Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

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

Also, as we've heard in the sessions with the studio musicians, it's a completely different story. THAT'S what a session should sound like. Easy-going and getting a lot accomplished. It's no wonder that Brian had his eye on working outside of the group from the get-go. 
I'm reminded of the Help Me Rhonda session where a drunken Murry takes the guys to task. Brian says "we would like to record in an atmosphere of calmness". I'm thinking "Gee, you could probably count on one hand the times that's happened."
So the attitudes and reactions of the rest of the guys seem just par for the course when it comes to SMiLE. I don't see it like some sharp left turn and then suddenly they were hard to deal with, and I don't begrudge any of them for it either. They were what...early to mid-20's at best? Expensive cars, disposable income, women throwing themselves at them, etc. Who wouldn't have behaved like spoiled brats who never had to grow up? 

And as a strange aside, it's odd how we as fans, or anyone interested in the subject, look back on this era and sort of envision the Beach Boys as being older and more mature than they actually were. It's like when you look back at a high school yearbook from the 1950's and everyone who's 17 looks like they're pushing 30. I think people do that with The Beach Boys (and other entertainers from the past), expecting more out of their past selves than you would a 22 year old pop star today.

I see Brian as like Orson Welles, just a total genius willing to experiment and push his medium to its limits. SMiLE is a young man's project, not an older mans.

[filledeplage]

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to have been brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  And the vagueness, in terms of whether, for me, it has credibility..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

[Emily]

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to be brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  (And vagueness..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

Bias goes two ways.
Regarding lyrics, of course these are opinions, but while Brian Wilson has written a few excellent lyrics, I think it's very much not his forte and he was maybe not insecure but realistic in recognizing that. Also, he was really busy. Writing the lyrics on his own would have dragged out the production of new work even more.
As to looking for new collaborators, again individual tastes will determine one's opinion, but I think many people, at that time and now, would agree that it was a sensible idea to try to develop lyrics that were a bit more adult than the earlier Beach Boys lyrics.

[filledeplage]

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to be brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  (And vagueness..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

Bias goes two ways.
Regarding lyrics, of course these are opinions, but while Brian Wilson has written a few excellent lyrics, I think it's very much not his forte and he was maybe not insecure but realistic in recognizing that. Also, he was really busy. Writing the lyrics on his own would have dragged out the production of new work even more.
As to looking for new collaborators, again individual tastes will determine one's opinion, but I think many people, at that time and now, would agree that it was a sensible idea to try to develop lyrics that were a bit more adult than the earlier Beach Boys lyrics.

Emily - along the line they brought in lyricists who had a particular gift for a specific topic.  For example, when they were doing the car songs, Roger Christian was brought in to help with that verbiage for lyrics.  They never professed to know-it-all and reached out for expert advice when needed. Gary Usher was another contributor.  They did very good work but apparently didn't try to mess with Brian's authenticity. There are "kind" ways to bring people "up to speed" without being offensive or intimidating.  It is how I see it. 

When people have a working relationship, there is an inherent bias and pre-existing loyalty. 

The prime issue is that this coterie attempted to mess with Brian's authenticity.  That is my opinion.

[Emily]

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to be brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  (And vagueness..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

Bias goes two ways.
Regarding lyrics, of course these are opinions, but while Brian Wilson has written a few excellent lyrics, I think it's very much not his forte and he was maybe not insecure but realistic in recognizing that. Also, he was really busy. Writing the lyrics on his own would have dragged out the production of new work even more.
As to looking for new collaborators, again individual tastes will determine one's opinion, but I think many people, at that time and now, would agree that it was a sensible idea to try to develop lyrics that were a bit more adult than the earlier Beach Boys lyrics.

Emily - along the line they brought in lyricists who had a particular gift for a specific topic.  For example, when they were doing the car songs, Roger Christian was brought in to help with that verbiage for lyrics.  They never professed to know-it-all and reached out for expert advice when needed. Gary Usher was another contributor.  They did very good work but apparently didn't try to mess with Brian's authenticity. There are "kind" ways to bring people "up to speed" without being offensive or intimidating.  It is how I see it.  

