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

[guitarfool2002]

Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

Yes, I agree, though I'm not sure anyone here is arguing otherwise. Certainly not at this point.

No one ever was arguing otherwise, despite some attempts to erroneously assign such a charge in this thread, but at some point doesn't the question of "why?" become part of the analysis? Again to use any historical event, we can act like 8 year old children in a social studies class and memorize then regurgitate a bunch of facts and dates like the state capitols or whatever, or we can act like adults and start asking why and how did it happen, what led up to it, all of that rather than coughing up random hairballs of general statements.

It's the biggest drawback of living in a Twitter world where discussions are limited to 160 words at a time. Sad.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Guitarfool,

Your "Long Post" about the history of Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al. was incredibly informative. As you said, it certainly did fill in a lot of blanks. Thanks for that. I would agree that Anderle was most definitely a "band employee," no matter how he was brought into the fold.

My Lord, it's amazing that the band could even survive this period... Running my business is driving me crazy, and I have lost nearly all of my musical creative spark. And Brian's music was the core of the BBs business!

[guitarfool2002]

Guitarfool,

Your "Long Post" about the history of Anderle, Parks, Vosse et al. was incredibly informative. As you said, it certainly did fill in a lot of blanks. Thanks for that. I would agree that Anderle was most definitely a "band employee," no matter how he was brought into the fold.

My Lord, it's amazing that the band could even survive this period... Running my business is driving me crazy, and I have lost nearly all of my musical creative spark. And Brian's music was the core of the BBs business!

Thank you, and I'll add to that "me too!". My business is on the skids in some ways right now, more than the usual summer slowdown, which is why I have more time to write that long stuff. So I, exactly as you so perfectly put it, can relate too with trying to balance it all out yet keep that creative mind open enough to actually create. And maybe those who experience that can relate better to hearing others facing the same thing.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

Because I still contend that that support was lacking at times (instances beyond SMiLE), and granted we are talking about a person (BW) with undiagnosed mental illness who was far more fragile than any people around him imagined at the time.

It just seems that in hindsight, somebody (ML) realizing that their (sometimes) own lack of support or questioning of ideas would be a factor, no matter how small, in magnifying another person's depression, would be something that they would possibly regret. I think that many other people if they were in the same situation would have such regret. But Mike is his own person and has his own personality, and you can't force somebody to feel a certain way or express emotions a certain way. I am just speaking of an ideal situation.

I realize that Mike is not and has never been a robot with the sole programmed intention to agree with everything that comes before him. He has opinions, and of course people are entitled to have their own opinions, but the manner in which those opinions are expressed can make all the difference to a sensitive person… and while ML did sing his parts eventually as directed, there seems to have been some hostility involved in the proceedings at some point along the way, and the damage has been done. It seems that the old man river sessions were similar to this. And yes, to take Mike's side in this, the things he was questioning may, to him, seemed worth questioning because the momentum to finish these projects seemed to be going nowhere. I'm not arguing whether or not Mike had any right to ever question anything that Brian did. This is simply a discussion of whether his specific methods of questioning BW were possibly ill-advised, to however small a degree, in hindsight.

 I still think I have a valid point here, despite some people who think this is just some cleverly worded attempt to "bash" ML (again, it isn't)...  just a point of my wishing a "Wouldn't it be nice" scenario that these healing apologies could have happened at some point along the way in these peoples' lives.

[drbeachboy]

Brian may have been influenced by a series of events, but ultimately, it was Brian who decided to pull the plug.

Yes, I agree, though I'm not sure anyone here is arguing otherwise. Certainly not at this point.

Considering the name of the thread and that some people are still trying to spread the blame around, instead of focusing it to the one person who was the ultimate decision maker. I still  look at this way, no matter who thought what about the music, the lyrics, etc., Brian had yet to fail as Producer for the band. Sure, Pet Sounds was not as big as it could/should have been, but all in all it did do well and with 3 hits on it. He was still the man in charge and there was no reason to doubt that he could still lead them in the right direction. Rightfully or wrongly, Brian must have weighed all the input that he was receiving and made a final decision. I still think that the modular recording method was the ultimate downfall. In his mind, Brian simply ran out of time. The Beatles beating him to the punch in June may have indeed been the final knockout punch.

[drbeachboy]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

Because I still contend that that support was lacking at times (instances beyond SMiLE), and granted we are talking about a person (BW) with undiagnosed mental illness who was far more fragile than any people around him imagined at the time.

It just seems that in hindsight, somebody (ML) realizing that their (sometimes) own lack of support or questioning of ideas would be a factor, no matter how small, in magnifying another person's depression, would be something that they would possibly regret. I think that many other people if they were in the same situation would have such regret. But Mike is his own person and has his own personality, and you can't force somebody to feel a certain way or express emotions a certain way. I am just speaking of an ideal situation.

