that only got worse because the folks who tried to get him "help" in the 70s were either callous, indifferent, or way out of their depth. No one in their right mind can possibly blame you for what went down in the years after your friendship with Brian came to an end. And no one should now still hold the misguided notion that Brian's initial LSD trip is the trigger for his downfall.

Thank you, Lee Dempsey, for reading through this torturous thread--where several otherwise capable and intelligent folks have sullied their own reputations far more than they have succeeded at character assasination--and recognizing that despite his (occasionally very) rough edges, Lorren is someone who should be allowed to speak his mind without being constantly hounded by the so-called "fact police."

I think the most surprising aspect of this thread is the fact that no one (including yours truly) thought to ask Lorren about his observations concerning the odd "triangle" relationship between Brian, Marilyn and Diane. That is a dynamic that is worth exploring from several directions--unless, of course, it might offend those folk who want to wave away the possibility that a flawed marriage was in any way a factor in Brian's ongoing difficulties. The inner world of the BBs in these years was already a tangled web, to be sure, and we may never know all of the details that contributed to how things played out, no matter how obsessive any of us might become in pursuit of them.
Just a hunch but I think you will find that those closest to Brian, have a great deal MORE respect now for those that "hounded" Lorren. "Fact police" or as I refer to them "truth seekers" are welcome anytime in my world! I prefer the truth as opposed, to bloated, self-indulgent and factual incorrect fallacy.

I have a hunch it's the other way around ;)      And Micha...  I nearly fell off my chair when I read your post!  That's not like you at all, he got you riled up didn't he?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 01:50:13 AM
Quote
I have a hunch it's the other way around

You'd be surprised.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 30, 2015, 01:55:26 AM
And Micha...  I nearly fell off my chair when I read your post!  That's not like you at all, he got you riled up didn't he?

Yeah, too much for my own good. Thank you for thinking better of me than by the worst of that post. I'm glad that afterwards some others, including some of the mods, showed support of me in some of my points, because once I calmed down I was feeling kind of bad for going a bit too far in that one post.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 30, 2015, 01:57:02 AM
Quote
I have a hunch it's the other way around

You'd be surprised.

Can you make innuendoes to what you mean?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 30, 2015, 02:00:54 AM
Quote
I have a hunch it's the other way around

You'd be surprised.

Probably not actually :)  What I meant is that it would be more likely Mike's people would be happier about the hounding of Lorren than Brian's.   Or maybe neither parties really care at all. I dunno, I guess all the nitpicking got to me ;)  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 02:10:13 AM
I don't think anybody's really happy about how everything went down, is what I meant. Regardless of how one feels about the discussion, the fact it degenerated the way it did to a bunch of in-fighting, rather than 'this is what I believe, and why', well...that was the problem, and I think it spoke poorly of both sides.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Wild-Honey on January 30, 2015, 02:19:29 AM
No, it wasn't quite civilised...

Micha - don't worry about it. It wasn't that bad, it was just uncharacteristic of you so surprised me  :o   hehe.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 02:38:48 AM

Well said, Jesse.

I admit, I have *major* issues with several things posted by Daro (most of them were in the archived thread) that were at best demonstrably false (and go beyond simple memory lapses), and at worst, libelous. I left this thread open because  I did want Daro to have his say, and to state his side of things, regardless of accuracy or, indeed, motive/agenda. What bothers me more than anything else was that anything that was critical of him was immediately responded to with an attack by members here I really expected more from. Mujan did raise some valid concerns (ones I can back up 100% in most cases) but it was like there was a wall put up...I guess what I'm trying to say is it bothers me that there is such a level of inflexibility here where one only believes something that ties into what they already believe, and all else is 'lies and bullshit'.   To put it bluntly...there is a prevailing 'all insiders here are full of sh*t, except the ones who say what I want to hear..then those are infallible'.  I mean, hell, I could (hypothetically speaking) state that his IP address just so happened to match a member known for being full of sh*t and just so happened to be banned the day before, put up a damn screen shot,  and then immediately be accused of doctoring in Photoshop, because it wouldn't be what one wanted to hear. Hypothetically, of course.

To me, Daro himself was irrelevant (in regards to this rant); it was the way things were handled amongst each other. I stayed out of this for a reason...I stated my case, was suitably ignored, and then I moved on. No biggie. What IS a biggie is the petty sniping at each other.

Well said, Micha (in your first post...as for the 2nd, just some information, but blunted in this case also means 'toned down') and MrRobinsonsFather, I agree as well.

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree on is that Lorren Daro is a polarising figure here.

My principal beef from the start has been that there are ways of challenging somebody about the morality of their actions and veracity of their statements that are conducive to open discourse and will ultimately encourage the truth, not shut it down.  

I feel confident that, due to the efforts of the more openly hostile, we have ended up with less answers to chew over. Less answers for AGD to do with what he does best - No victory for truth at all but a display of just how (in Jason Penick's words) 'anti-intellectual' some here can be.

I'm trying to get my head around the opposing view here. Who do I feel most negativity towards in BB history - Landy I would say. So if he were alive and posting here, and there were those that were benefitting from a q&a with him, would I join the thread? Probably not, purely out of respect for those benefitting from the discourse. If I felt the need to pose him a question about the morality of or motivation behind his actions with Brian I would do so courteously, so as to encourage as open an answer as possible from the guy. I would not continuously jump in with antagonistic, sarcastic and abusive posts - again, primarily out of respect from those benefitting form the discourse, but also because even Landy's perspective has historical value.

Or another hypothetical scenario for the board to ponder: Would it be ok for me to join a Mike Love Honoured Guest thread to ask him why he felt the need to continuously discourage Brian's less positive songs? Even as recently as TWGMTR, if we are to believe Rolling Stone Magazine?

If he had the decency to answer as honestly as possible, would it then be ok for me say he was full of sh*t, or that he was a hypocrite because he has made a load of money out of Brian's more introspective songs etc. etc. etc?

And then move on to his insensitivity around Wilson drug use?

Finally do I feel I could have behaved better in all of this? Yes, I concede I could have been less aggressive in my attempts to help the thread function the way I thought it should. Respect to those on both sides who were less confrontational in their approaches. But my primary frustration was not that people weren't believing everything Daro had to say - I have no problem with that. My frustration was with the way the skepticism and morality issues were communicated.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2015, 02:46:51 AM
I don't think anybody's really happy about how everything went down, is what I meant. Regardless of how one feels about the discussion, the fact it degenerated the way it did to a bunch of in-fighting, rather than 'this is what I believe, and why', well...that was the problem, and I think it spoke poorly of both sides.

Unfortunately, it delineated the existing battle lines that much more sharply.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 02:50:11 AM
I agree with that, and that was precisely why I stayed out after my initial couple of posts. And you touched in something I tried to convey earlier...regardless of the accuracy or agenda behind the posts, it was good to get his side, much like if it were Landy or anybody else. Take things with a grain of salt, but still let it play out. A friend of mine has a saying... 'if someone digs a hole deep enough, they will eventually be stuck in it. No need to help them shovel'.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 02:53:06 AM
I don't think anybody's really happy about how everything went down, is what I meant. Regardless of how one feels about the discussion, the fact it degenerated the way it did to a bunch of in-fighting, rather than 'this is what I believe, and why', well...that was the problem, and I think it spoke poorly of both sides.

Unfortunately, it delineated the existing battle lines that much more sharply.

Very true, and that seems to be a common thing in Beach Boys fandom. One positive way to look at it...at least we're all passionate! I just wish all of us could be more compassionate sometimes. 

Saying all that, as much as I despised Landy, I kind of wish he had given his take  on things before he passed.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 03:41:52 AM
But back to the main point: I really feel Andrew Doe made a great point (I think it was he who said this) when he said that people feel insulated from reality when they use usernames on a board like this. They feel they can behave in a way that they wouldn't face to face because they're hiding behind a pseudonym. That's why I decided to use my real name here. I don't want to ever say anything off the record, that I wouldn't own and stand by. And if I make mistakes and say the wrong thing, say something inappropriate, I want to face actual consequences to my person, so I can learn from it.

