How would BB history be different if Mike had received proper cowriting credits?

[CenturyDeprived]

I also want to add, that I highly doubt that Mike would have had a problem with ANY of Brian's music had he been his collaborator on it.  

Isn't it a matter of record, more or less, that Brian's motives for the Mike-cowritten Side B of Today were being repeatedly questioned?  

[guitarfool2002]

I also have a different opinion of this, specifically the how's and why's of Brian working or not working with Mike as a collaborator.

First, I think it's essential to factor in the history of the band's songwriting going back to the early days. Brian worked with co-writers Gary Usher and Roger Christian, and had major hits with them, hits which are still iconic in the band's history and heard at every concert.

Is there a similar question of why Brian chose to write with Usher and Christian when Mike Love could have easily written lyrics about hot-rod culture or any of the work Brian did with Usher of a more personal nature?

I don't hear many questions being asked why Mike wasn't asked to carry more lyrical weight on those songs than he did or didn't in favor of the "outsiders".

Second, I want to bring up a sports comparison to consider, and since it's Mike Love I'll use basketball.

Say we have a team with a player named "Smith". He's a solid player, does his job well, and goes all-out on the court during the game. A key member, in other words.

There is an important game, and Smith for various reasons only plays 10 out of the full 48 minutes, and is on the bench for most of the game.

If the team wins that big game, are people asking "Why was Smith only playing for 10 minutes?". If Smith himself in an interview says "I'm upset coach didn't play me for more than 10 minutes", he'd be tagged an egocentric type of athlete rather than a team player by some fans of the team, in light of a big win.

But if the team loses, the fact that Smith only played for 10 minutes of the big game often gets flipped around into a critique of the coach, because ultimately the team lost. And it often becomes a "what if???" question where fans speculate the team may have had a better chance of winning if the coach had gone with Smith over the players the coach chose to play over Smith in that big game.

So the team wins, it really doesn't matter why Smith didn't play because the team won. If the team loses, the fact that Smith didn't play becomes a major debate among fans.

In retrospect, was 1966 in Beach Boys history a win or a loss?  

[CenturyDeprived]

He heard "Good Vibrations" and knew what it needed to put it over the top -- and those lyrics are as cool, au courant, and brilliant as anything else out there.

I won't dispute that Mike could have been utilized to make certain songs of this era better, catchier, or with some sort of vocal hook here and there... even *perhaps* in small doses on some SMiLE tracks - if and only if he'd graciously have been ok with Brian filtering in (or not filtering in) Mike's input, at Brian's discretion.

It's unlikely in the extreme, IMO to think that Mike would ever allow himself to be utilized in a way (on an entire album, no less) where he would willingly allow himself to just be there to add "assists" to put certain songs "over the top".  And it sucks because Mike shot himself in the foot by not allowing for this type of scenario to be a conceivable possibility that Brian could have considered - I think it could've happened, but that would have required personality adjustments. Which again comes back to the power struggle thing, and the sense of entitlement. Brian and Mike both felt entitled to certain things, which were ultimately grossly incompatible.

[Howie Edelson]

Personally, for me/us -- 1966 is a win.

But to look at the larger picture, for The Beach Boys, it's a loss.
They lost their audience (which was already dwindling.)

To be an American band, the TOP American band in January 1964 and survive and thrive throughout the British Invasion -- and break new ground while doing so, and to end '66 with a chart-topping "masterpiece" is unthinkable. To have stayed together and good and popular throughout all that is incredible. Think about all the groups/acts between February 1964 and December 1966 that had come and gone and were forgotten forever. No comeback '70s "Rock And Roll Heaven" or "My Eyes Adored You." DONE.

1966 is ultimately a loss because -- the Pet Sounds singles and "Vibrations" aside -- the artistic decisions derailed the train and killed the momentum. Another way to look at it, is that 1966 is a loss because in 1970, there was nobody around to give a s hit about Sunflower.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd suggest in the same way, there would not have been "Sunflower" if there wasn't a "Pet Sounds" to establish that kind of musical identity for the Beach Boys brand name, for artistic reasons among others. Pet Sounds, I think, made an "artistic" type of album like Sunflower a viable option for the Beach Boys brand. There was enough of a groundswell of admiration and praise for Pet Sounds in the doldrums of the late 60's to take the band into that kind of music versus, say, more emphasis on songs like Do It Again or even Student Demonstration Time, which the band could have easily done with much less effort and cost than Sunflower.