I realize that Mike is not and has never been a robot with the sole programmed intention to agree with everything that comes before him. He has opinions, and of course people are entitled to have their own opinions, but the manner in which those opinions are expressed can make all the difference to a sensitive person… and while ML did sing his parts eventually as directed, there seems to have been some hostility involved in the proceedings at some point along the way, and the damage has been done. It seems that the old man river sessions were similar to this. And yes, to take Mike's side in this, the things he was questioning may, to him, seemed worth questioning because the momentum to finish these projects seemed to be going nowhere. I'm not arguing whether or not Mike had any right to ever question anything that Brian did. This is simply a discussion of whether his specific methods of questioning BW were possibly ill-advised, to however small a degree, in hindsight.

 I still think I have a valid point here, despite some people who think this is just some cleverly worded attempt to "bash" ML.. and it is just a point of my wishing a "Wouldn't it be nice" scenario that these healing apologies could have happened at some point along the way in these peoples' lives.

I still say that whether Mike Love had issues or not, his issues alone would not have stopped Brian from completing Smile. It may have been one thing out many other issues, but not the sole or main reason.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

Because I still contend that that support was lacking at times (instances beyond SMiLE), and granted we are talking about a person (BW) with undiagnosed mental illness who was far more fragile than any people around him imagined at the time.

It just seems that in hindsight, somebody (ML) realizing that their (sometimes) own lack of support or questioning of ideas would be a factor, no matter how small, in magnifying another person's depression, would be something that they would possibly regret. I think that many other people if they were in the same situation would have such regret. But Mike is his own person and has his own personality, and you can't force somebody to feel a certain way or express emotions a certain way. I am just speaking of an ideal situation.

I realize that Mike is not and has never been a robot with the sole programmed intention to agree with everything that comes before him. He has opinions, and of course people are entitled to have their own opinions, but the manner in which those opinions are expressed can make all the difference to a sensitive person… and while ML did sing his parts eventually as directed, there seems to have been some hostility involved in the proceedings at some point along the way, and the damage has been done. It seems that the old man river sessions were similar to this. And yes, to take Mike's side in this, the things he was questioning may, to him, seemed worth questioning because the momentum to finish these projects seemed to be going nowhere. I'm not arguing whether or not Mike had any right to ever question anything that Brian did. This is simply a discussion of whether his specific methods of questioning BW were possibly ill-advised, to however small a degree, in hindsight.

 I still think I have a valid point here, despite some people who think this is just some cleverly worded attempt to "bash" ML.. and it is just a point of my wishing a "Wouldn't it be nice" scenario that these healing apologies could have happened at some point along the way in these peoples' lives.

I still say that whether Mike Love had issues or not, his issues alone would not have stopped Brian from completing Smile. It may have been one thing out many other issues, but not the sole or main reason.

I agree with your statement on this.

[Cam Mott]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

[Mike's Beard]

Well if we're going throw around 'what if' scenarios what about a simple what if one morning Brian Wilson woke up and thought "I'm fucking bored shitless dicking around in the studio trying to make the album, I've got other stuff I want to try instead. I'll scrap Smile and start something new. Also I'll make sure it's quicker and easier to record so I'll have more time to take drugs with Danny Hutton".

Sometimes you have to go with the simplest option.

[guitarfool2002]

To CenturyDeprived: You hit on a key issue in your post on this page. Let those casting doubt read into it to find what that is on their own terms, but it's there in a succinct way. Great stuff.

Let me expand just a bit: Someone told me that some key elements of the Smile saga could be found years before, in the history of this family and whatnot. He was right.

Consider this, along the lines of what CenturyDeprived just wrote. If you're at a family gathering, and you know a family member can't swim, would you jokingly throw them into the deep end of a swimming pool? The intent to harm isn't there, but at the same time you know if the person can't swim you'd be that much more careful in how you would joke around that way.

Okay, back to reality.

Remember Al Jardine in an interview said the Beach Boys were doing parts of "Heroes" in the early days of the band? We all asked "WHAT???", and some like me assumed Al was off his rocker a bit, or forgetting certain events or confusing them. Then he later explained how they would do a "Dixieland" thing with their voices, where each would start riffing and improvising like Dixieland horns, and do a whole skit with that. And sure enough, a section of that turned up on "Heroes", and it all made sense.

Then there are the Smile skits, spoken-word bits, all of that stuff that seemed a bit odd or out of place. You had Brian trying to control, lead, and cajole various people into doing this kind of comedy based on a theme. And sometimes he'd over-produce it to the point where the comedy just didn't happen, or those involved just didn't go where Brian wanted to go and the skit went sour.