This is a lot of truth in this. However, it's worth considering that there is a gain to AGD and other historians posting under their real names. AGD already had a reputation and a certain amount of kudos from his book, prior to becoming a member here. When he presents his assessments of the history he is not just some nameless board member but an established BB author/historian and therefore his opinions are often taken more seriously, for better or worse.

Some authors here also have a commercial gain to posting under their real names i.e self promotion or promotion of an upcoming book. If AGD writes a new tome, or revises the existing one, I'm sure he won't be backward in coming forward about it, and who would blame him?

So it is not always purely a question of honour and I find it slightly disingenuous of AGD to use that point as an attack, as he did earlier.

However, in the case of us mere mortals, there's a case to be made for using one's real name. I agree, if I weren't posting anonymously I probably wouldn't get as carried away and that's worth considering.

The reason I choose to remain anonymous is primarily because you never know who's on the end of the other computer. I have received threatening PMs (from no active members here) urging me to 'kill myself' in the past and I don't want the same weirdos showing up at my front door. I also have a professional reputation to maintain and if prospective clients google my name I'd rather they encounter my work and not a load of hits flagging up the scale of my nerdery. If that's cowardice, so be it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: LeeDempsey on January 30, 2015, 04:43:56 AM
I looked up "blunt" in an online dictionary, and the first thing that came up was "a joint made from a cigar" - never heard of that, perfect choice of word, Lee! :-D

The double-entendre was intentional!  ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Nicko1234 on January 30, 2015, 04:52:07 AM

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree on is that Lorren Daro is a polarising figure here.

My principal beef from the start has been that there are ways of challenging somebody about the morality of their actions and veracity of their statements that are conducive to open discourse and will ultimately encourage the truth, not shut it down.  

I feel confident that, due to the efforts of the more openly hostile, we have ended up with less answers to chew over. Less answers for AGD to do with what he does best - No victory for truth at all but a display of just how (in Jason Penick's words) 'anti-intellectual' some here can be.

I'm trying to get my head around the opposing view here. Who do I feel most negativity towards in BB history - Landy I would say. So if he were alive and posting here, and there were those that were benefitting from a q&a with him, would I join the thread? Probably not, purely out of respect for those benefitting from the discourse. If I felt the need to pose him a question about the morality of or motivation behind his actions with Brian I would do so courteously, so as to encourage as open an answer as possible from the guy. I would not continuously jump in with antagonistic, sarcastic and abusive posts - again, primarily out of respect from those benefitting form the discourse, but also because even Landy's perspective has historical value.

Or another hypothetical scenario for the board to ponder: Would it be ok for me to join a Mike Love Honoured Guest thread to ask him why he felt the need to continuously discourage Brian's less positive songs? Even as recently as TWGMTR, if we are to believe Rolling Stone Magazine?

If he had the decency to answer as honestly as possible, would it then be ok for me say he was full of sh*t, or that he was a hypocrite because he has made a load of money out of Brian's more introspective songs etc. etc. etc?

And then move on to his insensitivity around Wilson drug use?

Finally do I feel I could have behaved better in all of this? Yes, I concede I could have been less aggressive in my attempts to help the thread function the way I thought it should. Respect to those on both sides who were less confrontational in their approaches. But my primary frustration was not that people weren't believing everything Daro had to say - I have no problem with that. My frustration was with the way the skepticism and morality issues were communicated.


I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.





Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 05:43:16 AM

I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.





I can remember an honoured guest posting confusing messages (it transpires for legitimate reasons - no criticism here) and iirc they were given the benefit of the doubt and treated decently, as they should have been, so I don't agree with your above statement.

If Mike Love came in all guns blazing (not inconceivable) I'd grab the popcorn and let him get on with it.

Joking aside, - If he was pissed off at all the negativity thrown his way over the years and came in to set the record straight, squared up to his detractors (called a few of them chickensh*t), but then apologised, took responsibility for some of his actions and graciously answered questions to the best of his ability, I would not be continuously hounding him about his negative opinions of Dennis, or of his unsympathetic view of Wilson drug use, or his failure to appreciate Brian's more experimental music, or continuously trying to trip him up on misremembered details. I would not hound the man because a) I'd respect that he has a right to those opinions as he's speaking from experience and b) I would not want to jeopardise the discourse for those getting value from it. So we are in disagreement there also as you apparently think I'd have a right to do those things?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 05:48:17 AM
I don't disagree with that Nicko.  Facts were blurred to say the least.  It was more the opinions about those in the picture and I wanted Lorren to start to fill in the holes with info.

I can well recall the name of my Grade 8 teacher...and that I liked him a LOT.  He and I were saying goodbye/good luck when Pet Sounds came out.  But detail about what was the biggest selling song or album in February of that year?  I'd have to look it up.  Did I play hockey the previous winter?  Yes.  Did we win the championship?  You bet your keester we did.  Do I remember the names of all the guys on the team?  Besides my own?  Just 1 other guy.  Our team captain...Jeff Gibb.

To expect Daro to recall all of that minutia is expecting [was expecting] WAY too much.  We probably got MOST all of what he was willing to give.  And in the end...it turned out to be not all that much.  

IF and I repeat IF he is held repsonsible for Brian's drug problems...and I didn't think that previously...I am convinced well beyond a shadow of a doubt now that he shouldn't be used as a scapegoat.  Not to ANY degree.  If he managed to make that point with a few folks here...then I guess his visit helped him along the path to achieving whatever it was he hoped to accomplish when he wrote that essay many of us read.

I doubt he'll return to run for mayor here anytime soon. ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 06:05:20 AM
Lorren Daro quickly apologized for his tone and inaccurate recall.
I agree that my initial posts were too full of anger. I’m sorry I didn’t calm down and moderate the tone. The anger is still there, but enough of you have objected that I now see your point. More with honey than vinegar, right? A lot of this has been pent up in me for years. Thanks for seeing through the dark clouds and urging me to change my approach. Never too late to learn…
AGD: I’m beginning to understand what’s going on here. It seems that I’m as much of a victim of bad rumors as anyone else. I lot of what I’ve said was from Brian’s mouth – the 2X4 deafness, Dennis’s drumming, the journey of the ‘Smile’ records, etc. And, no, AGD I’m not going to cling to these ‘facts’. I’m here to learn, as well as to relate what I think I know. My distant memories are suspect. I see that now. Good thing you’re here to keep me on the path. I didn’t think I would run into all this scientific analysis…

Since there are some who don't believe he had anything worthwhile to share, I've compiled and whittled the parts that I thought were interesting for their own merit.

http://pastebin.com/7cgmXwTK

Next on the list: someone ought to email Lorren all of the questions he missed in this thread. There were plenty of good ones.

Thanks for taking the time to compile it all in one place - I missed this post earlier.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 06:23:41 AM

I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.

I can remember an honoured guest posting confusing messages (it transpires for legitimate reasons - no criticism here) and iirc they were given the benefit of the doubt and treated decently, as they should have been, so I don't agree with your above statement.

If Mike Love came in all guns blazing (not inconceivable) I'd grab the popcorn and let him get on with it.

Joking aside, - If he was pissed off at all the negativity thrown his way over the years and came in to set the record straight, squared up to his detractors, but then apologised, took responsibility for some of his actions and graciously answered questions to the best of his ability, I would not be continuously hounding him about his negative opinions of Dennis, or of his unsympathetic view of Wilson drug use, or his failure to appreciate Brian's more experimental music. I would not hound the man because a) I'd respect that he has a right to those opinions as he's speaking from experience and b) I would not want to jeopardise the discourse for those getting value from it. So we are in disagreement there also as you apparently think I'd have a right to do those things?
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

Anyone can get the scenario with this hypothetical.  In order to get to the essence of this hypothetical, it might be helpful important to "neutralize" who the involved people are, and think of them in terms of any family or any business.  Or to even substitute factors in a math equation where you switch the variables.  Remove the emotionality involved and just look at it clinically.  Change the names of the parties.

Cross the high profile names out.  And just, please look at a neutral scenario, with all the big names removed.  I hope you get my position.  

And at the end of the day, every "Brian" account says the LSD "adversely affected" him and the "other guy" says the opposite.  I'm with the story Brian candidly tells on many videos, over many years.  The story is both consistent over time, and corroborated by others.

