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

[bgas]

Basically, I was wondering if *you yourself* would agree that this would be a reasonable course of action for a person to do, that being showing a genuine regret for having hurt someone's feelings, even if the hurt feelings were unintentional (all still based upon the hypothetical parameters I described in my last post).

  I just don't get the point of why it's SO important to you how Cam feels about this. Has he become your idol? 
If not, I simply don't see the ereasoning for the harping; if yes, you really need to get a life!

[CenturyDeprived]

Basically, I was wondering if *you yourself* would agree that this would be a reasonable course of action for a person to do, that being showing a genuine regret for having hurt someone's feelings, even if the hurt feelings were unintentional (all still based upon the hypothetical parameters I described in my last post).

  I just don't get the point of why it's SO important to you how Cam feels about this. Has he become your idol? 
If not, I simply don't see the ereasoning for the harping; if yes, you really need to get a life!

It's simply that I am trying to understand how someone sees things is *such* a different manner than what I view reality to be, and I honestly am curious to see how they rationalize that line of thinking. That is all.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Basically, I was wondering if *you yourself* would agree that this would be a reasonable course of action for a person to do, that being showing a genuine regret for having hurt someone's feelings, even if the hurt feelings were unintentional (all still based upon the hypothetical parameters I described in my last post).

  I just don't get the point of why it's SO important to you how Cam feels about this. Has he become your idol? 
If not, I simply don't see the ereasoning for the harping; if yes, you really need to get a life!

It's simply that I am trying to understand how someone sees things is *such* a different manner than what I view reality to be, and I honestly am curious to see how they rationalize that line of thinking. That is all.

No two people really ever view reality in the same way. Especially when it comes to people we have never met, events we were not involved in, and things that went down 50 years ago...

[CenturyDeprived]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm honestly glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort under those circumstances would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand your general line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love himself shares that view!)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm honestly glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort under those circumstances would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand your general line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

What good is it to speak in hypotheticals regarding the feelings of people some 50+ years ago? ..... And the 50 years part matters in that the two individuals involved (Brian and Mike) have since worked together in the studio, on the stage, have been at each other's weddings, family funerals, all sorts of normal, mundane things, for 50 YEARS since the incident in question!!!! There is a very very very very good chance these guys have made up regarding this incident.....

Did Alex Chilton ever apologize for something he might have said that hurt Chris Bell's feelings? Maybe so, but we don't know. However, Chris Bell died in 1978, and Chilton left us recently.... therefore chances are pretty good that the two might have never discussed whatever it was or moved beyond it..... In that sort of situation, the hypothetical thinking makes more sense.....

[Cam Mott]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand this line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

Their feelings would not be valid because they would be mistaken the way I understand you.

[CenturyDeprived]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand this line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

Their feelings would not be valid because they would be mistaken the way I understand you.

That, sir, IMO, generates a giant facepalm in the deepest sense of the word.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand this line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

Their feelings would not be valid because they would be mistaken the way I understand you.

That, sir, IMO, generates a giant facepalm in the deepest sense of the word.

That's below the belt!

And all of us are getting a bit out of our depth here..... We should either bring in a professional psychiatrist/therapist or just move on.,....

[CenturyDeprived]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand this line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

Their feelings would not be valid because they would be mistaken the way I understand you.

That, sir, IMO, generates a giant facepalm in the deepest sense of the word.

That's below the belt!

And all of us are getting a bit out of our depth here..... We should either bring in a professional psychiatrist/therapist or just move on.,....

I didn't mean to be below the belt; only to state that this concept is simply not understandable in any way shape or form by me. I only wanted to hear someone say that they can actually, in their heart, get behind the concept that it can ever be said that another person's feelings "are not valid".  Even in a "hypothetical" situation. This proves to me what I thought was the viewpoint of some people all along was in fact what I thought it was.

Now I'm done. Feel free to cheer and clap that I'll shut up about this issue now.

[Cam Mott]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

I'm glad you would at least think that an apology of some sort would be a good thing... but also in your response lies an issue which is at the heart of why I cannot understand this line of thinking. If we apply back the concepts we are talking about here to Brian and Mike, and just assume the "hypothetical" that Brian had hurt feelings due to something in Mike's words/actions/attitudes/way of speaking (even though you deny this and think that Brian was in fact did not experience hurt feelings, a view that is surely in the extreme minority even amongst Mike's biggest defenders - I doubt even Mike Love shares that view)... the fact that you could call a grudge "baseless" is essentially denying someone else's feelings.