There is also something about the notion that the artistic decisions 'derailing' the momentum that could be flipped into a notion that they would have been better not to have taken those kinds of risks, and I think that is much more toxic to many artists than stepping outside their realm. And with Pet Sounds and Smile, heck, the whole 1966 ball of wax, hasn't the appreciation of the Beach Boys as more than a party band been due to that era more than anything?

I agree, Howie, if the band went certain ways they'd be doing the Frankie Valli route with Oh What A Night and the rest, but how many fans of this current generation gained an appreciation for them specifically from the notion that Brian and the band were breaking new ground as pop musicians at a time when so much of it was formulaic? Not that the formula didn't produce terrific and timeless records, but look at how from the 90's onward the image of the music changed and was embraced by a whole new niche of fans and admirers (and a boatload of musicians...) who may never have thought of the Beach Boys beyond the Endless Summer album and the outdoor shows?

It allowed both images and fan bases to exist within the same brand name for 50 years+, and that in itself in retrospect is amazing. It would be akin to Coca Cola coming to be known as both a sugary soda and a healthy daily supplement for everyone's diet simultaneously. 

[Howie Edelson]

Guitarfool -- I totally agree with you.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make, is that unlike the group's artistic  peers -- Beatles, Stones, Who -- there was a cancer on the BB's career. A moment where something stopped/became unhealthy and ENDED. Then, of course, dandelions started to pop out of the cracks in the pavement (the era I love the most, incidentally).

Everything you say is spot on and accurate. But that fanbase today -- myself included, to a certain extent -- happened because of a derailment.

That brilliant 1966 - 1973 catalogue (mainly Smile, though) became jewels in the fringe discovery hipster crown along with Big Star, Gram Parsons, Nick Drake, Arthur Lee, Nilsson, etc. But, it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to be much more bigger/important than that.

The Beach Boys were supposed to be right next to The Beatles, Dylan, The Who, and The Stones. Whether Mike Love writing the lyrics to "Vegetables" would've accomplished that is doubtful. But Smile -- which killed the band's momentum -- ultimately became the "coolest" thing about the Beach Boys. And, yes, that inspired a ton of indie bands with music that won't live on past its own time -- but I personally look at that as a sad consolation prize.

[Cam Mott]

Mike has written plenty of lyrics that are not to my taste but I agree with Howie. IWFTD's lyrics are as good or better than Tony's imo. Good Vibrations' are better than Asher's imo, but to be fair Tony wasn't done with the GV lyrics we know.

[Cam Mott]

I think a better and more important question is "How would BB history be different if Mike had been the lyricist on PET SOUNDS?"

The album wouldn't be much different. Mike would be around Brian more - influencing/dissuading Brian from heavy drug use perhaps. And with Brian's increased exposure to the Lovester, I wonder if Mike would've persuaded Brian to keep the theme of Smile simple....or would Smile have ever crossed Brian's mind?

Fascinating question....anyone else have thoughts?

I think this is right too. However the responsibility all falls on Brian so he probably would have found a way even with Mike more around.

[Sam_BFC]

Acetates would've been handed/mailed to Mike to write on the road with great ease.

But Brian only wanted to write with Mike if they could do so in a room!

[CenturyDeprived]

Guitarfool -- I totally agree with you.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make, is that unlike the group's artistic  peers -- Beatles, Stones, Who -- there was a cancer on the BB's career. A moment where something stopped/became unhealthy and ENDED. Then, of course, dandelions started to pop out of the cracks in the pavement (the era I love the most, incidentally).

Everything you say is spot on and accurate. But that fanbase today -- myself included, to a certain extent -- happened because of a derailment.

That brilliant 1966 - 1973 catalogue (mainly Smile, though) became jewels in the fringe discovery hipster crown along with Big Star, Gram Parsons, Nick Drake, Arthur Lee, Nilsson, etc. But, it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to be much more bigger/important than that.

The Beach Boys were supposed to be right next to The Beatles, Dylan, The Who, and The Stones. Whether Mike Love writing the lyrics to "Vegetables" would've accomplished that is doubtful. But Smile -- which killed the band's momentum -- ultimately became the "coolest" thing about the Beach Boys. And, yes, that inspired a ton of indie bands with music that won't live on past its own time -- but I personally look at that as a sad consolation prize.

The thought that Brian and Mike's collaboration could have just kept happily chugging along in the face of massive change in the music industry, as well as Brian having wild creative ambitions that were literally bursting out of him, with only the occasional minor roadbump or two between Brian + Mike, seems to ignore the fact that there was some *major* creative tension between these guys that just kept getting more and more strained, and that their personalities at a certain point, IMO, ceased to be compatible with each other. Frankly, at a certain point, those two guys should have ceased being in a band together... and I think if family weren't a factor, that's exactly what would've happened. I believe it became an unhealthy working relationship (not to mention an unhealthy family dynamic) from that point forward once a dejected Brian was was coaxed back into a cowriting situation that he seemingly, simply outgrew.  