Would it be surprising to learn that Brian was doing this exact same thing with his Hawthorne buddies when they were teenagers? He'd get them together, try to get some comedy happening, direct and produce these improvised skits and riffs on a theme, and try to get them going on his humor trip. And when he got his tape recorder, he'd start recording them too. And those friends said the same kinds of things could happen, where Brian would start over-producing them into doing certain riffs and the improvised humor element would fall apart. So we got to hear in 1966-67 on those tapes the same Brian trying the same things with his current group of friends that he was doing as a teen with that group of friends. It was the same Brian.

And that same Brian also had some confidence issues, as have been reported. I suppose it's no wonder when he had a parent, an authority figure, a man many kids consider their hero in life, constantly on his back and trying to knock him down a few pegs in order to toughen him up and instill the values of "fighting for success". But it was and is negative reinforcement, and it can actually shatter someone's self-confidence in ways that may not show publicly or obviously for years.

So we have that same Brian that many have said needed that approval from those around him. He not only needed it, some have said he thrived on that support and excitement from those around him, especially when he was on his creative trip and offering new ideas. When he felt that people were with him, were on that same trip and creative spark in a way, he kept going and creating and moving forward.

Conversely, if and when he detected a level of doubt or negativity or even questioning beyond the usual questions, he'd withdraw and in some cases it would affect him for periods after the actual event. He thrived on the enthusiasm of those around him for his ideas and his work...like everyone in the arts, it was looking for acceptance and wanting people to enjoy what he was putting out there. The stronger you believe in something, the more harsh a negative reaction to that something becomes, or is felt.

And when you're dealing with someone who has already dealt with issues of confidence and self-worth, while feeling like your life has been filled with feelings of doubt enhanced by the actions of a parent despite success and praise from outside, the support and reinforcement from those around you becomes like a drug, it's a necessity and it keeps you going. If it's not there, the energy and the drive can be shattered. Take someone already dealing with issues on top of that, and the response gets worse.

Take all of those issues, bring them all to a head in late '66 and early '67, and fit them into what was going on and who was involved. And take some of the lines CenturyDeprived has just posted and see if that makes a little more sense in the context of what was happening.

And, as if it needs to be said again, it is not *the* reason or *the* answer, but it is part of the equation that needs to be considered.  

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

Cam - I actually was going to add an addendum to my last post about the other band members also having some role at some points along the way of not supporting Brian the way he would've liked...  We could also have a thread about Carl or Al's lack of support at times. But to my eyes, as a fan on the outside, it seems that Mike had a greater role in this, and was probably less gentle and tactful compared to the other BBs in how that lack of support was likely vocalized. That is why I am speaking specifically of Mike.

[CenturyDeprived]

To CenturyDeprived: You hit on a key issue in your post on this page. Let those casting doubt read into it to find what that is on their own terms, but it's there in a succinct way. Great stuff.

Let me expand just a bit: Someone told me that some key elements of the Smile saga could be found years before, in the history of this family and whatnot. He was right.

Consider this, along the lines of what CenturyDeprived just wrote. If you're at a family gathering, and you know a family member can't swim, would you jokingly throw them into the deep end of a swimming pool? The intent to harm isn't there, but at the same time you know if the person can't swim you'd be that much more careful in how you would joke around that way.

Okay, back to reality.

Remember Al Jardine in an interview said the Beach Boys were doing parts of "Heroes" in the early days of the band? We all asked "WHAT???", and some like me assumed Al was off his rocker a bit, or forgetting certain events or confusing them. Then he later explained how they would do a "Dixieland" thing with their voices, where each would start riffing and improvising like Dixieland horns, and do a whole skit with that. And sure enough, a section of that turned up on "Heroes", and it all made sense.

Then there are the Smile skits, spoken-word bits, all of that stuff that seemed a bit odd or out of place. You had Brian trying to control, lead, and cajole various people into doing this kind of comedy based on a theme. And sometimes he'd over-produce it to the point where the comedy just didn't happen, or those involved just didn't go where Brian wanted to go and the skit went sour.

Would it be surprising to learn that Brian was doing this exact same thing with his Hawthorne buddies when they were teenagers? He'd get them together, try to get some comedy happening, direct and produce these improvised skits and riffs on a theme, and try to get them going on his humor trip. And when he got his tape recorder, he'd start recording them too. And those friends said the same kinds of things could happen, where Brian would start over-producing them into doing certain riffs and the improvised humor element would fall apart. So we got to hear in 1966-67 on those tapes the same Brian trying the same things with his current group of friends that he was doing as a teen with that group of friends. It was the same Brian.

And that same Brian also had some confidence issues, as have been reported. I suppose it's no wonder when he had a parent, an authority figure, a man many kids consider their hero in life, constantly on his back and trying to knock him down a few pegs in order to toughen him up and instill the values of "fighting for success". But it was and is negative reinforcement, and it can actually shatter someone's self-confidence in ways that may not show publicly or obviously for years.

