Has Mike Expressed Remorse On Whatever Role He May Have Played in Smile's Demise

[Nicko1234]

It's his cousin. And he now has no excuse not to know all the complex, crippling issues Brian had to deal with on top of Mike's usual abrasiveness (perhaps increased from usual considering he probably felt completely rejected for being left out of the creative process yet again) A decent person ought to be a bit more reflective and empathetic when looking back. I hope Mike has apologized behind closed doors if not to the public for his part (however small) in Brian's breakdown.

I`d love to know the statistics of how many people across the world regularly meet or even talk to their cousins. 

Yes, Mike knows that Brian had mental health problems and these were exacerbated by his drug abuse. These things are out of the ordinary.

Arguments about music being made happen in thousands of bands across the world (have you not heard the Troggs Tapes?  ). This is ordinary.

Brian didn`t finish and release Smile because he was mentally ill. Not the other way around. He had exhibited signs of mental illness for several years already up to this point. Of course Mike isn`t going to apologize for any part of that.

[Micha]

Brian didn`t finish and release Smile because he was mentally ill. Not the other way around.

I don't know how true that is, but I absolutely agree. Part of the SMiLE myth for a long time was that it alledgedly was the other way around. I remember when i first heard of SMiLE around the late 1980s, someone was quoted as "Brian heard music in his head that was so beautiful that he went insane." That fired my interest back then, but it was a myth, not reality.

[Cam Mott]

Re: The Cabinessence incident.

It's tough to say this knowing we'll probably never see/hear the footage, but an incident was captured on film by the CBS crew, and the session cryptically described in the filming notes describing the reels. Oppenheim references the session by song lyrics and vocals being recorded.

This stuff in yellow font I copied and saved from a discussion I got into online back in 2002, and you'll see the actual notes from Oppenheim plus how I tried to decipher them to fit an infamous "bad" session. Check it out.




BVs to "Wonderful" & "Cabin Essence" were cut at the same session, as reported by Jules Siegel (granted he didn't name the songs) but noted that "earlier in the evening  the film crew had covered a Beach Boys vocal session which had gone very badly. Now, at midnight, The Beach Boys had gone home...".  The footage notation makes it clear that the band were initially there and the titles of tracks worked on.


Just to back this up from AGD's post, this is the original film notation I'm re-posting, reels 84-90:


84
9. Let's work on microphone
boys around mike
Do wa


85 Brian at piano working out
Yodelledo
then group sings at mike


86 Group around mike Yodelledo
Playback Yodelledoo's control in b.g.
Inside control room Group & Engineer Da daum(?)
Go out into studio Brian eating cereal record da da da


Beach Boys


86

1. around mike Yodeladeeo pan to Piano
Brian walks out frame(?) to outside booth playback
walks to control board

2. Brian talking ?? (bad pa toheps) to engineer
3. dark 4/s listening to playback
Brian goes to ?? (sirke?!) eats, put on headphones
sing dine dine

Scratch

87
1. control board thru window track on(?)
dine dine
Let's go have some Zen accompaniment
2. Brian at piano from behind
plays chords


87
engineer thru glass to group in(?) b.g. record da da
group comes back into room & listens to da da da
let's go lets have some zen compliment

Brian at piano from behind accomp. to Surf's up
to hands to face CL around to x & back to CL


88 Brian eating
headphones listening to piano track
sings lead on(?) thru piano
1 more time
--> tone(?) & start again side view CL
-> start at 2nd verse hung velvet
misses the glass
pickup hung velvet stop at dove nested
have echo on me
pickup again at hung velvet


89 Overdubs
hung velvet lead on(?) ?? (jumoles?!?!) -- let's overdub
it
move to CR side (?).s. 11(?) more around behind
move around to face CL he gestures
he talks while voice go(?)

mono mix - Id like it softer
let's go to top is that cool

LS CL overdub
LS hung velvet out sync
LS thru control room
2nd shot n.g.(?)
needle
recorder pan to engineer back to recorder


90
--> playback engineers bg Wilson fig.
fade in(?)
kneels -- can have muted trumpet go bleep(?)
move to us(?) half of Jules
Brian coat on walks out


In the span of these reels, Brian is working on and showing them the "yodel" harmony parts to "Wonderful" which they sing as a group, then the focus seems to shift to "Cabinessence" with the "dine dine dine" backing vocal parts, and then perhaps back to "Wonderful" with the "da da da da" countermelody vocal part as heard on the box set version.

So that is hard to dispute. This is the group session in question, the one AGD is describing.

Then, mention is made of Brian doing Surf's Up, and one reel places Jules Seigel at the scene for further validation (and it was his article which for years was the main research source for this incident).

Before that, though, at reel 87 it seems like a break may have been called "Let's go have some Zen...", and just prior to that notation the group was definitely there in the studio to listen to a playback of Wonderful.

Now, what happened after reel 87? Because the next reel picks up with Brian working on Surf's Up, and no mention of the group is made in the next few reels. Then Brian puts his coat on and leaves at reel 90.

