Here's a few photos to compare and contrast.

Disclaimer: Do NOT trust dates and captions from Getty Images...vintage 60's photos tend to be captioned and dated incorrectly more than they are accurate.

Here is the shot of Brian at piano, deliberately over-lightened to show the background:


Note the colored sound baffle or gobo in the background as well as the blue carpet and wood floor.

Here is the shot of Mike and Al in front of the same baffles and on the same blue carpet:


And here is Dennis at Columbia, same time:


No doubt it's Columbia, the backgrounds and baffles they used are the same in all the photos.

The wild card is this shot of Brian:



He's standing on a car across the street from a Mark C. Bloome tire store. According to Getty's caption, it's October 1966 in Gardena, CA. I don't believe that caption or date is accurate, but who am I except someone making a guess?

Notice he is wearing the exact same maroon shirt and white pants as he's wearing in the piano shot at Columbia.

Any further info on the origins of the Bloome tire outdoor photo would clear up a lot of questions! For now, I'm staying with the Surf's Up-at-Columbia theory for the piano shot.

The scary part about the Budd Dwyer footage is that it aired, unedited, on Channel 6 (ABC) in Philadelphia during the five and six o'clock news...

I don't think he ever accepted any kind of bribe...the American "justice system" ate him up and spit him out.

Can't believe I missed this reference...I think there is some misinformation about the R. Budd Dwyer clip which I hope my memory allows me to recall!

I lived outside of Philly so WPVI Channel 6 "Action News" was the go-to station for news. If I remember, this press conference happened during the winter, and school had been closed due to weather that day, so we were all home. The TV happened to be on as they showed the press conference, where Dwyer pulled out the envelope and started waving the gun. The first time I recall seeing it broadcast - whether it was live or not, I don't know - they cut to a blank screen immediately after the gun went off, but the shot was shown for that split-second and I saw it once until YouTube picked it up decades later. This was broadcast during the day.

Any airings of the clip later than that on the evening news showed it right up to the point where he raises the gun, and they cut it off before you hear the shot. It was everything we were talking about in school after that, still quite a shock and a sad story obviously. But I think to clarify, if one station had carried it live as the story was developing at Dwyer's press conference, the gunshot itself wasn't shown on the newscasts after that.

At least to my memory, as someone who saw Channel 6's coverage that day we just happened to be home from school, that's how the local broadcasts covered it. I don't know what the Harrisburg area stations did with the story. Corrections welcome of course!

There were multiple cameras shooting the press conference. The footage I saw on the news the day of the event was shot from the front and showed him putting the gun in his mouth, then abruptly cut to the same shot of the podium after he fell. About 14 years ago I saw the unedited footage shot by the cameraman who was to Dwyer's right. After the trigger was pulled, Dwyer's body fell to the right of the podium and was somewhat supported by it. The camerman tilted the camera down and, instinctively, zoomed in to refocus then pulled back to re-frame the shot. By this point, there was a copious amount of blood pouring from Mr. Dwyer's nose and mouth.

I believe this is the footage that the band Filter saw that inspired their song "Hey Man, Nice Shot". The title seems to be a comment on the cameraman's covering the action as professionally as possible in the face of a horrible unexpected tragedy.

The longer unedited footage made the rounds after the incident and took on a life of its own, definitely. I remember seeing it offered for sale and on trading lists (how bizarre) before the internet made it available. It was a press conference so obviously there were at least 3 Harrisburg stations there, at least 3 Philly stations there, and various others. So whichever station had the most loose control over their tape archives might have been how the unedited version leaked.

I know I've heard the claim that Channel 6 showed the shooting on their newscasts before, and it was a bit of an urban legend, but I can vouch for the fact it was only shown once, and for a split-second, and everything after that was edited, and the newscasts also started giving a "graphic content" warning before showing even what little they showed.

I was gonna guess that, given his attire, it might even have been taken during the filming of the Inside Pop performance of Surf's Up but the shirt looks wrong and that don't look like a grand piano in the photo.

Nevertheless Brian looks like he's dressed for a performance.  Hawaii maybe?

Is that image behind him of a woman reflected in a mirror –  and does the flash indicate that she's taking that photo herself? Or is she holding lighting for a TV / movie camera?

I'm convinced that was shot at Columbia: The blue carpet and wood floors shown when the photo is brightened up match exactly a photo of Mike and Al at a microphone wearing lots of headphones which was taken at Columbia.