When people have a working relationship, there is an inherent bias and pre-existing loyalty.  

The prime issue is that this coterie attempted to mess with Brian's authenticity.  That is my opinion.

I agree with all of this except the idea that they were "mess[ing] with Brian's authenticity." Or that Brian Wilson was necessarily intimidating. A lot of people at that age seek out new ideas and Brian Wilson particularly seemed curious and interested in expanding his creativity. The previous BB albums and lyricists and his outside work show that he was constantly seeking. I don't think he was victimized by the people he associated with and he seems to have been willingly and happily engaging with them. They might rub you the wrong way, but that doesn't mean they did him.

Edit to say: I meant "... Brian Wilson was necessarily intimidated."

[guitarfool2002]

There is some blatantly false information being posted in this discussion, and wherever it's coming from it should be researched a bit more prior to posting as fact.

One that stood out, to start: David Anderle was introduced to the band through a relative and mutual friend of some of the Beach Boys in early 1965, then in the next year became closer to Brian and began to be a more frequent guest at Brian's house and the like. Van Dyke Parks said the first time he was in Brian's company was when David Crosby invited him to join him as Brian was previewing the Sloop John B single. Then Van Dyke and Brian more formally met at a party with Terry Melcher when Brian got the idea Van Dyke could write lyrics with him.

In no way did Van Dyke Parks "bring David Anderle into the organization", wherever that came from it doesn't line up at all with the facts.

That's just one example out of a laundry list of inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread.

[filledeplage]

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through? There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to be brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  (And vagueness..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

Bias goes two ways.
Regarding lyrics, of course these are opinions, but while Brian Wilson has written a few excellent lyrics, I think it's very much not his forte and he was maybe not insecure but realistic in recognizing that. Also, he was really busy. Writing the lyrics on his own would have dragged out the production of new work even more.
As to looking for new collaborators, again individual tastes will determine one's opinion, but I think many people, at that time and now, would agree that it was a sensible idea to try to develop lyrics that were a bit more adult than the earlier Beach Boys lyrics.

Emily - along the line they brought in lyricists who had a particular gift for a specific topic.  For example, when they were doing the car songs, Roger Christian was brought in to help with that verbiage for lyrics.  They never professed to know-it-all and reached out for expert advice when needed. Gary Usher was another contributor.  They did very good work but apparently didn't try to mess with Brian's authenticity. There are "kind" ways to bring people "up to speed" without being offensive or intimidating.  It is how I see it. 

When people have a working relationship, there is an inherent bias and pre-existing loyalty. 

The prime issue is that this coterie attempted to mess with Brian's authenticity.  That is my opinion.

I agree with all of this except the idea that they were "mess[ing] with Brian's authenticity." Or that Brian Wilson was necessarily intimidating. A lot of people at that age seek out new ideas and Brian Wilson particularly seemed curious and interested in expanding his creativity. The previous BB albums and lyricists and his outside work show that he was constantly seeking. I don't think he was victimized by the people he associated with and he seems to have been willingly and happily engaging with them. They might rub you the wrong way, but that doesn't mean they did him.

Emily - this is not about taking offense.  Contained within that article are indicia of a level of  a certain snobbery and insult as regards The Beach Boys, Brian, in particular. I like to remember that "Rome was not built in a day." Nor, after the firing of Murry, the new incorporation, the record company diss, is a lot to process and clothing seems to be on the bottom of the food chain.  Even now, Brian always looks nice, and well-groomed, even performing in comfort in a Ralph Lauren Polo, as I have seen him multiple times.  I don't care what he wears;  I care only that he lived and he still sings.  

'"Whatever the merit in these reasons, the real one may have been closer to something Monterey board member John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas suggested: "Brian was afraid that the hippies from San Francisco would think the Beach Boys were square and boo them."