From that evidence, I don't think you can totally rule out a point in time that day/night when a discussion on Surf's Up may have happened, because the group *was* there, and Brian worked on that track after it seems they left after Wonderful and Cabinessence were tracked. So the SU track was on the agenda for that period of time - a discussion could have happened.

And you also can't rule out the possibility that one of the earlier sessions, Wonderful or Cabinessence, may not have gone well.

So, you have proven that Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys spent time in a recording studio!

Congrats!

The problem I see is that people interpreted "gone very badly" as meaning the group going after Brian for some reason. That idea was just a presumption in the first place. "Gone very badly" always could have meant a lot of things that didn't involve a group bitch fest. There is no evidence to support it. There is none in film notes. Oppenheim referred to the evening's filming as too boring to use or words to that effect didn't he. Now it seems like a presumption used to support a group uprising that didn't happen.

[Cam Mott]

I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do. 

I have no idea, why do you think Mike hurt their feelings. Maybe VDP's feelings were hurt but I don't think requires an apology for asking a lyricist to explain a lyric.

I think we are just not going to agree. I don't think Brian got his feeling hurt by the Boys, he told them what to do and they did it. On the other hand I think he and VDP had issues with each other and they may have hurt each others feelings, not even sure of that. If you think that Brian's hurt feelings by anyone were a factor in the failure of SMiLE I think that is wrong. I think it is pretty clear that Brian had his problems with the material itself and in particular the lyrics and he did just what he wanted to do which was scrap and modify and new. I don't think you owe  someone an apology for them getting their way.

Cam - Here's a question I pose to you: assume for one moment, the hypothetical possibility that perhaps you are mistaken about Brian not being hurt by Mike's words/actions/tone of voice/sarcastic attitude, etc.

Let's just talk strictly in a hypothetical situation here, where perhaps today we find a 1967 diary where Brian stated that he was deeply hurt feelings by Mike for saying certain things, and in particular due to the manner in which they were said.

Under those hypothetical circumstances (where we no longer have to argue/discuss whether or not Brian was actually hurt emotionally by Mike - where it is established as a fact stated by the Brian at the time)... at that point, do you still think that Mike has no reason to apologize or express an ounce of regret to Brian? I'm not saying that Mike should have said "I'm sorry that I ever questioned anything you ever did from now to eternity", but more of a grasping of the concept that (Mike) is legitimately sorry if there were hurt feelings as a result of his questions, due to how Brian "took in" Mike's words.

Is that a situation, considering all the hypotheticals I've descried above, that you can get behind?

I'm sure there are many hypothetical situations you can make up that I would say Mike hypothetically should made up apologize for. What is the point of that again?

[Cam Mott]

You're asking a member of the Mike Love circle-jerk parade to admit their icon is not completely perfect in every conceivable way. Never gonna happen.

Oh I'm sorry, did you have this board reserved for your Brian-was-everybody's-victim circle jerk parade? Awkward. We'll just have to share I guess. xxx

See I can apologize for hypotheticals.

[Dancing Bear]

The problem I see is that people interpreted "gone very badly" as meaning the group going after Brian for some reason. That idea was just a presumption in the first place. "Gone very badly" always could have meant a lot of things that didn't involve a group bitch fest. There is no evidence to support it. There is none in film notes. Oppenheim referred to the evening's filming as too boring to use or words to that effect didn't he. Now it seems like a presumption used to support a group uprising that didn't happen.

I remember that Domenic Priore took this single line - "gone very badly" - and run with it to stratospheric heights in one of his books. Fantastic researcher but biased biographer.

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

I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do.  

I have no idea, why do you think Mike hurt their feelings. Maybe VDP's feelings were hurt but I don't think requires an apology for asking a lyricist to explain a lyric.

I think we are just not going to agree. I don't think Brian got his feeling hurt by the Boys, he told them what to do and they did it. On the other hand I think he and VDP had issues with each other and they may have hurt each others feelings, not even sure of that. If you think that Brian's hurt feelings by anyone were a factor in the failure of SMiLE I think that is wrong. I think it is pretty clear that Brian had his problems with the material itself and in particular the lyrics and he did just what he wanted to do which was scrap and modify and new. I don't think you owe  someone an apology for them getting their way.

Cam - Here's a question I pose to you: assume for one moment, the hypothetical possibility that perhaps you are mistaken about Brian not being hurt by Mike's words/actions/tone of voice/sarcastic attitude, etc.

Let's just talk strictly in a hypothetical situation here, where perhaps today we find a 1967 diary where Brian stated that he was deeply hurt feelings by Mike for saying certain things, and in particular due to the manner in which they were said.

Under those hypothetical circumstances (where we no longer have to argue/discuss whether or not Brian was actually hurt emotionally by Mike - where it is established as a fact stated by the Brian at the time)... at that point, do you still think that Mike has no reason to apologize or express an ounce of regret to Brian? I'm not saying that Mike should have said "I'm sorry that I ever questioned anything you ever did from now to eternity", but more of a grasping of the concept that there could have been (at the very least) a communication gap that Mike was partially culpable for, and that he (Mike) is legitimately sorry if there were hurt feelings as a result.