And as I guessed in my post too, I think this *could* have been for the Inside Pop filming, not the one which was aired, but rather the one described in detail in Jules Siegel's article. The studio matches, the shirt matches, etc. They filmed this one at Columbia before they filmed the one at his house.

Does anyone know when this picture was taken, I'm assuming during the smile sessions

Stunning photo, never saw it before... given Bri's appearance, it could well be the SMiLE period indeed...

Note that there is a woman holding a "sun-gun" or some other high-powered light in the background. I'm thinking this still was taken during the shooting of one of Dennis' home movies from this period (the one with Brian in the studio lit from one side would be logical).

I thought that was a flash bulb from the girl's camera when I first saw that photo.

When brightened up, the background shows a studio room and wood floor that looks like Columbia's studio...combined with Brian's maroon shirt, and how he's sitting at the piano, could this be the Surf's Up performance he filmed with CBS before they filmed at his house? The one described in Jules Siegel's article...

There is a slight stairwell/ramp in the background of that photo which I don't think either Western or Gold Star had, so I'm guessing that was shot at Columbia/CBS.

Pure speculation!

The scary part about the Budd Dwyer footage is that it aired, unedited, on Channel 6 (ABC) in Philadelphia during the five and six o'clock news...

I don't think he ever accepted any kind of bribe...the American "justice system" ate him up and spit him out.

Can't believe I missed this reference...I think there is some misinformation about the R. Budd Dwyer clip which I hope my memory allows me to recall!

I lived outside of Philly so WPVI Channel 6 "Action News" was the go-to station for news. If I remember, this press conference happened during the winter, and school had been closed due to weather that day, so we were all home. The TV happened to be on as they showed the press conference, where Dwyer pulled out the envelope and started waving the gun. The first time I recall seeing it broadcast - whether it was live or not, I don't know - they cut to a blank screen immediately after the gun went off, but the shot was shown for that split-second and I saw it once until YouTube picked it up decades later. This was broadcast during the day.

Any airings of the clip later than that on the evening news showed it right up to the point where he raises the gun, and they cut it off before you hear the shot. It was everything we were talking about in school after that, still quite a shock and a sad story obviously. But I think to clarify, if one station had carried it live as the story was developing at Dwyer's press conference, the gunshot itself wasn't shown on the newscasts after that.

At least to my memory, as someone who saw Channel 6's coverage that day we just happened to be home from school, that's how the local broadcasts covered it. I don't know what the Harrisburg area stations did with the story. Corrections welcome of course!

To me, the best "Carol Kaye" bass playing on a BBs record (tone-wise) is "Sloop John B.".  THAT'S one where the pick-on-strings attack REALLY stands out.

When I transcribed that bassline, I was surprised to find out she was tuned down 1/2 step (or a 'semitone' on the Hoffman board... )  for that session. I just assumed most of those sessions were done in standard tuning for some reason.

There is an audible "punch" on Sloop's bass track that is more pronounced than on similar sessions. I'm wondering if the drop tuning making the strings a little more loose contributed to that sound, and wondering if this was done on other tracks as well.

Don't do drugs, kids. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur3juD8uIbo

I thought that was pretty cool, all things considered.

Check out the complete RVPO interview from 1994, from which that song came from.

Then compare it with this short live clip, after he cleaned up...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtf-HAjdZZg&feature=related

John is one of my favorite musicians.

Wow nobody sees this as something that could more people onto him? 


I didn't the fanworld was so selective.

The problem with Hollywood biographies like this is the way it could turn into a parody of the person or the group rather than a portrayal. Again I'll go back to Oliver Stone and the Doors film. For all the fans who smelled a rat after watching that film, how many viewers saw Val Kilmer as Morrison and assumed that portrayal was accurate? The Doors got a boost in record sales, but did the backlash against that film end up hurting more in the long run than the spike in sales for the month or two that the film was being hyped?

Hollywood is in the business of bullshit, to be quite frank about it. Even after a script is turned in and given the green light, how often is that finished script then handed over to more writers to be enhanced and beefed up to make it more entertaining, more funny, more compelling, etc based on the subject? If a Brian Wilson biopic gets approved and sent through the machine in Hollywood, what parts of the story do you think they will enhance, beef up, or otherwise invent in order to make the story more appealing to certain demographics?

