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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Another question in this whole crazy topic(s) that we are discussing:

Would Mike at some point between, say, 1967-1982, ever have publicly taken a tiny bit of responsibility for SMiLE's demise, in exchange for his cowriting credits (and all the associated coin)?

Let's aim higher! Let's demand that Roger Daltry (speaking for himself, Moon, and Entwisle) come out and publicly apologize for LIFEHOUSE not coming out after Tommy! That's a lot more bang for the buck! I'm sure Pete's feelings were probably hurt somewhere back then.....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

It means that obsessing over things you have no control over and that, in reality, had rather happy endings, is not exactly healthy or positive..... We have people referring to others as parts of circle jerks here because these unchangeable events are so extremely important, and the obsessions can't survive even the slightest scrutiny without flying off the handle.

This board is suffering for it, I'm sorry.

Just look at the top 3 threads:

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

2. Has Mike Love ever taken a tiny bit of responsibility for SMiLE's demise?

3. Does anyone around here still believe David Leaf's version of the story.

All threads that revolve around all the bad things Mike did.

Obsessed a little over evil Mike?

[CenturyDeprived]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

It means that obsessing over things you have no control over and that, in reality, had rather happy endings, is not exactly healthy or positive..... We have people referring to others as parts of circle jerks here because these unchangeable events are so extremely important, and the obsessions can't survive even the slightest scrutiny without flying off the handle.

I don't/won't defend anyone hitting below the belt and acting without tact in a forum like this. But it is bothersome when some posters attempt to muzzle other posters just because they don't agree with what they've said, or state that since it's 50 years ago, that somehow belittles or negates the topic from being worthy of discussion. It's also equally bothersome when some people, while in a back-and-forth discussion, refuse to answer certain specific questions that would somehow chip away at their position - or they get suddenly sarcastic in their responses. All of these things = way uncool IMO. Let's just all be civil, be honest when others may have made a point of sorts, check our sarcasm at the door. I'll practice what I preach.
 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

It means that obsessing over things you have no control over and that, in reality, had rather happy endings, is not exactly healthy or positive..... We have people referring to others as parts of circle jerks here because these unchangeable events are so extremely important, and the obsessions can't survive even the slightest scrutiny without flying off the handle.

I don't/won't defend anyone hitting below the belt and acting without tact in a forum like this. But it is bothersome when some posters attempt to muzzle other posters just because they don't agree with what they've said, or state that since it's 50 years ago, that somehow belittles or negates the topic from being worthy of discussion. It's also equally bothersome when some people, while in a back-and-forth discussion, refuse to answer certain specific questions that would somehow chip away at their position - or they get suddenly sarcastic in their responses. All of these things = way uncool IMO. Let's just all be civil, be honest when others may have made a point of sorts, check our sarcasm at the door, and not try to muzzle others who we don't agree with.
 

Problem I see in a large part is the less than Mike-Lovers accusing every argument as being a muzzle. There is a worrisome habit forming of posters seeming to get really angry when someone has the raw nerve to dare challenge their lengthy lengthy speculations. They claim it's all in the spirit of discussion, but when discussion is attempted people are written off as Mike's cheerleaders or circle-jerk squad....  But it all goes both ways, and that's the truth. But this is not like discussing the merits of this song or album or performance. This is a quagmire where the seeming need to see Mike punished for perceived wrongs is simply unquenchable..... We can't make anything happen here on a messageboard that might satisfy this need. You can't convince someone of something that can only ever be a matter of opinion.

[CenturyDeprived]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

Obsessed a little over evil Mike?

As far as I recall, not a single person in this thread, and certainly not myself who started the thread, has ever used the term "evil". Putting words into the mouths of people who have opposing viewpoints to you is nothing more than a form of extremism in its own right.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

Obsessed a little over evil Mike?

As far as I recall, not a single person in this thread, and certainly not myself who started the thread, has ever used the term "evil". Putting words into the mouths of people who have opposing viewpoints to you is nothing more than a form of extremism in its own right.  

