VDP: "victimised by Brian Wilson's buffoonery"

[CenturyDeprived]

I agree that it seems VDP wasn't always the easiest person to deal with as well.  Not gonna argue that, because I get that feeling as well.  

But as mentioned previously in this thread, if VDP began to more and more and more feel that he "wasn't welcome", that was gonna be a nail in the coffin of the project. Not all the nails, but *a* define nail. There's a big difference with the thought of somebody being receptive (or not) to questions about lyrics, versus a probable pattern of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that made someone feel unwanted IN ADDITION to the "questions". Not just unappreciated, or unwanted, but a feeling that someone *specifically* deeply wants you the f*ck out of the picture. It was surely a compounding effect.

It's just that it doesn't seem accurate to me to not stick Mike with some (just *some*, mind you) portion of responsibility in helping usher in a series of events leading him to be rightfully considered as being a PARTIAL factor in the collapse of the project, for being confrontational in that patented (™) Mike Love way that he has repeatedly shown himself to be.

The combination of BW and VDP and ML was never, ever gonna work with those guys' personalities, egos and (in some cases) histories together. All of them share some "blame" for simply being who they were, and for that trio of personalities being incompatible on a fundamental level.

With this quote though I think you are pinning your allegiances to the mast.  

Mike obviously had a problem when Brian wrote with other lyricists which is understandable. Let`s not pretend though that Mike cannot get through the day without confrontation. He`s argued with some people but got on fine with plenty of people as well.

Anyway, how many people are saying that Mike was 0% responsible? Maybe Cam alone so I`m not sure there is any need to go over old ground.

Before painting me as having some allegiance to anyone/anything other than the truth of what I see with my own eyes:

All I'm saying is that Mike has shown a pattern of extremely defensive, often absurd reactions when he's in a position of defending his ego/contribution, such as the examples I listed earlier. More than just about any person/celeb I've ever seen, or at least in a class of its own, so to speak.

I think that most people (regardless of being very familiar - or not - with Mike, the band, and its history) would view those examples as a person doing actions/saying things that are out of the ordinary, to say the least... it's not just *what* he says when he's in hyper-defensive mode, it's the *way* he says it that's so very questionable and WTF-worthy. I can love the man's work and I could think he's otherwise a great guy, but I think this is an unfortunate aspect of his personality that is pretty undeniable, as I see it.

So in my mind, it isn't much of a stretch to think that his actions were similarly questionable when he was asking questions in '66/'67. Let's just say that if there was video or audio evidence of some of his convos with BW/VDP around this time, that it would probably rival the Help Me Rhonda Murry tapes in terms of how "uncool", hostile and smug I imagine his attitude was. Just IMO.

The only people who maybe are hardline believers of the 0% theory (and we can talk in terms of "contributing factor", not necessarily "blame" or outright "responsibility") are perhaps Cam and Mike Love himself. But truthfully, I don't think that Mike really believes that either, I think he just never, ever lets up about it in public whatsoever as a further defense mechanism.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, you don't need to supply those quotes.

Van Dyke just e-mailed me that he pursued his own recording career after he left the Smile project.

That was easy.

Cam, who ever questioned that point? Seriously, it's answering a question no one is asking, I don't get it.

He walked out and came back at least once before the final break in spring '67, when he pursued his solo career. Was there ever a question about that?

[Nicko1234]

Before painting me as having some allegiance to anyone/anything other than the truth of what I see with my own eyes:

All I'm saying is that Mike has shown a pattern of extremely defensive, often absurd reactions when he's in a position of defending his ego/contribution, such as the examples I listed earlier. More than just about any person/celeb I've ever seen, or at least in a class of its own, so to speak.

I think that most people (regardless of being very familiar - or not - with Mike, the band, and its history) would view those examples as a person doing actions/saying things that are out of the ordinary, to say the least... it's not just *what* he says when he's in hyper-defensive mode, it's the *way* he says it that's so very questionable and WTF-worthy. I can love the man's work and I could think he's otherwise a great guy, but I think this is an aspect of his personality that is pretty undeniable, as I see it.

