gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 11:00:57 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Don't F**k With the Formula  (Read 60975 times)
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: August 24, 2015, 09:45:05 AM »

The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #276 on: August 24, 2015, 09:52:11 AM »

Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



View Profile WWW
« Reply #277 on: August 24, 2015, 09:53:37 AM »

Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   Wink

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  Wink


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   Grin

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 09:55:25 AM by Empire Of Love » Logged

filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #278 on: August 24, 2015, 09:55:48 AM »

The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



View Profile WWW
« Reply #279 on: August 24, 2015, 10:06:24 AM »

The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

This is all true, and Mike and Brian were ultimately in a business together .  However, while they may have been equals on paper (I have no idea the legal arrangement then or now), they certainly weren't equals in their respective roles, Brian's abilities far exceeded the others.  The songs were Brian's vision, he was by far the most competent, and at some point you have to follow or throw in your chips.  The Beach Boys without Brian Wilson is not the Beach Boys, especially in the early years - without which here would be no later years, there would be no coattails to ride.  As much as I like and value the other guys contributions (specifically Carl and Mike's voices), either of them could have been more easily exchanged for another person than Brian.  From a strictly business standpoint, the Brian-less BB have always been far less valuable.  Even the resurgence rides the wave of a Brian's creations.

I fully understand the other guys, including Mike, questioning Brian, especially since it was probably not just be musical direction but the odd behavior and drugs, I just don't think hey handled it well.

EoL
Logged

CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #280 on: August 24, 2015, 10:06:52 AM »

The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and respond to the question, and not simply pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know answers to my questions posed to you as well.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 10:12:15 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #281 on: August 24, 2015, 10:08:31 AM »

Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   Wink

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  Wink


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   Grin

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  Wink
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



View Profile WWW
« Reply #282 on: August 24, 2015, 10:18:30 AM »

Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   Wink

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  Wink


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   Grin

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  Wink

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL
Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #283 on: August 24, 2015, 10:18:47 AM »

Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #284 on: August 24, 2015, 10:19:32 AM »

The other Beach Boys had every right to question the direction in which Brian was taking them. It was their future, their career, of course they should have a voice. The band loses their record contract and Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are out on the street, while Brian could have found work as a freelance producer/arranger.

When they initially resisted the Pet Sounds material, they were wrong. To the extent they resisted or questioned the SMiLE project, they were in the right, at least short-term. As it turned out, SMiLE was a fiasco that took the band years to recover from -- though, paradoxically, it was the legend of the great lost masterpiece that led to the eventual rehabilitation of the Beach Boys.
When people are in business as partners, they get to "question" any and all aspects of it. You have a "vested interest." You get to approve or veto what it going on. Or, work on "modifications" of a concept, so it is compatible to the mission of the business.  And it is done dispassionately.  Sounds cold, but that is the "rough and tumble" of business.  

Sometimes, new ideas take time for some members to become acclimated to them.  It is not reflective of a flaw, but a possible need for adaptation. Change happens over time, not overnight.

It is why businesses set up memberships and boards.   And those who are not members of the company structure, large or small, are "consultants" whose work product you can "accept or reject."  

Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?

Do they have a right to ask? Do they have a "vested interest" in the response?  If they do, they have a right to ask and be given an answer.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 10:20:35 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #285 on: August 24, 2015, 10:21:45 AM »

Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.

No. As I literally just said "I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis".
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #286 on: August 24, 2015, 10:23:26 AM »

Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   Wink

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  Wink


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   Grin

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  Wink

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL
Mike talks less about whatever problems there were than the posters on this board.
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



View Profile WWW
« Reply #287 on: August 24, 2015, 10:29:50 AM »

Despite all the talk about resistance and the Boys, and Anderle, and studio booking, and engineers, I take it this was the "critical" piece de resistance?