So we have that same Brian that many have said needed that approval from those around him. He not only needed it, some have said he thrived on that support and excitement from those around him, especially when he was on his creative trip and offering new ideas. When he felt that people were with him, were on that same trip and creative spark in a way, he kept going and creating and moving forward.

Conversely, if and when he detected a level of doubt or negativity or even questioning beyond the usual questions, he'd withdraw and in some cases it would affect him for periods after the actual event. He thrived on the enthusiasm of those around him for his ideas and his work...like everyone in the arts, it was looking for acceptance and wanting people to enjoy what he was putting out there. The stronger you believe in something, the more harsh a negative reaction to that something becomes, or is felt.

And when you're dealing with someone who has already dealt with issues of confidence and self-worth, while feeling like your life has been filled with feelings of doubt enhanced by the actions of a parent despite success and praise from outside, the support and reinforcement from those around you becomes like a drug, it's a necessity and it keeps you going. If it's not there, the energy and the drive can be shattered. Take someone already dealing with issues on top of that, and the response gets worse.

Take all of those issues, bring them all to a head in late '66 and early '67, and fit them into what was going on and who was involved. And take some of the lines CenturyDeprived has just posted and see if that makes a little more sense in the context of what was happening.

And, as if it needs to be said again, it is not *the* reason or *the* answer, but it is part of the equation that needs to be considered.  

guitarfool2002 - just wanted to say that I thank you for your insightful posts in this thread, especially the one about the timeline of SMiLE events that are often not talked about. It's very informative to read this kind of stuff. I still stand by my ponderings that started my initial posts, but it's good to hear things from multiple angles. I never intended to place blame squarely with anyone, merely to discuss the facts surrounding one piece of the puzzle.

[drbeachboy]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

I actually was going to add an adendum to my last post about the other band members also having some role at some points along the way of not supporting Brian the way he would've liked...  We could also have a thread about Carl or Al's lack of support at times. But to my eyes, as a fan on the outside, it seems that Mike had a greater role in this, and was probably less gentle and tactful compared to the other BBs in how that lack of support was likely vocalized. That is why I am speaking specifically of Mike.

Maybe Mike, because this what you have been led to believe for years on end? Also, if Brian had all of these amazing friends who thought this music was so great and feeding his ego, why did they not have enough influence on Brian to complete the task? This stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

I actually was going to add an adendum to my last post about the other band members also having some role at some points along the way of not supporting Brian the way he would've liked...  We could also have a thread about Carl or Al's lack of support at times. But to my eyes, as a fan on the outside, it seems that Mike had a greater role in this, and was probably less gentle and tactful compared to the other BBs in how that lack of support was likely vocalized. That is why I am speaking specifically of Mike.

Maybe Mike, because this what you have been led to believe for years on end? Also, if Brian had all of these amazing friends who thought this music was so great and feeding his ego, why did they not have enough influence on Brian to complete the task? This stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight.

I appreciate that many people on this board want to balance things out by mentioning the many other factors/people who contributed similarly to unfortunate events in the BB’s saga, especially since the “ML = everything wrong with the BBs ever” blindly one-sided adage has been spoken for decades. I'd like to think I am well-informed enough to know that is a vastly unfair critique of the band's story.  

But… is it not possible to believe that one person’s actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) had (relatively speaking) more of a role in the doubts that caused BW to feel demoralized and depressed, when compared to the actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) of other people in the band and in BW’s circle? I don’t think this makes me a Mike-hater or a Mike-basher. I'm just discussing one person's behavior, not trying to say he is better/worse as a human being than anyone else.

The sole purpose of this followup post is because there doesn't seem to be much of a way to discuss ML's actions without someone coming to his defense and bringing up other factors/people. This seems to be a defense mechanism due to the fact that ML has shouldered far too much of the blame for unfortunate events in the BBs saga for decades. But, even if taking in the many factors and being aware of the full story (or as aware as any of us can be), maybe some of the things ML did over the years shouldn't be 100% defended. Maybe they were questionable to some degree, in hindsight. Some people here clearly will defend everything that ML does/has ever done 100% (again, a too-far-in-one-directon reaction to the blueboard Brianistas). This is not a thread about who is most/more responsible for certain things/events in the BB’s saga.

I contend that Mike, because of his strong personality, and the fact that he was BW’s co-songwriter (although unfairly uncredited as such at the time, which is a topic for a whole other thread) gave him a larger amount of influence relatively speaking compared to Carl/Al (or caused BW to feel it more and more difficult to just be able to “brush off” ML’s displeasure when compared to any other bandmates’).  That's why I have "singled him out" in this thread, even though we could also have a similar thread about Carl/Al.

It’s simply my question of if ML has ever regretted anything that he did along the way with regards to the events previously discussed in this thread. As far as I see it, he should have had some regrets, and if they were thoughtfully vocalized with sincerity, things could have turned out differently between these guys’ relationships. Again, this is my dream “wouldn’t it be nice” scenario.  And yes - this stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight, because we can't from the outside change the bandmembers' ways of conducting themselves....But it's just discussion between us BB nerds on the interwebs, after all. There are no absolute "answers" to be had; this is just a discussion.