Nor did I claim that anyone used it. I used it to illustrate how a collective something appears........ which is within my rights, I would suppose.

[CenturyDeprived]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

Obsessed a little over evil Mike?

As far as I recall, not a single person in this thread, and certainly not myself who started the thread, has ever used the term "evil". Putting words into the mouths of people who have opposing viewpoints to you is nothing more than a form of extremism in its own right.  

Nor did I claim that anyone used it. I used it to illustrate how a collective something appears........ which is within my rights, I would suppose.

Dude - the clear implication is a sarcastic way of saying that either I, or people who disagree with your viewpoint, think in that way to some degree. It's in your right to say whatever you want, of course - but I'm just saying it simply ain't cool to imply things like that, even indirectly. It just isn't true.

Also, I disagree that anyone here has an aching "need to see Mike punished for perceived wrongs". That's another instance of implying that people opposed to your viewpoint feel that way. I've seen nobody in this thread say anything of the sort.

I'm absolutely on your side about keeping things civil here - but let's just get things straight and not snarkily put words that do not exist into SS posters' mouths, or desires that do not exist into SS posters' hearts. 

[Nicko1234]

I don't/won't defend anyone hitting below the belt and acting without tact in a forum like this. But it is bothersome when some posters attempt to muzzle other posters just because they don't agree with what they've said, or state that since it's 50 years ago, that somehow belittles or negates the topic from being worthy of discussion. It's also equally bothersome when some people, while in a back-and-forth discussion, refuse to answer certain specific questions that would somehow chip away at their position - or they get suddenly sarcastic in their responses. All of these things = way uncool IMO. Let's just all be civil, be honest when others may have made a point of sorts, check our sarcasm at the door. I'll practice what I preach.
 

Aren`t you and Pinder different sides of the same coin? Meaning that you are never going to be facing the same way...

[Cam Mott]

I'm just making an observation about that case specifically. The eyewitness account of the whole trail showed it was not just or even mostly about money for Mike's people.

No matter what I feel about this, let's go on it for a minute and consider another question like the one posed as the topic of this thread:

What if Brian had lost his case against Irving/Almo et al, and the court found that the sale of Sea Of Tunes was authorized and no "wrongdoing" or misconduct had taken place. Which would mean Irving/Almo could retain everything and Brian had no claim on royalites, profits, and the like.

Would Mike have filed a lawsuit against *them* to get his credits and payments due from the songs? They would be the people to sue because they were collecting revenue from the songs since at least 1970.

Just asking opinion as a hypothetical "what if?" scenario, again like the initial question of the thread.

Not sure but I believe it would strengthened Mike's previously held belief that nothing could be done. He was actually going after Brian because Brian broke an agreement the two of them. And even then he is barely pressing his rights.

[Cam Mott]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

Mike said he "thinks", speculation. And then he speculates more about Murry's motivations. Unless I remember it wrong.

[Dancing Bear]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

Well, Brian wasn't capable of standing up to Murry and getting the songwriting credits right for a bunch of of songs his band released. How isn't this a fact?

Since it looks like I'm stating that Brian's a villain and Mike's a hero, I'll add that Mike wasn't capable of keeping his mouth shut during Smile. There it is, balance. 

PS: Brian wasn't to blame for the miscrediting and Mike didn't kill Smile.

[guitarfool2002]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

Well, Brian wasn't capable of standing up to Murry and getting the songwriting credits right for a bunch of of songs his band released. How isn't this a fact?

Since it looks like I'm stating that Brian's a villain and Mike's a hero, I'll add that Mike wasn't capable of keeping his mouth shut during Smile. There it is, balance. 

PS: Brian wasn't to blame for the miscrediting and Mike didn't kill Smile.

I don't get the first line: The suggestions in this thread early on were that Brian didn't stand up as some expected him to do to correct things, and Mike's words suggested Brian wasn't able to do such a thing for various reasons he lists, not just in the 60's but also in the 90's around the lawsuit.