DAVID: .....Van was there like all the time. And Van and Brian were running together, very hot and heavy. And Van was blowing Brian's mind, and Brian was blowing whole situation and I said, at that time, that's never to work. Those two are never gonna be able to work together.
And they never have, they never really did. They had a great moment of creativity. I think Van Dyke is one of the few, very few people that Brian truly looked at on an equal level, or maybe that's a little presumptuous to say. Van Dyke blew Brian's mind and I hadn't seen anyone else do that. And Van used to walk away from his evenings with Brian, very awe-struck at what Brian was doing musically. I think to this day Van Dyke is the first one to admit — again, not influence, but the effect that Brian had, or has, on Van Dyke. Very strong. Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting — his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that.
PAUL: They missed each other.
DAVID: Yeah. They were together to a certain point, and then zingo! they bypassed each other, and never the twain shall meet with those two."

DAVID: ....Brian was starting meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening.
There seem to be clashing all over the place.  There are a lot of problems with this picture.  

First, this clash between "simplicity" (Brian) and "sophistication" (Van) - and Brian's ability to distill and refine/define life to the simplicity and essence, is Brian's greatest gift.  GOK, Til I Die, In My Room, Surfer Girl.

Now, the most recent song, I paid little attention to, ever, is Farmer's daughter. A traveling farm hand, or almost "vagrant" type, filled with gratitude for a couple of days work to "keep him going, " cleaning up, resting up, and "on my way."

Of course there were clashes. How could there not be? But, how could anyone coming into the organization, really as a "guest" not look at the past, very successful work and not "get" where the melodies were coming to and not contort/conform the lyric structure to Brian's core glorious simplicity.  And disrespect the family business dynamic that created the band?

Farmer's Daughter is a glorious little song, and a prefiguration of coming attractions and BB potential.  Was it possible to create a matrix to tell the story of Americana? Of course. Was it possible to do it in an understandable lyric? Yes, of course it was.  And this demand for Brian to become "more sophisticated" and lose this essence of simplicity shows that on many levels, it might have been an "incompatible relationship."

A song such as Farmer's Daughter is the little tale of a man, maybe finding love, "working his way across" a certain territory.  It was a common American thread upon much greatness was built.  And, "majestic," in its own right.  Likely, in any country, in an agrarian setting.  And, it is dreamy (oneiric) and yet concrete in comprehension. Wouldn't this song have fit beautifully in the Smile tale?  I think so.  Or, was it considered "too primitive" for some? The vagrant in the song is the Smile Story of coming across America.   Wink

Second, this thing that feels like a privacy violation.  And the duality of the family/business dynamic.  What keeps you close, often almost creates a situation where you almost come to blows. Because you are family.  

Other bands could "walk away" from fellow members after "work." It tends to escalate any problems of philosophical disagreement.  This whole "social media" application to the past, feels invasive, and inappropriate.  I don't need to know who disagreed with whom.  The point is that they found a way to get a product on the table.  And the philosophical disagreements within the business context belong behind closed doors.  

It is telling "tales out of school" or the game of "kiss and tell."  Wink


It appears you do not possess the same ability to distill and simplify that Brian possesses.   Grin

I don't totally disagree with your conclusion regarding the need to keep some of these things private.  But once they've become public there is no point in denying the things that actually happened.  Just as no one denies Brian did a lot of drugs and created a lot of turmoil personally and within the band, neither should anyone deny that Mike was clueless in how to handle the situation, worsened it by not being supportive, and fell out on the wrong side of history in his opposition to Brian's direction.  And of course, as long as Mike keeps up with the *public* bashing and back-handed comments and semi-subtil "I'm a genius too" remarks, then he can't expect the infighting to remain private, and neither should his ardent supporters.

EoL
EoL - the continuous "social media" interpretation of 50 year old events is absurd.  

And that is a "social media" interpretation of a band member.

What Brian (or any other member did) is none of our business.  

Just because some stuff is public, doesn't mean it is "in good taste" to rehash someone's perceived actions and perceived flaws. And, I'd never compare myself to Brian;  it is what makes his gift a rare one. But it is a "gift" coupled with "elbow grease."  Wink

Oops, you forgot to address the fact that Mike keeps publicly commenting on Brian's mental illness and prior drug use.  Was that on accident or by design?  That's right, it's about the music, what Mike says and does publicly should be swept under the rug.