Even though I have a strong and opposite position, I don't hate this guy.  I don't even know him.  It is the "scenario" that many find unacceptable.  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 06:38:01 AM

I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.

I can remember an honoured guest posting confusing messages (it transpires for legitimate reasons - no criticism here) and iirc they were given the benefit of the doubt and treated decently, as they should have been, so I don't agree with your above statement.

If Mike Love came in all guns blazing (not inconceivable) I'd grab the popcorn and let him get on with it.

Joking aside, - If he was pissed off at all the negativity thrown his way over the years and came in to set the record straight, squared up to his detractors, but then apologised, took responsibility for some of his actions and graciously answered questions to the best of his ability, I would not be continuously hounding him about his negative opinions of Dennis, or of his unsympathetic view of Wilson drug use, or his failure to appreciate Brian's more experimental music. I would not hound the man because a) I'd respect that he has a right to those opinions as he's speaking from experience and b) I would not want to jeopardise the discourse for those getting value from it. So we are in disagreement there also as you apparently think I'd have a right to do those things?
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

Anyone can get the scenario with this hypothetical.  In order to get to the essence of this hypothetical, it might be helpful important to "neutralize" who the involved people are, and think of them in terms of any family or any business.  Or to even substitute factors in a math equation where you switch the variables.  Remove the emotionality involved and just look at it clinically.  Change the names of the parties.

Cross the high profile names out.  And just, please look at a neutral scenario, with all the big names removed.  I hope you get my position.  

And at the end of the day, every "Brian" account says the LSD "adversely affected" him and the "other guy" says the opposite.  I'm with the story Brian candidly tells on many videos, over many years.  The story is both consistent over time, and corroborated by others.

Even though I have a strong and opposite position, I don't hate this guy.  I don't even know him.  It is the "scenario" that many find unacceptable.  

Thanks for the scenario Filldepage but I'm not sure I'm with you.

Are you suggesting Daro is 'Johnny' and that he was using LSD as a tool to gain something from Brian and was similarly trying to besmirch Marilyn, ML and Murry in order to manipulate Brian?

I suspect I've misread your analogy but if you do view Daro as some sort of brainwasher with an ulterior motive then we are on very different pages indeed.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 06:40:23 AM
Filled...There is little doubt that the 3 Wilson boys all had problems with drugs at some point along the path.  Why they took 'em?  They had issues.  It was the 60s.  Loads of folks were 'doin' it.  They were 'on the road to find out'.  They needed to quell the despair of being the 'sons of a gun'?

I remember who gave me my first drink of hard liquor.  First time drinker?  First time puker.  Bad trip.  IF I had become an alcoholic would it have been HIS fault?  Surely not.  Sooner or later...likely sooner...I'd have poured a set of drinks somewhere else with someone else.  And it was illegal too.  The drinking age here back then was 21.  I was what? ... 16 or 17?  Minutia.  Can't remember.  I do recall having a whopper of a hangover the next day,  And I've NEVER taken a drink of gin again.  Can't even tolerate the smell of the stuff.

It would have happened with Brian.  The things already indelibly stamped in his head would have had more to do with his reactions and thoughts and problems while tripping [if he had any problems goin' on inside his noggin at that time] than just where he was situated or who he was with.  I'm guessing if Lorren had provided strawberries that they would have enhanced the experience.

The point?  It could have turned out worse.  Maybe it could have turned out better.  The thing is...it still would have turned out with or without Lorren.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Jesse Reiswig on January 30, 2015, 06:49:11 AM

Well said, Jesse.

I admit, I have *major* issues with several things posted by Daro (most of them were in the archived thread) that were at best demonstrably false (and go beyond simple memory lapses), and at worst, libelous. I left this thread open because  I did want Daro to have his say, and to state his side of things, regardless of accuracy or, indeed, motive/agenda. What bothers me more than anything else was that anything that was critical of him was immediately responded to with an attack by members here I really expected more from. Mujan did raise some valid concerns (ones I can back up 100% in most cases) but it was like there was a wall put up...I guess what I'm trying to say is it bothers me that there is such a level of inflexibility here where one only believes something that ties into what they already believe, and all else is 'lies and bullshit'.   To put it bluntly...there is a prevailing 'all insiders here are full of sh*t, except the ones who say what I want to hear..then those are infallible'.  I mean, hell, I could (hypothetically speaking) state that his IP address just so happened to match a member known for being full of sh*t and just so happened to be banned the day before, put up a damn screen shot,  and then immediately be accused of doctoring in Photoshop, because it wouldn't be what one wanted to hear. Hypothetically, of course.

To me, Daro himself was irrelevant (in regards to this rant); it was the way things were handled amongst each other. I stayed out of this for a reason...I stated my case, was suitably ignored, and then I moved on. No biggie. What IS a biggie is the petty sniping at each other.

Well said, Micha (in your first post...as for the 2nd, just some information, but blunted in this case also means 'toned down') and MrRobinsonsFather, I agree as well.

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree on is that Lorren Daro is a polarising figure here.

My principal beef from the start has been that there are ways of challenging somebody about the morality of their actions and veracity of their statements that are conducive to open discourse and will ultimately encourage the truth, not shut it down.  

I feel confident that, due to the efforts of the more openly hostile, we have ended up with less answers to chew over. Less answers for AGD to do with what he does best - No victory for truth at all but a display of just how (in Jason Penick's words) 'anti-intellectual' some here can be.

I'm trying to get my head around the opposing view here. Who do I feel most negativity towards in BB history - Landy I would say. So if he were alive and posting here, and there were those that were benefitting from a q&a with him, would I join the thread? Probably not, purely out of respect for those benefitting from the discourse. If I felt the need to pose him a question about the morality of or motivation behind his actions with Brian I would do so courteously, so as to encourage as open an answer as possible from the guy. I would not continuously jump in with antagonistic, sarcastic and abusive posts - again, primarily out of respect from those benefitting form the discourse, but also because even Landy's perspective has historical value.

Or another hypothetical scenario for the board to ponder: Would it be ok for me to join a Mike Love Honoured Guest thread to ask him why he felt the need to continuously discourage Brian's less positive songs? Even as recently as TWGMTR, if we are to believe Rolling Stone Magazine?

If he had the decency to answer as honestly as possible, would it then be ok for me say he was full of sh*t, or that he was a hypocrite because he has made a load of money out of Brian's more introspective songs etc. etc. etc?

And then move on to his insensitivity around Wilson drug use?

Finally do I feel I could have behaved better in all of this? Yes, I concede I could have been less aggressive in my attempts to help the thread function the way I thought it should. Respect to those on both sides who were less confrontational in their approaches. But my primary frustration was not that people weren't believing everything Daro had to say - I have no problem with that. My frustration was with the way the skepticism and morality issues were communicated.



Buddhat, I agree with basically everything you're saying here. Personally, I think you have behaved most admirably by and large--thank you so much for your thoughtfulness and nuance.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Alan Smith on January 30, 2015, 06:52:14 AM

I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.

I can remember an honoured guest posting confusing messages (it transpires for legitimate reasons - no criticism here) and iirc they were given the benefit of the doubt and treated decently, as they should have been, so I don't agree with your above statement.

If Mike Love came in all guns blazing (not inconceivable) I'd grab the popcorn and let him get on with it.

Joking aside, - If he was pissed off at all the negativity thrown his way over the years and came in to set the record straight, squared up to his detractors, but then apologised, took responsibility for some of his actions and graciously answered questions to the best of his ability, I would not be continuously hounding him about his negative opinions of Dennis, or of his unsympathetic view of Wilson drug use, or his failure to appreciate Brian's more experimental music. I would not hound the man because a) I'd respect that he has a right to those opinions as he's speaking from experience and b) I would not want to jeopardise the discourse for those getting value from it. So we are in disagreement there also as you apparently think I'd have a right to do those things?
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

Anyone can get the scenario with this hypothetical.  In order to get to the essence of this hypothetical, it might be helpful important to "neutralize" who the involved people are, and think of them in terms of any family or any business.  Or to even substitute factors in a math equation where you switch the variables.  Remove the emotionality involved and just look at it clinically.  Change the names of the parties.

Cross the high profile names out.  And just, please look at a neutral scenario, with all the big names removed.  I hope you get my position.  