But maybe Brian was right. "Those candy-striped shirts just wouldn't had made it at Monterey, man," said David Anderle.' (from the article)

The difference is that the prior lyricists appear to have worked strictly with the music to come up with a lyrical concept, and the latter ones went beyond the lyrics into another zone.  The band was hardly lacking in style.  They may have worn the same shirts onstage but their outerwear was absolutely consistent with the fashion trends of the 60's as they had the opportunity traveling to shop for clothing outside of the US, and likely well beyond what the average Joe or Jane wore.    

[filledeplage]

There is some blatantly false information being posted in this discussion, and wherever it's coming from it should be researched a bit more prior to posting as fact.

One that stood out, to start: David Anderle was introduced to the band through a relative and mutual friend of some of the Beach Boys in early 1965, then in the next year became closer to Brian and began to be a more frequent guest at Brian's house and the like. Van Dyke Parks said the first time he was in Brian's company was when David Crosby invited him to join him as Brian was previewing the Sloop John B single. Then Van Dyke and Brian more formally met at a party with Terry Melcher when Brian got the idea Van Dyke could write lyrics with him.

In no way did Van Dyke Parks "bring David Anderle into the organization", wherever that came from it doesn't line up at all with the facts.

That's just one example out of a laundry list of inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread.

GF - Thank you SO much for that info.  Right off the bat, I saw holes in the story and, so worked entirely within it's text.

So, then, why is this article treated as "canonical?" I don't get it. 

You are the man! 

[Emily]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

[guitarfool2002]

Jules was given the assignment by the SEP to write an article about Brian Wilson, just like David Oppenheim's CBS News crew was assigned to film Brian in the fall of 1966 for the Inside Pop project. Jules described exactly what happened in his article - His updates and submissions to his SEP editors weren't received well, and they thought Jules had gotten too close to his subject for the kind of piece they wanted. So they passed on it, and instead the article was published in Cheetah magazine's first issue, Fall 1967. There is a radio promo read by Jim Morrison advertising this first issue that has since been excerpted and posted on YouTube and other sites, but which came from a KHJ radio aircheck taken from the Tom Maule show. Yes, *that* Tom Maule just a few months after the H&V incident at KHJ.

It's important to weigh the perspective and the surroundings of the times in these cases, and Cheetah was among the first magazines to focus on the rock underground, "rock journalism" in general, and the demographic and outlook that Inside Pop focused on when it aired in April 67. Brian Wilson was ahead of the curve and one of the leaders of that pack.

[Emily]

Emily - this is not about taking offense.  Contained within that article are indicia of a level of  a certain snobbery and insult as regards The Beach Boys, Brian, in particular. I like to remember that "Rome was not built in a day." Nor, after the firing of Murry, the new incorporation, the record company diss, is a lot to process and clothing seems to be on the bottom of the food chain.  Even now, Brian always looks nice, and well-groomed, even performing in comfort in a Ralph Lauren Polo, as I have seen him multiple times.  I don't care what he wears;  I care only that he lived and he still sings.  

'"Whatever the merit in these reasons, the real one may have been closer to something Monterey board member John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas suggested: "Brian was afraid that the hippies from San Francisco would think the Beach Boys were square and boo them."

But maybe Brian was right. "Those candy-striped shirts just wouldn't had made it at Monterey, man," said David Anderle.' (from the article)

The difference is that the prior lyricists appear to have worked strictly with the music to come up with a lyrical concept, and the latter ones went beyond the lyrics into another zone.  The band was hardly lacking in style.  They may have worn the same shirts onstage but their outerwear was absolutely consistent with the fashion trends of the 60's as they had the opportunity traveling to shop for clothing outside of the US, and likely well beyond what the average Joe or Jane wore.    

Yes, he seems quite tidy.
My point was that there's no indication that he  was bothered by the snobbishness nor that he was intimidated nor that there's any loss of authenticity. One grows and changes and seeks in one's twenties, I'd hope.

Eta: also, as regards the lyrics, I'm pretty sure mostly the writing was actual collaboration and lyrics and music came in different sequence, sometimes interspersed. It seems to have been rare that the "lyricists worked strictly with the music to come up with a lyrical concept."