Oliver Stone went as far as to invent historical characters who never existed in real life and events that never happened in real life in order to tell his story in JFK...and we've seen that happen with two Beach Boys films that never went beyond television, thankfully. I think some people just don't want Brian Wilson's story told through Hollywood's machine, no matter who is writing the script.

For the record, I listened to the Cabinessence mix in question...and I don't hear what some folks are hearing at all. If anything it could be a combination of a cheap vinyl pressing coupled with perhaps a turntable that wasn't playing consistently on pitch or at the same speed. But I'm not hearing it as anything in the mix at all. Just my opinion, I could be way off.

This is much ado about nothing, IMO. Wait for the box set.

Dear mr. Fool Sir -

what do you think all 1772 of us members here have been doing for months now? Are you well?

I'm quite well, thank you, how are you today? 

I'll rephrase the comments, directed mostly to those folks on other forums who are hearing these pitch issues on Cabinessence...

Wait for the box set, and don't judge the quality of a mix from a cheaply-produced, hastily pressed 45 rpm vinyl giveaway disc that came bundled with a magazine. All the speculation about edits, flying in vocals, fold-down mixes, etc...you cannot assume too much based on a giveaway 45rpm disc, or an mp3 needledrop of said disc.

For the record, I listened to the Cabinessence mix in question...and I don't hear what some folks are hearing at all. If anything it could be a combination of a cheap vinyl pressing coupled with perhaps a turntable that wasn't playing consistently on pitch or at the same speed. But I'm not hearing it as anything in the mix at all. Just my opinion, I could be way off.

This is much ado about nothing, IMO. Wait for the box set.

About Diana Dors...in a thread that mentions her *and* Sir George Martin, you'd think Ms. Dors' appearance on the Sgt. Pepper cover would have been mentioned!

This is funny: They were selling her bust at auction a few years ago...

 

...the wax figure bust of her that appeared on the Pepper cover.

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/6336292

The danger is always there that a film portrayal becomes the image of the artist which many people will carry for years after seeing the film, particularly when someone seeing the movie is only familiar with "the hits" from any given artist.

I'm guilty of it too - I recently watched Clint Eastwood's biopic "Bird", having not seen it for years. It's a striking film, the music is top-notch, but watching it now versus when I was 20+ years younger, it wasn't the same. And having done more study on Parker since first seeing the movie, I realized my image of him came mostly from that film.

Imagine this: What if this Brian Wilson script turned into Oliver Stone's portrayal of The Doors? How many liberties will Brian's fans allow such a project to take with the truth?

And we've also been burned at least twice with Beach Boys film projects.

Can someone please let me in on the Cabinessence mix in question, where Mike apparently hits a note sharp?

I have never heard nor perceived a note sharp on any official or semi-official mix of Cabinessence...if something official is going around with what some are hearing as a mistake I'd like to hear it.

***Having not heard it, I think they're blowing smoke. But anyway...

Very badly writen articles. I can't believe the Todd Gold is even used anymore. In the US it's been out of print since 1992.

Sloppy research. No excuse for it.

I wonder: the writer(s) in question get paid good money for their work. Yet many of us here could have done a better (sterling) job on the topic, and perhaps even under withholding all kinds of info (bleg-related) that would not have pleased the folks who permitted the free 45 to be released.

What is the world coming to?

I raised the same issue either here or buried elsewhere in another Smile-related discussion: How does this continue to happen? Quite frankly, I can name a handful of people - some professionals, some semi-pros, some amateurs - who would bring a level of passion, accuracy, and sheer enjoyment to a Smile writing project set for publication. I guess it's the way the system works, but knowing just how passionate and how obsessive fans of *this particular music* can be (I'm guilty as charged...), you would assume the pertinent facts would be checked before publishing an article. No one is perfect, but damn a simple call or email for verification to one of at least 20 people on this board alone could have made a difference.

Then again, even a place like McDonalds gets sloppy every so often and forgets the onions on your cheeseburger...out of an honest mistake or not giving a damn, who knows.

Aye, I'm aware, I was just poking fun at those of us who seem to have been here 24/7 since March!

Guilty!  

As far as Mark answering questions goes, presumably Capitol would not be best pleased if he was giving away information before this thing is released. Might he even have signed some confidentiality agreement?