And at the end of the day, every "Brian" account says the LSD "adversely affected" him and the "other guy" says the opposite.  I'm with the story Brian candidly tells on many videos, over many years.  The story is both consistent over time, and corroborated by others.

Even though I have a strong and opposite position, I don't hate this guy.  I don't even know him.  It is the "scenario" that many find unacceptable.  

Snore...almost as boring as Nicko's posts


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 06:59:32 AM
Filled...There is little doubt that the 3 Wilson boys all had problems with drugs at some point along the path.  Why they took 'em?  They had issues.  It was the 60s.  Loads of folks were 'doin' it.  They were 'on the road to find out'.  They needed to quell the despair of being the 'sons of a gun'?

I remember who gave me my first drink of hard liquor.  First time drinker?  First time puker.  Bad trip.  IF I had become an alcoholic would it have been HIS fault?  Surely not.  Sooner or later...likely sooner...I'd have poured a set of drinks somewhere else with someone else.  And it was illegal too.  The drinking age here back then was 21.  I was what? ... 16 or 17?  Minutia.  Can't remember.  I do recall having a whopper of a hangover the next day,  And I've NEVER taken a drink of gin again.  Can't even tolerate the smell of the stuff.

It would have happened with Brian.  The things already indelibly stamped in his head would have had more to do with his reactions and thoughts and problems while tripping [if he had any problems goin' on inside his noggin at that time] than just where he was situated or who he was with.  I'm guessing if Lorren had provided strawberries that they would have enhanced the experience.

The point?  It could have turned out worse.  Maybe it could have turned out better.  The thing is...it still would have turned out with or without Lorren.

I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 30, 2015, 07:01:36 AM

I don`t think it`s a great comparison really. Lorren isn`t an honoured member and his only direct involvement with the group seems to have been on a short tour that he can`t really remember or won`t give any information about.

But if Mike Love did come to the board and threw the f*** word about, insulted members, accidentally posted medical info, talked about `my contribution to the world...`and contradicted himself repeatedly (and not just over historical things) then I would expect him to receive an awful lot of criticism and he would deserve it too.

I can`t remember anyone else who has had any connection with the band posting in the manner that Lorren has done and I would expect anyone who did to receive a similar response.

I can remember an honoured guest posting confusing messages (it transpires for legitimate reasons - no criticism here) and iirc they were given the benefit of the doubt and treated decently, as they should have been, so I don't agree with your above statement.

If Mike Love came in all guns blazing (not inconceivable) I'd grab the popcorn and let him get on with it.

Joking aside, - If he was pissed off at all the negativity thrown his way over the years and came in to set the record straight, squared up to his detractors, but then apologised, took responsibility for some of his actions and graciously answered questions to the best of his ability, I would not be continuously hounding him about his negative opinions of Dennis, or of his unsympathetic view of Wilson drug use, or his failure to appreciate Brian's more experimental music. I would not hound the man because a) I'd respect that he has a right to those opinions as he's speaking from experience and b) I would not want to jeopardise the discourse for those getting value from it. So we are in disagreement there also as you apparently think I'd have a right to do those things?
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

Anyone can get the scenario with this hypothetical.  In order to get to the essence of this hypothetical, it might be helpful important to "neutralize" who the involved people are, and think of them in terms of any family or any business.  Or to even substitute factors in a math equation where you switch the variables.  Remove the emotionality involved and just look at it clinically.  Change the names of the parties.

Cross the high profile names out.  And just, please look at a neutral scenario, with all the big names removed.  I hope you get my position.  

And at the end of the day, every "Brian" account says the LSD "adversely affected" him and the "other guy" says the opposite.  I'm with the story Brian candidly tells on many videos, over many years.  The story is both consistent over time, and corroborated by others.

Even though I have a strong and opposite position, I don't hate this guy.  I don't even know him.  It is the "scenario" that many find unacceptable.  

Snore...almost as boring as Nicko's posts
We sure do treat each other like sh*t in here.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Micha on January 30, 2015, 07:05:08 AM
Snore...almost as boring as Nicko's posts

Oh no, let's not get at each other's throats, please...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 30, 2015, 07:07:37 AM
God, I need a delete post button. I don't want to get involved in this.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 07:08:14 AM
Filled...There is little doubt that the 3 Wilson boys all had problems with drugs at some point along the path.  Why they took 'em?  They had issues.  It was the 60s.  Loads of folks were 'doin' it.  They were 'on the road to find out'.  They needed to quell the despair of being the 'sons of a gun'?

I remember who gave me my first drink of hard liquor.  First time drinker?  First time puker.  Bad trip.  IF I had become an alcoholic would it have been HIS fault?  Surely not.  Sooner or later...likely sooner...I'd have poured a set of drinks somewhere else with someone else.  And it was illegal too.  The drinking age here back then was 21.  I was what? ... 16 or 17?  Minutia.  Can't remember.  I do recall having a whopper of a hangover the next day,  And I've NEVER taken a drink of gin again.  Can't even tolerate the smell of the stuff.

It would have happened with Brian.  The things already indelibly stamped in his head would have had more to do with his reactions and thoughts and problems while tripping [if he had any problems goin' on inside his noggin at that time] than just where he was situated or who he was with.  I'm guessing if Lorren had provided strawberries that they would have enhanced the experience.

The point?  It could have turned out worse.  Maybe it could have turned out better.  The thing is...it still would have turned out with or without Lorren.
Add Some and buddahat - my point in that fictional "hypothetical" was for an opportunity to neutralize the dialogue and take it out of the BB context.  It is capable of repetition in other contexts. It is of no consequence what the other brothers did or didn't do.  

However, concept of Dennis and Carl being referred to as "dandelions" in the herd just objectifies them and shows disrespect to Brian's whole family and business model. Loren had no apparent "use" for them. They appear to be mere pawns on the chessboard. Brian is an "orchid" and worth an effort?

We aren't necessarily talking about the brothers but they were mentioned and not in a complimentary fashion. I wasn't there, so I am not an eyewitness. But, I cannot rely on Daro's account.  It clashes with many others who have bona fide cred.  And with Numero Uno - Brian.

And after all, much in literature is a "metaphor" for something else that is at another level in social/political discussion.  

This whole SSmile posting scenario I missed in 2012 and prior to, but when I went back with the search function and found this had been well-debated before.  My position is unlikely to change.  This event or events touched and undermined a whole family, and a working a business model, and is now being boastfully retold and I guess that is one reasons why I find it problematic.  

And, others have unraveled some of the timelines; those who have credible info.  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 30, 2015, 07:08:45 AM
Filled...There is little doubt that the 3 Wilson boys all had problems with drugs at some point along the path.  Why they took 'em?  They had issues.  It was the 60s.  Loads of folks were 'doin' it.  They were 'on the road to find out'.  They needed to quell the despair of being the 'sons of a gun'?

I remember who gave me my first drink of hard liquor.  First time drinker?  First time puker.  Bad trip.  IF I had become an alcoholic would it have been HIS fault?  Surely not.  Sooner or later...likely sooner...I'd have poured a set of drinks somewhere else with someone else.  And it was illegal too.  The drinking age here back then was 21.  I was what? ... 16 or 17?  Minutia.  Can't remember.  I do recall having a whopper of a hangover the next day,  And I've NEVER taken a drink of gin again.  Can't even tolerate the smell of the stuff.

It would have happened with Brian.  The things already indelibly stamped in his head would have had more to do with his reactions and thoughts and problems while tripping [if he had any problems goin' on inside his noggin at that time] than just where he was situated or who he was with.  I'm guessing if Lorren had provided strawberries that they would have enhanced the experience.

The point?  It could have turned out worse.  Maybe it could have turned out better.  The thing is...it still would have turned out with or without Lorren.

I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.
Billy, take my word on this, it was different back then. Even in the 70's when I was teenager, we did lots of stuff that is really looked down upon today, but wasn't looked at that way then. Even drunk driving wasn't treated the same way as it is now or even the past 30 years. I drove while doing lots of different things and did so because I felt that I was in the best control of myself. I truly did not trust any of my other friends behind the wheel.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 07:09:59 AM
Snore...almost as boring as Nicko's posts

Oh no, let's not get at each other's throats, please...