It's saying that someone's feelings are NOT VALID in some way, even if those feelings are real to that person. That, sir, is something I call major bull on. It' simply ain't right. It is judging someone else's feelings and finding a way to rationalize belittling those feelings, or sweeping them under the rug, simply because the person who did the hurting feels that "they didn't intend to do anything wrong". That's basically exactly what I think happened in 1967.

Their feelings would not be valid because they would be mistaken the way I understand you.

That, sir, IMO, generates a giant facepalm in the deepest sense of the word.

CD, I tried to bow out and you snarked and exposed you think you are chipping away someone's beliefs etc.. Long ago I told you I didn't agree with any of your presumptions, still don't. I don't buy your hypotheticals. We don't see eye to eye on this thing we are doing. Maybe someone else will play along as you chip away at their beliefs.

[Sheriff John Stone]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I've been in countless bands and every single one (aside from all the joy and good times) was like your being with your four or five worst, most tumultuous exes at the same time for hours and hours, days and weeks on end.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I am convinced that somehow John Stamos is responsible for Smile not coming out :-)

[Cam Mott]

I am convinced that somehow John Stamos is responsible for Smile not coming out :-)

(giggle)

[Cam Mott]

BUT...after the Beach Boys left Columbia, Brian was by himself and tackled Surf's Up, the one that blew everyone away on the '93 box set. So Oppenheim was correct about the BB's work that night, we can see in the notes that nothing substantial got done, and therefore his CBS camera crew got nothing a casual viewer would "get" out of context. But Brian alone at the piano, tracking Surf's Up, I'd say that was pretty spectacular footage to capture...however, it wasn't what Oppenheim wanted to film, which was a Beach Boys session.

So in that respect, the notion of a Beach Boys session being captured on film didn't happen as hoped, so that could be part of the "gone badly" description. What we Smile fans would consider the Holy Grail wasn't what CBS was there to film, and it didn't measure up.

Side notes, I hope to hear some comments/replies:

We have a few still photos of Brian in a red shirt at the piano in Columbia Studio A, then another of him standing on a car on the street, where the Mark C. Bloome Tires shop which was across from Columbia is in the background. The studio photo is very poorly lit, and I had to lighten it considerably to pick out the details like the girl in the mirror with the camera and some features to confirm it was Columbia. So what I'm thinking is that CBS *could have* gotten amazing footage of Brian recording Surf's Up, but the lighting was too poor to use for a broadcast. Perhaps this was one possible reason of several that they re-staged the performance at Brian's house with better lighting. At that point the concept of capturing a "Beach Boys session" was replaced by Brian playing his tune which Oppenheim featured as the finale of his documentary.

Thoughts?

Yeah maybe something like that. Siegel must mean something like that too maybe, at least that it went very badly in the context of CBS filming which is the context of his comment.

It's been a long time since I watched it but the focus was on Brian not the Boys as it was on Peter Noonan and not the Hermits. I'm guessing since nothing much seems to have happened except a sort of low key bits and pieces session, it wasn't cinematic in a way that showcased Brian's genius the way Oppenheim wanted. Maybe his comment means the bits and pieces nature of the session didn't have a through story or something.

RE. the Mike asking for a meaning of the lyrics. To me VDP's comments about it put this very late in game, at the time of his leaving the project and the Capitol lawsuit.

[Cam Mott]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

I wonder where we get the idea that Brian was even interested in sticking up for the lyrics or VDP. It is not part of the story that Brian defended the lyrics or that Brian did anything to defend them or VDP. In fact the testimony shows Brian himself was voicing displeasure with the lyrics directly to VDP on his own.

Over CE for instance, why call VDP at all if he was interested in defending either VDP or the lyrics? He just had to say we are doing this and the Boys did stuff, regardless of what they thought or how it made them feel. It is on tape as evidence.

Vosse, Siegel, and Anderle all say that Brian and VDP's sympatico between them ran out. Anderle specifically says there was open disagreement between the two over the lyrics, apparently VDP was having to defend his lyrics to Brian. Later Brian explained the lyrics were too arty to him. If Mike's question came at or around the end of March as VDP's comments about the event seem to say, it especially makes it much different regarding Brian. Are we supposed to believe Brian was intending to defend to Mike that which he already was criticzing and VDP had already had to defend to Brian to the point Brian and VDP couldn't work together anymore as they had? I think there is a lot wrong with what we have accepted as the story.