[filledeplage]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

[filledeplage]

Jules was given the assignment by the SEP to write an article about Brian Wilson, just like David Oppenheim's CBS News crew was assigned to film Brian in the fall of 1966 for the Inside Pop project. Jules described exactly what happened in his article - His updates and submissions to his SEP editors weren't received well, and they thought Jules had gotten too close to his subject for the kind of piece they wanted. So they passed on it, and instead the article was published in Cheetah magazine's first issue, Fall 1967. There is a radio promo read by Jim Morrison advertising this first issue that has since been excerpted and posted on YouTube and other sites, but which came from a KHJ radio aircheck taken from the Tom Maule show. Yes, *that* Tom Maule just a few months after the H&V incident at KHJ.

It's important to weigh the perspective and the surroundings of the times in these cases, and Cheetah was among the first magazines to focus on the rock underground, "rock journalism" in general, and the demographic and outlook that Inside Pop focused on when it aired in April 67. Brian Wilson was ahead of the curve and one of the leaders of that pack.

Yes, context and perspective is very important.  

And, I read the Phoenix!  

If you have the Youtube link, would you please post it? 

Thanks!

[Emily]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

I'm not questioning why it wasn't published. 

[Emily]

Weird bias.

[guitarfool2002]

It's simple - Jules was commissioned to write the article by SEP, and those who commissioned it didn't pick it up for publication so it went to Cheetah's first issue instead. Michael Vosse was a freelance writer selling interviews and articles to magazines like Capitol's "Teen Set", and one of those assignments is how he first got to meet and sit down with Brian Wilson...over milkshakes, as per Brian's request. And Vosse's Teen Set articles are also some of the best firsthand perspective resources on what was happening during Smile that are available, published to thousands of readers in late 1966, early 1967 mentioning sessions like the underwater chants, the woodshop, the French horns, David Oppenheim, Jules Seigel...the whole bit, almost a year before Jules' article came out. The info was out there for those readers who were following it.

[filledeplage]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

I'm not questioning why it wasn't published.  

Emily - now, there seems to be a divergence of accounts as to what went down.  That is a good thing.  

What I can now look at as lacking, is whether there was any independent fact finding which took place to verify the account of the storyteller, notwithstanding the editorial position of the TSEP.  

[guitarfool2002]

Jim Morrison Cheetah ad - The other voice heard after Jim is Tom Maule. This was on a Tom Maule KHJ aircheck from October 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwhVAfW8l4

[filledeplage]

Jim Morrison Cheetah ad - The other voice heard after Jim is Tom Maule. This was on a Tom Maule KHJ aircheck from October 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwhVAfW8l4

Thanks-GF!

It was great to hear Jim Morrison's voice. 

[Cam Mott]

The way I see the collapse of SMiLE (based on everything I've read) is that it was a combination of factors. Brian's psychological issues were tough enough for him to deal with but they were worsened by his drug abuse. In some ways, it's the same old rock-n-roll story: a creative leading light takes drugs to expand his mind and it works at first but eventually they only leave him confused. I think if he had stayed focused and sober we could've got something, but it was always going to be a tough road because of who these guys were.

I guess if there is a possible bias for Vosse/Anderle and Siegel it would be to downplay Brian's drug use. It makes sense they wouldnt go into that, and Im factoring that into this reply. All the same, I used to buy into that but now I think its at least slightly overblown as well. This idea of a big dramatic drug induced breakout. I think that was happening too, but in a less dramatic way, and yet the primary causes were...a million other things. Since we're focusing on the big 3 articles lately, Ill stick with them. And they all point to 3 or so big causes: VDP quitting, tension from the band and the whole legal limbo with Capitol. I think trying to do too much at once was also an issue, with Brother and going into films, etc. Anderle lists these as distractions even, because Brian was putting off doing anything on the album after VDP left. Im sure drugs and neurosis had their own part to play too. Brian just comes off as a very sensitive, eccentric guy especially in these articles. Anderle talks about how the vibes werent good with so much negativity around, and it was extremely hard to get Brian productive. I think the real key to the demise, is the Elements, and Ive said as much the past 2 years now. He hit a road block with that track, not knowing what to do with the other parts, fear of fire, and not knowing what to do without VDP.