Is that a situation, considering all the hypotheticals I've descried above, that you can get behind?

You're asking a member of the Mike Love circle-jerk parade to admit their icon is not completely perfect in every conceivable way. Never gonna happen.

You know what man, NO ONE here has stooped to the level of insults you have. When you're not insulting Mike, you're insulting those who simply choose to question your speculations and theories. Can you please try and get it in check? You pretend that you want to intelligently discuss the issue, yet you can't seem to handle a single aspect of so called "intelligent" discussion.....

Keep telling yourself that, Pinder. I've been accused of being a hater and everything under the sun since I ran into you. Look at what I was saying about Mike when I first got here and you'll see I gave him a pretty fair size up. Look at your Mike crusade here and in other threads and understand why my patience with you is at an end.

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

You're asking a member of the Mike Love circle-jerk parade to admit their icon is not completely perfect in every conceivable way. Never gonna happen.

Oh I'm sorry, did you have this board reserved for your Brian-was-everybody's-victim circle jerk parade? Awkward. We'll just have to share I guess. xxx

See I can apologize for hypotheticals.

You and Pinder have been laboring under the delusion that I'm out to crucify Mike since I got here but if you actually read through my post history you'll see it's not so. I've had to listen to your insane theories that Mike wrote some of VDP's songs for SMiLE and Pinder's cycle of accusing me of hating Mike, backing off and pretending everything's cool, finding another post of mine where I criticize Mike even slightly and starting the bickering again. To accuse me of playing favorites regarding Brian is simply untrue. But you've proven time and again you don't deal with reality

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

I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do. 

I have no idea, why do you think Mike hurt their feelings. Maybe VDP's feelings were hurt but I don't think requires an apology for asking a lyricist to explain a lyric.

I think we are just not going to agree. I don't think Brian got his feeling hurt by the Boys, he told them what to do and they did it. On the other hand I think he and VDP had issues with each other and they may have hurt each others feelings, not even sure of that. If you think that Brian's hurt feelings by anyone were a factor in the failure of SMiLE I think that is wrong. I think it is pretty clear that Brian had his problems with the material itself and in particular the lyrics and he did just what he wanted to do which was scrap and modify and new. I don't think you owe  someone an apology for them getting their way.

Cam - Here's a question I pose to you: assume for one moment, the hypothetical possibility that perhaps you are mistaken about Brian not being hurt by Mike's words/actions/tone of voice/sarcastic attitude, etc.

Let's just talk strictly in a hypothetical situation here, where perhaps today we find a 1967 diary where Brian stated that he was deeply hurt feelings by Mike for saying certain things, and in particular due to the manner in which they were said.

Under those hypothetical circumstances (where we no longer have to argue/discuss whether or not Brian was actually hurt emotionally by Mike - where it is established as a fact stated by the Brian at the time)... at that point, do you still think that Mike has no reason to apologize or express an ounce of regret to Brian? I'm not saying that Mike should have said "I'm sorry that I ever questioned anything you ever did from now to eternity", but more of a grasping of the concept that (Mike) is legitimately sorry if there were hurt feelings as a result of his questions, due to how Brian "took in" Mike's words.

Is that a situation, considering all the hypotheticals I've descried above, that you can get behind?

I'm sure there are many hypothetical situations you can make up that I would say Mike hypothetically should made up apologize for. What is the point of that again?

He's proving the point that you are so insanely biased that no matter what Mike does or could possibly do, you'd still blindly defend him.

[Bicyclerider]

Going back to the CBS reel notes, the reels are numbered consecutively.  If there was a Surf's Up vocal session attempted with the group, and it occured after the Wonderful/Cabinessence vocal sessions, why wouldn't it have been filmed?  Could Surf's Up have been attempted first, and that wasn't filmed (or was filmed over with later footage)?  Or did it occur after W/C vocals, but because there were problems or a "fight" they asked the crew to tape over that?

I could see Siegel describing a session as "going badly" if Brian was displeased with the group's efforts or the amount of takes it was requiring to get on tape his vision of the vocals, and that could certainly apply to the Wonderful/Cab vocal session.  But "going very badly" seems to imply something more than the usual demanding and perfectionist Brian couching the others on the vocals.  Or was that journalist hyperbole?  Personally I doubt that going badly meant Mike was criticizing or questioning Surf's Up lyrics - wouldn't Siegel have mentioned that?  Or the crew have wanted to keep that on film?

[guitarfool2002]

Putting some context to the reel descriptions and my repost of that old discussion.

First, the session filmed was held December 15, 1966 at Columbia's Studio A. It was logged from 7-10 PM, and Brian returned around midnight taking it into Dec. 16 to track his famous Surf's Up vocal. This was filmed in studio, but obviously CBS filmed it again at his house and used that in their broadcast instead.

