VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

friendly bunch here

[The Shift]

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

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

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

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

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

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

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks 

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

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

[bgas]

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks 

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

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

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

[bgas]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

"Mike's usual abrasive nature"

Huh?

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

"hostile to outside collaborators"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought this thread was about Van Dyke Parks 

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

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

friendly bunch here

You really can't see your obvious Mike bias?

What bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shift]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

Ok, man. I can respect that.

[18thofMay]

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

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

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

[Nicko1234]

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

Amen to that.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

Keep this in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew G. Doe]

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