I know that the group having doubts about the material or being abrasive is often keyed on as the main culprit in all of his. Frankly, I'm amazed The Beach Boys were able to get ANYTHING done right from the very beginning of their career. Session tapes reveal it was nearly impossible for Brian or anyone else to corral them. They sound like a bunch of rowdy teenagers...well, I guess they were, right? There's constant bickering, talking on top of each other, second-guessing each other, etc. I know if it were me, I would've had a nervous breakdown. I'm no fan of chaos.  It's like listening to a cacophony of voices that are never in sync, and as much as Brian is supposed to be in charge, he joins in as well, making him just as guilty. Sometimes listening to these sessions can be eye-opening fun but a little annoying (and The Beach Boys were never noted for their great wit, which is why listening to The Beatles engage in the same tomfoolery is more entertaining because at least they're funny). The main thing is, they DID the work and that includes SMiLE too, no matter if Mike or Carl questiond this or that...they sang the heck out of it.

I wasnt aware of that with their early sessions. Very eye opening. Yes, they sang the heck out of it. But again, Anderle mentions specifically how Mike sang one song but it wasnt quite how Brian wanted it...and they literally wasted the better part of a week rerecording that same song again and again until Brian decided to just do it himself. Its not a case of big bad Mike ruining everything so much as they were on such different wavelengths and Brian was such a perfectionist that they just couldnt communicate anymore. That and, I do believe Mike was jealous about being passed over yet again as lyricist. Anyway, I think the problem was with Brian as well as Mike; he was treating them like instruments rather than real people and it finally got to be too much.

I'm surprised that someone..anyone..either within the group or at Capitol didn't just sit the guys down and say "We need a record. Play me what's close to finished and we'll put that out next week". I know that sounds insensitive, but a LOT of money had spent. If there had been a record with just SMiLE versions of  "Heroes and Villains" "Wonderful", "Wind Chimes", Cabin-Essence" and "Surf's Up". Well, hell...that's a perfect album side right there! Who even cares what would've been on side 2? It would've been better than releasing bits and pieces over the years to bolster other albums.  

The clear implication from Vosse and Anderle is that Brian will do what he wants to do. You cant make him do the album if hes not feeling it. Which, actually, is why I think the Smiley aesthetic was his idea. That and the crucial "dont think youre god, just be a cool guy" lyric in Wonderful. Plus, with the legal wrangling going on, Capitol probably wasnt in much of a position to order him around. Again, according to Anderle, he went to all the legal meetings for Brian. I get the idea Brian wouldve just blown Capitol off. The Beach Boys bossing him around wouldve just caused more strife. I agree that an album of what was done by, say, April wouldve been preferable to Smiley and then leaking the rest out piece by piece over the years. Wouldve been better for their careers and the musical world. He had enough material to release a kickass record at that point. Maybe not the exact one he imagined, but still. And the unfinished songs are mostly unfinished because of lyrics. Those couldve been done in a week if Brian either lowered his standards just a bit or did them himself. BUT thats the key, I think. He realized his expectations were too high and he was doing everything himself. I really think thats why we got Smiley; he decided it was more important to do a laid back fun album as a group than this pretentious (not that I think that, but y'know) symphony to God that he essentially made all by himself.

I think maybe we have over emphasized some things and under emphasized other things.  As I remember one of the examples of the Boys so called resistance was "arguing" around the Boys doing endless takes that Brian would just junk because it wouldn't be happening for him and "fighting" over Brian telling them their parts and the Boys "excuses" for not wanting to sing it that way or wanting to sing this way. Just sounds like the band's normal process maybe.