It's very likely that happened! Isn't it amazing to step back and think how all this revolves around music which is now 44 years old? Not trade secrets, not military-industrial espionage, not the secret data-mining formula Google uses to track web browsing habits...just a collection of unfinished tracks from 1966-67. Amazing.

70's: John Lennon and Brian Wilson hung out and apparently had some LSD trips together with the likes of Harry Nilsson, Micky Dolenz, and other Hollywood rockers in the early 70's. Dolenz told the story of his last trip which found John Lennon staring into a swimming pool for hours and Brian Wilson playing the same note on the piano over and over again. He's suggested they all hung out and fooled around with music in his home studio at various parties too. Wonder if Micky has any secret tapes they made together...

What are the chances this has any basis in reality?  At least as far as Brian taking LSD trips with these guys in the 1970's...

You'll have to ask Micky Dolenz, he said that incident was the last LSD trip he experienced. Maybe Brian wasn't on LSD but Micky thought he was, or Brian was just goofing on them? I don't know. It's odd that Micky describes Brian hitting one note at the piano and Brian in one account of a trip described sitting at a piano and all the piano keys seemed to meld into one.

Another way to frame the question: Do you believe Brian's accounts of the relatively small number of times he claims to have taken LSD in his life? Or that he never took it after, say, 1966? The Hawaii concerts alone prove he was understating it a bit...

Man, I wish Mark Linett would jump in on some of these questions, he'd answer this stuff in a flash...

I hear he's kinda busy right now.

Maybe we can catch him reading posts on a lunch break, get a few Yes or No answers from him...

What I want to know is - as someone who has never "mastered" a song professionally but who has hired professionals to master mixes and songs I've been involved with - what is the mindset behind the current mastering of the Smile catalog? Was it going for a 2011 standard of higher volume and more compression to reach that volume (extreme examples being Metallica, Californication, etc...), or was a 1967 sensibility considered for these tracks?

To take a modern example, I would imagine and hope that the mastering will be similar to that of the reissue of Dennis' solo albums back in 2008...tasteful indeed it was IMO.

People talk about this 'extreme' mastering in such albums as Californication and Metallica and then mention TLOS in the same breath; TLOS was too 'loud' in parts I think but nothing like the 'extreme' mastering jobs mentioned, and I really can't see The Smile Sessions being anything like as loud as these!

I didn't even consider or mention TLOS - those are the extreme *to the extreme* examples I could think of immediately that are probably the most often cited when discussing the problems with modern mastering. Once someone gets away with that, others think it's OK to follow suit, and tailoring songs to sound a certain way over tiny ear buds while working out in a gym or riding a subway car becomes acceptable no matter how bad (objective statement...) the song might actually sound...and these songs are not mixed that way when the band gets done with them, it's in the hands of the mastering folks.

My really extreme historical example is one of my later Henry Mancini "Music From Peter Gunn" reissues, where they mastered it loud to the point of distortion on a few tracks, and that to me is akin to blasphemy since it is one of the finest and most sonically pure jazz recordings ever, a hi-fi staple for decades that was given the "modern treatment" and it killed my ears to hear it that way.

I'm not suggesting anything with Smile other than wondering who might be doing the mastering, thinking if Mark Linett did the mixing and assembly someone else would be mastering it. As of yet I haven't seen any credits for who was doing the nuts-and-bolts recording/mixing/mastering work on this project.

Credits on back of single

Mixed and mastered by Mark Linett
Mix produced by ML and AB

Not sure Mark will be mastering the actual box set though

Thanks for the info on the single credits! Joe Gastwirt mastered "Pet Sounds Sessions", but his name was mis-spelled in the liners (as Gaswirt). Usual procedures would have the mixing and mastering done by separate engineers through different equipment, but we can only wait to see how this Smile project plays out.

Man, I wish Mark Linett would jump in on some of these questions, he'd answer this stuff in a flash...

I'd also add the Beach Boys paid a great tribute to the Beatles and showed their respect and admiration by recording several of their songs on the Party! album, in fact those covers might weigh a bit more in historical context because the songs they covered were fairly current when Party! was recorded. That to me is one of the better tributes a group or artist could give to what some might call "the competition" for airplay and sales.

I can't think of any animosity or hard feelings expressed publicly between the bands until Mike's Hall Of Fame rant in the 80's.

