Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[filledeplage]

FdP, I agree that most people, or at least most women and a lot of men, reading Siegel's article now would find his comment about (probably) Carol Kaye offensive; and as with many articles from that time, domestic scenes (in this article Marilyn and the "wives and girlfriends" in the kitchen), probably stand out as big culture difference to most contemporary readers, as well as the lack of women in the professional scenes.
I also think that Siegel uses the word "hip" a little too much.
But, as with the Rocky Pamplin thread, despite some issues with the author (not that I think Siegel is remotely similar to Pamplin) some factual information and a sense of atmosphere, motivations and relationships can be still be garnered.

Emily - you served in the military.  That is parity.  You walked the walk.  

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ?  

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.      

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.    

We like to build people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.  

[Emily]

FdP, I agree that most people, or at least most women and a lot of men, reading Siegel's article now would find his comment about (probably) Carol Kaye offensive; and as with many articles from that time, domestic scenes (in this article Marilyn and the "wives and girlfriends" in the kitchen), probably stand out as big culture difference to most contemporary readers, as well as the lack of women in the professional scenes.
I also think that Siegel uses the word "hip" a little too much.
But, as with the Rocky Pamplin thread, despite some issues with the author (not that I think Siegel is remotely similar to Pamplin) some factual information and a sense of atmosphere, motivations and relationships can be still be garnered.

Emily - you served in the military.  That is parity.  You walked the walk. 

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ? 

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.       

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.   

We like to built people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.   

I agree with all of this. I don't think they needed a make-over. I think they were naturally changing with the times.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Back home with access to my archives. No percussionist listed on the "MO'LC" AFM sheet (Jim Gordon was the drummer, and as the track was cut essentially live, there was almost certainly no percussionist, period) and CK was the only woman present other than Diane Rovell as contractor. Thus, Siegel was mistaken: no female percussionist.

Another reason I've heard for him being barred was that Chrissie (who, incidentally, he met at the sessions) was hitting on Brian and distracting him.

[GhostyTMRS]

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ?  

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.      

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.    

We like to build people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.  

Capitol was making way more money off The Beatles than they ever did The Beach Boys. It would stand to reason they would follow the money. The Beach Boys certainly turned a profit but they were never the world-shifting phenomena The Beatles were. They COULD have been in 1966 when Beatlemania was starting to wane, but by that time Capitol knew who the big moneymakers were.
The Beach Boys had a stigma about them. I've heard this a million times from boomers. The Beach Boys were associated with the high school jock crowd which became "unhip" overnight when the Beatles arrived. Yes, they had hits throughout Beatlemania, just like The Four Seasons, but both were still considered yesterday's news.
I can see why Brian wanted to cultivate a hip persona and actively seek out the "hip" crowd. I don't blame him for that. That sort of image consciousness had a lot of cache in 1966-67, despite being kind of stupid in retrospect. After all, Brian was hipper then all of these people combined. We only know of these "hipsters" because they were once associated with Brian Friggin' Wilson, which says a lot about useless this concept of "hipness" is.
I know some fans take these people very seriously but basically I see them as college kids who ruled Los Angeles for about 6 months.   

[Emily]

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ?  

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.      

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.    

We like to build people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.  

Capitol was making way more money off The Beatles than they ever did The Beach Boys. It would stand to reason they would follow the money.

Agreed. Also, I don't think it's all about the label. The biggest rock and roll marketing successes until then (Beatles and Elvis) had their own talented marketing teams outside of the label and NEMs enterprises was very aggressive in the US. Capitol didn't get serious about its youth marketing until 1965, and then with "Teen Set" it was a little behind the times.
I think the Beach Boys' marketing was good at opening doors, but from '62 on was off. There are all those awkward interviews from the early sixties in which they openly say they are consciously writing for the teenage market. Saying that was, in itself, bad PR.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Pre-Rolling Stone and Crawdaddy, the pop press was pretty laughable in its shallowness, on both sides of the pond.

[GhostyTMRS]

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ?  

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.      

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.    

We like to build people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.  

Capitol was making way more money off The Beatles than they ever did The Beach Boys. It would stand to reason they would follow the money.

