VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[CenturyDeprived]

Wasn't going to step in, but...

If the only takeaway from the full three-part series of Anderle-Williams interviews is that Brian and Van Dyke had issues over lyrics and whatnot, I'd suggest re-reading the interviews and taking note especially of how many times Anderle mentions the resistance from band members and family members to Brian's Smile music, and how it reached the point where Brian and Mike would get into arguments during sessions to the point where it would break up the session and they'd walk out.

If you could put a number value or a ratio on the times Anderle mentions resistance and squabbles within the band during Smile versus the notion of Brian disliking VDP's lyrics, it might be at least 10-to1, if not more.

Short of trying to scan and post the whole thing, re-read it wherever it may be reprinted outside LLVS.

But the factors Anderle mentions most prominently and most often in the interview are far different than what's being suggested on the last few pages, regarding Brian and VDP over lyrics.

Note: I just reread the whole thing yesterday...

I need to pull out my copy of LLVS and re-read that article again myself. Oh what a rad treasure trove that book is.

To all those people (including Mike himself) who prefer to see the Mike-as-either-being-or-not-being-a-contributing-factor and/or band squabbles (or lack thereof) as an absolute a black-and-white situation either way, it surely cannot be – precious few situations in BB-land often are.

Shades of grey, people. Shades of grey.

The only reason this point keeps being driven home is because of the extreme unlikelihood of the black-and-white claim, and most importantly: the fact that IMO, such a black-and-white claim (in and of itself) inadvertently contributes to Mike’s truly, truly unfortunate vilification. I hope this last sentence I just typed makes some sort of sense to people. I'm sorry if it's been said before. 

[Cam Mott]

Wasn't going to step in, but...

If the only takeaway from the full three-part series of Anderle-Williams interviews is that Brian and Van Dyke had issues over lyrics and whatnot, I'd suggest re-reading the interviews and taking note especially of how many times Anderle mentions the resistance from band members and family members to Brian's Smile music, and how it reached the point where Brian and Mike would get into arguments during sessions to the point where it would break up the session and they'd walk out.

If you could put a number value or a ratio on the times Anderle mentions resistance and squabbles within the band during Smile versus the notion of Brian disliking VDP's lyrics, it might be at least 10-to1, if not more.

Short of trying to scan and post the whole thing, re-read it wherever it may be reprinted outside LLVS.

But the factors Anderle mentions most prominently and most often in the interview are far different than what's being suggested on the last few pages, regarding Brian and VDP over lyrics.

Note: I just reread the whole thing yesterday...

Maybe I should re-read it but does he not say what I quoted that the issues between VDP and Brian were the main thing?

[Cam Mott]

Here is the VDP related part I've been talking about:

DAVID: Michael was just starting to get into the picture. Paul Bobbins was starting to get into the picture at this time. Then when I started coming up to the house a whole bunch, when the Brother Records thing started to happen. Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.

PAUL: When, February?

DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.

PAUL: They missed each other.

DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two.

(A few paragraphs later)

PAUL: Was this the first break in Smile, the first turn downward?

DAVID: Yeah. That was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact for the first time Brian was havin' trouble with studios — getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers. Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
And I was very aware of what was happening, but I couldn't put my finger onto why Smile was now starting to nosedive, other than the fact that I still felt at that point that the central thing was Van Dyke's severing of that relationship.

[guitarfool2002]

If someone can point me to a transcript of the interview to copy and paste some sections here, I'd appreciate it because I don't have time to do it right now! 

It's not accurate to pull a few words out of context, in some of these cases, as Anderle touches on many issues around this. But there is a definite description of situations where resistance from the band and family were at least present, if not the "main" factor, and again taking all of these external issues together there cannot be a main factor. And I agree that Van Dyke and Brian separating was major, but even that had more to it than disputes over lyrics.

But Anderle speaks at length of the resistance from the band to what Brian was doing and asking them to do, going back to Pet Sounds, and how it affected him and the work.