EoL
Mike talks less about whatever problems there were than the posters on this board.

Publicly.  But he also knows he has staunch defenders who will relentlessly defend him wihtout ever confessing to his faults (they say he reads this board), so he's got a lot of help, lessening the amount he needs to talk about it.  And...if he goes on as much as he does *publicly* you can bet he does a lot more privately.  So chances are he thinks and talks about it far more than we do.

Regardless, nice dodge, AGAIN. Smiley

EoL
Logged

SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #288 on: August 24, 2015, 10:31:41 AM »

EoL is referring to stuff like this 2014 interview where Mike says Brian has "handlers"

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20140408/ENTERTAINMENT/304089898
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #289 on: August 24, 2015, 10:32:52 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?



I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified BY YOU as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying".

Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist.

Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?  I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists between family members or between bandmates, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.


And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?



This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on at the time, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case...

But the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.  Don't you realize that any lambasting is due to a failure to recognize that?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 10:49:27 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #290 on: August 24, 2015, 10:35:52 AM »

Each subsequent quote by Cam proves that the Beach Boys did put up resistance to Brian and his musical direction, and that Mike Love was the central figure ("the most antagonistic") although not the "ringleader."  The fact that Brian and Van Dyke also had some problems has nothing to do with the resistance from the Beach Boys.  They either resisted or not, and Anderle clearly states they did.  So you have aided guitarfool by confirming what he has said and what is in Anderle's account.

But of course as obvious as this is to any one reading the quotes and the thread, Cam will continue to "cherrypick" what parts of what quotes are important and refuse to acknowledge anything other than his biased, preconceived notions where no one was resisting Brian but Brian himself, and certainly not the Lovester.

I think when you read the whole thing, and Vosse, they make it clear that what is called "resistance" is the Boys coming in, being presented with complex music with nothing to relate it to and being concerned with being able to sing it. Brian doesn't help by not giving enough guidance, just little bits at a time, but the Boys were not antagonistic (there was a lot of love) and sang it beautifully and take after take anyway.  And we know from the tapes they even sang the parts they supposedly were "resisting". Then after all of those takes and with Brian telling them it was good, he would come back replace their parts.

What was antagonistic "resistance", accord to them, was the  fighting and clashing between Wilson and Parks including specifically over the lyrics.  A & V both claim W & P couldn't work together. Brian did work together with the Boys.

They also describe numerous other forms of "resistance" (actually Vosse never says resistance) not involving the Boys.

So I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis. We can agree to disagree.

Are you suggesting that what David Anderle said in those interviews wasn't accurate? He more than clearly spelled it out and as Bicyclerider added, the quotes you added to the one I posted only back it up even more.

Beyond an opinion on the words of David Anderle, why does it seem there is and has been an attempt to whitewash how the Beach Boys acted and reacted in 1966-67 from the history of that era? Because that's exactly what it looks like is being done yet again in spite of - as others have said - overwhelming evidence coming from those who witnessed it firsthand.

David Anderle used the term 'a great wall had been put down in front of creativity' and it was related specifically to describe how the band would balk at what Brian was bringing in to the studio for them to do. I don't see much that can be parsed from a statement like that because it's clear what he was saying.

No. As I literally just said "I just think some of these claims by us fans about "resistance" are cherry picked and off in their interpretation and emphasis".