What I want to know is - as someone who has never "mastered" a song professionally but who has hired professionals to master mixes and songs I've been involved with - what is the mindset behind the current mastering of the Smile catalog? Was it going for a 2011 standard of higher volume and more compression to reach that volume (extreme examples being Metallica, Californication, etc...), or was a 1967 sensibility considered for these tracks?

To take a modern example, I would imagine and hope that the mastering will be similar to that of the reissue of Dennis' solo albums back in 2008...tasteful indeed it was IMO.

People talk about this 'extreme' mastering in such albums as Californication and Metallica and then mention TLOS in the same breath; TLOS was too 'loud' in parts I think but nothing like the 'extreme' mastering jobs mentioned, and I really can't see The Smile Sessions being anything like as loud as these!

I didn't even consider or mention TLOS - those are the extreme *to the extreme* examples I could think of immediately that are probably the most often cited when discussing the problems with modern mastering. Once someone gets away with that, others think it's OK to follow suit, and tailoring songs to sound a certain way over tiny ear buds while working out in a gym or riding a subway car becomes acceptable no matter how bad (objective statement...) the song might actually sound...and these songs are not mixed that way when the band gets done with them, it's in the hands of the mastering folks.

My really extreme historical example is one of my later Henry Mancini "Music From Peter Gunn" reissues, where they mastered it loud to the point of distortion on a few tracks, and that to me is akin to blasphemy since it is one of the finest and most sonically pure jazz recordings ever, a hi-fi staple for decades that was given the "modern treatment" and it killed my ears to hear it that way.

I'm not suggesting anything with Smile other than wondering who might be doing the mastering, thinking if Mark Linett did the mixing and assembly someone else would be mastering it. As of yet I haven't seen any credits for who was doing the nuts-and-bolts recording/mixing/mastering work on this project.

So, you watch the video of Brian singing Surf’s Up at the piano and tell me that he doesn’t think this is one of the best pieces of music he’s ever written.  People are telling him it’s fantastic, it’s featured on a nationally televised show on CBS with Leonard Bernstein praising it as the new direction of pop music, and then he junks it because a lot of people just don’t like it?  I don’t buy it.

I'll say this: Inside Pop is one of my favorite pieces of 60's TV, and Brian's performance from the first time I saw it was stunning, beautiful, and as compelling a solo performance as might be possible in that context. Until I saw the full program, I was hoping there may have been more to Brian's appearance than what was edited into the show (teaser at the beginning, edited performance near the end)...but that performance is a milestone.

What blew my mind was finding out years after watching the performance - through recollections that may have included Vosse, Anderle, and others who were there - that Brian had to be coaxed and prodded into that performance.

DISCLAIMER: If anyone can fill in the gaps here with those actual quotes, it would be much appreciated!

So by those accounts, if accurate, Brian was not into doing that song on camera the night it was filmed, and I think those others in the room all but forced him to attempt that performance...perhaps suggesting they thought the song was more worthy of a wider audience than Brian himself, I don't know. Those accounts put a new perspective on that incredible performance, and removed what we actually saw of it on Inside Pop versus accounts of him doing a similar thing for the cameras at the studio as reported by Jules Seigel.

I'd like to see those quotes also. Reading GSHG, I came away with the opposite feeling. Brian simply Psyched himself to do it. What gets me, is the statement that the cameras recorded Brian singing the entire piece a SECOND time. Where's that footage? 

If this were 2003 I'd probably be able to remember or at least cite where I heard that story about Brian being reluctant to perform Surf's Up at the house for Oppenheim. I just can't remember where or from whom I heard it, but the story is vivid in my memory so I'll stand by it hoping someone can back it up. I really wish I could remember, it's been bugging me.

I think the clip in Jules' article is describing Brian cutting the track which was heard on the 93 box set - perhaps Brian was filmed doing a take and then double-tracking his vocal on another take, which we hear on that box set version of the song. The Inside Pop performance is single-tracked, and the audio is in much lesser quality since it was shot at his house and not recorded in the studio. One written account suggests Brian and Oppenheim had discussed filming the song again after the first attempt, which would contradict Brian being reluctant to do so, but it gets confusing...

I'll have to dig out the Oppenheim notes later to see if anything comes up about these different Surf's Up tapings.