[CenturyDeprived]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike was 110% not a factor) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

[Sheriff John Stone]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

[CenturyDeprived]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

I appreciate your honest response (and of all posters who take the time to write heartfelt posts like these)... and while I agree with lots of what you're saying, here's where I see things differently:

I don't think, I *really* don't think it was just some minimal instance of "a dissenting word or opinion from a band member". I think it was a general hostile vibe, maybe less on the direct verbal communication front and more on the indirect communication front. You know how someone in a recent thread mentioned Mike Love shooting a cold stare at David Leaf when he saw him at some event after his book came out? I imagine that there were lots of little looks like that, maybe much less severe, but lots and lots of little bits of nonverbal communication that clearly indicated passive aggressive hostility were almost certainly commonplace at the time.

I honestly can't imagine that not being the case, at least on some level. Again, to use my personal experiences as something that I can relate it to: I had a band member who wound up having musical differences with me, and he'd sometimes verbalize them (with short bursts of hostility), and at other times by just a sour face. That doesn't mean that this bandmate was walking around with a perpetual pout, but it means that his "issues" with me nonetheless absolutely read on his face. And people who are VERY sensitive to emotional feedback from other people, like BW, will be much more aware of that happening around them. And it can wear them down.

Even a slightly sour face (happening again and again and again) by someone who is communicating that they are not on the same page as you and want a different direction for the band - or at the very least, a different "way of doing things" in terms of how the composing occurs and how the power structure is framed - can really get in the way of creativity happening and songs being finished. I absolutely have been there, in that position of experiencing somebody like that (a person without good communication skills, and with an aggressive and/or passive aggressive attitude, who may still "go through the motions"); in reality their actions can (however inadvertently), really, REALLY muck up the soup.

I agree that the Brian who composed in the 60s was a different man than he became years later. I've heard all the SOT boots, and the verbal banter/directions between takes, so I feel pretty well versed with knowing what a startlingly large amount of confidence and control he came across as having at the time. But due to many factors, this is when things began to come to a head with him. Mike Love's attitude (which certainly HAD to be more at odds with Brian's vision than ever before in the history of the band, save Hang On to Your Ego perhaps) was IMO most certainly *one* of those factors.

And again - some people can choose to say "Well, Mike Love can't be *blamed*, because he only did what any bandmate has the inherent right to do when communicating with another bandmate"... and while this point can be debated, what IMO can't be debated is that Mike's actions (when combined with other contributing factors) ultimately had an effect of some sort. We can try in our minds to absolve him of being responsible for doing anything "wrong", but we can't say that his actions simply had no effect whatsoever. That makes zero sense to me.

[Sheriff John Stone]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

I appreciate your honest response (and of all posters who take the time to write heartfelt posts like these)... and while I agree with lots of what you're saying, here's where I see things differently:

I don't think, I *really* don't think it was just some minimal instance of "a dissenting word or opinion from a band member". I think it was a general hostile vibe, maybe less on the direct verbal communication front and more on the indirect communication front. You know how someone in a recent thread mentioned Mike Love shooting a cold stare at David Leaf when he saw him at some event after his book came out? I imagine that there were lots of little looks like that, maybe much less severe, but lots and lots of little bits of nonverbal communication that clearly indicated passive aggressive hostility were almost certainly commonplace at the time.

I honestly can't imagine that not being the case, at least on some level. Again, to use my personal experiences as something that I can relate it to: I had a band member who wound up having musical differences with me, and he'd sometimes verbalize them (with short bursts of hostility), and at other times by just a sour face. That doesn't mean that this bandmate was walking around with a perpetual pout, but it means that his "issues" with me nonetheless absolutely read on his face. And people who are VERY sensitive to emotional feedback from other people, like BW, will be much more aware of that happening around them.

Even a slightly sour face (happening again and again and again) by someone who is communicating that they are not on the same page as you and want a different direction for the band - or at the very least, a different "way of doing things" in terms of how the composing occurs and how the power structure is framed - can really get in the way of creativity happening and songs being finished. I absolutely have been there, in that position of experiencing somebody like that (a person without good communication skills, and with an aggressive and/or passive aggressive attitude, who may still "go through the motions"); in reality their actions can (however inadvertently), really, REALLY muck up the soup.