This was over ten years ago, and I put the old text in yellow to separate it for a reason. The discussion which led to more than what is shown here centered around the notion of a session "which had gone very badly", according to Jules Siegel who was there, is mentioned in Oppenheim's camera notes, and which I believe is the only description of that session that was used for reference from 1967 onward. The CBS crew was there, Jules wrote that a Beach Boys vocal session had gone badly. That was it.

Fast forward, as "Dancing Bear" said there were articles written decades later suggesting more than that based on speculation of what had gone badly according to what Jules had described. Some of that speculation centered around "Surf's Up", where some took what was written to assume and speculate there were issues surrounding Surf's Up, even suggesting there were issues raised about the lyrics at this session in front of CBS cameras.

At that point, again, most people only knew Surf's Up had been recorded that night after the Beach Boys had gone home, so the speculations centered on the possibility that something about that song was what had gone badly.

Fast forward to the early 2000's, and Oppenheim's notes turned up thanks to Dan Lega digging them up in a college archive and getting them into the public discussion.

The notes revealed that yes indeed, Surf's Up was tackled at that session and the notes played out similar to what Jules had written back in '67, so that was confirmed if we connected the cryptic camera descriptions and Oppenheim's abbreviated notes to Jules' article.

What the notes also revealed was that the Beach Boys not only were there for Surf's Up, but that they had also worked on vocals for "Wonderful" and "Cabinessence", and this had to be deciphered using words and nonsense backing vocal syllables that Oppenheim used in the notes which could be translated into the songs they were doing. In the post I described, "doin doin" was Cabinessence, "yodelledoo" was the reworked "Wonderful", etc.

When I wrote those added comments in yellow, it was in a discussion where the possibility of "Surf's Up" getting challenged that night was being hashed out, and AGD for one reported that someone who was there says nothing was argued about Surf's Up that night. That's where his initials AGD showed up in the post.

And at that point, as little was known beyond what was in the notes, I was speculating too about what happened in the reel sequence where the session seems to have broken up, the Beach Boys left, and Brian goes for some "Zen accompaniment", which Jules described as Brian perhaps smoking in a car. Was that BW's code for toking up? Who knows, but he used similar code during earlier sessions when he says something about getting turned on, which was his code to light up a joint, apparently.

OK, so the discussion basically got to the point that Surf's Up was most likely not challenged, and a fight did not ensue over Surf's Up that night according to someone who was there. Myth busted.

Also, as Cabinessence was listed in the CBS notes, some I think considered a possibility that this could have been something connected to Mike challenging the lyrics of that song, but nothing - not Jules' article or the film notes - suggest that Van Dyke was there that night. Or was he? We don't know.

But what we do know is that perhaps some liberties were taken when a session that had "gone very badly" led to reports of Mike challenging lyrics in front of the CBS film crew. They also did "Wonderful" and Cabinessence that night, along with Surf's Up, so who knows what going badly actually meant?

Did the Boys just not sing it well and packed it in? Was Brian not satisfied with that night's work? Was he upset that he didn't get what he had hoped to get on tape from himself or the Boys? Did his ideas not work out as he thought they would when he demo'ed them?

Again, who knows. But it did raise more questions and doubts that the "gone badly" description was about Mike challenging lyrics. Doubts, at least, suggested "gone badly" could have referred to anything on three songs that were worked on that night.

Fast forward again to recent years.

c-man uncovered and reported Capitol Records' documents of that night's session. It was booked as a "Surf's Up" session, running from 7-10, as c-man reported all six Beach Boys were there. Jerry Hockman engineered Brian's solo vocals, the engineer for the 7-10 group work isn't noted. Backing vocals for Wonderful were also logged for this night, confirming Oppenheim's notes. Cabinessence is not logged as a session, however. Perhaps they were just listening to a playback or rough mix, because there is no mistaking what song "doin doin" comes from, only we list it as "doyn doyn".

The session tapes have not turned up from these sessions, again according to c-man's notes.

So we can date the reels, match them up with both Jules and the session documents, and trace the storyline of how the action unfolded that night from Oppenheim's cryptic descriptions in those notes.

Aside: It shows more than the fact that the Beach Boys held a session, so I still don't appreciate that kind of reply when I was trying to spell out something based on what was being discussed. Let's stop that garbage, shall we?

Back to the post:

As Jules' account lines up with the film notes, it's hard to think he took journalistic license and made up the "going badly" part. Obviously something happened for him to write that. Unfortunately, all we have is what I've posted above, from Jules, the film notes, the memory of someone who was there via AGD, and the Capitol documentation of what that session was.

So take it all together, it can't be assumed there was a blow-up over Surf's Up any more than it can be assumed there was a blowup over something else done at that session.

What we know is the Boys and Brian showed up, they worked, Brian ate, they took a smoke break, they tracked Wonderful perhaps listened to Cabinessence, who knows what went down with Surf's Up, and then they left.