Any way, that quote is from KHJ's History of Rock and Roll. According to Bill Mouzis, the production and audio engineer, the thing was put together in the 60 days before airing so the interview was probably sometime from the last week of December 1968 into February 1969. There is a misleading incomplete version in LLVS.......(crickets).........(tumbleweeds).............but I forgot to look up the page number.  The ellipsis represent announcer and music breaks as I remember.

"Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE.  I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on the tunes, and in the process we came up with a song called 'Surf’s Up,' and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music.  The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked ... because I didn't feel that they ... I don't know why, I just didn't, for some reason, didn't want to put them on the album ... and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good over that, that one ... the decision of mine not to put a lot of the things that we'd cut for the album SMILEY SMILE on the album, and so for like almost a year, we're just now kind of getting back together ... because I didn't think that the songs really were right for the public at the time, and I didn't have a feeling, a commercial feeling, about some of these songs that we've never released, and ... maybe I ... some people like to hang onto certain things and ... just as their own little songs that they've written almost for themselves. And a lot of times, you know, a person will write and will realize later that they're ... it's not commercial, you know, but what they've written is nice for them, but a lot of people just don't like it."
-Brian Wilson, 1968

[filledeplage]

The way I see the collapse of SMiLE (based on everything I've read) is that it was a combination of factors. Brian's psychological issues were tough enough for him to deal with but they were worsened by his drug abuse. In some ways, it's the same old rock-n-roll story: a creative leading light takes drugs to expand his mind and it works at first but eventually they only leave him confused. I think if he had stayed focused and sober we could've got something, but it was always going to be a tough road because of who these guys were.

I guess if there is a possible bias for Vosse/Anderle and Siegel it would be to downplay Brian's drug use. It makes sense they wouldnt go into that, and Im factoring that into this reply. All the same, I used to buy into that but now I think its at least slightly overblown as well. This idea of a big dramatic drug induced breakout. I think that was happening too, but in a less dramatic way, and yet the primary causes were...a million other things. Since we're focusing on the big 3 articles lately, Ill stick with them. And they all point to 3 or so big causes: VDP quitting, tension from the band and the whole legal limbo with Capitol. I think trying to do too much at once was also an issue, with Brother and going into films, etc. Anderle lists these as distractions even, because Brian was putting off doing anything on the album after VDP left. Im sure drugs and neurosis had their own part to play too. Brian just comes off as a very sensitive, eccentric guy especially in these articles. Anderle talks about how the vibes werent good with so much negativity around, and it was extremely hard to get Brian productive. I think the real key to the demise, is the Elements, and Ive said as much the past 2 years now. He hit a road block with that track, not knowing what to do with the other parts, fear of fire, and not knowing what to do without VDP.

I know that the group having doubts about the material or being abrasive is often keyed on as the main culprit in all of his. Frankly, I'm amazed The Beach Boys were able to get ANYTHING done right from the very beginning of their career. Session tapes reveal it was nearly impossible for Brian or anyone else to corral them. They sound like a bunch of rowdy teenagers...well, I guess they were, right? There's constant bickering, talking on top of each other, second-guessing each other, etc. I know if it were me, I would've had a nervous breakdown. I'm no fan of chaos.  It's like listening to a cacophony of voices that are never in sync, and as much as Brian is supposed to be in charge, he joins in as well, making him just as guilty. Sometimes listening to these sessions can be eye-opening fun but a little annoying (and The Beach Boys were never noted for their great wit, which is why listening to The Beatles engage in the same tomfoolery is more entertaining because at least they're funny). The main thing is, they DID the work and that includes SMiLE too, no matter if Mike or Carl questiond this or that...they sang the heck out of it.

I wasnt aware of that with their early sessions. Very eye opening. Yes, they sang the heck out of it. But again, Anderle mentions specifically how Mike sang one song but it wasnt quite how Brian wanted it...and they literally wasted the better part of a week rerecording that same song again and again until Brian decided to just do it himself. Its not a case of big bad Mike ruining everything so much as they were on such different wavelengths and Brian was such a perfectionist that they just couldnt communicate anymore. That and, I do believe Mike was jealous about being passed over yet again as lyricist. Anyway, I think the problem was with Brian as well as Mike; he was treating them like instruments rather than real people and it finally got to be too much.