So those putting expectations on Brian and criticizing him for not doing more are putting a greater expectation on his actions than Mike Love himself. Again, what the fans either think or want to believe happened is contradicted and disputed by what Mike himself has said.

And that's pretty striking, isn't it?

[guitarfool2002]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

There is no relevance, there is no point, and it adds nothing to the discussion. Why do some do it? Perhaps to diminish, distract, and divert attention from discussing points or issues that might disagree with what they either have been led to believe or want to believe.

Either way, it's a tired, old tactic that has run its course many times over. If I want that kind of stuff, I'll watch the political shows on TV.

*And I'm glad to see someone else spot it and call it out.* Again, there is no relevance or no point, and it most often looks like an attempt to shut down a discussion.

[CenturyDeprived]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

There is no relevance, there is no point, and it adds nothing to the discussion. Why do some do it? Perhaps to diminish, distract, and divert attention from discussing points or issues that might disagree with what they either have been led to believe or want to believe.

Either way, it's a tired, old tactic that has run its course many times over. If I want that kind of stuff, I'll watch the political shows on TV.

*And I'm glad to see someone else spot it and call it out.* Again, there is no relevance or no point, and it most often looks like an attempt to shut down a discussion.

My thoughts exactly, guitarfool2002.

[clack]

Another peculiar thing about Mike's WIBN credit :

The melody of Mike's contribution is Brian's (or is a minor variation of, anyway). And the lyrics are not Mike's, but are from the nursery rhyme : "Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite". In essence, Mike got credit and royalties for adding "my baby" to a pre-existing nursery rhyme and sticking it on the outro of a pre-existing song.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well, this IS the same band that did Shortnin Bread! 

[Cam Mott]

If Brian couldn't stand up to Murry and didn't control who got on the publishing, how come VDP says Brian gave him half of the publishing? And all of these fellas we think Murry thought were ne'r-do-wells, leeches, and pushers like Usher, Christian, Sachen, Asher, and VDP all got credit but we believe only Murry couldn't see his way to always crediting his sister's son? His own nephew?

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

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

And everybody directly involved has lived long and prospered..... This was 50 freaking years ago! So what?

Regardless of my opinion on the topic we're discussing... why do people in these threads roll out the "it was 50 years ago" card? What does the amount of time that has elapsed have to do with anything? This is a BB board, and most of the discussion-worthy items took place a long time ago. Not sure what the relevance is.

It means that obsessing over things you have no control over and that, in reality, had rather happy endings, is not exactly healthy or positive..... We have people referring to others as parts of circle jerks here because these unchangeable events are so extremely important, and the obsessions can't survive even the slightest scrutiny without flying off the handle.

I don't/won't defend anyone hitting below the belt and acting without tact in a forum like this. But it is bothersome when some posters attempt to muzzle other posters just because they don't agree with what they've said, or state that since it's 50 years ago, that somehow belittles or negates the topic from being worthy of discussion. It's also equally bothersome when some people, while in a back-and-forth discussion, refuse to answer certain specific questions that would somehow chip away at their position - or they get suddenly sarcastic in their responses. All of these things = way uncool IMO. Let's just all be civil, be honest when others may have made a point of sorts, check our sarcasm at the door, and not try to muzzle others who we don't agree with.
 

Problem I see in a large part is the less than Mike-Lovers accusing every argument as being a muzzle. There is a worrisome habit forming of posters seeming to get really angry when someone has the raw nerve to dare challenge their lengthy lengthy speculations. They claim it's all in the spirit of discussion, but when discussion is attempted people are written off as Mike's cheerleaders or circle-jerk squad....  But it all goes both ways, and that's the truth. But this is not like discussing the merits of this song or album or performance. This is a quagmire where the seeming need to see Mike punished for perceived wrongs is simply unquenchable..... We can't make anything happen here on a messageboard that might satisfy this need. You can't convince someone of something that can only ever be a matter of opinion.