How many ways are there to "interpret" this description? It's as clear as can be about the scenes with the Beach Boys and Brian in the studio and the effect it had on Brian and the process overall. Unless someone is willing to discredit or dismiss what David Anderle said here, this doesn't need interpretation or someone to help other fans "understand" it unless the goal is to parse his words to fit another definition. And that doesn't exactly work when the words were spoken this clearly:


David Anderle, one example out of many as told to Williams:

 "But Brian would come in, and he would want to do different things, and they would really balk at that; and again, I have to keep thinking that this is the problem with what's going on right now. Sooner or later it has to tire you out, and Brian would complain about it. It would be much easier for Brian to go in and lay all those voices out himself, and do all those things; there's a lot of things on Pet Sounds that uh, incredible vocal things that are all Brian's voices, because he can sing all their parts. But he would go through a tremendous paranoia before he would get into the studio, knowing he was going to have to face an argument. He would come into the studio uptight, he would give a part to one of the fellas or to a group of the fellas, say "This is what I would like to have done," and there would be resistance. And it wouldn't be happening and there would be endless takes and then he would just junk it. And then maybe after they left to tour he would come back in and do it himself. All their parts. But it was very taxing, and it was extremely painful to watch. Because it was, uh, a great wall had been put down in front of creativity. And now, maybe, he just doesn't want to fight anymore. It used to be a big fight thing in that studio, and he just may be damn well tired of fighting and having to give the parts to the guys and hearing their excuses why they don't want to do it this way or why they want to do it that way...that could very easily be it."
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #291 on: August 24, 2015, 10:54:36 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?


This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties! 

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives. 

But, I tend to put a lot of faith for accuracy and veracity in the YouTube interview between Dennis and Pete Fornatale, as the real deal as Dennis discusses whatever was going on with his brother, whom he dearly loved, and "substances."

And I don't want to hear from a manager. I don't care what they have to say.  I want to hear from Dennis' mouth.  He is family.   The link is somewhere in this thread, I think.  Or easy to find. 
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #292 on: August 24, 2015, 11:09:03 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?



This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink


I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.




Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  


The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 11:11:49 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #293 on: August 24, 2015, 11:26:53 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965. 

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  Wink
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #294 on: August 24, 2015, 11:43:56 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?


I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  Wink

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.  You feel like you are "on trial". I'm sure Van and Brian felt nothing of the sort in 1966, right?

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 11:53:02 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #295 on: August 24, 2015, 11:54:21 AM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  Wink

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.
This is about a "formula" and it's spun into " bullying" and C50.  People aren't looking at the huge burden that the industry put on guys that were still kids.  Ducking? Never.  Select group of people? Whomever do you mean?

And I linked videos. That isn't enough?  Ever consider Capitol as a bully? Keeping them in striped shirts?  (Even if they were cute! )  LOL   I wonder who wanted that?  Wink
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #296 on: August 24, 2015, 12:03:09 PM »


Where does repeated questioning end and emotional bullying begin? What is the difference? Where is the line drawn?

Can you please explain and please respond to the question and not pretend that this post doesn't exist?

I am truly, honestly interested to know how you would qualify those terms. I am politely asking that you not duck the question. If Mike had a right to know what the lyrics meant, I have a right to know as well.
Here is the difference. Mike had a right to know.  And the other members.  He was paying Parks. (As they all were.)

The Beach Boys weren't a lemonade stand.  

They were (are) an incorporated business. When one is in business, a certain standard exists to be able to "roll with the punches."  The writing or words and music, for sale is a "business." And not a hobby. A hobby isn't going on a TV commercial or a stage or a record rack.

And I don't get what you mean by "repeated questioning" or "emotional bullying" means.  Who is asking the questions?

I am asking you how you personally would draw the line between where an individual repeatedly questioning another individual, in a band, would be classified as simply "asking questions" and nothing more... vs where you personally would say, "yes, in all likelihood that would be an example of emotional bullying". Basically, I am asking for you to describe a hypothetical example of an action that you would classify as "emotional bullying". It doesn't even have to be between these guys, it can be between Johnny Songwriter and Joe Lyricist. Would the bullying person additionally have to say "or else", making some sort of threat, and anything less than that is automatically hunky-dory?