I agree that the Brian who composed in the 60s was a different man than he became years later. I've heard all the SOT boots, and the verbal banter/directions between takes, so I feel pretty well versed with knowing what a startlingly large amount of confidence and control he came across as having at the time. But due to many factors, this is when things began to come to a head with him. Mike Love's attitude (which certainly HAD to be more at odds with Brian's vision than ever before in the history of the band, save Hang On to Your Ego perhaps) was IMO most certainly *one* of those factors.

And again - some people can choose to say "Well, Mike Love can't be *blamed*, because he only did what any bandmate has the inherent right to do when communicating with another bandmate"... and while this point can be debated, what IMO can't be debated is that Mike's actions (when combined with other contributing factors) ultimately had an effect of some sort. We can try in our minds to absolve him of being responsible for anything wrong, but we can't say that his actions simply had no effect whatsoever. That makes zero sense to me.

OK.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

I appreciate your honest response (and of all posters who take the time to write heartfelt posts like these)... and while I agree with lots of what you're saying, here's where I see things differently:

I don't think, I *really* don't think it was just some minimal instance of "a dissenting word or opinion from a band member". I think it was a general hostile vibe, maybe less on the direct verbal communication front and more on the indirect communication front. You know how someone in a recent thread mentioned Mike Love shooting a cold stare at David Leaf when he saw him at some event after his book came out? I imagine that there were lots of little looks like that, maybe much less severe, but lots and lots of little bits of nonverbal communication that clearly indicated passive aggressive hostility were almost certainly commonplace at the time.

I honestly can't imagine that not being the case, at least on some level. Again, to use my personal experiences as something that I can relate it to: I had a band member who wound up having musical differences with me, and he'd sometimes verbalize them (with short bursts of hostility), and at other times by just a sour face. That doesn't mean that this bandmate was walking around with a perpetual pout, but it means that his "issues" with me nonetheless absolutely read on his face. And people who are VERY sensitive to emotional feedback from other people, like BW, will be much more aware of that happening around them. And it can wear them down.

Even a slightly sour face (happening again and again and again) by someone who is communicating that they are not on the same page as you and want a different direction for the band - or at the very least, a different "way of doing things" in terms of how the composing occurs and how the power structure is framed - can really get in the way of creativity happening and songs being finished. I absolutely have been there, in that position of experiencing somebody like that (a person without good communication skills, and with an aggressive and/or passive aggressive attitude, who may still "go through the motions"); in reality their actions can (however inadvertently), really, REALLY muck up the soup.

I agree that the Brian who composed in the 60s was a different man than he became years later. I've heard all the SOT boots, and the verbal banter/directions between takes, so I feel pretty well versed with knowing what a startlingly large amount of confidence and control he came across as having at the time. But due to many factors, this is when things began to come to a head with him. Mike Love's attitude (which certainly HAD to be more at odds with Brian's vision than ever before in the history of the band, save Hang On to Your Ego perhaps) was IMO most certainly *one* of those factors.

And again - some people can choose to say "Well, Mike Love can't be *blamed*, because he only did what any bandmate has the inherent right to do when communicating with another bandmate"... and while this point can be debated, what IMO can't be debated is that Mike's actions (when combined with other contributing factors) ultimately had an effect of some sort. We can try in our minds to absolve him of being responsible for doing anything "wrong", but we can't say that his actions simply had no effect whatsoever. That makes zero sense to me.

I don't think anyone's ever tried to make the claim that Mike was not a factor at all! But rather, it wasn't Mike's decision to scrap SMILE..... "We've" also simply tried to make the case that Mike was not THE factor.... Of course he was a factor! Everything in Brian's life at the time was a factor...... It's not fair to paint folks who simply try and make such claims as hardcore Mike cheerleaders, Mike defenders, etc etc..... It's just that people seem to take such a personal issue with any whiff of "Mike defending" that it easily gets out of hand.... I know from being in bands that criticisms and doubts from fellow band members can both dampen one's spirits OR motivate one to try harder, do better, etc etc ...... On a personal note, and I will probably get much crap for this: but there's no way I can't hate or dislike Mike for asking VDP what some lyrics meant... The last time we know this happened (to an extent) was with Hang Onto Your Ego, and thanks to Mike, in that case, the lyrics improved!

[Robbie Mac]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

No, the apology would be plenty. Trying to explain how the hurt took it wrong reflects  more poorly on the person giving the apology therefore making it obvious that it is insincere. I believe that is what CD is trying to say.