And as I see it, the problem is people like you and Cam with a clearly warped view of reality and other people's stances. I've been repeatedly called a Mike hater for pointing out his faults fairly and unmaliciously. There's no "unquenchable desire to crucify him." You are the one who dragged me into this back and forth. I can and have criticized Brian too, but if doubting the WIBN credit is earned or pointing out the simple fact that Mike didn't write Vega-Tables makes me a hater than so be it. You're very quick to throw blame around, Pinder. I suggest you start with yourself.

[Dancing Bear]

The elephant in the room is that Mike himself directly contradicted what folks here were trying to suggest happened to him 50 years ago by placing blame on Murry and suggesting Brian wasn't capable of doing certain things that others here criticize him for not doing, yet that's not enough...the man's own words and opinions are less valid than a letter by Murry Wilson, I guess that's the way it is. Mike made essentially the same points as some in the thread who were accused of being "anti-Mike".

Well, Brian wasn't capable of standing up to Murry and getting the songwriting credits right for a bunch of of songs his band released. How isn't this a fact?

Since it looks like I'm stating that Brian's a villain and Mike's a hero, I'll add that Mike wasn't capable of keeping his mouth shut during Smile. There it is, balance. 

PS: Brian wasn't to blame for the miscrediting and Mike didn't kill Smile.

I don't get the first line: The suggestions in this thread early on were that Brian didn't stand up as some expected him to do to correct things, and Mike's words suggested Brian wasn't able to do such a thing for various reasons he lists, not just in the 60's but also in the 90's around the lawsuit.

So those putting expectations on Brian and criticizing him for not doing more are putting a greater expectation on his actions than Mike Love himself. Again, what the fans either think or want to believe happened is contradicted and disputed by what Mike himself has said.

And that's pretty striking, isn't it?

I don't know if anyones EXPECTS Brian to have done the right thing 50 yeas ago. Some are simply stating that he didn't. We'll debate forever if Brian wanted to do it but wasn't able to or he didn't care enough to do it. Apparently Mike has already forgiven him anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Cam Mott]

And as I see it, the problem is people like you and Cam with a clearly warped view of reality and other people's stances. I've been repeatedly called a Mike hater for pointing out his faults fairly and unmaliciously. There's no "unquenchable desire to crucify him." You are the one who dragged me into this back and forth. I can and have criticized Brian too, but if doubting the WIBN credit is earned or pointing out the simple fact that Mike didn't write Vega-Tables makes me a hater than so be it. You're very quick to throw blame around, Pinder. I suggest you start with yourself.

You keep attempting to bait me, insult me, name call, and you accuse me of name calling. Can you point me to where I accused you or called you a Mike hater? Speaking of other people's stances, I never said Mike wrote Vegetables. As I said earlier repeatedly, he has the publishing for Mama Says.

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

And as I see it, the problem is people like you and Cam with a clearly warped view of reality and other people's stances. I've been repeatedly called a Mike hater for pointing out his faults fairly and unmaliciously. There's no "unquenchable desire to crucify him." You are the one who dragged me into this back and forth. I can and have criticized Brian too, but if doubting the WIBN credit is earned or pointing out the simple fact that Mike didn't write Vega-Tables makes me a hater than so be it. You're very quick to throw blame around, Pinder. I suggest you start with yourself.

You keep attempting to bait me, insult me, name call, and you accuse me of name calling. Can you point me to where I accused you or called you a Mike hater? Speaking of other people's stances, I never said Mike wrote Vegetables. As I said earlier repeatedly, he has the publishing for Mama Says.

Im mostly referring to Pinder. Your theory is based on one piece of compromised evidence while I strongly disproved it. You expect me to pester VDP when the burden of proof is on YOU.

 Pinder has been assuming I'm a Mike hater, begging for praise for Mike, and accusing me of actively smearing Mike's reputation in spite of my attempt at offering a balanced interpretation of him, how SMiLE may have gone down and Brian's perhaps careless way of leaving Mike hanging with, for example, the crediting of the hits and sidelining of him in PS and SMiLE.