Everyone here who thinks that Mike was underutilized and capable of all sorts of lost greatness (and I'm willing to admit that maybe Mike was capable of a lot more than many people give him credit for) seem to turn a blind eye to the idea that perhaps Brian writing with others ("outsiders" of his choosing), and the freedom from emotional baggage/entitlement/etc. (which would have been omnipresent, at least to some degree, if Brian had kept writing exclusively with Mike during Pet Sounds/SMiLE), is what helped Brian feel artistically free enough to let his ideas flourish to the utmost.  In other words, Brian *needed* a change.
 
Even for Mike's biggest defenders: is it impossible to conceive of the idea that Brian, at a certain point, felt that working with Mike was holding him back, and that perhaps some of Brian's best work couldn't have been achieved if Mike was in the lyricist position?

And by holding Brian back, I mean that Brian himself, due to having to deal with frustrations, wouldn't necessarily be able to compose the music portions of the songs he wrote to 100% the same degree? It is possible. And I don't know why admitting this would have to even be a dig or slight against Mike - it just means that for some portions of Brian's creative life, he decided that he could make music and art in a certain manner that, to Brian, absolutely necessitated a different dynamic than had came before. That doesn't have to mean that "Mike sucks" or something.

Hell, Dennis was willing to let Brian replace him in the studio without a boatload of resentment or "questioning" of Brian's decisions, once Brian felt that Dennis' abilities (however great they were) would be better handled for certain songs (even for nearly entire albums, like Pet Sounds + SMiLE) by "outsiders".  That doesn't mean that Dennis "sucked", nor does it mean that it would make much sense to say that "Brian really should have used Dennis as the exclusive drummer on Pet Sounds + SMiLE". Dennis trusted Brian's instincts, and removed his own ego as a part of the equation.  

[Cam Mott]

Guitarfool -- I totally agree with you.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make, is that unlike the group's artistic  peers -- Beatles, Stones, Who -- there was a cancer on the BB's career. A moment where something stopped/became unhealthy and ENDED. Then, of course, dandelions started to pop out of the cracks in the pavement (the era I love the most, incidentally).

Everything you say is spot on and accurate. But that fanbase today -- myself included, to a certain extent -- happened because of a derailment.

That brilliant 1966 - 1973 catalogue (mainly Smile, though) became jewels in the fringe discovery hipster crown along with Big Star, Gram Parsons, Nick Drake, Arthur Lee, Nilsson, etc. But, it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to be much more bigger/important than that.

The Beach Boys were supposed to be right next to The Beatles, Dylan, The Who, and The Stones. Whether Mike Love writing the lyrics to "Vegetables" would've accomplished that is doubtful. But Smile -- which killed the band's momentum -- ultimately became the "coolest" thing about the Beach Boys. And, yes, that inspired a ton of indie bands with music that won't live on past its own time -- but I personally look at that as a sad consolation prize.

The thought that Brian and Mike's collaboration could have just kept happily chugging along in the face of massive change in the music industry, as well as Brian having wild creative ambitions that were literally bursting out of him, with only the occasional minor roadbump or two between Brian + Mike, seems to ignore the fact that there was some *major* creative tension between these guys that just kept getting more and more strained, and that their personalities at a certain point, IMO, ceased to be compatible with each other. Frankly, at a certain point, those two guys should have ceased being in a band together... and I think if family weren't a factor, that's exactly what would've happened. I believe it became an unhealthy working relationship (not to mention an unhealthy family dynamic) from that point forward once a dejected Brian was was coaxed back into a cowriting situation that he seemingly, simply outgrew.  

Everyone here who thinks that Mike was underutilized and capable of all sorts of lost greatness (and I'm willing to admit that maybe Mike was capable of a lot more than many people give him credit for) seem to turn a blind eye to the idea that perhaps Brian writing with others ("outsiders" of his choosing), and the freedom from emotional baggage/entitlement/etc. (which would have been omnipresent, at least to some degree, if Brian had kept writing exclusively with Mike during Pet Sounds/SMiLE), is what helped Brian feel artistically free enough to let his ideas flourish to the utmost.  In other words, Brian *needed* a change.
 
Even for Mike's biggest defenders: is it impossible to conceive of the idea that Brian, at a certain point, felt that working with Mike was holding him back, and that perhaps some of Brian's best work couldn't have been achieved if Mike was in the lyricist position?