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

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

I appreciate your honest response (and of all posters who take the time to write heartfelt posts like these)... and while I agree with lots of what you're saying, here's where I see things differently:

I don't think, I *really* don't think it was just some minimal instance of "a dissenting word or opinion from a band member". I think it was a general hostile vibe, maybe less on the direct verbal communication front and more on the indirect communication front. You know how someone in a recent thread mentioned Mike Love shooting a cold stare at David Leaf when he saw him at some event after his book came out? I imagine that there were lots of little looks like that, maybe much less severe, but lots and lots of little bits of nonverbal communication that clearly indicated passive aggressive hostility were almost certainly commonplace at the time.

I honestly can't imagine that not being the case, at least on some level. Again, to use my personal experiences as something that I can relate it to: I had a band member who wound up having musical differences with me, and he'd sometimes verbalize them (with short bursts of hostility), and at other times by just a sour face. That doesn't mean that this bandmate was walking around with a perpetual pout, but it means that his "issues" with me nonetheless absolutely read on his face. And people who are VERY sensitive to emotional feedback from other people, like BW, will be much more aware of that happening around them. And it can wear them down.

Even a slightly sour face (happening again and again and again) by someone who is communicating that they are not on the same page as you and want a different direction for the band - or at the very least, a different "way of doing things" in terms of how the composing occurs and how the power structure is framed - can really get in the way of creativity happening and songs being finished. I absolutely have been there, in that position of experiencing somebody like that (a person without good communication skills, and with an aggressive and/or passive aggressive attitude, who may still "go through the motions"); in reality their actions can (however inadvertently), really, REALLY muck up the soup.

I agree that the Brian who composed in the 60s was a different man than he became years later. I've heard all the SOT boots, and the verbal banter/directions between takes, so I feel pretty well versed with knowing what a startlingly large amount of confidence and control he came across as having at the time. But due to many factors, this is when things began to come to a head with him. Mike Love's attitude (which certainly HAD to be more at odds with Brian's vision than ever before in the history of the band, save Hang On to Your Ego perhaps) was IMO most certainly *one* of those factors.

And again - some people can choose to say "Well, Mike Love can't be *blamed*, because he only did what any bandmate has the inherent right to do when communicating with another bandmate"... and while this point can be debated, what IMO can't be debated is that Mike's actions (when combined with other contributing factors) ultimately had an effect of some sort. We can try in our minds to absolve him of being responsible for doing anything "wrong", but we can't say that his actions simply had no effect whatsoever. That makes zero sense to me.

I don't think anyone's ever tried to make the claim that Mike was not a factor at all! But rather, it wasn't Mike's decision to scrap SMILE..... "We've" also simply tried to make the case that Mike was not THE factor.... Of course he was a factor! Everything in Brian's life at the time was a factor...... It's not fair to paint folks who simply try and make such claims as hardcore Mike cheerleaders, Mike defenders, etc etc..... It's just that people seem to take such a personal issue with any whiff of "Mike defending" that it easily gets out of hand.... I know from being in bands that criticisms and doubts from fellow band members can both dampen one's spirits OR motivate one to try harder, do better, etc etc ...... On a personal note, and I will probably get much crap for this: but there's no way I can't hate or dislike Mike for asking VDP what some lyrics meant... The last time we know this happened (to an extent) was with Hang Onto Your Ego, and thanks to Mike, in that case, the lyrics improved!

I disagree. Hang Onto Your Ego>I Know Theres An Answer

[Cam Mott]

I meant "you" as the everyman innocent who did not intend anyone offense but is the victim of a baseless grudge . If it were me and I didn't do something to hurt someone's feeling but they imagined I meant to hurt their feelings I might say sorry but I would more likely explain how they took wrong.

No, the apology would be plenty. Trying to explain how the hurt took it wrong reflects  more poorly on the person giving the apology therefore making it obvious that it is insincere. I believe that is what CD is trying to say.

Well I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of that. I'm sure we've all learned an important lesson from this exercise, I know I have. The whole experience was so genuine and not contrived.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

CenturyDeprived, I'm not trying to drag you back in or bait you. Actually, I like your posts. I like your speculating, your psychological approach/way of thinking, and your topics. They are perfect for a message board, especially a Beach Boys' message board. You make me think, and, whether you believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your theories.