So in my mind, it isn't much of a stretch to think that his actions were similarly questionable when he was asking questions in '66/'67.

The only people who maybe are hardline believers of the 0% theory (and we can talk in terms of "contributing factor", not necessarily "blame" or outright "responsibility") are perhaps Cam and Mike Love himself. And truthfully I don't think that Mike really believes that either, I think he just never, ever lets up about it in public whatsoever as a further defense mechanism.

So what is the point in the discussion continuing? You are never going to convince Cam and there is no point in haggling over what percentage responsibility everybody has.

This will just keep on going around and around with no end.

[CenturyDeprived]

Before painting me as having some allegiance to anyone/anything other than the truth of what I see with my own eyes:

All I'm saying is that Mike has shown a pattern of extremely defensive, often absurd reactions when he's in a position of defending his ego/contribution, such as the examples I listed earlier. More than just about any person/celeb I've ever seen, or at least in a class of its own, so to speak.

I think that most people (regardless of being very familiar - or not - with Mike, the band, and its history) would view those examples as a person doing actions/saying things that are out of the ordinary, to say the least... it's not just *what* he says when he's in hyper-defensive mode, it's the *way* he says it that's so very questionable and WTF-worthy. I can love the man's work and I could think he's otherwise a great guy, but I think this is an aspect of his personality that is pretty undeniable, as I see it.

So in my mind, it isn't much of a stretch to think that his actions were similarly questionable when he was asking questions in '66/'67.

The only people who maybe are hardline believers of the 0% theory (and we can talk in terms of "contributing factor", not necessarily "blame" or outright "responsibility") are perhaps Cam and Mike Love himself. And truthfully I don't think that Mike really believes that either, I think he just never, ever lets up about it in public whatsoever as a further defense mechanism.

So what is the point in the discussion continuing? You are never going to convince Cam and there is no point in haggling over what percentage responsibility everybody has.

This will just keep on going around and around with no end.

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

[Nicko1234]

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

But as you`ve said, Cam is the only one doing that and he is not going to change his mind.

Nothing more to be said here.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

But as you`ve said, Cam is the only one doing that and he is not going to change his mind.

Nothing more to be said here.

I s'pose you're right.

[bgas]

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

But as you`ve said, Cam is the only one doing that and he is not going to change his mind.

Nothing more to be said here.

Then set an example and stop posting

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

But as you`ve said, Cam is the only one doing that and he is not going to change his mind.

Nothing more to be said here.

Then set an example and stop posting

No need to be rude, man. Let's treat each other with respect.  I'll reply when I feel like it, and you do the same.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No need for any feathers to get ruffled...play nicely.

[bgas]

I'm not really haggling with anyone over "percentage", I just feel a bit motivated to speak my mind if I get wind of people trying to rewrite history (as I see it) by getting into this 0% stratosphere. That bugs me. I guess we're all just spinning our wheels here, I'm just expressing my opinion, that is all.

But as you`ve said, Cam is the only one doing that and he is not going to change his mind.

Nothing more to be said here.

Then set an example and stop posting

No need to be rude, man. Let's treat each other with respect.  I'll reply when I feel like it, and you do the same.

Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Methinks tho, you should learn to follow the order of things here

[guitarfool2002]

Friends and fellow fans, I'd like to ask a favor - or consider it an appeal to put the other stuff on hold for a moment and read this thread. This was three years ago, some of the same people posting here, long-time members talking out this very same issue about trying to work out when VDP "left" Smile. You'll notice the discussion stays on point, and doesn't get into the finger-pointing, assumptions about why someone is posting, accusations of an anti-whoever agenda, bias, etc. It stays on topic. The contrast is pretty striking, IMO, to what happened here.

It certainly has none of the "why are we rehashing this?", "why bother?", "why bring it up?", "what is the point?" kind of sentiments being thrown around here in 2014. Maybe there's something to letting a discussion flow.