Then Brian ducks out for a break, comes back, and records the version of Surf's Up that we're all familiar with, but the film footage isn't used in favor of what they did at his house.

Then Brian puts on his coat and leaves.

And that's about it. We can try filling in the gaps, speculating on what may have gone down, but bottom line it's a helluva lot more info than was there when Jules' article was the main source, and it can also put more doubt onto certain specific theories suggesting a blowup over one particular song or issue that night.

What we don't know is still greater than what we do know, which is the story of Smile in general...but it's neat to at least see more pieces of the puzzle that did not exist for decades. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do.  

I have no idea, why do you think Mike hurt their feelings. Maybe VDP's feelings were hurt but I don't think requires an apology for asking a lyricist to explain a lyric.

I think we are just not going to agree. I don't think Brian got his feeling hurt by the Boys, he told them what to do and they did it. On the other hand I think he and VDP had issues with each other and they may have hurt each others feelings, not even sure of that. If you think that Brian's hurt feelings by anyone were a factor in the failure of SMiLE I think that is wrong. I think it is pretty clear that Brian had his problems with the material itself and in particular the lyrics and he did just what he wanted to do which was scrap and modify and new. I don't think you owe  someone an apology for them getting their way.

Cam - Here's a question I pose to you: assume for one moment, the hypothetical possibility that perhaps you are mistaken about Brian not being hurt by Mike's words/actions/tone of voice/sarcastic attitude, etc.

Let's just talk strictly in a hypothetical situation here, where perhaps today we find a 1967 diary where Brian stated that he was deeply hurt feelings by Mike for saying certain things, and in particular due to the manner in which they were said.

Under those hypothetical circumstances (where we no longer have to argue/discuss whether or not Brian was actually hurt emotionally by Mike - where it is established as a fact stated by the Brian at the time)... at that point, do you still think that Mike has no reason to apologize or express an ounce of regret to Brian? I'm not saying that Mike should have said "I'm sorry that I ever questioned anything you ever did from now to eternity", but more of a grasping of the concept that (Mike) is legitimately sorry if there were hurt feelings as a result of his questions, due to how Brian "took in" Mike's words.

Is that a situation, considering all the hypotheticals I've descried above, that you can get behind?

I'm sure there are many hypothetical situations you can make up that I would say Mike hypothetically should made up apologize for. What is the point of that again?

Cam - The point I’m making, or what I’m honestly trying to figure out, is an understanding of the psychology at work where some people do not believe an apology (at the very least) would truly be the right course of action for someone deeply hurt.

I’ve personally known a small handful people in real life who think this way, and I do not understand it. I truly want to be enlightened by an honest response, since I cannot wrap my brain around it.  I can also tell you that often times, the mere fact that the person who has been hurtful refuses wholeheartedly to acknowledge even a tiny morsel of sincere regret over the unintended hurt feelings can, in and of itself, be as hurtful, or even more hurtful than the initially hurtful action itself. To sensitive people, it can be a compounding, cumulative effect.

But again - I’m not interested in debating the question of “if Brian actually had hurt feelings or not”, since we obviously see differently on that matter, and there’s no way for either you or me to conclusively quantify or qualify our opinions. While I think the answer to that question is quite obvious, that’s NOT what I’m getting at, and NOT what I'm discussing here – and I’d like to put that aside for the moment. Assuming the hypothetical that Brian in actuality had his feelings hurt, the subsequent issue which I’m trying to explore, is simply this:

When someone (unquestionably) has hurt feelings that are real to them, and the person who hurt that person’s feelings becomes aware of this, wouldn’t an apology or expression of regret (over unintended hurting of feelings, even if the sentiment behind what was originally still holds true) simply be the right thing to do (in general, not even necessarily talking BB-related here)?

Is your answer to this question “No, there is still zero reason for apology/expression of regret of unintended hurt feelings – in both matters related to SMiLE, as well as in situations in general between non BB people on planet Earth”?  Or can we both agree that an apology/expression of regret over unintended hurt feelings (despite you still thinking that there were not actual hurt feelings in this case) can often times simply be the “right thing to do”?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Jesus, Guitarfool! Just write a damn book and be done with it!!!!

P.S. I will most certainly buy a copy

P.S.S we have no idea if Mike ever apologized to Brian privately in any way or made amends.... So, we should maybe let it be a distinct possibility in our minds and WE should make peace with it.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

and BTW: what exactly is wrong with defending Mike?

Someone please explain and then maybe I'll stop.