[Cam Mott]

If someone can point me to a transcript of the interview to copy and paste some sections here, I'd appreciate it because I don't have time to do it right now! 

It's not accurate to pull a few words out of context, in some of these cases, as Anderle touches on many issues around this. But there is a definite description of situations where resistance from the band and family were at least present, if not the "main" factor, and again taking all of these external issues together there cannot be a main factor. And I agree that Van Dyke and Brian separating was major, but even that had more to it than disputes over lyrics.

But Anderle speaks at length of the resistance from the band to what Brian was doing and asking them to do, going back to Pet Sounds, and how it affected him and the work.

This thread and the discussion is about VDP and Brian, this is the VDP and Brian related stuff from the interviews.

Maybe we could have another thread for Anderle on resistance regarding everything else. I'm not sure we have it right about what he is saying about the Boys. I should re-read it but my memory is when he discusses the Boys and resistance, the Boys are doing a great job, singing hard, beautifully, and his not liking or not being satisfied with the beautifully sung product is the resistance.

[Bicyclerider]

Well people tend to cherry pick the quotes that support their bias/viewpoint, and ignore the rest.

Anyone objective reading the interview/articles would not come away with saying Brian "disliked" Van Dyke's lyrics - that is never said or even implied, just the opposite.

[Cam Mott]

So they "clashed" over it and couldn't work together because Brian liked the lyrics being too sophisticated?

[guitarfool2002]

If someone can point me to a transcript of the interview to copy and paste some sections here, I'd appreciate it because I don't have time to do it right now! 

It's not accurate to pull a few words out of context, in some of these cases, as Anderle touches on many issues around this. But there is a definite description of situations where resistance from the band and family were at least present, if not the "main" factor, and again taking all of these external issues together there cannot be a main factor. And I agree that Van Dyke and Brian separating was major, but even that had more to it than disputes over lyrics.

But Anderle speaks at length of the resistance from the band to what Brian was doing and asking them to do, going back to Pet Sounds, and how it affected him and the work.

This thread and the discussion is about VDP and Brian, this is the VDP and Brian related stuff from the interviews.

Maybe we could have another thread for Anderle on resistance regarding everything else. I'm not sure we have it right about what he is saying about the Boys. I should re-read it but my memory is when he discusses the Boys and resistance, the Boys are doing a great job, singing hard, beautifully, and his not liking or not being satisfied with the beautifully sung product is the resistance.

I won't try to put words into the interview that aren't there, but I will suggest this reading of what the "resistance" was isn't what Anderle said, in fact he's detailed and specific about Brian having parts for the Boys to sing and getting met with resistance which led to breaking up some of the studio sessions, as well as overall frustration.

When I get time I'll clip and paste the actual sections.

[Bicyclerider]

So they "clashed" over it and couldn't work together because Brian liked the lyrics being too sophisticated?

A ridiculous phrasing of the question in an attempt to bolster your own bias.  They clashed over the lyrics and the music fitting together appropriately, if we read the interview with a modicum of reason and sense - not over Brian disliking the lyrics.  Did he think they were inappropriate for the music?  It seems so.  But no one ever said he disliked them - in fact he liked them so much Van Dyke "blew his mind."

And to tie this Van Dyke/Brian thread to another notorious thread, when did they actually clash over the lyrics?  We have no reports that there was a problem during the writing of the songs.  But when a certain balding bass singer questioned the lyrics and prompted Brian to call Van Dyke in to explain the lyrics - VOILA!  The clash!  And then Van Dyke leaves, which Anderle describes - the "hassle" and then Van Dyke isn't around.

[Cam Mott]

So they "clashed" over it and couldn't work together because Brian liked the lyrics being too sophisticated?

A ridiculous phrasing of the question in an attempt to bolster your own bias.  They clashed over the lyrics and the music fitting together appropriately, if we read the interview with a modicum of reason and sense - not over Brian disliking the lyrics.  Did he think they were inappropriate for the music?  It seems so.  But no one ever said he disliked them - in fact he liked them so much Van Dyke "blew his mind."

