I dunno, we had this conversation on the board a few years back. A quick listen to some of VDP's pre-Smile singles and Song Cycle makes me think it's entirely possible that some of Van may well have spilled into the music for Smile.

No doubt.  I've always thought VDP's music/style/feel influenced Brian.  However some of Phil Spector and The Four Freshmen spilled in too, but that doesn't mean they wrote or arranged any of the music.  The fact that VDP was there and influenced Brian and counted off the start of the songs doesn't mean he wrote or arranged the music.  He may have, but I'm not sure what spilling and counting prove beyond his influence and presence at the sessions.  Given his past statements giving Brian full credit it seems odd he is making these insinuations now.

EoL

Counting off the music isn't done by some random spectator in the studio. It is done by the session leader or conductor.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not he wrote and/or arranged the music.  Your statement is a straw man.  No one is claiming VDP was a random spectator, everyone acknowledges he was integral.  The question is whether or not he wrote and arranged it. His own answer for years and years has been no.  Why the apparent change now?

I dunno, we had this conversation on the board a few years back. A quick listen to some of VDP's pre-Smile singles and Song Cycle makes me think it's entirely possible that some of Van may well have spilled into the music for Smile.

No doubt.  I've always thought VDP's music/style/feel influenced Brian.  However some of Phil Spector and The Four Freshmen spilled in too, but that doesn't mean they wrote or arranged any of the music.  The fact that VDP was there and influenced Brian and counted off the start of the songs doesn't mean he wrote or arranged the music.  He may have, but I'm not sure what spilling and counting prove beyond his influence and presence at the sessions.  Given his past statements giving Brian full credit it seems odd he is making these insinuations now.

EoL

Agreed.

"In a nutshell... people are way, way closer than we're being told.  And the powerful knows this.  Therefore the powerful are using contention amongst its constituency, driving wedges, so we can't come together and agree to send them back to hell, where they belong.  It's as simple as that.  Just look at the Powerful's petri-dish of Baltimore.  I could care less WHY it happened (which is what everybody's spinning their wheels debating) -- but I'm just focusing on that it DID happen.  As planned."

Sounds like dialectical materialism to me, and I agree with all but your first sentence, it is overly optimistic in my opinion.  There are a few who see what is going on, but the vast majority are clueless, they have no idea they are being played.  It isn't black versus white, it isn't Reps versus Dems, it isn't rich (average hard working rich guy) versus poor.  It's the powers that be versus everyone else.

My two cents, and worth about as much.

EoL

I'm pretty sure that Melinda's liberation of Brian from Landy was just a case of hopping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I'm pretty sure that this is one of the most brainless observations in the entire history of this forum.

No... no that's unfair. I'm not pretty sure, or even probably sure: I'm certain.  

You know you are fuct when the guy accused of being on Mike's payroll to spread anti-Brian/Melinda sentiment tells you that your anti-Melinda statement is "one of the most brainless observations in the entire history of this forum."

Mods, seriously, this kind of slander, against a band members family member, with zero basis in fact, should not be tolerated.  If Mike or Brian says or does something crazy it's fair game.  Hell, if Melinda said or did something crazy it's fair game.  But this is a baseless accusation as it equates Brian's loving wife with the evil Eugene Landy.  Someone please call this guy out if it hasn't happened already.

EoL

Any man that hasn't got the balls to get married at least five times isn't a real man. Probably.

So that's why he's your favorite.

I have no favourites. Only Brian and Dennyistas bother with favourites.

The name-calling and bullying must stop!

Your answer was correct and showed your continuing commitment to her, just explain to her she should have asked if you "wanted spend the rest of her life with her". Then duck.

Cam, a more appropriate response from you would've been, uncle.

Your wife's a lost cause. Run and take all the valuables.

Point taken, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll probably stick around.