If it helps, i'm sure Mike grumbled. I'm sure all the guys grumbled. I'm sure Brian grumbled.... That's what bands do. They sit there and they talk s*hit.... How many of us have sat there in a studio for hours on end? It sucks! It sucks even when you're working on something you love. And even when everyone's happy, there still comes a point where patience is tested and crap goes down .... Mike has stated that a lot of the folks we're discussing here don't like him. And I get that. In Tony Asher's eyes and to VDP, Mike might have been just one of Brian's pawns, but they had to have been a tad intimidated by the fact that this guy was also Brian's frequent writing partner with whom he'd scored hits. He was also the de facto frontman of the band they were hired to write lyrics for, therefore a successful guy in his own right, and one who would most likely have an opinion of their work. He was also, at the time, a rather stylish rock-star. He was also, something of a member of that "old-guard" and something of a square.... But also, Asher and VDP knew they weren't coming into some downtrodden situation in an attempt to prop it up, but they were working for a band that had already done smashing work without them. And it was all Brian anyhow. It was him to brought in the ethos of the songs, and who's feel with the piano and moodiness/sensitivity dictated where the lyrics went..... These guys knew it and must have been a tad insecure and Mike was probably a scary concept.... And understandably so ..... So, I think "think" this is why the Cabinessence "fight" and things like that get so blown out of proportion. These guys just didn't like the very idea of Mike, let alone Mike himself..... Should Mike have apologized to Brian if his grumbling or whatever during SMILE just caused the already billowing flames to ingulf the situation? ...... Speaking for myself? Yeah, probably. But he's likely to have made amends somehow privately with Brian over the last 50 years. As for a public apology?.........  Mike owes us nothing.

[CenturyDeprived]

and BTW: what exactly is wrong with defending Mike?

Someone please explain and then maybe I'll stop.

If it helps, i'm sure Mike grumbled. I'm sure all the guys grumbled. I'm sure Brian grumbled.... That's what bands do. They sit there and they talk s*hit.... How many of us have sat there in a studio for hours on end? It sucks! It sucks even when you're working on something you love. And even when everyone's happy, there still comes a point where patience is tested and crap goes down .... Mike has stated that a lot of the folks we're discussing here don't like him. And I get that. In Tony Asher's eyes and to VDP, Mike might have been just one of Brian's pawns, but they had to have been a tad intimidated by the fact that this guy was also Brian's frequent writing partner with whom he'd scored hits. He was also the de facto frontman of the band they were hired to write lyrics for, therefore a successful guy in his own right, and one who would most likely have an opinion of their work. He was also, at the time, a rather stylish rock-star. He was also, something of a member of that "old-guard" and something of a square.... But also, Asher and VDP knew they weren't coming into some downtrodden situation in an attempt to prop it up, but they were working for a band that had already done smashing work without them. And it was all Brian anyhow. It was him to brought in the ethos of the songs, and who's feel with the piano and moodiness/sensitivity dictated where the lyrics went..... These guys knew it and must have been a tad insecure and Mike was probably a scary concept.... And understandably so ..... So, I think "think" this is why the Cabinessence "fight" and things like that get so blown out of proportion. These guys just didn't like the very idea of Mike, let alone Mike himself..... Should Mike have apologized to Brian if his grumbling or whatever during SMILE just caused the already billowing flames to ingulf the situation? ...... Speaking for myself? Yeah, probably. But he's likely to have made amends somehow privately with Brian over the last 50 years. As for a public apology?.........  Mike owes us nothing.

Pinder - I'm honestly glad you came to that conclusion. It's not a matter of any of us being "right" or "wrong".   I can in fact understand and sympathize with how Mike must've felt, and how that could stir up emotions of his own that probably bubbled up in ways that in hindsight might have been ill-advised (if not sentiment-speaking, at least in terms of the manner/tone, etc).

Maybe Mike did make some sort of amends to Brian regarding this issue over the last 50 years. I don't know. I tend to doubt that there was ever a proper private addressing of the topic, because I'd think that if there was a sincere apology made, that Mike would have let it slip out, even just a tiny bit, in some interview of sorts - if for no other reason than the fact that it would make a LOT more people like him/respect him more. And I don't think it's out of line to say that Mike, of all the BBs, feels the most shortchanged in terms of what many, many people think of him in the respect/liking-him departments. I think if there was a chance to gain some public goodwill and reevaluation of him as a person (regarding this specific topic), that he'd have said a tiny thing or two at some point.

Do I think Mike should hold a press conference and announce an apology? No way. That is crazy talk. Do I think he owes me, as a fan, anything? Nope. Would I think it logical (and ideal) that at some point over 50 years, the man might have said even just a line or two in an interview (and he has given MANY) that even hints at a morsel of regret over inadvertently hurt feelings (when this subject has clearly been an elephant in the room for 50 years)? Yes. The fact that this has not happened is probably due to simple avoidance, as well as fear - because as has been pointed out here before, Mike may be afraid that by letting even a tiny, tiny bit of regret/apology slip out about the situation would open the floodgates for Mike to be held responsible for all sorts of other associated fallout - which he truly is not responsible for in any direct way.

[KittyKat]

If we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble. I think people are allowed to have an opinion and express them, even if it hurts another person's feelings. Brian has not only suffered from "hurt feelings" from people, but also from people avoiding hurting his feelings. I think Gene Landy gained traction with Brian when nobody else did just because he was willing to hurt Brian's feelings. The psych meds were not a positive, of course, but Landy getting Brian out of the house and willing to get his feelings hurt went a long way towards making him stronger and better.