[drbeachboy]

I think that my original point of the thread would have probably been better understood if the title of the thread had simply been, "Has Mike ever ever taken any tiny bit of responsibility, or expressed/felt any regrets for not having been as supportive to Brian as Brian would have liked/needed at the time?"

I'm curious, why did you limit the premise to just Mike?

I actually was going to add an adendum to my last post about the other band members also having some role at some points along the way of not supporting Brian the way he would've liked...  We could also have a thread about Carl or Al's lack of support at times. But to my eyes, as a fan on the outside, it seems that Mike had a greater role in this, and was probably less gentle and tactful compared to the other BBs in how that lack of support was likely vocalized. That is why I am speaking specifically of Mike.

Maybe Mike, because this what you have been led to believe for years on end? Also, if Brian had all of these amazing friends who thought this music was so great and feeding his ego, why did they not have enough influence on Brian to complete the task? This stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight.

I appreciate that many people on this board want to balance things out by mentioning the many other factors/people who contributed similarly to unfortunate events in the BB’s saga, especially since the “ML = everything wrong with the BBs ever” blindly one-sided adage has been spoken for decades. I'd like to think I am well-informed enough to know that is a vastly unfair critique of the band's story. 

But… is it not possible to believe that one person’s actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) had (relatively speaking) more of a role in questioning that caused BW to feel demoralized and depressed, when compared to the actions/way of speaking/tactfulness (or lack thereof) of other people in the band and in BW’s circle? I don’t think this makes me a Mike-hater or a Mike-basher. I'm just discussing one person's behavior, not trying to say he is better/worse than anyone else.

The sole purpose of this followup post is because there doesn't seem to be much of a way to discuss ML's actions without someone coming to his defense and bringing up other factors/people. This seems to be a defense mechanism due to the fact that ML has shouldered far too much of the blame for unfortunate events in the BBs saga for decades. But, even if taking in the many factors and being aware of the full story (or as aware as any of us can be), maybe some of the things ML did over the years shouldn't be 100% defended. Maybe they were questionable to some degree, in hindsight. Some people here clearly will defend everything that ML does/has ever done 100% (again, a too-far-in-one-directon reaction to the blueboard Brianistas).

I contend that Mike, because of his strong personality, and the fact that he was BW’s co-songwriter (although unfairly uncredited as such at the time, which is a topic for a whole other thread) gave him a larger amount of influence relatively speaking compared to Carl/Al (or caused BW to feel it more and more difficult to just be able to “brush off” ML’s displeasure when compared to any other bandmates’). This is not a thread about who is most/more responsible for certain things/events in the BB’s saga. This is not intended as some mindless “Mike is evil” drivel.

It’s simply my question of if ML has ever regretted anything that he did along the way with regards to the events previously discussed in this thread. As far as I see it, he should have had some regrets, and if they were thoughtfully vocalized with sincerity, things could have turned out differently between these guys’ relationships. Again, this is my dream “wouldn’t it be nice” scenario.  And yes - this stuff just goes around and around with no answers in sight, because we can't from the outside have one iota of effect on the bandmembers' feelings and way of conducting themselves. But it's just discussion between nerds on the interwebs, after all.

It's all cause & effect. It's ying and yang. This goes for everyone, not just Mike. For every reason one might think it was Mike's fault, there is another who will think it is not. Your explanation of what happened is just as correct as it could be incorrect. Nobody in the band, as far as I know, has ever taken responsibility for Smile, except Brian. As it should be.

[Cam Mott]

Well my answer would be no. Your premise sets it up as Mike has something to apologize for. There is no answer to your question unless one agrees with your premise. I don't.

[CenturyDeprived]

Well my answer would be no. Your premise sets it up as Mike has something to apologize for. There is no answer to your question unless one agrees with your premise. I don't.

Out of curiosity – while I understand the desire to defend somebody who has been demonized (unfairly, relative to actual reality) for a long time, it would seem that your defense of ML is quite 1-sided, and that the pendulum has swung far the other way. I don’t mean this as a personal insult – your opinion is yours, and mine is mine. But, without sidetracking the conversation to all the things that BW or other bandmates need to apologize for - are you of the opinion that ML has nothing to even remotely apologize or even slightly regret (with hindsight) with regards to matters in which he hurt BW’s feelings, ever, in the history of the band?  I mean, virtually everybody on this planet does hurtful things (warranting apology or regret) at some point to someone else, whether intentional or not.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

What does this have to do with anything?