However, there is a premise or two that I don't agree with you on. And, of course it is my opinion vs. yours, so it's not a matter of who is right or wrong. I just wanted to present an alternative way to view Brian Wilson during the 1961-1982 time period. I think it differs from yours, so, it's my turn to speculate and take the psychological approach.

You think that Brian's feelings were hurt by Mike and others who might not have agreed with him and might not have supported him, whether by their words or by their actions. Yes, Brian absolutely was a sensitive person, maybe moreso than the average person. But, I think you are failing to look at/view/imagine/realize who the real Brian Wilson was during that period of time. And, no, I wasn't there....pure speculation from what I've read.

Brian Wilson the songwriter and and producer and artist was in almost complete control of things. What he wanted he usually got. People kissed his ass. People just wanted to be in his company. If Brian wanted the guys to lie in an empty swimming pool and sing, they sang. If Brian wanted the guys to sit in a tent for a meeting, they sat. If Brian wanted the guys to make animal noises, they oinked. If Brian wanted the guys to release albums like Smiley Smile, Friends, and Love You, they went along with it, even though those albums damaged their career.

I think it's unrealistic to think that at none of those times did any of the guys, including his brothers, question Brian. We know his dad did and Brian shrugged that off; didn't Brian actually punch Murry one time during an argument over a song. Yes, the overwhelming amount of times the group was in awe of Brian, and they were more than happy to follow him like The Pied Piper. But, we're talking about dozens of songs and concerts and recording sessions, and dozens of instances when maybe - maybe - somebody had a dissenting opinion.

A lot of weight is put on Mike's objecting to a few - A FEW - of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. And, Mike wasn't even criticizing Brian's music. Was that the first time Mike or anybody else in the group ever questioned a lyric? Maybe because the project was scrapped, whereas maybe the other objections were ignored, do we put so much weight on the Mike vs. SMiLE argument. Which also raises another question. People on this board (and other boards) are quick to downplay Mike's lyrics, Mike's opinions, and Mike's artistic decisions (or lack of). Yet, those same fans seem to think that Mike had so much influence on the demise of SMiLE, like all of a sudden, Brian was valuing Mike's opinion....on an artistic decision. Hey, this is Mike "Fun Fun Fun" Love who Brian Wilson is being influenced by...on SMiLE? Huh?

Finally, I just wanted to opine that, yes, we're dealing with human beings and human feelings here. But, also, THIS IS ROCK AND ROLL! No, I've never been in a rock & roll band, but, hey, guys talk, argue, debate, walk out, and come back - all the time. Like I said above, I highly doubt that Mike's objecting to the SMiLE lyrics OR MUSIC was the first time that he, or anybody else in the group, disagreed with Brian's vision. In The Beautiful Dreamer documentary, Brian puts a lot of weight on Mike's dislike of SMiLE. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO I wonder on "the scale", how much Mike really influenced Brian - in 1967!!!!!

Sheriff - thanks for the kind words. My purpose of topics like these is to honestly gain a deeper understanding and share and/or debate ideas, not to mindlessly "bash" Mike or anyone else for that matter. But that being said, if I feel that a given person acted in a manner well deserving of criticism, I feel implored to bring that into the discussion of a given topic. If I think someone has a viewpoint that is worthy of questioning, I feel compelled to point out things that IMO don't make sense in their way of thinking, such as the thought that *if* Brian Wilson experienced inadvertent hurt feelings, that those feelings can somehow be considered "not valid". I cannot even type those words without shaking my head.

I've been in band situations myself, both in times of having bandmates be supportive, as well as quite the opposite (when bandmates were not supportive) - and at times, the lack of support could come with a significant degree of sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, etc. And I'll tell you - those feelings/thoughts coming from a bandmate can make a HUGE difference, and can *absolutely* be a huge hindrance on an artist and their ability to create.

I speak from experience.  Fortunately, I've never dealt with outright jealousy/resentment, nor a situation where big money/family/record label/"competition" were factors either. I've never been a member of the BBs!  But I still feel very confident in saying that it's very clear to me, as clear as it can be from an outsider's perspective, that someone with a personality type like Mike Love, interacting with someone with a personality type like Brian Wilson, in a tumultuous period with a lot of other outside factors/pressures, would (under the circumstances as we know them) be an absolute factor in helping to derail the project.