[CenturyDeprived]

If we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble. I think people are allowed to have an opinion and express them, even if it hurts another person's feelings. Brian has not only suffered from "hurt feelings" from people, but also from people avoiding hurting his feelings. I think Gene Landy gained traction with Brian when nobody else did just because he was willing to hurt Brian's feelings. The psych meds were not a positive, of course, but Landy getting Brian out of the house and willing to get his feelings hurt went a long way towards making him stronger and better.

Fortunately, not everyone in the world is super emotionally sensitive. Some people can take things more than others can, and some people experience a cumulative breaking point over lots of little things from a given person. You are right in saying that if we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble.

It's not a matter saying that Mike (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't have been "allowed" to have an opinion and express it... it's ultimately, as far as I see it, more of the fact that in all likelihood, the *manner* in which the opinions were expressed may have been a tremendous stressor and cause of pain in and of itself.

If anyone has ever been in a situation where they've been talked to in a certain way that is really hurtful (not just the words, but the *way* the words are communicated)... and even once you have communicated to that person that the manner in which they are speaking was deeply hurtful - if that hurtful person still 100% refuses to acknowledge/ understand/ give a rat's ass about the fact that the manner itself was hurtful - it can be a very damaging thing to sensitive people.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble. I think people are allowed to have an opinion and express them, even if it hurts another person's feelings. Brian has not only suffered from "hurt feelings" from people, but also from people avoiding hurting his feelings. I think Gene Landy gained traction with Brian when nobody else did just because he was willing to hurt Brian's feelings. The psych meds were not a positive, of course, but Landy getting Brian out of the house and willing to get his feelings hurt went a long way towards making him stronger and better.

Fortunately, not everyone in the world is super emotionally sensitive. Some people can take things more than others can, and some people experience a cumulative breaking point over lots of little things from a given person. You are right in saying that if we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble.

It's not a matter saying that Mike (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't have been "allowed" to have an opinion and express it... it's ultimately, as far as I see it, more of the fact that in all likelihood, the *manner* in which the opinions were expressed may have been a tremendous stressor and cause of pain in and of itself.

If anyone has ever been in a situation where they've been talked to in a certain way that is really hurtful (not just the words, but the *way* the words are communicated)... and even once you have communicated to that person that the manner in which they are speaking was deeply hurtful - if that hurtful person still 100% refuses to acknowledge/ understand/ give a rat's ass about the fact that the manner itself was hurtful - it can be a very damaging thing to sensitive people.  

Oh yes, absolutely! But let's (not you C.D) get ahead of ourselves and assume this was the case with Mike, Brian, SMILE.

We also in life, have to sometimes learn to accept an apology when it is given in a person's own specific way.

In the end, the SMILE thing, when it comes to Mike, was creative differences. Something which does not always spell the doom for a project. Bands fight all the time. Look at Rumors! You had two couples in the same band breaking up and the album still got finished. Wanna talk about hurt feelings?

Besides, as someone said earlier: when it comes to SMILE, Mike's opinion wasn't all that important.

[CenturyDeprived]

If we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble. I think people are allowed to have an opinion and express them, even if it hurts another person's feelings. Brian has not only suffered from "hurt feelings" from people, but also from people avoiding hurting his feelings. I think Gene Landy gained traction with Brian when nobody else did just because he was willing to hurt Brian's feelings. The psych meds were not a positive, of course, but Landy getting Brian out of the house and willing to get his feelings hurt went a long way towards making him stronger and better.

Fortunately, not everyone in the world is super emotionally sensitive. Some people can take things more than others can, and some people experience a cumulative breaking point over lots of little things from a given person. You are right in saying that if we all were shattered every time someone hurt our feelings on the job or at home, the world would be in big trouble.

It's not a matter saying that Mike (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't have been "allowed" to have an opinion and express it... it's ultimately, as far as I see it, more of the fact that in all likelihood, the *manner* in which the opinions were expressed may have been a tremendous stressor and cause of pain in and of itself.

If anyone has ever been in a situation where they've been talked to in a certain way that is really hurtful (not just the words, but the *way* the words are communicated)... and even once you have communicated to that person that the manner in which they are speaking was deeply hurtful - if that hurtful person still 100% refuses to acknowledge/ understand/ give a rat's ass about the fact that the manner itself was hurtful - it can be a very damaging thing to sensitive people.  

Oh yes, absolutely! But let's (not you C.D) get ahead of ourselves and assume this was the case with Mike, Brian, SMILE.

We also in life, have to sometimes learn to accept an apology when it is given in a person's own specific way.

In the end, the SMILE thing, when it comes to Mike, was creative differences. Something which does not always spell the doom for a project. Bands fight all the time. Look at Rumors! You had two couples in the same band breaking up and the album still got finished. Wanna talk about hurt feelings?

Besides, as someone said earlier: when it comes to SMILE, Mike's opinion wasn't all that important.