You seem to care about Brian's" hangers-on" a whole lot more than the issue really warrants..... History has only really dealt them any ink due to their own insertion of themselves into The Beach Boys history. They were not Beach Boys and were aligned with Brian and not the rest of the Beach Boys, therefore they will (insult of all insults) be refereed to as hangers-on by some.  Some people will defend them, others won't....This has happened with the story of nearly every band, and usually to a much greater extent than The Beach Boys. Look it up.... Besides, they've all been treated pretty damn fairly begin so connected to the great Brian Wilson for all these decades. If the Beach Boys have had to weather being dissed, so can these cats.

 Some of you seem to be taking this way too personally....

The Beach Boys history does not begin and end with SMILE, BTW...... Just pointing out....

Your motives for coming here and posting in this thread are more clear now. And that's sad.

Therefore, feel free to wallow in whatever delusions, fantasy, and perceptions you choose, because a discussion of the facts as it relates to the bigger picture of this time period is NOT what you're interested in discussing, learning, or even considering.

You instead like to push buttons, to marginalize, to throw opinions based on false assumptions around a discussion in order to provoke...

In short, have fun with that.

If anyone here does not wish to discuss this time period in a historical way, and would rather throw random bullshit around just to provoke, then at least make your intentions known so those who are here for an actual discussion and sharing of the history can avoid getting drawn into this crap.

It's a far cry from where the original intent to start a board like this, or any board related to this bigger topic, came from. And that's sad. But maybe it's indicative of a new breed of fans who prefer to work hard at being a pain in the ass rather than discussing the facts, hashing out opinions, and having an old fashioned bull session around the history of this stuff as has happened for centuries among historians and history buffs and the like.

At least the players in the game can better be identified, those who are genuinely interested versus those who want to incite, provoke, or deliberately post bullshit in order to provoke.

So let the facts stand on their own, but try not to spread your bullshit so thick that others start to believe it's something other than bullshit. Deal?

And if you have nothing else better to do than to post such a shitty reply to what was intended as an attempt to fill in some of the history with information that doesn't get reported nor shared nor posted online all that often, but which is part of the bigger picture of the Smile era in general, in combination with your saying that you're sick of this board, then consider taking it elsewhere. Plenty of places out there to discuss music online, and sometimes you'll encounter those folks who are more in line with the type of posts in this thread.

"What does this have to do with anything?" was the exact line.

You could have told me to f*** off and it would have had the same effect. So take that to the bank. It's not welcome here.

Yet, my enraging reply was in no way as harsh as this, guitarfool!!!

I will apologize for asking "what does this have to do with anything" ... It was a knee jerk reaction to what I read.... Imagine if we were sitting around a table with some beers and OSD's copy of Looking Back With Love on the turntable, and Jon's books open and being pursued and you said what you said and I asked in a huff "what does this have to do with anything"? .... It probably would have come off a lot differently... You are one of the posters on this board who I respect the most. I think you know this from our adventures on other threads.

And here we go with how many more pages of the discussion going around and around without my help? Some people dig a lengthy history lesson (very informative and well written, yes) on Brian's people at the time, and others simply ask what it really has to do with why Smile didn't happen (in 67) ... I've asked many good questions and have brought up some very good points (some repeated to more respectful replies by others, thank you) .... If you just want to insult me: that has no place here, I would parrot: but unfortunately, it does seem to have a place here.... I am in no way trying to disrupt or any of that immature crap.. We agree that facts are facts, yet, if the fact that The Beach Boys singing their asses off on recorded SMILE tracks can be argued as a weak case, then so can ..... the facts.

I think we all need to calm down and just try and respect the various little camps and enclaves us fans can settle into when we're talking about a band that spans 50 years and with such varied output... I think the truth, and the only truth is that, yes, there were too  many various contributors to SMILE's (67) demise to ever be quantified and set in stone. If you want to blame Mike, there's evidence to that effect, if you want to blame Brian, there's evidence there too. That's life....

[Dancing Bear]

"oh how couldn't the Beach Boys see that all Brian needed was unequivocal support?"

Did Brian have that in him for the others? Didn't he wash his hand when Mike was screwed by Murry? They were just human beings after all. I'm not prepared to demand apologies from Mike for being tactless or Brian for showing weakness. Surely they owe me squat.

It's very simple to me:

Dennis recorded two tracks for Surf's Up, decided to scrap them and scrapped they were. Life goes on.
Brian recorded most of a new album in 66/67, decided to scrap it and scrapped it was. Life goes on.

[Cam Mott]

Well my answer would be no. Your premise sets it up as Mike has something to apologize for. There is no answer to your question unless one agrees with your premise. I don't.

Out of curiosity – while I understand the desire to defend somebody who has been demonized (unfairly, relative to actual reality) for a long time, it would seem that your defense of ML is quite 1-sided, and that the pendulum has swung far the other way. I don’t mean this as a personal insult – your opinion is yours, and mine is mine. But, without sidetracking the conversation to all the things that BW or other bandmates need to apologize for - are you of the opinion that ML has nothing to even remotely apologize or even slightly regret (with hindsight) with regards to matters in which he hurt BW’s feelings, ever, in the history of the band?  I mean, virtually everybody on this planet does hurtful things (warranting apology or regret) at some point to someone else, whether intentional or not.