I will defend him of certain things, and the slanderous accusation that he killed SMiLE is one of them. I've repeatedly said his disapproval was probably just the lyrics as Mike claimed in TSS book. And I understand why he was resentful and negative about the project. But I *do* believe he was resentful. All testimony from outside collaborators proves he's always been that way. That's Mike. If we believe his story, we have to believe VDP and Brian too. They claim he was unsupportive if not hostile. Not as much as the media makes out, and not enough to kill the project. Just stressor #9 or so on a long list for Brian. But ultimately, I've agreed, SMiLE was shelved by Brian's hand, and unfinished by his indecisiveness. I think this is a pretty fair assessment. I've stated it all before. But I'm a hater. Ok, whatever.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And as I see it, the problem is people like you and Cam with a clearly warped view of reality and other people's stances. I've been repeatedly called a Mike hater for pointing out his faults fairly and unmaliciously. There's no "unquenchable desire to crucify him." You are the one who dragged me into this back and forth. I can and have criticized Brian too, but if doubting the WIBN credit is earned or pointing out the simple fact that Mike didn't write Vega-Tables makes me a hater than so be it. You're very quick to throw blame around, Pinder. I suggest you start with yourself.

You keep attempting to bait me, insult me, name call, and you accuse me of name calling. Can you point me to where I accused you or called you a Mike hater? Speaking of other people's stances, I never said Mike wrote Vegetables. As I said earlier repeatedly, he has the publishing for Mama Says.

Im mostly referring to Pinder. Your theory is based on one piece of compromised evidence while I strongly disproved it. You expect me to pester VDP when the burden of proof is on YOU.

 Pinder has been assuming I'm a Mike hater, begging for praise for Mike, and accusing me of actively smearing Mike's reputation in spite of my attempt at offering a balanced interpretation of him, how SMiLE may have gone down and Brian's perhaps careless way of leaving Mike hanging with, for example, the crediting of the hits and sidelining of him in PS and SMiLE.

I will defend him of certain things, and the slanderous accusation that he killed SMiLE is one of them. I've repeatedly said his disapproval was probably just the lyrics as Mike claimed in TSS book. And I understand why he was resentful and negative about the project. But I *do* believe he was resentful. All testimony from outside collaborators proves he's always been that way. That's Mike. If we believe his story, we have to believe VDP and Brian too. They claim he was unsupportive if not hostile. Not as much as the media makes out, and not enough to kill the project. Just stressor #9 or so on a long list for Brian. But ultimately, I've agreed, SMiLE was shelved by Brian's hand, and unfinished by his indecisiveness. I think this is a pretty fair assessment. I've stated it all before. But I'm a hater. Ok, whatever.

Again, despite the not so wonderful painting of myself, a great post!

I think you're getting as close to the truth as any of us have.... It's important to stress the difference here between insisting Mike killed SMILE and simply putting forth the opinion/view that Mike's comments and or attitude might have hurt Brian. That is good and valid in and of itself, and does not need to be argued forever and ever.... I'm willing to speculate also, that if Mike seemed hostile to VDP, then VDP probably seemed hostile to Mike, though in a different way.

If I was going to pester you, Mujan, for Mike praise, I'd be demanding that you praise Sumahama: the man's finest work, in my opinion  

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

And as I see it, the problem is people like you and Cam with a clearly warped view of reality and other people's stances. I've been repeatedly called a Mike hater for pointing out his faults fairly and unmaliciously. There's no "unquenchable desire to crucify him." You are the one who dragged me into this back and forth. I can and have criticized Brian too, but if doubting the WIBN credit is earned or pointing out the simple fact that Mike didn't write Vega-Tables makes me a hater than so be it. You're very quick to throw blame around, Pinder. I suggest you start with yourself.

You keep attempting to bait me, insult me, name call, and you accuse me of name calling. Can you point me to where I accused you or called you a Mike hater? Speaking of other people's stances, I never said Mike wrote Vegetables. As I said earlier repeatedly, he has the publishing for Mama Says.