Any two individual people will have specific ways of communication, and if hurt feelings are to arise, they will different and unique to each set of people and the surrounding circumstances. I love Fleetwood Mac too, but it doesn't really serve any purpose to compare the breakups in that band to anything that happened in the BBs. Apples and oranges...

I do agree with you that in life, one has to sometimes learn to accept an apology when it is given in a person's own specific way. Still, it is my hunch that Brian never felt his hurt feelings were acknowledged properly by his cousin, either in a direct or indirect fashion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be quite surprised. Again - maybe not a surprise considering that Mike is a stubborn guy born in 1941, and probably not in a household that emphasized healthy and kind interpersonal communication, feelings, and emotions.

As to whether or not Mike's opinion (and the manner in which he expressed it) was or wasn't important when it came to SMiLE, the only people who can really answer that are SMiLE's creators, BW and VDP. We as outsiders can choose to believe their words or not, or interpret them as we see fit. But to me, if they say things on record regarding their feelings, I don't feel I'm in any position to question them. Their feelings are real to them. And while I know that many people feel that BW is a puppet for other people's political desires within BB-world, I still believe ultimately that nobody's on-the-record feelings (including BW's) should be "questioned" to the point of any of us having the audacity to flat out call them negligible. Case in point: Mike being called out as a significant factor in Beautiful Dreamer.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well put.

I just reached for the most obvious example

I also have a feeling that neither Mike or Brian were raised by fathers who made it a habit of going around and apologizing.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

[CenturyDeprived]

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

I think it can primarily be chalked up to fear of the unknown, and fear of losing control.

If the band had some sort of payola scheme going, where they knew that any record they released would be a hit, and that their records would basically always go over well...then I kinda sorta doubt that Mike's resistance to SMiLE would have been quite as bad as it was.

[Cam Mott]

CD, I'm out. If people have something to apologize for they should apologize. You seem to suspect Mike has done something he owes Brian an apology for, I don't.

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

If this was mentioned in an above post, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again...

I don't think MIKE THINKS he needs to apologize because, in my opinion, I don't think MIKE THINKS he was wrong about SMiLE. Mike has been pretty consistent in his interviews, and I have never seen him waiver in his feelings, with the possible exception of actually praising some of the SMiLE music.

Mike doesn't "get" SMiLE. He never did and he never will. What mystifies me is that Mike is probably the most intelligent, articulate, sophisticated - and honest - Beach Boy. Look at the way he dresses, the language he uses, his interests off stage, his jewelry! Seriously, Mike appears to be an artistic person, but something kept that artistic streak from manifesting itself in The Beach Boys' music, or maybe any music (I don't know his out-of-Beach Boys' musical tastes).

There were times that it looked like Mike might be growing or progressing as an artist, primarily in the late 1960's and early 1970's. But he never fully made the transition. Something was always there, something that kept Mike from ACCEPTING music as art, and I truly think it went beyond the money aspect, even as I have stated numerous times that money dominates every Beach Boys' decision.

Not only does Mike probably think that he wasn't wrong about SMiLE, he probably thinks that he was RIGHT, or correct about the SMiLE era. It wouldn't surprise me if Mike thinks that he was "saving" Brian from going down the wrong path, saving Brian and the group from criticism, saving the group from financial ruin, keeping the group in the race to stay ahead of The Beatles, and on and on.

But, then again maybe Mike was just being stubborn because he was surplanted as chief lyricist..,  

Your last sentence speaks the truth, from what I gather about it all. He says he loved the music but hated the lyrics. In the span of one year he went from Brian's right hand to just a good singer in a band full of good singers. It had to hurt, I'm sure he felt threatened, and I don't blame him for it.

The production race was in full swing '66-'67 so Mike had to know what Brian was doing musically wasn't the wrong way to go. If he had had any doubts, I'm sure GV's success alleviated them. I believe he either honestly thought the lyrics weren't right for a BBs album, he was jealous Brian hadn't asked him to contribute his own as had always been done, or both.

You're right, I doubt he thinks he ought to apologize (and technically, no he doesn't) but I don't think even Mike thinks he was saving the band by criticizing the project. I think he just wanted Brian to change his mind about using VDP's lyrics and/or get Brian off drugs and away from the people who were offering them.

In Mike Love's perfect world, SMiLE comes out with Brian's music, his lyrics (I guess Can't Wait Too Long instead of Wind Chimes and things like that?) and no drugs. I'd really love to read more about the Smiley sessions and what he thought about those. He went along with them, presumably because he was back as the BBs #2 guy. But did he really think THAT was the way to go? Did he really think She's Going Bald would top Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

[CenturyDeprived]

CD, I'm out. If people have something to apologize for they should apologize. You seem to suspect Mike has done something he owes Brian an apology for, I don't.

I wish you could just answer the actual question that I posed to you. I'm not asking you to agree with me or for us to see eye-to-eye. I'll respect your right to your opinion even though I disagree with it, but not sure what you think you're gaining by avoiding my question.