EoL

In all seriousness people, I need some help with a domestic squabble.  Ten years ago I told my wife I would always love her.  I made it very clear.  She asked me if I love her and I said yes.  She then asked me if I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, I said, hell yeah!.  But the funniest thing happened earlier today.  She asked me the same questions all these years later.  I was thinking of this thread and I answered accordingly.  Now I'm in trouble.  Here is how it went down:

Wife: do you want to go out to eat tonight?
EoL: yes
Wife: Oh good, I was hoping you would say that, I don't feel like cooking tonight.  Do you want to go to our favorite restaurant?
EoL: hells to the yeah!
Wife: do you love me?
EoL: (strange question but I answer accordingly): probably
Wife (with an unexplainable look of confusion): do you want to spend the rest of your life with me?
EoL: probably

And then she lost it.  She asked me what is wrong and why I'm not certain I still love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her.  I tried to explain that "probably" and "yes" have the same meaning.  She gave me some mumbo jumbo from the dictionary about the meaning of probably and how that contrasted with the certainty of "yes" and "hells to the yeah".  I tried explaining that my position was the same as it was ten years ago.  I've told her over and over for years that I love her and that I am still saying the same thing.  She said "so then you do still love me?".  To which I replied, "probably".  She broke down in tears questioning how I could call myself Empire of Love when my love for her is only probable and not certain.  I even tried explaining that she was just parsing words and that I felt she was bullying me, but nothing worked.

I thought I had a handle on all of this after reading through the arguments from filledpledge and Cam, but she doesn't seem to understand that my position hasn't changed from ten years ago, last week, etc.

Could someone help me understand where the miscommunication is coming from?   I could just admit I'm wrong and tell her I love her, I mean use the actual words, but then I would be doing so out of feeling bullied, so I'm not sure I want to go that route.  If anyone has any advice, please, I need help.

EoL

But nobody here is disagreeing with any of that with the possible exception of Cam not thinking Mike was wrong to mention Evan as a valid counterpoint to Melinda's side.

What? I don't endorse anything Evan said, I called Landy a criminal more than once in this thread alone, but even he (criminals) has a right to be heard imo.

I said Mike mentioned it as something he HAD seen related to the movie (as opposed to the questions about the movie which he hadn't seen) and as has been pointed out repeatedly Mike is on the record condemning Landy. Thinking it is interesting or should be heard is not an endorsement.

I think you've misread what I said Cam. I'm not saying you agree with the Landys at all. I said you may not think Mike was in the wrong to bring up Evan's interview when talking about the film.

Apologies. Yes, I don't think it is wrong to bring it up or discuss it. What Landy did was criminal and I join with Mike and anyone else in condemning him and his activity.

I would probably join with Mike in condemning it (if he reverts to his prior position of doing so, if not then I probably won't).

Wow, now I am being insulted over my actual BBs musical tastes. So what if  I am not a big fan of CATP and Holland's songs, they are lacking from BW's touch.


Even ML on a good day would admit BW was the creative force driving the BBs.

No Brian involvement on Holland and So Tough?

Sail on Sailor - co authored by BW - released in 73 and 75 as a single and on The Departed sound track.
With BW / T. Almer/R. Kennedy/J. Rieley/ VD Parks

Funky Pretty - B. Wilson/M.Love/J. Rieley
Mt. Vernon and Fairway - BW
I'm the Pied Piper - BW/CW
Better Get Back in Bed - BW

Magic Transistor Radio - BW
Radio King Dom - BW

Vocals on Cal Saga - BW

CATP - So Tough

You Need a Mess of Help - BW / J. Rieley
He Come Down - A. Jardine /BW/ M. Love
Marcella - BW/Tandyn Almer/ J. Rieley

It appears that BW had a great deal of involvement on both Holland and So Tough...

Hey, SB has his opinion and you have yours.  Quit the endless parsing of album credits and learn try to learn to tolerate all viewpoints.  Facts do not matter, opinions matter, especially when repeated over and over again with no supporting statements.  I am calling for an end to needless attacks on SB's opinion regarding Brian's involvement on these records.  It's pathetic how someone would attack SB on the basis of facts.

Empire of Pure Love And Equality for All Opinions Even Those Not Supported By Facts

This tactic of yours again? "I don't know what thread you're reading BUT....."

Seriously, that's amateur hour. It's been done so often anyone can pick it aout. At least read what I wrote, and respond to it.

IT'S ABOUT EVAN LANDY AND THOSE SAYING HIS WORDS ARE "EQUAL" TO BRIAN'S OWN FAMILY!