And by holding Brian back, I mean that Brian himself, due to having to deal with frustrations, wouldn't necessarily be able to compose the music portions of the songs he wrote to 100% the same degree? It is possible. And I don't know why admitting this would have to even be a dig or slight against Mike - it just means that for some portions of Brian's creative life, he decided that he could make music and art in a certain manner that, to Brian, absolutely necessitated a different dynamic than had came before. That doesn't have to mean that "Mike sucks" or something.

Hell, Dennis was willing to let Brian replace him in the studio without a boatload of resentment or "questioning" of Brian's decisions, once Brian felt that Dennis' abilities (however great they were) would be better handled for certain songs (even for nearly entire albums, like Pet Sounds + SMiLE) by "outsiders".  That doesn't mean that Dennis "sucked", nor does it mean that it would make much sense to say that "Brian really should have used Dennis as the exclusive drummer on Pet Sounds + SMiLE". Dennis trusted Brian's instincts, and removed his own ego as a part of the equation.  

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you seem feel Brian was prevented from continuing to pursue the music he tried in 1966/67. I feel the evidence is he did try it and he didn't believe in it. He saw it as a mistake, not because of somebody else but because it wasn't him. Related to what Howie thought, I think Brian was doing things to impress people but he ended up the one not impressed with the things he had done.

[Dancing Bear]

Could Mike have written the lyrics for Pet Sounds and Smile without loss of quality? IMO Yes.

Did Brian want to work with other lyricists in 66 - 67? Objectively Yes, since he did.

Do I think he owed Mike the job of writing lyrics since they had worked together so great in 64-65? Hell No.

Whey the hell did Mike write the lyrics for Good Vibrations? I don't know. Maybe Asher was long gone when the track was ready to have vocals added, and Van Dyke Parks just wasn't the right man for the job. Brian is the kind of guy who wants it done NOW while it's hot, so Mike wrote the lyrics on the way to the studio.

Would Brian have been held back if Mike were writing lyrics for Pet Sounds? I don't know. Probably not. Mental issues eventually held Brian back, not working relations with Asher, Parks and Love.

[CenturyDeprived]

Guitarfool -- I totally agree with you.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make, is that unlike the group's artistic  peers -- Beatles, Stones, Who -- there was a cancer on the BB's career. A moment where something stopped/became unhealthy and ENDED. Then, of course, dandelions started to pop out of the cracks in the pavement (the era I love the most, incidentally).

Everything you say is spot on and accurate. But that fanbase today -- myself included, to a certain extent -- happened because of a derailment.

That brilliant 1966 - 1973 catalogue (mainly Smile, though) became jewels in the fringe discovery hipster crown along with Big Star, Gram Parsons, Nick Drake, Arthur Lee, Nilsson, etc. But, it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to be much more bigger/important than that.

The Beach Boys were supposed to be right next to The Beatles, Dylan, The Who, and The Stones. Whether Mike Love writing the lyrics to "Vegetables" would've accomplished that is doubtful. But Smile -- which killed the band's momentum -- ultimately became the "coolest" thing about the Beach Boys. And, yes, that inspired a ton of indie bands with music that won't live on past its own time -- but I personally look at that as a sad consolation prize.

The thought that Brian and Mike's collaboration could have just kept happily chugging along in the face of massive change in the music industry, as well as Brian having wild creative ambitions that were literally bursting out of him, with only the occasional minor roadbump or two between Brian + Mike, seems to ignore the fact that there was some *major* creative tension between these guys that just kept getting more and more strained, and that their personalities at a certain point, IMO, ceased to be compatible with each other. Frankly, at a certain point, those two guys should have ceased being in a band together... and I think if family weren't a factor, that's exactly what would've happened. I believe it became an unhealthy working relationship (not to mention an unhealthy family dynamic) from that point forward once a dejected Brian was was coaxed back into a cowriting situation that he seemingly, simply outgrew.  

Everyone here who thinks that Mike was underutilized and capable of all sorts of lost greatness (and I'm willing to admit that maybe Mike was capable of a lot more than many people give him credit for) seem to turn a blind eye to the idea that perhaps Brian writing with others ("outsiders" of his choosing), and the freedom from emotional baggage/entitlement/etc. (which would have been omnipresent, at least to some degree, if Brian had kept writing exclusively with Mike during Pet Sounds/SMiLE), is what helped Brian feel artistically free enough to let his ideas flourish to the utmost.  In other words, Brian *needed* a change.
 