One sided. I get that a lot. It's just something that happens when something is so wrong for so long.

I'm sure Mike has owed and made plenty of apologies just like all of us. Your premise was SMiLE.

[drbeachboy]

"oh how couldn't the Beach Boys see that all Brian needed was unequivocal support?"

Did Brian have that in him for the others? Didn't he wash his hand when Mike was screwed by Murry? They were just human beings after all. I'm not prepared to demand apologies from Mike for being tactless or Brian for showing weakness. Surely they owe me squat.

It's very simple to me:

Dennis recorded two tracks for Surf's Up, decided to scrap them and scrapped they were. Life goes on.
Brian recorded most of a new album in 66/67, decided to scrap it and scrapped it was. Life goes on.

Indeed, and no amount of revisiting or revising history will change that fact. If these guys haven't been willing to set the record straight after 46 plus years, I doubt we will ever get at the real truth behind the scrapping and shelving of Smile.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

"oh how couldn't the Beach Boys see that all Brian needed was unequivocal support?"

Did Brian have that in him for the others? Didn't he wash his hand when Mike was screwed by Murry? They were just human beings after all. I'm not prepared to demand apologies from Mike for being tactless or Brian for showing weakness. Surely they owe me squat.

It's very simple to me:

Dennis recorded two tracks for Surf's Up, decided to scrap them and scrapped they were. Life goes on.
Brian recorded most of a new album in 66/67, decided to scrap it and scrapped it was. Life goes on.

Indeed, and no amount of revisiting or revising history will change that fact. If these guys haven't been willing to set the record straight after 46 plus years, I doubt we will ever get at the real truth behind the scrapping and shelving of Smile.

I think they pretty much have set the record straight (as straight as condensing 40 years of conflicting emotion into an answer to the same damn interview questions over and over again can be) and have been pretty consistent in their positions and seem to have all pretty much put it under the bridge (any strife, that is) ..... It's us who keep the wounds open and bleeding.

[DMBeard_13]

Mike Love takes responsibility every time he states that he was against the drug use… He didn't get Van Dyke's lyrics… Those admissions speak for themselves.  Bigger PICTURE… Mike sings on ALL of theos songs, so he wasn't that opposed to them was he?  No.

[Gabo]

he betta

[guitarfool2002]

What does this have to do with anything?

You seem to care about Brian's" hangers-on" a whole lot more than the issue really warrants..... History has only really dealt them any ink due to their own insertion of themselves into The Beach Boys history. They were not Beach Boys and were aligned with Brian and not the rest of the Beach Boys, therefore they will (insult of all insults) be refereed to as hangers-on by some.  Some people will defend them, others won't....This has happened with the story of nearly every band, and usually to a much greater extent than The Beach Boys. Look it up.... Besides, they've all been treated pretty damn fairly begin so connected to the great Brian Wilson for all these decades. If the Beach Boys have had to weather being dissed, so can these cats.

 Some of you seem to be taking this way too personally....

The Beach Boys history does not begin and end with SMILE, BTW...... Just pointing out....

Your motives for coming here and posting in this thread are more clear now. And that's sad.

Therefore, feel free to wallow in whatever delusions, fantasy, and perceptions you choose, because a discussion of the facts as it relates to the bigger picture of this time period is NOT what you're interested in discussing, learning, or even considering.

You instead like to push buttons, to marginalize, to throw opinions based on false assumptions around a discussion in order to provoke...

In short, have fun with that.

If anyone here does not wish to discuss this time period in a historical way, and would rather throw random bullshit around just to provoke, then at least make your intentions known so those who are here for an actual discussion and sharing of the history can avoid getting drawn into this crap.

It's a far cry from where the original intent to start a board like this, or any board related to this bigger topic, came from. And that's sad. But maybe it's indicative of a new breed of fans who prefer to work hard at being a pain in the ass rather than discussing the facts, hashing out opinions, and having an old fashioned bull session around the history of this stuff as has happened for centuries among historians and history buffs and the like.

At least the players in the game can better be identified, those who are genuinely interested versus those who want to incite, provoke, or deliberately post bullshit in order to provoke.

So let the facts stand on their own, but try not to spread your bullshit so thick that others start to believe it's something other than bullshit. Deal?

And if you have nothing else better to do than to post such a shitty reply to what was intended as an attempt to fill in some of the history with information that doesn't get reported nor shared nor posted online all that often, but which is part of the bigger picture of the Smile era in general, in combination with your saying that you're sick of this board, then consider taking it elsewhere. Plenty of places out there to discuss music online, and sometimes you'll encounter those folks who are more in line with the type of posts in this thread.