IT'S ABOUT THOSE WHO THINK EVAN LANDY'S WORDS ARE WORTH READING AS OPPOSED TO THE MOVIE'S "VERSION OF EVENTS"!

IT'S ABOUT THOSE WHO SUGGEST EVAN LANDY HAS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST DEFENSE FOR HIS FATHER'S ACTIONS AFTER HIS FAMILY TRIED TO f*** BRIAN WILSON AND HIS FAMILY BY CHANGING THE WILL!



How about this, Mike's Beard or anyone else: Tell me anything that Evan Landy wrote that would be worth considering in light of the fact he *personally* stood to inherit a percentage of Brian Wilson's estate had Gene Landy's plan been successful and no one stepped in.

Tell me how someone who stood by and watched as all this stuff happened and was paid to do so, yet fails to mention the most egregious actions of his father in the only appearance he's made publicly for a long time to ":set the record straight" should be pointed to as something worth reading AND considering?

Put *your* cards on the table. And make sure you read the posts before trying that stuff again about "I don't know what thread you're reading BUT..."

We're not that naive.

Hang on, I just need to open a window to let some of this hot air out...

OK I'm back.  Show me anywhere where a poster is agreeing with Evan Landy's version of events. Where any poster is siding with Landy justifying what his father did. Put *your* cards on the table.
Don't confuse people respecting Evan's right to give his viewpoint with people thinking it invalidates the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  

Where is filledpledge?  Where is grillo?  One of our own is under attack and no one comes to his defense?  Well if no one else is going to defend guitarfool then the burden falls on me.  GF may use a lot of words to get across his point but to say his words are empty and meaningless is cruel and intolerant and unacceptable.  This board has reached a new low with this sort of bullying.  Please leave our mod alone.  He has his opinion and you have yours but he should be able to present his case without fear of being attacked.

From the very bottom of my admittedly shallow heart I plead for your help in defending our mod!  No more hate speech!  No more hate speech!

Empire of (trying my best to) Love

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

I took it you were making some kind of a comparison and the original statement was by Mike commenting on a relationship between Brian and Landy but had your example had the two in the relationship, Mike and Brian, commenting on each other rather than someone commenting on their relationship. So I made it Landy commenting on a relationship between Brian and Mike so the circumstance fit the comparison you were trying to make.

I was demonstrating the meaning of "probably".  If Brian said that Mike "probably" wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations he would be leaving room for doubt, because regardless of the level of likelihood implied by the word, it stops short of certainty...because that is the definition of probable/probably.

It does not matter who is asking/answering the question.  What matters is the meaning of the word.  Mike used to speak with certainty in regards to Landy's methods, and for that he should be commended.  But now, for reasons unknown to me, he reserves certainty only for Landy's money grab and speaks of his methods/therapy in probability.  He leaves the door open for the possibility it wasn't all that bad.  And then he furthers the point by referring to the Evan Landy article.

But you won't address the clear distinction between his "hell yeah" and his "probably", which mystifies me as much as Mike's choice of words.

EoL

Yes, the meaning of "probably" with a better (imo) oranges to oranges comparison is also what I was demonstrating.  I did address it repeatedly, "probably" is still affirmation of his previously strongly stated (more strongly worded if you wish because it makes no difference)denouncement of Landy and no one has demonstrated anything different. You are welcome to continue in your own smug and dismissive semantic gymnastics and refusal to take an answer but you haven't negated Mike's public denouncements with your opinion or semantics.

You were so close to the truth you could probably taste it.  But at least you finally admitted that his wording was less strong than it was in the past.  Now, if you'd admit that "yes" and "hell yea" communicate certainty and that "probably " communicates less than certainty, you'd be on to something.  Baby steps.

I am beginning to feel judged from the intolerant mob mentality of a few posters here who seem to be rallying against me.  It is disheartening that in this era of love and acceptance we cannot take Noah Webster at his word.  I think you guys and girls are probably out to get me and by that I mean I am certain you are out to get me.  But I don't really mean what I appear to have said as I have been misquoted by the auto-correct the mods have hidden in the code of this board for the sole purpose of confounding me.  Please forgive all that has gone before, I am being controlled by my wifeandmanagers, it is the meds talking, not me (don't worry, I am off street drugs, these are prescribed by my overlords).  Their methods are probably bad but one can't be certain unless one is there, in spite of the court case, the license revocation, and the fact that my will was changed while I was over medicated.  If anyone knows a good TM instructor please send contact information, I hear it cures all ills and possibly causes people who don't know me to defend me even at the expense of reason.