Again, if you have time - and it's only 3 pages - suspend the asides happening here and read through this:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9888.0.html

And a few selected quotes from that thread:

Van Dyke seems to consider himself leaving either early around the recording of Fire or late during the lawsuit. He is at recording sessions in February so maybe he actually does consider himself leaving twice or he only considered himself a visitor after quitting in November. Maybe he feels he quit the scene due to weirdness in November but didn't quit the job until late February when asked for clarification of a line.

Working purely from memory (brainfade warning...) I recall VDP quit when questioned about the "Cabin Essence" tag lyric by Mike (who nonetheless then turned in a sterling performance of same), which would indicate a window somewhere between December 6th & 15th 1966. The latter date can be ruled out as there's not even the most cryptic reference to any such conflict in Oppenheim's reel notes, so that further narrows it down to between the 6th and the 11th (granted there was also a vocal session on 10/11, but given that session is logged as "Home On The Range", unlikely, especially as he was there on 11/4 for the "H&V/IIGS/Barnyard" 'demo' session).  I gather he left for the 2nd time when offered a solo deal by Warners.

The Mojo Men's "Sit Down..." on Reprise was already a Pick Hit on WDRC's survey ending the week of Dec. 26 1966 and Harper's Bizarre's "59th..." for Warner was already a Pick Hit on WLOF's survey of Jan. 27 1967. That seems like Van Dyke was already multitasking at least in December or even earlier.

Van Dyke has said it was AFTER he had FINISHED his work with Brian that he accepted Warners' offer and that was in January '67 and that he was recording Song Cycle from January forward over the course of a few months and that he wrote the songs for Song Cycle as he recorded the album. According to VDP expert Don Richardson, VDP signed the contract on January 6.

The Posse seems to agree that Van Dyke left the project because of problems between VDP and BW and that it happened late, around February. VDP seems to blame it on his presumption/premonition that there was trouble ahead based on Mike's asking about a lyric and also his perception of family/group dynamics.

He seems to me to be all over the place as to date but he also has suggested it was late, presumably after his last attended session in February. He also has tied his departure to the lawsuit so I'm saying VDP is saying when he says he left-left over the lyric question and puts it at the time of the lawsuit he is also putting both in late February and not in December. You know, as best I can make of it.

Going to check something out... [sfx - retreating footsteps, closing door]

Damn, I'm good. In his seminal piece, Jules Seigel says "Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again", and the context places that in early 1967.

Consider this:



Is it worth noting that a recent discussion about the band's inner politics well into the 70's revealed a similar split within the band, where it was one faction versus another among band members?

I think saying "The Beach Boys" supported or didn't support anything is not possible anyway, because there did not seem to be much of a consensus among all the band members at any given time from 1966 onward.

Van Dyke has never said he left twice, although others have, and I believe there's an explanation for this.  Van dyke mentioned leaving around the time of Fire - although actually it's probably a week later after the Cabinessence vocal session and lyrics snafu.  This is when Van Dyke considers himself leaving, for good.  And starting work on his own album in January/February, signing the contract in January as Cam points out.

But we know he's back for sessions in February AND March ("intro to Heroes" session).  Then he's out of the picture.  To the Vosse posse, he's left twice, but to Van, he was never back, at least not like before.  Van sees his lyrics and probably the entire Smile project falling victim to familial squabbles and doesn't want to be in the middle of that.  And wants to do his own project, not be subjected to Brian's increasingly erratic behavior, etc.  But Brian is now solely focused on getting the single Heroes out and needs Van dyke's help, so Van Dyke is back as a session musician and "helper" to try and salvage something, namely a potential hit Beach Boys single which would benefit Van greatly at this time, out of all his work for the project.  When the Heroes sessions grind to a halt in March he's gone.

So he leaves once as song writing collaborator/partner, once as session musician/facilitator.

For the record, in my opinion, that last posted quote from Bicyclerider is a terrific analysis and overview. For me, at least, Bicyclerider makes it add up in a way which lines up with the Smile timeline, Van Dyke's timeline for signing his solo deal (January 6 1967, as posted by Cam getting info from a VDP authority), and Van Dyke's email to Cam that after quitting Smile he began work on his solo material. January 1967.