Agreed. If this continues (from anybody) this thread will be locked and warnings will be issued.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 07:10:43 AM
I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.

Well ya.  Unless he was driving a VW...'cause bugs CAN fly...so it'd have been safe then. :o  I think Lorren suggested somewhere that he dropped acid maybe 8 times was it?  A rookie Billy.  A novice.  A virtual beginner.  Maybe not qualitied to be the 'tour guide'.  Don't know.  I wasn't there... [and EVERY trip is/was different]

Filled...to be timely...Dennis and Carl had not emerged from the shadows in 65-early 66...so perhaps they hadn't been noticed yet.  Their buds hadn't begun to bloom so to speak?  Brian was FAR easier to spot.  As was Mike I would think.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 07:14:29 AM
I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.

Well ya.  Unless he was driving a VW...'cause bugs CAN fly...so it'd have been safe then. :o  I think Lorren suggested someonewhere that he dropped acid maybe 8 times was it?  A rookie Billy.  A novice.  A virtual beginner.  Maybe not qualitied to be the 'tour guide'.  Don't know.  I wasn't there... [and EVERY trip is/was different]
That cracked me up! I had a bunch of VW's in that day when the engine was in the rear!

My other query is how does one come upon a "medical grade" substance without being in the medical profession?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: drbeachboy on January 30, 2015, 07:17:31 AM
I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.

Well ya.  Unless he was driving a VW...'cause bugs CAN fly...so it'd have been safe then. :o  I think Lorren suggested someonewhere that he dropped acid maybe 8 times was it?  A rookie Billy.  A novice.  A virtual beginner.  Maybe not qualitied to be the 'tour guide'.  Don't know.  I wasn't there... [and EVERY trip is/was different]
That cracked me up! I had a bunch of VW's in that day when the engine was in the rear!

My other query is how does one come upon a "medical grade" substance without being in the medical profession?
It is well known that Owlsey's stuff was "Kitchen Clean". Listen to Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Filled...There is little doubt that the 3 Wilson boys all had problems with drugs at some point along the path.  Why they took 'em?  They had issues.  It was the 60s.  Loads of folks were 'doin' it.  They were 'on the road to find out'.  They needed to quell the despair of being the 'sons of a gun'?

I remember who gave me my first drink of hard liquor.  First time drinker?  First time puker.  Bad trip.  IF I had become an alcoholic would it have been HIS fault?  Surely not.  Sooner or later...likely sooner...I'd have poured a set of drinks somewhere else with someone else.  And it was illegal too.  The drinking age here back then was 21.  I was what? ... 16 or 17?  Minutia.  Can't remember.  I do recall having a whopper of a hangover the next day,  And I've NEVER taken a drink of gin again.  Can't even tolerate the smell of the stuff.

It would have happened with Brian.  The things already indelibly stamped in his head would have had more to do with his reactions and thoughts and problems while tripping [if he had any problems goin' on inside his noggin at that time] than just where he was situated or who he was with.  I'm guessing if Lorren had provided strawberries that they would have enhanced the experience.

The point?  It could have turned out worse.  Maybe it could have turned out better.  The thing is...it still would have turned out with or without Lorren.

I'm with you. I've made my feelings on him quite clear but in all fairness you can't blame him for turning Brian on to acid because Brian would have tried it regardless. That said, not seeing any problem with Brian *driving* while tripping is mindblowingly stupid, but that's been covered already.
Billy, take my word on this, it was different back then. Even in the 70's when I was teenager, we did lots of stuff that is really looked down upon today, but wasn't looked at that way then. Even drunk driving wasn't treated the same way as it is now or even the past 30 years. I drove while doing lots of different things and did so because I felt that I was in the best control of myself. I truly did not trust any of my other friends behind the wheel.

Oh yeah, I know, but at least it's something you realized was wrong with 20/20 hindsight. sh*t, I've done some stupid things back in the day too. Off subject but this is a good example... One day, about 13 years ago, I called in sick to work. So I was home and decided to smoke a bowl or two. Or twelve, who knows. I smoked so much, I smoked myself sober basically. Wasn't sh*t on TV, and was bored. So, I drove myself to Walmart to buy a videogame. Here's the punchline...I worked right next door. Sure enough, i ran into my boss (who didn't see me), bought some cough drops, and went home. Completely forgot to buy the game. Even more odd was the fact that I passed up a GameStop several exits before I got to that Walmart... and the fact that there was a Walmart closer to me than the one next to my damn job.

Ahhh...youth. :lol


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 07:21:55 AM
Ya Doc...Stan's 'product' was the best I ever 'heard' about ;)  Still...not sure I would have wanted to drive.  Busing it from point A to point B was hard enough.  I could tell you some stories about how STUPID I was with that 'stuff' but it'd be boring.  [sh*t on a stick!!!  SORRY Billy...I posted that w/o realizing that you had told YOUR story.  But YOUR'S was compelling. :lol]

Filled I responded to your response just prior to your last post...as an edit in the post above yours'.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: LostArt on January 30, 2015, 07:35:14 AM
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

A different perspective...

Let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo.  Joe is quickly becoming a very good strawberry farmer, and without any proper training.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could already grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  But Joe was providing a good living for the family, so Mac helped to sell Joe's berries.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and he has learned enough about Joe's strawberries to be able to market them effectively, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, but he knows that his strawberries can be better, so he keeps working on growing a finer product.

Joe has a friend named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness, who knows that Joe can grow even better strawberries.  So Johnny gives Joe some fine books about agriculture in order to help Joe.  After Joe reads the books, he asks Johnny about a very potent fertilizer, which Joe believes will help him.  Johnny at first refuses, as the fertilizer is very strong, and can damage crops if used incorrectly.  Jow is relentless and tells Johnny that he will find his own fertilizer.  Finally Johnny gives in, and guides Joe through the first use of the fertilizer.  Old Mac, Betty, and Nick do not want Joe to use the fertilizer, because they are afraid that the strawberries will be too different to the ones that they have been selling.  But Joes strawberries just got better and better, so much so that Nick didn't know how to sell these new strawberries.  So Nick, Mac and Betty tried to force Joe into growing the old strawberries again, which were very good, but not as fine as the new ones.  Eventually Joe grew tired of the arguing, so he stopped growing strawberries and let Nick grow his own strawberries...


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 08:01:49 AM
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

A different perspective...

Let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo.  Joe is quickly becoming a very good strawberry farmer, and without any proper training.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could already grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it, but Joe was providing a good living for the family, so he helped to sell Joe's berries.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and he has learned enough about Joe's strawberries to be able to market them effectively, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, but he knows that his strawberries can be better, so he keeps working on growing a finer product.

Joe has a friend named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness, who knows that Joe can grow even better strawberries.  So Johnny gives Joe some fine books about agriculture in order to help Joe.  After Joe reads the books, he asks Johnny about a very potent fertilizer, which Joe believes will help him.  Johnny at first refuses, as the fertilizer is very strong, and can damage crops if used incorrectly.  Jow is relentless and tells Johnny that he will find his own fertilizer.  Finally Johnny gives in, and guides Joe through the first use of the fertilizer.  Old Mac, Betty, and Nick do not want Joe to use the fertilizer, because they are afraid that the strawberries will be too different to the ones that they have been selling.  But Joes strawberries just got better and better, so much so that Nick didn't know how to sell these new strawberries.  So Nick, Mac and Betty tried to force Joe into growing the old strawberries again, which were very good, but not as fine as the new ones.  Eventually Joe grew tired of the arguing, so he stopped growing strawberries and let Nick grow his own strawberries...
And, we all have a different perspective...

Except Joe could never stop growing strawberries, as it was akin to breathing, for Joe, and he could not live without breathing. And that is notwithstanding Nick cultivating another patch of strawberries or continuing on with the original (like KFC) crop.

But I guess my point is the "divide and conquer" thing, (with a sort of premeditation) undermining a family business and a very young bride, and whether it is contentious or not, and whether there is a sort of "substituted judgment" for the family who is in the crosshairs. When I boil it down, it is what I see. 

One thing that always stayed with me from teaching a long time, often with foster kids in my classes who were in "a less than desirable" family situation, is that when reunited for visits, clung to that biological parent/sibling, because it is still such a strong bond.  And some social worker does not always "know best" as to what is right or wrong...

Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 30, 2015, 08:33:44 AM
Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 30, 2015, 08:36:43 AM
Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.

Which makes Lorren full of sh*t to claim he was instrumental in their breakup and people were right to call him on it.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 08:38:26 AM
Buddahat - let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo, but Joe is the best strawberry farmer on the planet.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and is closer to the secret cultivation formula than anyone else, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the prize strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, and he keeps working on making the cultivation even better.

All the local farmers and beyond, want Joe's secrets so they can get in on the action.  And some farmer distributor named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness is on the chase to get the secret so they all can get in on the action.  So they want to give him some "truth serum" to get the secret. Johnny thinks the only way he can get the secret is to cut off Betty, Old Mac and Nick, who gets new accounts all the time...

A different perspective...

Let's just suppose that Brian was Joe Schmo.  Joe is quickly becoming a very good strawberry farmer, and without any proper training.  His father Mac was a strawberry farmer but Joe could already grow better than Mac, and the old guy didn't like it.  But Joe was providing a good living for the family, so Mac helped to sell Joe's berries.  And Joe has a young bride named Betty. And Joe has a buddy that has been watching Joe, and he has learned enough about Joe's strawberries to be able to market them effectively, and he is Nick.  

Nick goes out and sells the strawberries, all over the place, doing the grunt work in the grocery stores, and farmers' markets, with some other guys, doing the public relations, bringing sample platters of Joe's strawberries with champagne on the side, to hotels, and conventions. Business is good for Joe, but he knows that his strawberries can be better, so he keeps working on growing a finer product.

Joe has a friend named Johnny, a well-connected guy in big-time agribusiness, who knows that Joe can grow even better strawberries.  So Johnny gives Joe some fine books about agriculture in order to help Joe.  After Joe reads the books, he asks Johnny about a very potent fertilizer, which Joe believes will help him.  Johnny at first refuses, as the fertilizer is very strong, and can damage crops if used incorrectly.  Jow is relentless and tells Johnny that he will find his own fertilizer.  Finally Johnny gives in, and guides Joe through the first use of the fertilizer.  Old Mac, Betty, and Nick do not want Joe to use the fertilizer, because they are afraid that the strawberries will be too different to the ones that they have been selling.  But Joes strawberries just got better and better, so much so that Nick didn't know how to sell these new strawberries.  So Nick, Mac and Betty tried to force Joe into growing the old strawberries again, which were very good, but not as fine as the new ones.  Eventually Joe grew tired of the arguing, so he stopped growing strawberries and let Nick grow his own strawberries...


Perfect.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 08:39:40 AM
Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.

Gregg - you may be correct. But, the individual has more than enthusiastically taken responsibilty.

We are merely reading what he wrote.  


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: LostArt on January 30, 2015, 08:42:34 AM
One thing that always stayed with me from teaching a long time, often with foster kids in my classes who were in "a less than desirable" family situation, is that when reunited for visits, clung to that biological parent/sibling, because it is still such a strong bond.  And some social worker does not always "know best" as to what is right or wrong...

Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.

And remember Carnie and Wendy were not yet born when Lorren was still around.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 30, 2015, 09:13:17 AM
Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.

Gregg - you may be correct. But, the individual has more than enthusiastically taken responsibilty.

We are merely reading what he wrote.  

Really? I must have missed that part.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mike's Beard on January 30, 2015, 09:38:49 AM
I never blamed Lorren and his crew for putting Brian on the path to drug problems before he posted here and I still don't. Same as I don't blame the bartender who gave Dennis his first beer or the 7/11 guy who sold Carl his first pack of smokes. I held no opinion on the guy one way or another. However, since he posted here I've seen plenty of reasons to dislike the guy.

MURRY - OK Murry was an abusive dick, so Lorren gets a pass here.
MIKE - Oh heavens above, so Mike didn't agree with every creative whim that popped out of Brian's head, so what? NEWSFLASH LORREN! He was in the band with Brian, not you. Right or wrong, he was entitled to give his views on material presented. This may make him a pain in the ass but it does not make him Satan. Ultimately, Mike went along with just about every idea Brian had, singing take after take to Brian's satisfaction. Maybe if you hadn't found watching people working on songs 'boring' you might have noticed.
MARILYN - Your comments on her were just disgusting. I don't care if she was a total bitch to you back in the day, she stuck with Brian long after the party was over and had to try pick up the pieces. You on the other hand, f***ed off the second Brian stopped being fun to hang around with. I asked before if you knew the term 'fairweather friend'? Silly me! Of course you do, it's a phrase used in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, the song Brian 'wrote' about you.  ::)
DENNIS & CARL - "Both kinda stupid" you said. They were both still in their teens! Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.
ON YOUR OWN LAUGHABLY SELF IMPORTANT VIEW OF YOUR PLACE IN BB HISTORY - You seem to think that if not for you giving Brian his first trip and turning him 'hip' Brian would have never grown to be the artist he did. Brian's music had been growing more and more sophisticated from the Sufer Girl album onwards. Listen to All Summer Long, Today! or his work with other artists from 1963-64. Other than sharing a mutual friend of Tony Asher, you did jack for his creativity.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 09:43:51 AM
Thank you MB...well said.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mr. Cohen on January 30, 2015, 09:47:06 AM
WOOO


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: halblaineisgood on January 30, 2015, 09:48:58 AM
Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.

:lol  :lol  That's one of the funnier things I've read



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 09:56:03 AM
Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.

:lol  :lol  That's one of the funnier things I've read
Jackpot MB!   :beer
 


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 10:01:41 AM
Not sure that I agree with all of it...but certainly some of it.  Van Dyke as well as Tony right?  Mike may have done more than just present his 'take' on things.   It is certainly an opinion Mr Beard.  I'm not having any difficulty guessing where you stand.  :lol


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 10:16:30 AM
Who deliberately breaks up a family? Who does that?

And again I think you are placing too much responsibility/blame on Lorren. He didn't force Brian to take LSD just as he didn't break up Brian's marriage. Brian made his own choices. Brian and Marilyn stayed together a LONG time after Daro was out of the picture. I believe they finally divorced in 1979 and I think it's safe to say a lot had transpired in those 15 or so years of marriage, most of it without Lorren Daro in the picture.

Gregg - you may be correct. But, the individual has more than enthusiastically taken responsibilty.

We are merely reading what he wrote.  

Exactly. He considered it a point of pride. You guys making excuses for him would be singing a different tune if that was your parents marriage or your own that someone else bragged about sabotaging. And to argue "yeah, but he didn't actually sabotage it" is missing the point. Daro considers it his doing and is proud of that. That's all that matters.

Funny how he claimed to be clearing his name when all he did was make himself look demonstrably worse than any of us would have ever thought otherwise.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 10:20:50 AM
I never blamed Lorren and his crew for putting Brian on the path to drug problems before he posted here and I still don't. Same as I don't blame the bartender who gave Dennis his first beer or the 7/11 guy who sold Carl his first pack of smokes. I held no opinion on the guy one way or another. However, since he posted here I've seen plenty of reasons to dislike the guy.

MURRY - OK Murry was an abusive dick, so Lorren gets a pass here.
MIKE - Oh heavens above, so Mike didn't agree with every creative whim that popped out of Brian's head, so what? NEWSFLASH LORREN! He was in the band with Brian, not you. Right or wrong, he was entitled to give his views on material presented. This may make him a pain in the ass but it does not make him Satan. Ultimately, Mike went along with just about every idea Brian had, singing take after take to Brian's satisfaction. Maybe if you hadn't found watching people working on songs 'boring' you might have noticed.
MARILYN - Your comments on her were just disgusting. I don't care if she was a total bitch to you back in the day, she stuck with Brian long after the party was over and had to try pick up the pieces. You on the other hand, f***ed off the second Brian stopped being fun to hang around with. I asked before if you knew the term 'fairweather friend'? Silly me! Of course you do, it's a phrase used in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, the song Brian 'wrote' about you.  ::)
DENNIS & CARL - "Both kinda stupid" you said. They were both still in their teens! Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.
ON YOUR OWN LAUGHABLY SELF IMPORTANT VIEW OF YOUR PLACE IN BB HISTORY - You seem to think that if not for you giving Brian his first trip and turning him 'hip' Brian would have never grown to be the artist he did. Brian's music had been growing more and more sophisticated from the Sufer Girl album onwards. Listen to All Summer Long, Today! or his work with other artists from 1963-64. Other than sharing a mutual friend of Tony Asher, you did jack for his creativity.