Even for Mike's biggest defenders: is it impossible to conceive of the idea that Brian, at a certain point, felt that working with Mike was holding him back, and that perhaps some of Brian's best work couldn't have been achieved if Mike was in the lyricist position?

And by holding Brian back, I mean that Brian himself, due to having to deal with frustrations, wouldn't necessarily be able to compose the music portions of the songs he wrote to 100% the same degree? It is possible. And I don't know why admitting this would have to even be a dig or slight against Mike - it just means that for some portions of Brian's creative life, he decided that he could make music and art in a certain manner that, to Brian, absolutely necessitated a different dynamic than had came before. That doesn't have to mean that "Mike sucks" or something.

Hell, Dennis was willing to let Brian replace him in the studio without a boatload of resentment or "questioning" of Brian's decisions, once Brian felt that Dennis' abilities (however great they were) would be better handled for certain songs (even for nearly entire albums, like Pet Sounds + SMiLE) by "outsiders".  That doesn't mean that Dennis "sucked", nor does it mean that it would make much sense to say that "Brian really should have used Dennis as the exclusive drummer on Pet Sounds + SMiLE". Dennis trusted Brian's instincts, and removed his own ego as a part of the equation.  

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you seem feel Brian was prevented from continuing to pursue the music he tried in 1966/67. I feel the evidence is he did try it and he didn't believe in it. He saw it as a mistake, not because of somebody else but because it wasn't him. Related to what Howie thought, I think Brian was doing things to impress people but he ended up the one not impressed with the things he had done.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Brian (in his heart) *actually* believed that Pet Sounds and SMiLE were projects that he didn’t believe in, or that the projects somehow “weren’t him”. I don’t buy that he ever really, truly, deep down believed that, either right in the aftermath of those projects, or at anytime decades later. He became incredibly, super dejected by the fact that SMiLE wasn’t finished (particularly in the manner in which this non-release occurred, which was complicated and multi-faceted), and for years he publicly stated that this was “inappropriate” music in order to not have to deal with talking about it.  

He maybe even convinced himself of this on some superficial level  - and, by more often than not focusing on relatively “safer” material going forward, he avoided a repeat of the confrontation and rejection that he encountered in ‘66/’67 (which, while certainly not the only factor, was a major factor with SMiLE, no matter how much some people want to rewrite history and minimize it to a non-issue).

Let’s face it – probably the most experimental “out there” music that Brian attempted with the BBs post-SMiLE was the Fairy Tale, and that barely got released (in fact, I doubt very highly it would have been released at all, if not for Carl fearing a non-release due to the band not liking it would majorly Brian’s hurt feelings and manifest in something awful).  

Continued rejection (or near-rejection) may not be a textbook definition of an artist being “prevented” from doing anything, but a support system (minus opposing factors that continually chipped away at his confidence) would most certainly not have *hurt* Brian’s ambition + drive. Brian wasn’t exactly “prevented” from doing anything, but IMO a major factor of what he needed to flourish was less questions and more unconditional support.  

And maybe that expectation was "unrealistic" and "not how human beings act"... but Brian was/is a special case of an artist who, in an artistic sense, has given above and well beyond what most artists are humanly capable of giving, which is all tied into his extra sensitivity/extra needing of much more unconditional emotional support than normal (uber highly creative people are often just simply this way) - which is why I think he deserved better and needed more than what he got at the time.  And of course, I don't *just* mean from his bandmates, but I mean the record company, VDP, etc. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Of the surviving BBs of that era, I get the feeling that Al would probably more or less feel this way too.

I still think that if all the BBs at the time of SMiLE had the Dennis Wilson outlook on it (totally, unquestionably supporting Brian and truly believing he was onto something so incredible, it would make Pet Sounds stink), that it would have most likely been enough to get him to a better place mentally to maybe, just maybe finish SMiLE in some fashion at the time.

What if they all said they'd help him overcome the technical limitations by helping him sort tapes, make edits, etc? If they all banded together promising that they'd do anything to help him out mentally + practically + emotionally to get into a good head space? Maybe even this hypothetical scenario would have still not helped Brian finish SMiLE - but call me crazy, I still think that a support system like that would have lent itself to a different and better outcome (at least to some degree) than what actually happened. 

[Cam Mott]

I just don't think that is the way it was or Brian was. Others didn't influence Brian, Brian influenced others. Others didn't control Brian, Brian controlled others. Fairy Tale etc. are proof that if Brian wanted it, believed in it, it happened. If he didn't it didn't. SMiLE didn't. The Boys and others did support Brian as far as I can tell even when they felt humiliated by what Brian required of them. Anyways, I think it was all Brian and he did and should own it and we should let him.