How and why did he end up on Smile sessions in February and March? I think Bicyclerider's theory goes a long way toward a possible explanation.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Again, those who think they have it all sussed out about Mike's right to ask about lyrics, read the full account of the story from Van Dyke, and see what he felt about it and more importantly, what he thinks of it with decades of time passed to reflect on it.

Tell me how many phone calls are that important in any of your lives to remember it and what happened after it 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later?

Not fucking many, I'd say emphatically. I can remember the big events like deaths, births, breakups, all of that...but that's the big stuff that left an impression which never faded. I don't remember many inconsequential calls.

Should I post his words for those interested, or will another excuse be made to reason them away as "inconsequential" or "irrelevant"? Hmmm?

No one's claiming to have anything all sussed out ...... You are choosing to take the side of obviously biased sources and that is not only informing your opinion but your interpretation of said events.... which is merely human nature at work ..... If someone else, like myself, is choosing to consider all sides, then that is just as valid ...... I honestly can't fathom what it is you desire to accomplish here? At this point you're like a Bible scholar endlessly going over the same old stuff and hashing out new versions/interpretations ....... Why not just admit you're yet another "fan" with a beef? ..... I am! My beef is that Mike singularly gets raked over the coals for events that transpired between a bunch of ego-maniac rocks starts and upstarts and witnessed by some hangers-on ...... If VDP couldn't handle an (even tense) event where a singer asks what his lyrics meant, then he did the right thing by leaving....... This crap only flies when people like CD rattle off cinema quality descriptions of how aggressive Mike was with his "crap" ......

I certainly remember some serious fights in bands from 20+ years ago, and my ego is still bruised be some of it, and if someone were to ask me about it every 5 minutes, then that would certainly help me remember....

And whatever, VDP's been vindicated (as with Tony Asher) when BWPS came out with Asher's lyrics replacing those of big bad Mike.....

And once again, if no one is arguing that Mike didn't play a part in SMILE's demise, or that Brian wasn't experiencing tensions with the band, and that VDP leaving didn't help either ...... then what is the point of keeping this going and going?

BTW, Brian having tension with the band to the point where sessions were halted/Brian walking out ........ do we know exactly what these tensions were? Why assume it was them not liking the material? It's not like vocal sessions (or any kind of sessions) with bands under pressure don't go through serious ups and downs.

Why don't you read both the Vosse and Anderle interviews from the late 60's, read what they said with your own eyes, and get caught up with what's being referenced here before jumping in, making assumptions, and trying to impugn what I've written along with telling me my own motivations for writing it?

Deal?

you're missing my point .......

My point is, I don't care and other folks here don't care quite so much what went on in the studio in 1967 to contribute to the (temporary) derailment of SMILE ..... Do cousins, friends, bandmates fight and fight over creative differences? Yes, indeed they do. Would all this appear alarming to hangers-on or folks hired to write lyrics or session musicians? Yes! ..... But none of that makes it out of the ordinary at all for such a situation ....... I'm only guessing what your motivations are based upon the amount of virtual ink you insist on spilling over and over and over to make the very same point ..... that it MATTERS TO YOU! ..... Fair enough, but you had better accept the fact that it does not matter nearly as much to some folks who have every right to post on this board as you do....

The facts laid out in the eyewitness accounts that you keep putting forth like sacred text (which, yes, I've read) are just someone's observations of events. No one got punched out or killed. These were outsiders looking in on a family business at work! No shite they saw some dust fly! ..... Unless we have transcripts of each and every discussion on the matter between Brian and his bandmates, then I simply will not take "Brian was making music that was a little too complex for them" without a well deserved grain of salt because we are NOT getting a full picture here.