 :rock


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: rattfink on January 30, 2015, 10:41:12 AM
In the end, if I were hypothetically an invited "Honored guest" (or an already established one being asked to return) to the SS forum, I certainly would think twice about accepting such invite.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 10:57:41 AM
In the end, if I were hypothetically an invited "Honored guest" (or an already established one being asked to return) to the SS forum, I certainly would think twice about accepting such invite.

I'd say, as long as you're a decent person who's not out to make a name for himself, you're fine.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
I never blamed Lorren and his crew for putting Brian on the path to drug problems before he posted here and I still don't. Same as I don't blame the bartender who gave Dennis his first beer or the 7/11 guy who sold Carl his first pack of smokes. I held no opinion on the guy one way or another. However, since he posted here I've seen plenty of reasons to dislike the guy.
MURRY - OK Murry was an abusive dick, so Lorren gets a pass here.
MIKE - Oh heavens above, so Mike didn't agree with every creative whim that popped out of Brian's head, so what? NEWSFLASH LORREN! He was in the band with Brian, not you. Right or wrong, he was entitled to give his views on material presented. This may make him a pain in the ass but it does not make him Satan. Ultimately, Mike went along with just about every idea Brian had, singing take after take to Brian's satisfaction. Maybe if you hadn't found watching people working on songs 'boring' you might have noticed.
MARILYN - Your comments on her were just disgusting. I don't care if she was a total bitch to you back in the day, she stuck with Brian long after the party was over and had to try pick up the pieces. You on the other hand, f***ed off the second Brian stopped being fun to hang around with. I asked before if you knew the term 'fairweather friend'? Silly me! Of course you do, it's a phrase used in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, the song Brian 'wrote' about you.  ::)
DENNIS & CARL - "Both kinda stupid" you said. They were both still in their teens! Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.
ON YOUR OWN LAUGHABLY SELF IMPORTANT VIEW OF YOUR PLACE IN BB HISTORY - You seem to think that if not for you giving Brian his first trip and turning him 'hip' Brian would have never grown to be the artist he did. Brian's music had been growing more and more sophisticated from the Sufer Girl album onwards. Listen to All Summer Long, Today! or his work with other artists from 1963-64. Other than sharing a mutual friend of Tony Asher, you did jack for his creativity.
The last section, I find so true. Brian's early work was a preview of his great gift. And, yes, on All Summer Long, Today, Shut Down, vol. 2., the progression of his composing his own work and arranging of others' was coming along beautifully, nothing short of amazing...you hit the nail right on the head!    ;)


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2015, 11:05:37 AM
(Double post)

Good place to say TGIF  :beer


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 11:30:27 AM
I never blamed Lorren and his crew for putting Brian on the path to drug problems before he posted here and I still don't. Same as I don't blame the bartender who gave Dennis his first beer or the 7/11 guy who sold Carl his first pack of smokes. I held no opinion on the guy one way or another. However, since he posted here I've seen plenty of reasons to dislike the guy.
MURRY - OK Murry was an abusive dick, so Lorren gets a pass here.
MIKE - Oh heavens above, so Mike didn't agree with every creative whim that popped out of Brian's head, so what? NEWSFLASH LORREN! He was in the band with Brian, not you. Right or wrong, he was entitled to give his views on material presented. This may make him a pain in the ass but it does not make him Satan. Ultimately, Mike went along with just about every idea Brian had, singing take after take to Brian's satisfaction. Maybe if you hadn't found watching people working on songs 'boring' you might have noticed.
MARILYN - Your comments on her were just disgusting. I don't care if she was a total bitch to you back in the day, she stuck with Brian long after the party was over and had to try pick up the pieces. You on the other hand, f***ed off the second Brian stopped being fun to hang around with. I asked before if you knew the term 'fairweather friend'? Silly me! Of course you do, it's a phrase used in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, the song Brian 'wrote' about you.  ::)
DENNIS & CARL - "Both kinda stupid" you said. They were both still in their teens! Forgive them for not jerking off to the works of Arthur Koestler between vocal takes, you pretentious old windbag.
ON YOUR OWN LAUGHABLY SELF IMPORTANT VIEW OF YOUR PLACE IN BB HISTORY - You seem to think that if not for you giving Brian his first trip and turning him 'hip' Brian would have never grown to be the artist he did. Brian's music had been growing more and more sophisticated from the Sufer Girl album onwards. Listen to All Summer Long, Today! or his work with other artists from 1963-64. Other than sharing a mutual friend of Tony Asher, you did jack for his creativity.
The last section, I find so true. Brian's early work was a preview of his great gift. And, yes, on All Summer Long, Today, Shut Down, vol. 2., the progression of his composing his own work and arranging of others' was coming along beautifully, nothing short of amazing...you hit the nail right on the head!    ;)


To be fair, I do think psychedelics can provide powerful inspiration for a person's creativity. And ego death can be a wonderful tool for self-analysis and learning to respect others more.

But yes, while it may not have come along as quickly, I do think Brian would have made a Pet Sounds and SMiLE without acid. They'd be different albums, but probably just as good, and as someone else said, his creative peak probably would have lasted longer without acid.

Psychedelics take what's already in your mind and enhance it. And Brian was genetically prone to mental illness, with unbelievable stress, painful memories of abuse, and self-doubt to boot. He was not a person that should have been doing acid. It's NOT Daro's fault that he did it. As you all keep saying, he was an adult, responsible for his own choices. But still, I don't think Daro ought to whitewash the after-effects either. I don't think being the guy who gave Brian Wilson acid is anything to brag about. And for him to call Brian's growth *his* (Daro's) contribution to the world is just straight narcissicism bordering on megalomaniac.

Even ignoring the topic of acid, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike this Daro guy. Some of you going out of your way to praise him or excuse him really confound me. Again I ask, if murry were here as an "honored guest" (a title which was never bestowed upon Daro himself, anyway) would you all be sucking up to him too?


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 30, 2015, 12:00:59 PM
Even ignoring the topic of acid, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike this Daro guy. Some of you going out of your way to praise him or excuse him really confound me.

And you making post after post crucifying the guy is equally as confounding.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Even ignoring the topic of acid, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike this Daro guy. Some of you going out of your way to praise him or excuse him really confound me.

And you making post after post crucifying the guy is equally as confounding.

What can I say? The man struck a nerve with me. A visceral feeling of disgust I feel the need to express.

I think I gained a whole lot of respect for Marilyn and Mike Love tho, reading this thread. So at least something positive happened. I now understand why Mike was so distrustful of Brian's friends if they were all even a fraction as disrespectful and openly loathsome as Daro. And poor Marilyn's sufferings need no explanation. I can't imagine how much it must have hurt to have your husband choose a knob like him over you.

Very sad situation all around.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 12:24:26 PM
In the end, if I were hypothetically an invited "Honored guest" (or an already established one being asked to return) to the SS forum, I certainly would think twice about accepting such invite.
He wasn't really an honored guest... I moved it here because it was basically a q&a session. He wasn't invited... he registered like all of us once did.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 12:33:42 PM
Even ignoring the topic of acid, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike this Daro guy. Some of you going out of your way to praise him or excuse him really confound me.

And you making post after post crucifying the guy is equally as confounding.
And so is the vitrol he gets for voicing how he feels.

Just my two cents.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 30, 2015, 01:12:19 PM
Vitr(i)ol? Really? I'm not seeing it.

vit·ri·ol/ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
noun
1.cruel and bitter criticism.
2.sulfuric acid.



Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 01:24:16 PM
Vitr(i)ol? Really? I'm not seeing it.

vit·ri·ol/ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
noun
1.cruel and bitter criticism.
2.sulfuric acid.



Not trying to whine about it, but buddhahat seems to take any criticism of Daro very personally for some reason. A lot of what he said was unnecessarirly personal and mean. I'm not upset about it, I'm a big boy and can handle myself, but it might fall under the definition of what you'd call "vitriol."