And to tie this Van Dyke/Brian thread to another notorious thread, when did they actually clash over the lyrics?  We have no reports that there was a problem during the writing of the songs.  But when a certain balding bass singer questioned the lyrics and prompted Brian to call Van Dyke in to explain the lyrics - VOILA!  The clash!  And then Van Dyke leaves, which Anderle describes - the "hassle" and then Van Dyke isn't around.

I agree on the cherry picking/bias/wording.

Where was Mike mentioned in the clash between Van Dyke and Brian? If like or dislike bother we will just go with what he said: "Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that."

Are you making the connection of Mike to the clash and leaning to the late February date now?

[Bicyclerider]

No, the clash still makes the most sense in December - from what I can tell there were no lyrics written by Van for Brian after that date!  So what was there to clash about?  All they were recording was Heroes (and in April Vegetables but Van had left and I guess Brian rewrote the lyrics to be less sophisticated).  Maybe Brian was bugging Van to rewrite the lyrics, though this possibility has never been reported by anyone at the time or later.  Van did leave again late Feb (actually after the March 1-2 intro sessions).  I suspect Anderle knew there were clashes about the lyrics, and then he left for good off the Smile scene March 1-2, so that might explain Anderle's February remark?

[pixletwin]

To be honest, I can't see Mike c.1966-67 confronting Van unless he had some indication from Brian that the lyrics were bothering him. Much like with the voice over on Heroes and Villains, I just don't think Mike would of done anything without Brian's blessing.

[Cam Mott]

No, the clash still makes the most sense in December - from what I can tell there were no lyrics written by Van for Brian after that date!  So what was there to clash about?  All they were recording was Heroes (and in April Vegetables but Van had left and I guess Brian rewrote the lyrics to be less sophisticated).  Maybe Brian was bugging Van to rewrite the lyrics, though this possibility has never been reported by anyone at the time or later.  Van did leave again late Feb (actually after the March 1-2 intro sessions).  I suspect Anderle knew there were clashes about the lyrics, and then he left for good off the Smile scene March 1-2, so that might explain Anderle's February remark?

I don't know, Anderle's context is Van Dyke is still needed for lyrics. He seems to think Van Dyke was still on the clock in February.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

[buddhahat]

To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone....

Everyone was moaning that the board was being dumbed down by endless polls and lists, then some real discussion and debate sparks up and people start moaning again. If you don't enjoy the smile threads Pinder, just ignore them. Personally I'm finding this one of the more interesting discussions we've had in a while.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone....

Everyone was moaning that the board was being dumbed down by endless polls and lists, then some real discussion and debate sparks up and people start moaning again. If you don't enjoy the smile threads Pinder, just ignore them. Personally I'm finding this one of the more interesting discussions we've had in a while.

It's most certainly interesting, trust me! .... But after a while it's like that bottomless hole on Oak Island .... folks have been digging for over a century and still nothing ......

I wish someone would just write a book, and I mean it! Guitarfool should write a book about THAT PHOTO!! The one taken in the LAX terminal. Make it sort of an oral history via all the living folks in the pic and go back a bit before the pic was snapped and then trace each person's story from there, all the while telling the story of SMILE as well ..... I think that would be fascinating....

[The Shift]

THis thread has woken up since the personal issues were dropped and the conversation went back on topic. I hope it can continue in the right spirit.

[CenturyDeprived]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ...... Therefore you are simply never going to get this so-called apology.

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

[CenturyDeprived]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

I most certainly didn't question his tears a single iota when I saw him in person making a very heartfelt statement about his family at the Grammy Museum. It was moving.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or for him to have conceded that he was a factor and still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

[CenturyDeprived]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

[alf wiedersehen]

I don't think Brian would have really valued Mike's opinion that much. At this point, the two hardly worked together on songs like they used to.
I think I read that he even asked Van Dyke to redo Mike's lyrics for "Good Vibrations."

I would guess that Van Dyke, being his current working partner, would have a much greater impact on Brian with his departure and disparaging remarks over the sophistication of Brian's music.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is STILL going on?