I guess what I'm saying, and why this seems so futile to discuss endlessly, is that when you REALLY step back and look at the big picture: it's hard to really assign blame to anyone ..... All the factors that have been brought up by everyone ring true to some extent, but it's really WHAT YOU DO WITH IT..... I find it very very very hard to fault The Beach Boys for having issues with Brian at that time, and by extension. issues with VDP and the whole gang of hangers-on (term used just out of convenience) , and it's very hard to fault VDP and the hangers-on for having issues with Mike and the other Beach Boys.... Brian was their man and the other Beach Boys represented festering family chaos, sure, but is this really something you can use against these guys? (The Beach Boys) I mean they're the ones who had to go sell this stuff to the public and it was them to took the hit (along with Brian) when things got lean. So, should these outsider's descriptions of events really trump those of the people who really had to live the reality of The Beach Boys 1967 and onward?

BTW, if Mike had the raw nerve to question VDP's lyrics: it pays to point out, yet again, that Mike had just scored a #1 hit with Brian via his lyrics to GV and here he was writing with this guy who's abstract lyrics didn't seem to be helping the thing come together any easier. So, he asked him for some clarification. Maybe he seemed like an asshole or maybe VDP doesn't like rich rock stars with hits asking him to explain his work .... I can completely sympathize with both guy's point of view.... so, maybe it's time to move on.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Wasn't the mL/Vdp clash recorded on film by the Inside Pop camera team? I though that was the assumption based on the translation of the accompanying notes? Film lost so far, of course…

No. That claim was made in Dom Priore's book about Smile before the notes came to light, and was completely refuted by them: no mention of any conflict whatsoever.

[Andrew G. Doe]

No need for any feathers to get ruffled...play nicely.

Billy, can you please change your handle ? Maybe this says too much about how my mind works, but each time I see it, for about a millisecond I see "Billy Castillo's Flying Penis", and that's just plain... disturbing. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[Bicyclerider]

Guitarfool - thanks for bringing back those quotes - it's a little disconcerting that I wrote more cogently and convincingly back then than I can do now!  We've gone round and round on these issues before, it's nice to summarize the ground we've already covered.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

When a film director doesn't finish a movie like Orson Welles' Don Quixote, for example, ..... if writers quit, if actors clash with the director, the writer, etc etc, who always takes the responsibility in the end? ...... The director. Do people sit on message boards and endlessly go over the same facts about the same reasons why Welles didn't finish that film and look for others to endlessly blame?

I'm just curious and am asking again what the endgame is here? What the motivation is ..... If no one's arguing against any of the logical factors relating to SMILE's (temporary) demise, then what's the point? Is the point to convince people to take this as seriously as some do? To ruin their enjoyment of the Beach Boys and their music if SMILE isn't the single most important thing in the world, or even the most important thing The Beach Boys have ever been involved with in their eyes? Is it to convince/convert others to blame Mike Love above all else? .... If so, how is this a positive thing? How is this going to inform anyone of anything useful? How is this anything but a negative effort to paint people as bad guys when you have a rouge's gallery of suitable candidates of your choosing? ... You can't take a situation like this and cherry pick your quotes to suit your point of view and not expect another point of view to come about even just because of all the ripples you've caused in the water. It's basic physics here .... We have Dennis saying that no one in the band fought or opposed Brian's music and you have Mike openly admitting he asked VDP what some lines meant. What more do you want? Oh, you have quotes from people outside the band talking about inner band politics and stress. For most people. this is clear as day and does not cancel out any point of view regarding this situation.

Isn't there anything better to do?

[Smile4ever]

Van Dyke is only known because of Brian Wilson.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Van Dyke is only known because of Brian Wilson.

END OF THREAD )))

[Gertie J.]

bullshit.

[KittyKat]

Van Dyke has a cult following and is respected in some quarters of the music industry as an arranger, but he's not as famous as Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys. That's just a fact. The interview this thread is actually about, before it got derailed, is not too pleasant. It's mean to Brian Wilson, for one thing, not just about "Smile," but "Orange Crate Art," as well.

[Jim V.]

When a film director doesn't finish a movie like Orson Welles' Don Quixote, for example, ..... if writers quit, if actors clash with the director, the writer, etc etc, who always takes the responsibility in the end? ...... The director. Do people sit on message boards and endlessly go over the same facts about the same reasons why Welles didn't finish that film and look for others to endlessly blame?