70's: John Lennon and Brian Wilson hung out and apparently had some LSD trips together with the likes of Harry Nilsson, Micky Dolenz, and other Hollywood rockers in the early 70's. Dolenz told the story of his last trip which found John Lennon staring into a swimming pool for hours and Brian Wilson playing the same note on the piano over and over again. He's suggested they all hung out and fooled around with music in his home studio at various parties too. Wonder if Micky has any secret tapes they made together...

60's: Prior to those photos the Beatles met up with the Beach Boys in Portland, summer 1965. They met Mike and Carl, and according to Larry Kane: "Ringo, the ultimate Beach Boys fan among the Beatles, was dazzled by Wilson and Love. 'A thrill to meet them' he told me later" Another source said that on that same tour, John and George were overheard discussing Brian Wilson on the infamous flight where the plane's engine caught fire and made an emergency landing.

They play some Beach Boys during the "Get Back" sessions, don't they? And Geoff Emerick, one of several who said this, remembers having a turntable brought into Abbey Road and Pet Sounds was played constantly in late 1966 into 1967. You hear it all over Penny Lane for one.

It's not surprising they'd not only be fans but also want to take in a BB's show when they were able. I think the Beatles were duly impressed and also a bit in awe of how Brian particularly was able to create such an ideal image of his home California through his music. They were definitely fans, Ringo the biggest fan apparently!

Like most everyone else I don't know and have no idea what was done in the mastering process of these tracks. What I do know, and what everyone who is even a bit of an audiophile will probably say, is the majority of modern mastering is too damn loud and overcompressed to allow for that. McCartney had a quote about Paperback Writer being the track where they wanted a Beatles single to be as loud and as present as the Motown singles they were hearing - and he and others were saying they were all going for maximum volume at that time so their songs would cut through on the radio and jukeboxes.

More volume also comes with certain frequencies being boosted, and someone hearing a track like Heroes mastered in 2011's standards might feel a different texture or hear certain bands come out more than on, say, a 1991 version of the same track. That's basic audio most of us already know and can demonstrate in our collections. More details and different textures are heard until you push the volume level into distortion, so a "hidden" guitar part might suddenly jump out due to the mastering.

What I want to know is - as someone who has never "mastered" a song professionally but who has hired professionals to master mixes and songs I've been involved with - what is the mindset behind the current mastering of the Smile catalog? Was it going for a 2011 standard of higher volume and more compression to reach that volume (extreme examples being Metallica, Californication, etc...), or was a 1967 sensibility considered for these tracks?

Meaning were these tracks boosted and EQ'ed to sound good on ear buds and iPods and small portable speakers, or were they thought of and was the mastering performed as they would have been mastered for a 1967 release?

I know it's esoteric and wonkish to a point, but at the same time I'd really like to hear what the mindset would be going into a monumental project such as the Smile box set knowing it will be held under a microscope when it does come out. Were the final mixes mastered by Mark Linett as well, or did they send them elsewhere?

So, you watch the video of Brian singing Surf’s Up at the piano and tell me that he doesn’t think this is one of the best pieces of music he’s ever written.  People are telling him it’s fantastic, it’s featured on a nationally televised show on CBS with Leonard Bernstein praising it as the new direction of pop music, and then he junks it because a lot of people just don’t like it?  I don’t buy it.

I'll say this: Inside Pop is one of my favorite pieces of 60's TV, and Brian's performance from the first time I saw it was stunning, beautiful, and as compelling a solo performance as might be possible in that context. Until I saw the full program, I was hoping there may have been more to Brian's appearance than what was edited into the show (teaser at the beginning, edited performance near the end)...but that performance is a milestone.

What blew my mind was finding out years after watching the performance - through recollections that may have included Vosse, Anderle, and others who were there - that Brian had to be coaxed and prodded into that performance.

DISCLAIMER: If anyone can fill in the gaps here with those actual quotes, it would be much appreciated!

So by those accounts, if accurate, Brian was not into doing that song on camera the night it was filmed, and I think those others in the room all but forced him to attempt that performance...perhaps suggesting they thought the song was more worthy of a wider audience than Brian himself, I don't know. Those accounts put a new perspective on that incredible performance, and removed what we actually saw of it on Inside Pop versus accounts of him doing a similar thing for the cameras at the studio as reported by Jules Seigel.

It takes a pretty thick skin to wade into some of the discussions and debates.