Point we all seem to be dancing around here, and the REAL reason these "discussions" spiral into arguments is ...... Some of us here love THE BEACH BOYS: 1961 - 2012 ...... while some of us here love BRIAN WILSON, SMILE, and Pet Sounds, to an extent ...... For tireless scholars of Brian, SMILE, and Brian's entourage, like Guitarfool, the minutia of who said/did/what/hurt who's feelings regarding SMILE is like piecing together the Dead Sea Scrolls..... To others, this is like someone bringing up some bad family scene from the distant past at any/every family outing and ruining the fun for everyone.... I wish these endless circular discussions would be given their own specific section of the board like the "Ask Our Honored Guests" area.

I just don't get it...... SMILE was not finished or released as intended, we got Smiley Smile, then BWPS and then finally SMILE ..... We've been given more than enough reasons for why history played out as it did. Brian got resistance from his bandmates, some engineers, he had issues with VDP and VDP had issues with Brian, and finally: Brian had his own issues .... I guess the problem here is, we have so many contributing reasons for this that folks are free to pick and choose which ones they think matter.... Problem is: no one can be charged with a crime here and history can't be changed.

Honest question: do you think that if, for example, in the Mojo 2004 SMiLE interview that Mike did, that if he would have conceded that he was or may have been a contributing factor... that we'd still be talking or speculating quite as much about it? (And by "we'd", I mean people on this board in general, not just you and I)... I just re-read that interview at Nicko1234's suggestion.

I guess as BB nerds we'd continue to speculate/discuss/hypothesize about how the factors came together, and what "percentage" of any given circumstance/person was a factor... but my point being that most people on this board (probably) wouldn't be having a discussion of "if", right?

Not trying to be inflammatory, Pinder, and please don't accuse me of such - I'm just asking an honest question because I wondered it myself.

No, CD: I think the question you ask is a good one.... Unfortunately, when we ask such questions, we should be prepared to accept answers. And the easy one here is: Mike does not feel (to the best of our knowledge) that he contributed in any meaningful way to SMILE's demise. Nor was any of it his decision anyway ......

How is it positive for one to keep asking a question when the answer is plain as day?

I personally believe that if Mike had or would have said what you suggest, it would not make a shred of difference. We'd have even more threads dissecting his apology and questioning his sincerity and things like "But what if Mike had apologized THIS way"?

Well, I don't think I would be questioning his sincerity. At least I'd like to think I wouldn't be.

But at least we would probably not be arguing over the question of "if" he was a factor anymore - I think the "if" question would fade away, we would probably all concede he was *a* factor of some sort, even if some people might possibly be discussing whether or not he was genuinely sorry  or not. It's possible for him to have conceded that he was a factor but still not be sorry about it, or still feel he was justified in what he was doing.

But we all already know he was a factor.... He was a member of the Beach Boys and they were all factors, as was anyone and everyone in Brian's life at that time.

Yeah, but that's the old switcheroo... if everyone and everything is a factor, then nothing and nobody are factors. When I say a factor, I mean a factor of note that may have made a bit more difference than some other factors (enough of a difference for it to merit a response slightly more than flatly equating it with "anyone and everyone").

I'm just saying that if that had been spoken or implied, we wouldn't be discussing the "if" thing. That's all I'm getting at.

It's not a switcheroo. It's just an acceptance of reality ..... Mike is free to feel that he was not a deciding factor (and the "deciding" part is important because it's not like he'd deny he was even there or anything) and that is his right. Brian and David Leaf or whoever else have the right to feel otherwise. No one is really right or wrong. Things like this can never really be conclusively reduced down to where you seem to want it .... We KNOW there were other factors aside from Mike, so why is it so important to you that Mike alone apologizes for something? .... He's already said he liked the music and he's sung along with H&V countless times in concert with mighty conviction ..... I don't get this at all .....

[Mikie]

Not sure why Van thought that his lyrics were thrown away, but.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6JwCmTIEw