I'm just curious and am asking again what the endgame is here? What the motivation is ..... If no one's arguing against any of the logical factors relating to SMILE's (temporary) demise, then what's the point? Is the point to convince people to take this as seriously as some do? To ruin their enjoyment of the Beach Boys and their music if SMILE isn't the single most important thing in the world, or even the most important thing The Beach Boys have ever been involved with in their eyes? Is it to convince/convert others to blame Mike Love above all else? .... If so, how is this a positive thing? How is this going to inform anyone of anything useful? How is this anything but a negative effort to paint people as bad guys when you have a rouge's gallery of suitable candidates of your choosing? ... You can't take a situation like this and cherry pick your quotes to suit your point of view and not expect another point of view to come about even just because of all the ripples you've caused in the water. It's basic physics here .... We have Dennis saying that no one in the band fought or opposed Brian's music and you have Mike openly admitting he asked VDP what some lines meant. What more do you want? Oh, you have quotes from people outside the band talking about inner band politics and stress. For most people. this is clear as day and does not cancel out any point of view regarding this situation.

Isn't there anything better to do?

Pinder, ultimately I agree with you that this is unimportant. What's important is the music that we got from this (and other eras). However, if guitarfool wants to go over this stuff with a fine toothed comb, why shouldn't he. And if people want to read it, why shouldn't they? If Cam Mott wants to push an agenda about how Mike Love actually cowrote "Vega-Tables" and actually loved SMiLE, why shouldn't he? If we don't wanna read about it, or think he's incredibly misguided we have many other internet pages we can go to. Or we could just get off the internet. I just don't understand why it bothers you that these guys are interested in going over this stuff. Shoot, I think this stuff is unimportant too. The only point where I'd truly care is if more, previously unreleased SMiLE is unearthed. But who are you to say they aren't allowed to obsess over this stuff. I think it's kinda f***ed on your part to tell them what's important to them and what they can discuss.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

When a film director doesn't finish a movie like Orson Welles' Don Quixote, for example, ..... if writers quit, if actors clash with the director, the writer, etc etc, who always takes the responsibility in the end? ...... The director. Do people sit on message boards and endlessly go over the same facts about the same reasons why Welles didn't finish that film and look for others to endlessly blame?

I'm just curious and am asking again what the endgame is here? What the motivation is ..... If no one's arguing against any of the logical factors relating to SMILE's (temporary) demise, then what's the point? Is the point to convince people to take this as seriously as some do? To ruin their enjoyment of the Beach Boys and their music if SMILE isn't the single most important thing in the world, or even the most important thing The Beach Boys have ever been involved with in their eyes? Is it to convince/convert others to blame Mike Love above all else? .... If so, how is this a positive thing? How is this going to inform anyone of anything useful? How is this anything but a negative effort to paint people as bad guys when you have a rouge's gallery of suitable candidates of your choosing? ... You can't take a situation like this and cherry pick your quotes to suit your point of view and not expect another point of view to come about even just because of all the ripples you've caused in the water. It's basic physics here .... We have Dennis saying that no one in the band fought or opposed Brian's music and you have Mike openly admitting he asked VDP what some lines meant. What more do you want? Oh, you have quotes from people outside the band talking about inner band politics and stress. For most people. this is clear as day and does not cancel out any point of view regarding this situation.

Isn't there anything better to do?

Pinder, ultimately I agree with you that this is unimportant. What's important is the music that we got from this (and other eras). However, if guitarfool wants to go over this stuff with a fine toothed comb, why shouldn't he. And if people want to read it, why shouldn't they? If Cam Mott wants to push an agenda about how Mike Love actually cowrote "Vega-Tables" and actually loved SMiLE, why shouldn't he? If we don't wanna read about it, or think he's incredibly misguided we have many other internet pages we can go to. Or we could just get off the internet. I just don't understand why it bothers you that these guys are interested in going over this stuff. Shoot, I think this stuff is unimportant too. The only point where I'd truly care is if more, previously unreleased SMiLE is unearthed. But who are you to say they aren't allowed to obsess over this stuff. I think it's kinda f***ed on your part to tell them what's important to them and what they can discuss.