Im mostly referring to Pinder. Your theory is based on one piece of compromised evidence while I strongly disproved it. You expect me to pester VDP when the burden of proof is on YOU.

 Pinder has been assuming I'm a Mike hater, begging for praise for Mike, and accusing me of actively smearing Mike's reputation in spite of my attempt at offering a balanced interpretation of him, how SMiLE may have gone down and Brian's perhaps careless way of leaving Mike hanging with, for example, the crediting of the hits and sidelining of him in PS and SMiLE.

I will defend him of certain things, and the slanderous accusation that he killed SMiLE is one of them. I've repeatedly said his disapproval was probably just the lyrics as Mike claimed in TSS book. And I understand why he was resentful and negative about the project. But I *do* believe he was resentful. All testimony from outside collaborators proves he's always been that way. That's Mike. If we believe his story, we have to believe VDP and Brian too. They claim he was unsupportive if not hostile. Not as much as the media makes out, and not enough to kill the project. Just stressor #9 or so on a long list for Brian. But ultimately, I've agreed, SMiLE was shelved by Brian's hand, and unfinished by his indecisiveness. I think this is a pretty fair assessment. I've stated it all before. But I'm a hater. Ok, whatever.

Again, despite the not so wonderful painting of myself, a great post!

I think you're getting as close to the truth as any of us have.... It's important to stress the difference here between insisting Mike killed SMILE and simply putting forth the opinion/view that Mike's comments and or attitude might have hurt Brian. That is good and valid in and of itself, and does not need to be argued forever and ever.... I'm willing to speculate also, that if Mike seemed hostile to VDP, then VDP probably seemed hostile to Mike, though in a different way.

If I was going to pester you, Mujan, for Mike praise, I'd be demanding that you praise Sumahama: the man's finest work, in my opinion  

Yes. I'd say VDP probably assumed he'd have the full cooperation of the band, was surprised and annoyed that Mike Love was so not into it and Brian was so indecisive.

As far as the Cabin Essence Incident I think the scenario presented in the Catch a Wave biography is most plausible. Not some dramatic fist fight or shouting match. Just Mike asking what some lyrics mean, probably in a rude, obnoxious way and perhaps just one time too many. VDP was prob just plain fed up at that point (I'm betting Mike was probably rude to him here and there, making it clear that he (Van) was not welcome) so he said some variation of "You know what? I don't know" and left.

In short, neither liked it each other...Brian wasn't willing to stick up for or denounce either one due to his sensitivity and 15 or so other problems of the time...there was no way this triumvirate could stay united on a common goal as John/Paul/George were doing.

VDP came back briefly, saw that the album had effectively been gutted for the single, and that Brian had no idea what he was doing or what the project was anymore. He jumped ship for the solo album. Brian I suspect, had wanted his help on H&V since he had clearly lost sight of what to do for the song. When VDP couldn't help, Brian abandoned Heroes and started work on Vega-Tables for the single. Then he lost confidence in that as well, went back to Heroes and releases the bare bones single we all know after the album is officially shelved (which happened when it was clear VDP wasn't coming back.)

Ultimately, Brian's focus on the single after 12/66 killed the projects momentum and likely any scope of the big picture. After May, all the pieces are shelved and work begins on another album.

Smiley is a collage of:

1-The Humor/Health/Experimentation elements of SMiLE
2-The need to rush out an album quickly, but in a presentable way--As an artistic statement, against the production race and about a year ahead of the 'Back to Basics' movement in pop music.
3-What I believe to be are the leftover SMiLE songs the band had liked (notice there's no Cabin Essence, Barnyard/Great Shape, Surf's Up...all of which, I believe are the known ones the group had issues with)
4-As Peter Ames Carlin said, a lot of ugliness, intentional or not.
5-GV slapped on for sales.

Basically, Smiley is Brian making SMiLE by starting over, using what was available in a creative way, thinking ahead of the curve and without the wrecking crew. It's a work of art, even more uncommercial than SMiLE and about a year too early (whereas SMiLE, if finished instead, would've been half a year late)