"What does this have to do with anything?" was the exact line.

You could have told me to f*** off and it would have had the same effect. So take that to the bank. It's not welcome here.

Yet, my enraging reply was in no way as harsh as this, guitarfool!!!

I will apologize for asking "what does this have to do with anything" ... It was a knee jerk reaction to what I read.... Imagine if we were sitting around a table with some beers and OSD's copy of Looking Back With Love on the turntable, and Jon's books open and being pursued and you said what you said and I asked in a huff "what does this have to do with anything"? .... It probably would have come off a lot differently... You are one of the posters on this board who I respect the most. I think you know this from our adventures on other threads.

And here we go with how many more pages of the discussion going around and around without my help? Some people dig a lengthy history lesson (very informative and well written, yes) on Brian's people at the time, and others simply ask what it really has to do with why Smile didn't happen (in 67) ... I've asked many good questions and have brought up some very good points (some repeated to more respectful replies by others, thank you) .... If you just want to insult me: that has no place here, I would parrot: but unfortunately, it does seem to have a place here.... I am in no way trying to disrupt or any of that immature crap.. We agree that facts are facts, yet, if the fact that The Beach Boys singing their asses off on recorded SMILE tracks can be argued as a weak case, then so can ..... the facts.

I think we all need to calm down and just try and respect the various little camps and enclaves us fans can settle into when we're talking about a band that spans 50 years and with such varied output... I think the truth, and the only truth is that, yes, there were too  many various contributors to SMILE's (67) demise to ever be quantified and set in stone. If you want to blame Mike, there's evidence to that effect, if you want to blame Brian, there's evidence there too. That's life....

I got out of line, I'll admit that and offer a direct apology to you as well. Just as you stated, those knee-jerk reactions can be the ones that come out worse or even different than the original intent, and again it was over the line in this case. So I'm sorry for that.

I just want to restate my bottom line here, and it's not to rehash anything but rather to explain where I'm coming from.

Reading through these posts it can be frustrating to witness not just opinions being presented as solid facts, but those opinions of certain authors and certain books/projects being presented as facts, as well as in a few cases the opinions being based on facts which are simply not true at all. And they can be proven false by presenting the facts. If people are willing to consider them, which it felt like wasn't happening enough here in favor of the debate itself.

That is why I posted as much info as I did. I simply do not care to see people who were involved in the Smile saga have their names dragged through the muck on this board, have it suggested that they were more trouble than they were worth, whatever the case. It's not that I'm related to them or associated with them, but the *facts* (that word again) shows that some things happened a certain way, despite what some may have been led to believe based on faulty information.

The other point is that research has been done, the facts are out there for the taking, some of these people are out there and have been spoken to by people on this board, directly and indirectly.

Here is where I might sound a bit harsh, but it's something that may save some of these dust-ups, and is directed generally rather than to a specific person:

Opinions are welcome, naturally. However, take some ownership over what you're about to say in the discussion before saying it. If you're basing a challenge in the discussion on something you've read in the Smile box set, consider digging deeper. If you're basing it on the "Beautiful Dreamer" DVD, consider digging deeper. If you're clutching a copy of LLVS and that's all you have on Smile, consider digging deeper.

Because above all, there are no simple, general, compact answers to any of these issues. Period. If you try to suggest that there are, you'll get called out. Because those who have looked into this and spoken with some of these people know that there is more than a simple plug-in answer to most of these issues.

Discussion is fine, but to come on without a good chunk of information, suggest things that have been proven false since the late 60's and try to argue those points as right or wrong...it's bordering on a waste of everyone's time. And it shows a bit of laziness too because if the interest is truly there, the materials and resources can be found with a little effort.

And that effort can pay off in magnificent ways, one of which is interacting with some people who you might connect with even in the slightest way and who may inspire you to then try to "pay it forward" when a similar opportunity comes your way.

So I did post maybe a bit too long-winded in this thread, but some of those items, again, are not ones which are often repeated or even reported in general surrounding Smile, for whatever reasons. Surely they're not in the box set, nor were they on those YouTube webisodes where everyone was overjoyed with Smile in general. Nor in LLVS, or several other books. But they're facts which, if folks are genuinely interested in this Smile history beyond Twitter-style short answers and convenient solutions to complex questions, are worth at least reading about so you have that much more info for the discussion.

And if some people don't care about such things, that's their business..just don't try to argue or debate stuff that you're not even familiar with beyond those short and easy answers.

And please don't take the Smile box set booklet version of events, or the YouTube interviews, or LLVS, or Beautiful Dreamer, or any one source to be the final word on any of this. It's not that easy, and that's what keeps it interesting. Consider many sources and many accounts, and if you're not sure where to find those, just ask before starting a dust-up over these things.

That's not too much to ask, is it?