As far as your mentioning of the fact that the Boys surely questioned some of Brian's decisions pre-SMiLE... that to me is pretty irrelevant - SMiLE had its own set of unique circumstances, and Brian was doing something entirely new and extremely unusual/unprecedented, and in situations like that, I'm sure he developed his own self doubts which were a contributing factor (in a way that such feelings would have been either non-existent or relatively much smaller in the past). And at a time like SMiLE, when venturing into uncharted territory, that's unarguably when he would have needed support THE MOST. Does it make sense that bandmate(s), particularly those who aren't as artistically adventurous, would have more questions at a time like that? Well, yeah - it makes sense. Can it be deduced by us outsiders that those bandmate(s) actions, if those actions were informed by a sense of fear from losing a position of control (potentially for the long term), and were likely tinged (even in the smallest way) by a passive aggressive sarcasm, etc, that the actions could help make for a hostile atmosphere for the artist? And for that hostile atmosphere (even with people "going through motions") could help throw them off their game? Well, yeah - that makes perfect sense to me too.

The specific, exact amount of how much of a factor Mike was in the SMiLE saga is something that isn't quantifiable. It will surely be endlessly debated. Some people can try to minimize it to almost nothing (which I find absurd), or to actually completely nothing (even more absurd) and some people try to make it seem like the only factor (which is also absurd). I think the full truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it makes zero sense to me to think that his attitude was a 100% or 110% negligible factor in the eventual outcome of the project.  That idea will forever be a fringe ideology held by a tiny fraction of hardcore BB fans, who IMHO (no offense intended) are extremists regarding the subject, much in the way that the crazy Youtube comment Mike bashers are also extremists. It's grasping at straws.

I do sometimes wonder if the people who are soooo extreme regarding their views on the subject (believing that Mike has 110% zero culpability) feel that way because they love the band's music soooooo very much, extremely deeply in their hearts, that they cling to that ideology to, on a subconscious level, keep any negative emotions/thoughts about one of the artists out of the equation as to not taint the musical experience and not cloud the emotions they feel from the music in any tiny way. I really don't know.

CenturyDeprived, I'm kind of responding to your post and also adding to my above post. I was too lazy to edit it last night...

Unfortunately, there is precious little footage of Brian Wilson during the 1961-1973 period, when he was arguably at his peak. There are even less filmed interviews and recording sessions with him, so I think it's hard to really grasp just how "special" (for lack of a better word) he was, creatively and artistically speaking. Obviously none of us hung out with him during that time.

I believe that a lot of our opinions of Brian are based on the much greater quantity of media available post-1975. Is it accurate to say that the post-1975 Brian was/is a shell of the man and artist he was around the Today/SDASN/Pet Sounds/SMiLE era? And I don't ask that question to demean the man. Instead of asking that, let me ask this. As much as we have read about Brian Wilson in the 1960's, and as much of his work that we have to listen to, do we still not fully grasp the level he was on at one time?

CenturyDeprived, I don't think you give enough credit to the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 as an artist or as a person. I think you are basing a lot of your psychological theories and impressions of 1966-67 Brian Wilson on the Brian Wilson that you have observed in a totally different time and place, which is the Brian Wilson in his 40's, 50's, 60's, and now 70's. And I don't say that derogatorily or mean-spirited. I just think you are selling the Brian Wilson of 1966-67 short - as an artist and as a person who was driven, CONTROLLING, and operating on a plain that very few have occupied. Brian could come across as a humble guy, but I think he knew he was good; very, very good.

Yes, the Brian Wilson who was brought down by mental illness and drug abuse probably would've retreated and succummed to criticism from Mike and the band. And, maybe he did in the late 1970's and 1980's. The young Brian Wilson appeared, to me anyway, as a much different artist. I almost want to say an entirely different artist. And I say that because of the footage that I have seen, the interviews I have read, and the music that was recorded. THAT Brian Wilson had free reign; he recorded whatever he wanted. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, "I Went To Sleep", "Sail Plane Song", "My Solution", "Mount Vernon And Fairway", "Child Of Winter", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Lazy Lizzie", and on and on. Only the record companies appeared to have any control, rejecting and reconfiguring albums. I just find it hard to believe that the band was crazy about a lot of Brian's 1967-74 music. But did it matter? At the beginning? No. Later? Yes, starting to matter. Much later? Yes, absolutely.