I am assuming you would agree that emotional bullying is an actual thing that exists, right? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

And to be clear, if Brian (and not my business) was in a fragile state whose medical nature was neither known or understood until the 90's, how can others be lambasted for that which was unknown in the 60's?
This is a legitimate point, that the other bandmates didn't necessarily realize what was going on, that Brian was unraveling and that certain ways of talking to him might be amplified in a way that caused unintended emotional damage. I am willing to concede that this was likely the case... but the question remains: in hindsight, years later, when Brian's emotional issues became diagnosed... why is there no seeming awareness or acknowledgement by Mike, in any interview, that some unintended emotional damage may have been done? I cannot recall a single interview where Mike seems to comprehend that Brian has a fragile state without drugs being the sole reason for this. EVERYTHING he talks about as it relates to Brian being at less than his peak ALWAYS relates to drugs, as though that's absolutely the ONLY thing that ever screwed Brian up.

There's ZERO acknowledgement of how domineering people in his life may have also contributed to screwing him up, or wearing him down, even slightly.
Absent being a witness to the events, I'd never comment on such an issue.  I've dealt swiftly with bullies in the classroom context.  Don't need a hypothetical for that one.  Wink
I'm just saying that as much as you don't want to comment to say it WAS in fact an instance emotional bullying, I don't know how you can unequivocally say it absolutely WASN'T. Being as we both weren't there. If we have Brian's wife saying that Brian was being worn down, and she went out of her way to say that she hates to say that (which of course, would be a difficult thing for her to say, since she is basically saying that she doesn't want to speak ill of peoples' actions, but that they acted in a not-particularly-admirable way, in hindsight), I don't know why that isn't at least a hint that some of the actions may have gone too far.

Drugs didn't help either. I will not say that drugs weren't an issue - they were - but why is it so hard to think that a fragile man was (in addition to drugs) perhaps pushed too far and not talked to in a manner that was appropriate for his then-unknown condition?

Let's just admit that if neither of us gets to say it was emotional bullying, neither of us gets to say it wasn't either, right? It might have been. It's not a pretty thought to face.

Can you classify what happens in a business as a "business or board room decision?" Often those scenes are contentious among stakeholders/stockholders, who have to take this new product and sell it to the public and it is a high burden, in the face of the situation that Capitol put them in Europe.  Digging into this, factually, makes me look towards the record company. They were in their twenties!  

And I cannot answer for a newspaper commentary.  Mike does have credible inforrmation about what happened in that era.  He must know a point in time (a temporal relationship) sort of "cause-and-effect" as to events that happened and where he and others saw a change.  He was there.  As were the other band members and wives.  
The same way that Mike doesn't seem to "get" how running off with M&B could make Brian and Al feel as though they were fired, is the same inability he had to realize that he may have went too far years later (when he had ~45 years LESS maturity level, I might add!) Unlike Brian and Al, who have gone out of their way to self-deprecatingly conquer tough subjects in interviews where they acknowledge personal behaviors that hurt others, Mike doesn't seem like he wants to do that ever.  Understanding why he is not more loved should not be quite so baffling.
CD - this whole concept of "admit it" is getting pretty vexatious.  When a poster holds a position that another poster doesn't subscribe to, there is a lot of "admit this" or "admit that" and it is of no consequence.  I'm not on trial. This isn't court.  I'm not a defendant.

And, now we get back to the three year old and much beleaguered C50 issues, when the topic is the "formula" which after looking at direct band member interviews and statements from Brian, Mike, Bruce, Dennis and Carl, from both 1967 and 1970, which direct the premeditated actions of the record company to "fail and refuse" to both "market and release" music and band image that was one of 1967 and not 1965.  

So, I've done my "homework" and that is how I formed my position.  It is unlikely to change.  Wink

So when I've made a point about how we BOTH cannot unequivocally say that bullying occurred one way or another, when I concede that my thoughts are no more valid than yours, but that we both should accept some "mights" in the equation... you try to shut the question down once again.

After you also refuse to state what would classify as emotional bullying and what wouldn't in a family or band situation. You allude to seeing bullying in a classroom, but refuse to state any specifics.

Don't you realize how obvious it is that these questions are avoided by a select group of people repeatedly? It's ridiculous. Find me a single person on the other side of the political spectrum who will consistently avoid answering a select group of questions at all costs.  