[guitarfool2002]

I just had to step in with a comment on Brian and Pet Sounds: Don't ask for exact references because they're scattered everywhere, but after many interviews and comments Brian has made on Pet Sounds, is there any doubt he made Pet Sounds because he *had* to make Pet Sounds as a personal statement at that time? Was he nervous or anxious about how people would react to it before it was released? Absolutely yes, he was, but at the same time so were and are any number of "legendary" artists around the release of now-legendary projects that might buck the trend, take artistic risks, or radically change the image and appeal of that artist or group because it was/is so forward-thinking beyond what fans expected.

I have been on a Beatles reading kick recently, and have been devouring all kinds of books on them. I just got through the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane and Pepper sections of a book, more focused on the inner stuff rather than the music.

And that single, in early 1967, a single which is now considered one of the greatest of all time, was considered something of a failure or even a flop when it didn't reach #1 in the UK. It had broken a streak of every Beatle single reaching #1 going back a few years, and those within and around the band were taking some of it to heart. You just don't hear about that kind of self-doubt or nervousness about their direction reported too much. As they were doing Sgt pepper, all this was going on. The end of 1966 saw the Beach Boys top them in the polls, in certain parts of the US the Beatles name was like mud after John's Jesus interview blew up, and they stopped touring and basically disappeared as a group entity for much of the fall 1966 to lead some to suggest they were splitting up and going out as individuals.

And Brian Epstein was a wreck - without touring he really didn't have much of a proactive role at this time - and he held onto the desperate hope that he could book another tour of the UK for them, which was pure fantasy.

Again, all of this self-doubt, all of this "what if?" questioning, all of the rumours of them being "done" as a band, was happening as they were doing what would turn their career into something beyond pop music Beatlemania. And they were, privately, feeling the sting of missing their mark (according to observers) with the SF/PL single and wondering privately if their new sound would hit or miss with the listeners.

At the same time, they were supremely confident in the music they were actually creating and recording, and unlike previous sessions which were kept almost hush-hush confidential to outsiders, they would invite people to drop in and listen. Almost like a self-realization or affirmation that what they were doing was really *that good*, and almost to a man those who heard it were blown away, to borrow the UK term "gobsmacked" by the works-in-progress they were hearing.

And likewise, Brian had these same lingering doubts - again, who doesn't in similar situations? But from all accounts, I always got the impression Brian felt so personally connected to Pet Sounds that he "had to make it" at that time, as he wanted, and he did stand his ground even though among record company negotiations and whatnot he may have shown less than a bold stance on it at the time.

Believing in something that personal, that important, is different than having doubts in a commercial sense or doubting the acceptance of such an offering because it is so close to the heart in nature.

I cannot agree that Brian didn't believe in Pet Sounds, any more than there is a misunderstanding that the Beatles from Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane into Sgt. Pepper were going full speed ahead, all obstacles be damned without harboring the same kinds of questions and doubts as Brian had with Pet Sounds and other projects in '66. In no way does worrying of that sort suggest they didn't believe in the project.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I think there is a distinction between believing in the music and feeling apprehensive about how the listening public is going to accept it. In my opinion, Brian knew that Pet Sounds and SMiLE were good, very good. He also knew that the music was different, and, because of that aspect, it had to make Brian a little uneasy. Brian seemed to be a character who on one hand possessed an abundance of self-confidence, but could then turn around and scrap something because he thought other people wouldn't like it. Although you have to wonder how he could think the public would embrace Smiley Smile, Friends, and even some of Wild Honey.

As far as Brian's saying "I don't know" why he didn't use Mike Love for Pet Sounds...Of course he knows. Let's put it this way. The Brian Wilson of 1966 could probably give you five reasons right of the top of his head why he went with Tony Asher instead of Mike Love. I don't know the man, but the Brian Wilson of today appears to be someone who doesn't care enough to give the question significant thought, or at least the thought required to answer the question.

[guitarfool2002]

Sheriff, I really like where you went with that post. I'll come back to a point I made about that mid-60's period and Brian several times before.

None of these guys really had what a lot of us know as the experience of going away to college, or any other experience when we're ages 18-23 that takes us out of what we knew from "home" and into a new realm of friends, ideas, and outlooks. How many of us either personally or through kids or siblings have seen someone "come home" almost a changed person, full of new ideas and maybe even a totally different way of looking at things?

You might find that people who were your closest friends and things that were vitally important to you at age 17 have shifted into other areas. You're still friends, you're still blood brothers and will always be, but the ability to *relate* to your previous friends has changed in many cases.