You gave an example of how YOU felt in your experiences in a rock and band. I don't think I have to point just how unique and different it must have been to be in a band, to be in a studio, to be dealing with Brian Fu--ing Wilson, at the peak of his powers. The man was on a roll. He was going to get his way. I don't think it was the people, or their lack of support, that brought him down. He had too much power, power that he wielded for a long, long time. A dissenting word or opinion from a band member? Nah, it might've made him think, but it didn't stop him. If Brian had an idea, there was a very good chance that idea was going to come to fruition...well, most of the time anyway. And, thank God that it did.

I appreciate your honest response (and of all posters who take the time to write heartfelt posts like these)... and while I agree with lots of what you're saying, here's where I see things differently:

I don't think, I *really* don't think it was just some minimal instance of "a dissenting word or opinion from a band member". I think it was a general hostile vibe, maybe less on the direct verbal communication front and more on the indirect communication front. You know how someone in a recent thread mentioned Mike Love shooting a cold stare at David Leaf when he saw him at some event after his book came out? I imagine that there were lots of little looks like that, maybe much less severe, but lots and lots of little bits of nonverbal communication that clearly indicated passive aggressive hostility were almost certainly commonplace at the time.

I honestly can't imagine that not being the case, at least on some level. Again, to use my personal experiences as something that I can relate it to: I had a band member who wound up having musical differences with me, and he'd sometimes verbalize them (with short bursts of hostility), and at other times by just a sour face. That doesn't mean that this bandmate was walking around with a perpetual pout, but it means that his "issues" with me nonetheless absolutely read on his face. And people who are VERY sensitive to emotional feedback from other people, like BW, will be much more aware of that happening around them. And it can wear them down.

Even a slightly sour face (happening again and again and again) by someone who is communicating that they are not on the same page as you and want a different direction for the band - or at the very least, a different "way of doing things" in terms of how the composing occurs and how the power structure is framed - can really get in the way of creativity happening and songs being finished. I absolutely have been there, in that position of experiencing somebody like that (a person without good communication skills, and with an aggressive and/or passive aggressive attitude, who may still "go through the motions"); in reality their actions can (however inadvertently), really, REALLY muck up the soup.

I agree that the Brian who composed in the 60s was a different man than he became years later. I've heard all the SOT boots, and the verbal banter/directions between takes, so I feel pretty well versed with knowing what a startlingly large amount of confidence and control he came across as having at the time. But due to many factors, this is when things began to come to a head with him. Mike Love's attitude (which certainly HAD to be more at odds with Brian's vision than ever before in the history of the band, save Hang On to Your Ego perhaps) was IMO most certainly *one* of those factors.

And again - some people can choose to say "Well, Mike Love can't be *blamed*, because he only did what any bandmate has the inherent right to do when communicating with another bandmate"... and while this point can be debated, what IMO can't be debated is that Mike's actions (when combined with other contributing factors) ultimately had an effect of some sort. We can try in our minds to absolve him of being responsible for doing anything "wrong", but we can't say that his actions simply had no effect whatsoever. That makes zero sense to me.

I don't think anyone's ever tried to make the claim that Mike was not a factor at all! But rather, it wasn't Mike's decision to scrap SMILE..... "We've" also simply tried to make the case that Mike was not THE factor.... Of course he was a factor! Everything in Brian's life at the time was a factor...... It's not fair to paint folks who simply try and make such claims as hardcore Mike cheerleaders, Mike defenders, etc etc..... It's just that people seem to take such a personal issue with any whiff of "Mike defending" that it easily gets out of hand.... I know from being in bands that criticisms and doubts from fellow band members can both dampen one's spirits OR motivate one to try harder, do better, etc etc ...... On a personal note, and I will probably get much crap for this: but there's no way I can't hate or dislike Mike for asking VDP what some lyrics meant... The last time we know this happened (to an extent) was with Hang Onto Your Ego, and thanks to Mike, in that case, the lyrics improved!

I disagree. Hang Onto Your Ego>I Know Theres An Answer

Oh, I completely respect that.... I used to prefer Hang Onto Your Ego too, but as I got a bit older, I Know There's An Answer seems to touch me a bit more, in a different way.... Plus it seems to fit the album, as a whole, better.....

As for Mike apologizing.... There are times in life where a direct and verbal apology isn't necessary..... Another reason the 50 year thing matters.... Maybe in 1968, an apology could have been in order, but by 1974, I'm sure enough had happened that we don't even know about, that it was a non-issue..... (more speculation)