Anybody can see how paper thin an argument is by how quickly the person(s) steadfastly defending a viewpoint keeps ducking the same questions.
This is about a "formula" and it's spun into " bullying" and C50.  People aren't looking at the huge burden that the industry put on guys that were still kids.  Ducking? Never.  Select group of people? Whomever do you mean?

And I linked videos. That isn't enough?  Ever consider Capitol as a bully? Keeping them in striped shirts?  (Even if they were cute! )  LOL   I wonder who wanted that?  Wink

Yes, I do consider Capitol's actions as bullying from a corporate standpoint to a fragile and sensitive individual. I never stated otherwise.

Again, I do not blame EVERYTHING on Mike as you would like to believe balanced people such as myself do. I absolutely don't. Do you think that's what I truly think? I'm absolutely willing to concede there were all sorts of factors at play. None of those factors have anything to do with the fact that Brian, as a fragile and sensitive individual, may have been on the receiving end of behaviors by the Lovester that went too far into *possibly* emotionally bullying territory, where the bullied person is worn down by a person who perhaps didn't know that their repeated harsh, sarcastic tone was cutting deeply.

Why do you find it necessary to keep bringing up all sorts of other, outside factors? I know they are factors, nobody is disputing them.  They are unrelated to my point. Yes, the factors all conspired to bring about Brian's breakdown, but that doesn't mean we should try to minimize bandmate bullying when it may have in fact occurred.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 12:05:09 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Ang Jones
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



View Profile
« Reply #297 on: August 24, 2015, 12:03:40 PM »

Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



View Profile WWW
« Reply #298 on: August 24, 2015, 12:08:10 PM »

Rule #1: Never admit Mike Love has done anything wrong.  At all.  Ever.
Rule #2: Please refer to rule #1.

The rules are obvious, only their origin is in question:

1. Spiritual: Mystical connection between the most ardent fans of Mike Love (maybe a Gaya or Maharishi type thing, I'm not sure, this is not my area of expertise.
2. Naturalist: Bio-chemical explanation for the connection (Dawkins and Dennet would likely approve of this one)
3. Sociological: Like attracts like.  Those who can't admit wrong attract others of the same ilk.  Mike being of this sort was bound to have such followers.
4. Philosophical: The neo-platonic idealist believes that we are aware not of reality as it is in itself, but of our ideas about reality.  Some have gone as far as to suggest that we can affect reality with our minds.  Maybe some believe if they ignore it long enough or say it enough times it will become true?
5. Charasmatic: like the neo-platonist but throw in religion.  You can "name it and claim it".  If you believe it you can make it be so.
6. Conspiracy: I'm not a conspiracy theorist in most cases but like Moulder would say, the truth is out there!

Shocked

EoL
Logged

CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #299 on: August 24, 2015, 12:12:52 PM »

Fans have been criticised for being as argumentative as the band they follow but what interests me is WHY it is important to some people to deny that there was resistance from some band members to Brian's new ideas when the evidence from those there at the time is so compelling. I can only assume that some are in denial, determined to believe that the success and credibility of the Beach Boys as a unit is the most important issue. That is surely simplistic. Brian IMO was the most important member of the band, the man whose music they depended on and therefore surely deserving of support. Enough of the fans at the time could appreciate what he was doing - why not his fellow band members who should have had more insight as professional musicians?

Here's a question: do you think this same microscopic contingent of people would still be saying such if Mike himself made a concession and stated in a heartfelt, sincere interview that he may have inadvertently crossed a line with a very sensitive person, that he regrets that, and that nobody guilted him into saying such heartfelt words? Would those people be saying "Mike should never have said that! He was lying! He never went too far! He should have been able to talk to Brian in any manner that he deemed fit at the time!"  

One thing's for sure: if this hypothetical scenario is posed to that microscopic contingent, if that contingent is asked what they would do/say under these circumstances, they will duck and avoid answering that hypothetical at all costs.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2015, 12:21:34 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.68 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!