But who cares. I kept relatively civil while he was here so questions could be answered, but now that he's gone the time has come to appraise what was said while he was here. And considering the poor quality of his submissions, it baffles me how defensive some of you are getting on his behalf. All this bemoaning how "we could have learned something" is ludicrous. He said his say. Nothing revelatory or interesting came of it. All self serving lies, contradictions, slander about others and childish insults at anyone not completely on his side here. It should be obvious now that he had nothing substantial to tell us, so I don't understand why some of you are so keen to defend him.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
Vitr(i)ol? Really? I'm not seeing it.

vit·ri·ol/ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
noun
1.cruel and bitter criticism.
2.sulfuric acid.


http://i.word.com/idictionary/vitriol

And please forgive me for spelling it wrong at first...this phone is not that easy to type on


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Fire Wind on January 30, 2015, 01:55:36 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Lee Marshall on January 30, 2015, 01:59:40 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.

I keep swearing that I'm done posting in this thread...but....YA!!!  That about sums it up...

And the pissing contest trickles on.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on January 30, 2015, 02:09:32 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.

I didn't say praise, I said defend. You had your chance and heard what he had to say. He left because his story was full of holes and AGD was calling him on it. He couldn't defend his own story, so he played the hounded victim card and fled. If you wanna cry about it, that's on you. What did you really learn from what he said? Not much, I reckon? Do you really think he had that many amusing anecdotes bottled up that he just forgot to tell us yet? Me neither. His role in the BB story is the guy who gave Brian acid and happened to throw parties where he met some future collaborators. That's it.

The fact that he's also trying to plug himself as the guy who tried to save Brian from everyone else--including that *awful* Marilyn, who had the audacity to love him and worry about him--actually makes him look worse. And it doesn't even hold up, considering he bailed when the going got tough. It's not moralizing, it's just refusing to suck up to a despicable person for useless info.

The only one guilty of egotism is Daro.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Gregg on January 30, 2015, 02:24:16 PM
Vitr(i)ol? Really? I'm not seeing it.

vit·ri·ol/ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
noun
1.cruel and bitter criticism.
2.sulfuric acid.


http://i.word.com/idictionary/vitriol

And please forgive me for spelling it wrong at first...this phone is not that easy to type on


I wasn't pointing out your misspelling, just the lack of vitriol in response to this endless rehashing of Daro's perceived transgressions. If Mujan wants to keep flogging this corpse, then have at it.

I think Fire Wind (and others) have stated it perfectly.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Fire Wind on January 30, 2015, 02:30:40 PM


I didn't say praise, I said defend. You had your chance and heard what he had to say. He left because his story was full of holes and AGD was calling him on it. He couldn't defend his own story, so he played the hounded victim card and fled. If you wanna cry about it, that's on you. What did you really learn from what he said? Not much, I reckon? Do you really think he had that many amusing anecdotes bottled up that he just forgot to tell us yet? Me neither. His role in the BB story is the guy who gave Brian acid and happened to throw parties where he met some future collaborators. That's it.

The fact that he's also trying to plug himself as the guy who tried to save Brian from everyone else--including that *awful* Marilyn, who had the audacity to love him and worry about him--actually makes him look worse. And it doesn't even hold up, considering he bailed when the going got tough. It's not moralizing, it's just refusing to suck up to a despicable person for useless info.

The only one guilty of egotism is Daro.

You said 'praise' up above.

"Some of you going out of your way to praise him or excuse him really confound me."

But anyway, Daro made the point that we were asking the wrong questions.  Perhaps he didn't have more to say, but perhaps more to imply, to intimate, to lead us to thoughts ourselves that he couldn't say out loud.  It seemed to me he wanted it to be a collaborative affair.  I could be wrong, but, as it's over, it can't be drawn out to that level and I guess we'll never know (no, I'm not personally interested enough to email him for more).

I'm not crying about anything, just mildly irritated.  And again, just as I don't think anyone was praising him, no-one was sucking up to him, at least not for anything he's said or done.  That is the key point I was trying to make, which you seem unable to grasp.  People just didn't want this extremely delicate scenario ruined, but I guess it never really had a chance.

Anyway, it's over and I think we're pretty much done in what we can say.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 02:42:50 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.

I didn't say praise, I said defend. You had your chance and heard what he had to say. He left because his story was full of holes and AGD was calling him on it. He couldn't defend his own story, so he played the hounded victim card and fled. If you wanna cry about it, that's on you. What did you really learn from what he said? Not much, I reckon? Do you really think he had that many amusing anecdotes bottled up that he just forgot to tell us yet? Me neither. His role in the BB story is the guy who gave Brian acid and happened to throw parties where he met some future collaborators. That's it.

The fact that he's also trying to plug himself as the guy who tried to save Brian from everyone else--including that *awful* Marilyn, who had the audacity to love him and worry about him--actually makes him look worse. And it doesn't even hold up, considering he bailed when the going got tough. It's not moralizing, it's just refusing to suck up to a despicable person for useless info.

The only one guilty of egotism is Daro.

That's a real gift you have there knowing that everything you type is 100% indesputable fact. Who needs those three letters IMO, after all? It's great we have a guy on the board that can sum these threads up with such conviction. "Mods we can lock this one already - Mujan's cracked it!"


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: buddhahat on January 30, 2015, 02:48:52 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.

Well put, Fire Wind.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
But anyway, Daro made the point that we were asking the wrong questions.  Perhaps he didn't have more to say, but perhaps more to imply, to intimate, to lead us to thoughts ourselves that he couldn't say out loud.  It seemed to me he wanted it to be a collaborative affair.  I could be wrong, but, as it's over, it can't be drawn out to that level and I guess we'll never know (no, I'm not personally interested enough to email him for more).

I'm not crying about anything, just mildly irritated.  And again, just as I don't think anyone was praising him, no-one was sucking up to him, at least not for anything he's said or done.  That is the key point I was trying to make, which you seem unable to grasp.  People just didn't want this extremely delicate scenario ruined, but I guess it never really had a chance.

Anyway, it's over and I think we're pretty much done in what we can say.

Speaking personally, I wasn't asking him any questions: I was just taking what he was claiming, holding it up to the light and seeing if it fit in with what we already know... and it never did. We're not talking 50-year-old drug impaired recall here, we're talking flat statements of fact about events from the early 60s to 1991 that turned out to be, at best, highly questionable.


Title: Re: The Lorren Daro Thread
Post by: ♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮ on January 30, 2015, 02:57:14 PM
I haven't see anyone praising Lorren in all this, so that's a crock.  All people were asking for was detachment and a chance to listen to him, whether he was right or wrong about things.  No-one had to like him or agree with what was said.  I don't get why people took what he said so personally.   He's a historical figure talking about other figures in the BB history.  That he feels so strongly, rightly or wrongly, was fascinating to witness in itself.  What we ended up with was just certain posters' desire to moralise taking precedence over the good of the board and putting their own feelings to the forefront.  It's putting themselves (mostly anonymous fans) at the same level of importance as Daro (a player in the history), as if their own feelings about it matter at all.  They don't matter.  It was pure egotism.

I didn't say praise, I said defend. You had your chance and heard what he had to say. He left because his story was full of holes and AGD was calling him on it. He couldn't defend his own story, so he played the hounded victim card and fled. If you wanna cry about it, that's on you. What did you really learn from what he said? Not much, I reckon? Do you really think he had that many amusing anecdotes bottled up that he just forgot to tell us yet? Me neither. His role in the BB story is the guy who gave Brian acid and happened to throw parties where he met some future collaborators. That's it.

The fact that he's also trying to plug himself as the guy who tried to save Brian from everyone else--including that *awful* Marilyn, who had the audacity to love him and worry about him--actually makes him look worse. And it doesn't even hold up, considering he bailed when the going got tough. It's not moralizing, it's just refusing to suck up to a despicable person for useless info.

The only one guilty of egotism is Daro.

That's a real gift you have there knowing that everything you type is 100% indesputable fact. Who needs those three letters IMO, after all? It's great we have a guy on the board that can sum these threads up with such conviction. "Mods we can lock this one already - Mujan's cracked it!"

He wasn't attacking you, so why this kind of response?

Fire Wind is right...we've said all there is to say. Both sides. Locking this.