Don't judge me, that was satire.  Is satire permitted or should we rally to remove Stewart and Colbert from the airwaves?  Perhaps we could 1984 their work out of existence.

Wait, you guys/girls are all being serious?

Empire of Love (meant ironically, I don't really love anyone)

Lolz.  So now opposing someone's view is intolerance?  That is rich.  You must be an attorney.

What I am is a BB fan.

Yes, it isn't just forming an opposing opinion.  It is insulting the one who opines.  When one insults, it is often because the underlying  argument is a failure.  And they got nothing else.

As you said, if the shoe fits...

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

All that horrible bullying?  You mean trying to reason with someone by posting dictionary definitions and expecting that person to abide by them?  I hope the guy doesn't develop a bad case of lexicophobia.

What an utter crock to call this discussion bullying.  Anyone presenting an opinion should expect contrary opinions to be expressed and should be prepared to defend their own opinion - with reason and without denying the plain meaning of words.  If you consider being challenged bullying, then don't join the discussion.

Guys and girls, if the best defense you have is to cry "bullying", you've not got much of a case.

First of all, I'm not "defending" anyone, I'm asking why you care what Cam thinks.  I also wonder why you feel the need to control the conversation by  telling me I should not join it if I think you are a bully.  Tell me what else I ought to do if I disagree with you. Empire of Love indeed.

You are guilty of your own charge.  Why do you care so much what I think about what Cam thinks?  Because he is being bullied?  Except he's not being bullied, he's being challenged and instead of addressing arguments he snarks.  He is free to express his opinion and free to snark.  And I am free to call BS.

Lolz.  So now opposing someone's view is intolerance?  That is rich.  You must be an attorney.

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

No, but suggesting that there may be "omissions" in the interview text that might have provided a more complete context.

So Mike might not have been saying what he said and neither were you?  No one means what they say when it isn't convenient, defining words is ridiculous parsing, and challenging a stubborn poster is bullying.  This is one strange place ain't it?

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

I took it you were making some kind of a comparison and the original statement was by Mike commenting on a relationship between Brian and Landy but had your example had the two in the relationship, Mike and Brian, commenting on each other rather than someone commenting on their relationship. So I made it Landy commenting on a relationship between Brian and Mike so the circumstance fit the comparison you were trying to make.

I was demonstrating the meaning of "probably".  If Brian said that Mike "probably" wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations he would be leaving room for doubt, because regardless of the level of likelihood implied by the word, it stops short of certainty...because that is the definition of probable/probably.

It does not matter who is asking/answering the question.  What matters is the meaning of the word.  Mike used to speak with certainty in regards to Landy's methods, and for that he should be commended.  But now, for reasons unknown to me, he reserves certainty only for Landy's money grab and speaks of his methods/therapy in probability.  He leaves the door open for the possibility it wasn't all that bad.  And then he furthers the point by referring to the Evan Landy article.

But you won't address the clear distinction between his "hell yeah" and his "probably", which mystifies me as much as Mike's choice of words.

EoL

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

All that horrible bullying?  You mean trying to reason with someone by posting dictionary definitions and expecting that person to abide by them?  I hope the guy doesn't develop a bad case of lexicophobia.

What an utter crock to call this discussion bullying.  Anyone presenting an opinion should expect contrary opinions to be expressed and should be prepared to defend their own opinion - with reason and without denying the plain meaning of words.  If you consider being challenged bullying, then don't join the discussion.

Guys and girls, if the best defense you have is to cry "bullying", you've not got much of a case.

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Camster, it's like you're a cat and I am the guy holding a ball of yarn in front of your face.  I'm amused for a time but in the end you are going to get more enjoyment out of this than me.

If you do address what I've said I will respond seriously, until then I'm going to keep goofing on you because I can't take you seriously.  If you really are struggling to grasp my argument then my apologies for making fun of you, I'm assuming you are at least being stubborn, but if I'm wrong, my bad.

EoL

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

SB, you have been spending too much time with Doe using that language.