Could Mike ever have been satisfied with any answer that Van gave him? Suppose if Van actually described in detail exactly what the lyrics meant. Even if he described a detailed point-by-point explanation of each word from a literal standpoint, whether Van made-up an explanation on the spot or whether such explanation was truly a heartfelt explanation… would this ever have satisfied Mike?
Essentially, wasn’t Mike’s probing in actuality a thinly-veiled attempt to embarrass/discredit Van no matter what answer Van gave? Does anyone think that Van could have given an answer to Mike about the lyrics that would have made Mike genuinely, non-sarcastically say “ok, now I understand and accept the lyrics”? I certainly don’t think so.
Anyhow, my answer to your question is he didn't like the lyrics period. Any explanation would not have changed it. It's common situation in people's life, in this case fueled by the fact that Van had Mike's job.
Well, I would agree with what you're saying in that any explanation would not have changed it, and understandably Mike was upset that Van had his job. The point is, it seems like a real passive aggressive move to actually harangue Brian into getting Van to come down to the studio in order to be questioned for a topic which he must have full well known there was no answer that would satisfy. It seems almost like a prank at that point. That's just really ultimately an act to embarrass someone, especially if as you and I both agree, there was no actual answer that would have suitably made Mike happy. That begs the question of why he asked the question in the first place, if not for the actual question being something Mike knew would force an ultimate result to happen (Van getting offended and quitting, which no matter how much revisionist "I like Van" talk Mike says these days, would probably have been welcome news at the time).
Now my question: you are very vocal about Mike and the others not being sensitive enough about how their questioning would affect Brian's confidence and frame of mind... How should they have proceeded? How should they have expressed dislike on different terms? Should they have obliged silently and record as told (the latter of which they did anyway)? Just what would have been better?
IMO, I think that a solid and sincere "Ultimately, I trust your judgment" coming from Mike (and the Boys) would have gone a lot for Brian's confidence, even if Mike and them still had doubts. I think not letting resentment get in the way of how he approached things (a tough thing, yes, for a young guy to have the maturity and foresight to grasp) would have been hugely helpful. And if one is to take the approach by saying that it's unrealistic for someone to have known how to have acted more kindly with Brian at that point, that's fair to say... but I get no impression that there's been any hindsight realization of this from Mike - do you? FYI, I'd feel *quite* differently if I felt there was hindsight realization on his part. That in no small affects my own feelings on the subject.
Bottom line is, the way that Brian's current-day support system of collaborators and associates is clearly carefully designed to not rub Brian in a way that would trigger certain emotional bouts. I'm sure that Brian has ideas which are shot down sometimes, even today. Didn't one of his more recent collaborators say it was their job to ensure that Brian wasn't recycling old riffs like Shortenin' Bread anymore? When dealing with a sensitive person, it not just about what's said, it's about how it's said. That's the support that Brian should have had back then. If he had it, I don't think his fall would have been as severe.
Is anyone gonna argue that? Not sure why that's a hard concept to agree with, idealistic as it may be.
Author