I'm surprised that someone..anyone..either within the group or at Capitol didn't just sit the guys down and say "We need a record. Play me what's close to finished and we'll put that out next week". I know that sounds insensitive, but a LOT of money had spent. If there had been a record with just SMiLE versions of  "Heroes and Villains" "Wonderful", "Wind Chimes", Cabin-Essence" and "Surf's Up". Well, hell...that's a perfect album side right there! Who even cares what would've been on side 2? It would've been better than releasing bits and pieces over the years to bolster other albums.  

The clear implication from Vosse and Anderle is that Brian will do what he wants to do. You cant make him do the album if hes not feeling it. Which, actually, is why I think the Smiley aesthetic was his idea. That and the crucial "dont think youre god, just be a cool guy" lyric in Wonderful. Plus, with the legal wrangling going on, Capitol probably wasnt in much of a position to order him around. Again, according to Anderle, he went to all the legal meetings for Brian. I get the idea Brian wouldve just blown Capitol off. The Beach Boys bossing him around wouldve just caused more strife. I agree that an album of what was done by, say, April wouldve been preferable to Smiley and then leaking the rest out piece by piece over the years. Wouldve been better for their careers and the musical world. He had enough material to release a kickass record at that point. Maybe not the exact one he imagined, but still. And the unfinished songs are mostly unfinished because of lyrics. Those couldve been done in a week if Brian either lowered his standards just a bit or did them himself. BUT thats the key, I think. He realized his expectations were too high and he was doing everything himself. I really think thats why we got Smiley; he decided it was more important to do a laid back fun album as a group than this pretentious (not that I think that, but y'know) symphony to God that he essentially made all by himself.

I think maybe we have over emphasized some things and under emphasized other things.  As I remember one of the examples of the Boys so called resistance was "arguing" around the Boys doing endless takes that Brian would just junk because it wouldn't be happening for him and "fighting" over Brian telling them their parts and the Boys "excuses" for not wanting to sing it that way or wanting to sing this way. Just sounds like the band's normal process maybe.

Any way, that quote is from KHJ's History of Rock and Roll. According to Bill Mouzis, the production and audio engineer, the thing was put together in the 60 days before airing so the interview was probably sometime from the last week of December 1968 into February 1969. There is a misleading incomplete version in LLVS.......(crickets).........(tumbleweeds).............but I forgot to look up the page number.  The ellipsis represent announcer and music breaks as I remember.

"Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE.  I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on the tunes, and in the process we came up with a song called 'Surf’s Up,' and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music.  The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked ... because I didn't feel that they ... I don't know why, I just didn't, for some reason, didn't want to put them on the album ... and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good over that, that one ... the decision of mine not to put a lot of the things that we'd cut for the album SMILEY SMILE on the album, and so for like almost a year, we're just now kind of getting back together ... because I didn't think that the songs really were right for the public at the time, and I didn't have a feeling, a commercial feeling, about some of these songs that we've never released, and ... maybe I ... some people like to hang onto certain things and ... just as their own little songs that they've written almost for themselves. And a lot of times, you know, a person will write and will realize later that they're ... it's not commercial, you know, but what they've written is nice for them, but a lot of people just don't like it."
-Brian Wilson, 1968

People expected Surf's Up to be on Smiley and there was likely enough space, time-wise, for it.  Not adding Surf's Up, helped create this myth and buzz, so when it became a named album, it was well received as was the performance by Carl, on lead with a BB group on background vocals.  It may not have had a "commercial feel" but it had an "underground music" Made in Heaven feel for fm radio, picking up the slack for AM radio being gradually overtaken by "talk radio."   

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

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

Admittedly, comparing them to the gospels is me being overdramatic, but that said, you realize those 4 documents have their own biases and lenses right? Matthew its believed, was written for a Jewish audience as it stresses Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies and stuff, and Luke its believed was written for a pagan audience as it stresses that the more inconvenient laws of Judaism no longer apply and anyone can be a follower of Christ.

