The REAL reason Brian abandoned SMiLE?

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

No, there wouldn`t.

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

And what exactly should Mike acknowledge, `I acted in a way that millions of musicians do but because of Brian`s mental health problems he did not have the defences to deal with it`. That`s the truth of the matter.  

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

And what exactly should Mike acknowledge, `I acted in a way that millions of musicians do but because of Brian`s mental health problems he did not have the defences to deal with it`. That`s the truth of the matter.  

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

And what exactly should Mike acknowledge, `I acted in a way that millions of musicians do but because of Brian`s mental health problems he did not have the defences to deal with it`. That`s the truth of the matter.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And what exactly should Mike acknowledge, `I acted in a way that millions of musicians do but because of Brian`s mental health problems he did not have the defences to deal with it`. That`s the truth of the matter.  

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

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

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

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

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

You know what? Lots of musicians act like jerks. Lots of non-musicians do too. Doesn't make it right.

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

Right! Then let it rest...

[Nicko1234]

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

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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

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

Oh imaginary Brian, I feel your imaginary pain!

[CenturyDeprived]

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

Oh imaginary Brian, I feel your imaginary pain!

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

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

Serious question.  

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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