If you consider that Tony Asher was a friend of Loren Schwartz's who had grown up with him, and then factor in Brian getting into that particular social circle that included men like Van Dyke Parks and David Anderle, some of the reasons "why" become more clear.

Brian was experiencing what a lot of us civilians got by leaving home for college. His mind was being expanded and his outlook on life was being changed as he sat in on conversations about philosophy, religion, politics, and everyday life that were miles away from what he knew in Hawthorne.

And as such, the ability to relate to someone like Mike on a "Hawthorne" level where certain mindsets and activities were prioritized and which came out in their music was suddenly interrupted by a whole new set of ideas. Someone like Brian would still love the idea of cruising the streets in a hot car and picking up girls, but at the same time he'd be having conversations far removed from that scene with a new circle of friends.

And I think having a lyricist who was a part of that new group of friends, part of the "inner circle" in fact, struck a deeper chord with what he wanted to do and say in his music than the previous circle of girls and fun and Hawthorne *at that specific time*.

Someone like Asher was able to have those conversations at that exact point in Brian's life and mindset where his previous collaborator and cousin Mike perhaps wasn't relating to this new mindset as much.

And just like the kid coming home from a few years away from school, it *is* hard to relate and that process and realization that you may not connect like you did at age 17 with some people you love is difficult. And as age progresses, you often have to go back and look for it because it brings you more joy in its nostalgia and maybe a renewed sense of how you felt as a kid than what you experienced as your new self.

On a basic level, around the time of Pet Sounds, I just think Brian if you consider him as we do a kid going away to college and coming back a changed person, was not as able to relate to loved ones like Mike as well as he could at that specific time with the new circle of friends who introduced him to all the new ways of thinking. So he went with where he was at emotionally and philosophically at the time, with someone he felt he could relate to on that level.

[Dancing Bear]

Guitarfool, I get what yiou're saying and agree. Whey do you think Brian started writing with Mike again in late '67?

[Cam Mott]

I think that is exactly what happened to SMiLE, Brian couldn't really relate/connect to the other/outsiders including VDP and did not ultimately relate to the music he/they created.

I think SMiLE might very well have been better off with Mike he was/is a team player and because they did relate to each other and work together and Mike had a better understanding of Brian's ways and sense of humor.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that is exactly what happened to SMiLE, Brian couldn't really relate/connect to the other/outsiders including VDP and did not ultimately relate to the music he/they created.
 

Does it not seem possible to you that Brian felt so dejected by the project not being finished, that by retroactively claiming the music was "inappropriate" or in some way non-relatable/connectable, it helped Brian himself legitimize (to himself, from a psychological standpoint) having shelved it? Plus, Brian could only take hearing questions (and seeing bandmates grudgingly going through the motions) enough times before starting to second guess himself in a big way. I'm not saying that all of Brian's second-guessing of the project was solely caused by his bandmates, but it obviously was a *major* factor.

I mean, it was easier for Brian to do that and superficially convince himself, or at least publicly proclaim, that there was something "wrong" or "not appropriate music for the band", than for him to have done the alternative - which would have meant in some shape or form, going back and addressing a project which had resulted in so much pain for him; emotional pain/rejection/SMiLE were all inextricably bounded together in his mind for decades.  

Brian, in his dejected and fragile emotional state, IMO convinced himself that he had to put down the music in some fashion - the alternative would have meant Brian keeping up some sort of defending of the legitimacy of the project - which in turn would have meant that Brian was on some level keeping up a fight against element(s) in the band who most questioned it in the first place. He had given up the fight, and his diminishing motivation and decline in general is intrinsically connected to that.

To suggest, as you do, that Brian created SMiLE music, then thought about it and actually said to himself on his own: "you know, Bri, the music that VDP and myself made just wasn't something that I or other people can connect with/relate to" doesn't make anything resembling sense to me.

It's plainly obvious to me that Brian developed all sorts of mental blocks/walls (that led him to "put down" the music) as a defense mechanism.  

[clack]

By late '66 state-of-the-art rock lyrics had become faux-Dylan : oblique, allusive, they-mean-whatever-you-want-them-to-mean. 'A Whiter Shade of Pale'. 'Strawberry Fields Forever'. 'Crystal Ship' by the Doors, 'Broken Arrow' by the Buffalo Springfield, that sort of thing. VDP was absolutely the right choice if Brian wanted lyrics in a style that the new, hip (pretentious?) audience of college kids would appreciate.