Oh, I think it's fascinating and important to discuss too .... But that's my point exactly .... These guys seem to be so pushing an agenda and point of view that they are not even existing in a world where an opposing point of view can be much tolerated or even entertained ..... I think when a discussion is basically someone pointing to sources/quotes and then standing back and acting like anyone not thoroughly convinced by their case is simply a disruptor with nothing "of value" to add to the discussion ..... I think when this happens, it's as deadly to "discussion" as my comments apparently are.... Why is it OK to be as mean spirited and myopic as possible when it comes to knocking down Mike or pushing such an agenda but we all have to put on kid gloves and walk on eggshells when it comes to Brian or VPD or SMILE? .... I'm not asking anyone to not discuss anything: I'm asking them when is it enough to present your evidence and let others process it and feel how they will? When has your point of view been made clear enough? .... If you think about the amount of threads we've seen on this topic that go in the same circles, its not crazy to ask the questions I'm asking.... I've suggested that people write Mike letters or write their own books, and these are positive suggestions that could lead to some form of closure for subjects/topics that obviously mean very very much to them..... Admitting that these whirlpool-like discussions are pretty painful for fans of THE BEACH BOYS is not an attempt to stifle discussion ..... Part of discussion is communicating one's feelings, no?

[The Heartical Don]

Van Dyke is only known because of Brian Wilson.

I disagree. Van Dyke Parks carved out a niche all of his own. He contributed to so many artists' work, as an arranger, session player, en factotum (= he who does excellent work in all areas in a humble way). Just listen to his compilation Arrangements 1 and you will know what I mean.

He did many an excellent film score.

He acted in movies himself, from Heidi and The Swan (with Grace Kelly) to The Two Jakes (the successor to Chinatown, which is vastly underrated, it has a lot of irony and double entendres.

And his own body of work (I mean, as a solo artist) is absolutely unique, one-of-a-kind, and brilliant. Song Cycle, Discover America, Jump!, Tokyo Rose, Live At The Ash Grove, Songs Cycled, great stuff.

I think he could have been a very rich, very famous and very commercially oriented composer of movie soundtracks, like one John Williams, for instance. He surely has the capacities for that. But he's also a brave artist, who does what he thinks is best; he has a vocation, that rare characteristic that some artists who also possess it betray for their desire of cash money.

And he has the talent to air his views on society and politics in a gentle but unmistakeable way.

So, all of this led to VDP having had a very, very loyal and stable cult following. I had the pleasure to see him live three times, and would immediately go again, should he visit Holland in the future.

The man's a rara avis, metaphorically speaking - one we must treasure.

[Nicko1234]

I disagree. Van Dyke Parks carved out a niche all of his own. He contributed to so many artists' work, as an arranger, session player, en factotum (= he who does excellent work in all areas in a humble way). Just listen to his compilation Arrangements 1 and you will know what I mean.

He did many an excellent film score.

He acted in movies himself, from Heidi and The Swan (with Grace Kelly) to The Two Jakes (the successor to Chinatown, which is vastly underrated, it has a lot of irony and double entendres.

And his own body of work (I mean, as a solo artist) is absolutely unique, one-of-a-kind, and brilliant. Song Cycle, Discover America, Jump!, Tokyo Rose, Live At The Ash Grove, Songs Cycled, great stuff.

I think he could have been a very rich, very famous and very commercially oriented composer of movie soundtracks, like one John Williams, for instance. He surely has the capacities for that. But he's also a brave artist, who does what he thinks is best; he has a vocation, that rare characteristic that some artists who also possess it betray for their desire of cash money.

And he has the talent to air his views on society and politics in a gentle but unmistakeable way.

So, all of this led to VDP having had a very, very loyal and stable cult following. I had the pleasure to see him live three times, and would immediately go again, should he visit Holland in the future.

The man's a rara avis, metaphorically speaking - one we must treasure.

But he decided he wanted to play on Summer in Paradise instead.