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to have been brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?

Well, I tend to disagree with you. I think Asher and later Parks strengthened Brian's work immensely. And its both untrue and actually insulting to Brian to pretend the big bad VDP and company bullied him into going a direction he didnt want to. Brian chose to follow the hip crowd, for better or worse, and for better or worse later changed his mind. Aside from Daro, I get the feeling Vosse and Anderle genuinely cared for Brian when reading them. Yes, yes, biases. But still, there is real respect you can sense from how they describe him. Theyre not bitter at being let go either, and sincerely wish him the best. If they had an interest in tearing him down they couldve; im sure the press wouldve loved an "emperor has no clothes" story. If anything, Brian sounds to have been bullying VDP--yes, biases. But thats not just from those three sources Im saying that. And didnt Brian name VDP as his fave collaborator recently? Your narrative doesnt hold up when looking at the facts.
 

Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  And the vagueness, in terms of whether, for me, it has credibility..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Anderle seems to take a very measured position on VDP in his interview. He doesnt go on and on praising him and certainly not at Brian's expense. He says they worked together, blew each others minds, didnt get along and broke up--which he describes as a tragedy. And then he talks all about Brian. Vosse--who doesnt share this bias--says the same. I agree thats puffing on Siegel's part. And his obsession with hip, semi-hip, etc I found incredibly smug and annoying. Still, just because he has a high opinion of himself it doesnt make him wrong.

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin'

Sounds to me like they were all friends--Brian included--for awhile. And the way Anderle and Vosse speak of him, it does sound like old friends talking about a relationship gone sour but with a lot of reverance and no ill will.

I agree everyone is biased and has a faulty memory--and in my dissections I point out where Anderle in particular differs from the others in his account--but their recollections still have a lot of value and Im not seeing this bullying narrative at all

[Emily]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

I'm not questioning why it wasn't published.  

Emily - now, there seems to be a divergence of accounts as to what went down.  That is a good thing.  

What I can now look at as lacking, is whether there was any independent fact finding which took place to verify the account of the storyteller, notwithstanding the editorial position of the TSEP.  

I'm sorry. I don't know what you're referring to in the red bold above. There's a divergence of accounts as to what went down regarding what? Regarding Smile, for sure. There seems to have been a divergence on that since 1967. Or do you mean regarding something else?

[filledeplage]

Mujan - I just went through that article and found what I saw as any relationships between and among the parties "as retold by Jules."  And only within that context only and not as truth or fiction.

Bias is inherent if someone is your family, a person who hired you or any other kind of relationship where a benefit has been conferred.  Now, GF has cleared those details.  And, I'm very glad.  So, now we can look at as we should every article with a critical eye.  

And "gospel truth" is just an expression and can be religiously neutral. This has nothing to do with whether they cared for Brian or not.  It seems they did but it is all second hand "hearsay" and why I like to rely on the "primary" sources rather than "secondary" sources.  That is too soap-opera-ey for me.  The interviews from the late 60's and 70's by band members are those that hold the true story are those that I look at with more cred.  Anyone else can believe whatever they like.  I generally pick just two things: the music and the band members reflections and interviews in their words.    

It has nothing to do with whether VDP was his favorite or not.  It is what was written by Jules, as VDP having Anderle as manager, and the chain of people involved in the project, "as reported by Jules."  

    

[filledeplage]

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

I'm not questioning why it wasn't published.  

Emily - now, there seems to be a divergence of accounts as to what went down.  That is a good thing.  

What I can now look at as lacking, is whether there was any independent fact finding which took place to verify the account of the storyteller, notwithstanding the editorial position of the TSEP.  

I'm sorry. I don't know what you're referring to in the red bold above. There's a divergence of accounts as to what went down regarding what? Regarding Smile, for sure. There seems to have been a divergence on that since 1967. Or do you mean regarding something else?

GF's account adding cred and a contrast to that which Jules wrote.