Mike's style is the opposite. Direct, say-what-you-mean, clear. Chuck Berry, not badly done Rimbaud. In many ways a more difficult style to do well. I have more respect for the lyrics of 'Fun Fun Fun' and 'California Girls' than I do for those of 'A Whiter Shade of Pale'. But Mike could never write lyrics that would have connected with this new hippie audience.

Don't think subbing Mike for VDP would have saved SMiLE.

[CenturyDeprived]

Why do you think Brian started writing with Mike again in late '67?

IMO, I highly doubt that Brian's decision to restart working with Mike as the primary lyricist for the Wild Honey album was a decision that Brian exactly made "happily".

Firstly, I think most people would think that Brian had some major resentment or pained/super strained feelings about Mike Love in 1967. I'd think even Mike's biggest defenders would realize that this was likely the case in Brian's mind, at least to some degree.  

Going back and working in an artistic environment with someone with whom you have just very recently had majorly hurt feelings (which haven't been addressed/dealt with properly) can't have been a decision that would have been Brian's first instinct, IMO. He found a way to put those feelings aside and not deal with them, while they probably kept quietly festering in the back of his mind.

But given the circumstances (quickly diminishing band popularity/general desperation by most of the band for some sort of quick fix via an easily achievable goal), not to mention whatever repeated requests Mike himself probably made to Brian (in a manner that none of us really know the nature of), it just was the easiest, safest choice to make, especially after a long period of what he came to view as uncertain choices.  

I think Brian felt a sense of obligation too, and I imagine he was reminded of the broken promise to Mike about allowing Mike to become the reclaim the throne of primary lyricist after Pet Sounds...and I think that this is probably a factor of some sort in why the "Gettin' Hungry" single has that bizarre one-off "Brian + Mike" credit. I smell some odd passive-aggressive making-up-for-broken-promises type of stuff in how that credit may have come to fruition - I'd love to know what other people think of why we have that credit (which seemed to be an unintentionally symbolic "undoing" of sorts of the Brian solo "Caroline, No" single credit). For that very unusual credit to exist just months after the SMiLE incident is odd, to say the least.

I'm not at all saying that Brian had to be desperate in order to work with Mike Love again - but I believe that Brian (egged on by the band) started to feel desperate to get results in a quick "proven" manner. Particularly since a pressured and dejected (some could say to an extent bullied) Brian had given up the fight to use outside lyricists (and had convinced himself on some superficial level that the whole SMiLE affair/primary use of outsiders was "inappropriate")... I think Brian just basically allowed a Mike-as-the-primary-lyricist thing to simply happen. It kept peace, and Mike got what he wanted so badly for 2 years.

[Autotune]

Guitarfool, I get what yiou're saying and agree. Whey do you think Brian started writing with Mike again in late '67?

Per Peter Reum, after Brian promised Mike after Pet Sounds (or Smile), that he'd co-write the next one with him. Hence the abundance of collaborations between those two on WH-- and probably the Gettin' Hungry single. Too bad by then people did not care about the BBs anymore. Too late.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Why do you think Brian started writing with Mike again in late '67?

Going back and working in an artistic environment with someone with whom you have just very recently had majorly hurt feelings (which haven't been addressed/dealt with properly) can't have been a decision that would have been Brian's first instinct, IMO. He found a way to put those feelings aside and not deal with them, while they probably kept quietly festering in the back of his mind.

Keep in mind that Mike's biggest (and only?) problem with SMiLE was SOME of Van Dyke Park's lyrics, not Brian's artistic contribution which was the music. I know we have discussed this ad nauseum, but Mike did his job well on SMiLE and I don't think there is any documented evidence that he (Mike) protested during the recording of the weirder Smiley Smile.

[Cam Mott]

Does it not seem possible to you that Brian felt so dejected by the project not being finished, that by retroactively claiming the music was "inappropriate" or in some way non-relatable/connectable, it helped Brian himself legitimize (to himself, from a psychological standpoint) having shelved it? Plus, Brian could only take hearing questions (and seeing bandmates grudgingly going through the motions) enough times before starting to second guess himself in a big way. I'm not saying that all of Brian's second-guessing of the project was solely caused by his bandmates, but it obviously was a *major* factor.

Sure anything is possible and that is an old theory that sort hardened into something resembling fact for a long time. My read is exactly opposite, Brian shows no signs of this supposed vulnerability or regret to me. He was not fighting to save SMiLE, he was exactly the opposite fighting to dump SMiLE and he did. In my opinion Brian was just not at all like that theory proposes. After dumping SMiLE he was not pining away for it he went on and had one of his most productive years. To me that proposal is romantic but it doesn't fit the facts as I read them.