Agreed. Also, I don't think it's all about the label. The biggest rock and roll marketing successes until then (Beatles and Elvis) had their own talented marketing teams outside of the label and NEMs enterprises was very aggressive in the US. Capitol didn't get serious about its youth marketing until 1965, and then with "Teen Set" it was a little behind the times.
I think the Beach Boys' marketing was good at opening doors, but from '62 on was off. There are all those awkward interviews from the early sixties in which they openly say they are consciously writing for the teenage market. Saying that is, in itself, bad PR.

Also, keep in mind that the Beatles parent label EMI owned 96% of Capitol Records stock. The suits at Capitol operated independently for years, turning down not only The Beatles but big British EMI artists before them like Cliff Richard & The Shadows. It got to a breaking point and EMI basically said "You WILL distribute Beatle records and you WILL spend money promoting them". Dave Dexter and his Capitol cronies held their noses and did as they were told only to see the Beatles explode in popularity almost overnight. After that, the floodgates opened.

[guitarfool2002]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

[Emily]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

Good point regarding the cultural atmosphere. This ties into the movie thread in the sandbox!

[guitarfool2002]

Just to add one example specific to Brian Wilson's music...Frank Zappa, one of the most perceptive commentators and observers of that era and the sociology of the pop culture, specifically credited Brian with liberating the ii/V progression in popular music through Little Deuce Coupe. That may be too musician-centric or obscure of a reference, but consider so much of the 60's was about breaking down walls and shattering convention, and consider how the ii/V progression was something that was set in stone for composers and songwriters. And this guy from Hawthorne wrote a hit record about hot rods that shattered that convention.

Of course, Zappa also "got" the Monkees as something innovative and revolutionary beyond the popularity, and got quite a lot of the entire 60's scene including the record business that few have ever matched.

[guitarfool2002]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

Good point regarding the cultural atmosphere. This ties into the movie thread in the sandbox!

It ties exactly into that, yes! The people in the film industry who dominated Hollywood in the 70's and beyond, those behind all of the blockbusters and innovations in CGI and special effects and cross-marketing and the like...they were film school kids in 1966/67 too. Including Lucas who was one of those asked to work on Brian's GV promo film in fall 1966 when he was studying at UCLA but didn't do it. So these college kids made quite an impact.

Forget about another one...what years did Woodward and Bernstein graduate college? 

[guitarfool2002]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

[GhostyTMRS]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

As I clearly stated when I said "Beatlemania was starting to wane" there was a time, a window of opportunity where Capitol could've put all of their marketing muscle into the Beach Boys but they didn't. Rumors of a Beatle breakup and had been circulating for a while (even moreso in Britain than in the U.S.) because the Fabs hadn't released any new Beatle product for 6 months. The Beach Boys had time on their side and the right tracks that could've given them the edge but we all know what happened there.

And yes, it was said in a joking way, unless luminaries George Lucas and Terry Gilliam are popping up in that famous airport photo (where are my glasses?).

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

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

Good point regarding the cultural atmosphere. This ties into the movie thread in the sandbox!

It ties exactly into that, yes! The people in the film industry who dominated Hollywood in the 70's and beyond, those behind all of the blockbusters and innovations in CGI and special effects and cross-marketing and the like...they were film school kids in 1966/67 too. Including Lucas who was one of those asked to work on Brian's GV promo film in fall 1966 when he was studying at UCLA but didn't do it. So these college kids made quite an impact.

Forget about another one...what years did Woodward and Bernstein graduate college? 

Lucas was on set filming for Gimme Shelter, the documentary on Altamont, but his footage wasnt used

[filledeplage]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question.  

*
wrong Bernstein...
(Leonard - Harvard - 1939)

[guitarfool2002]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

As I clearly stated when I said "Beatlemania was starting to wane" there was a time, a window of opportunity where Capitol could've put all of their marketing muscle into the Beach Boys but they didn't. Rumors of a Beatle breakup and had been circulating for a while (even moreso in Britain than in the U.S.) because the Fabs hadn't released any new Beatle product for 6 months. The Beach Boys had time on their side and the right tracks that could've given them the edge but we all know what happened there.

And yes, it was said in a joking way, unless luminaries George Lucas and Terry Gilliam are popping up in that famous airport photo (where are my glasses?).

Good Vibrations hit #1 in late fall 66, so they hit the timing right on that one, plenty of press too. In fact, it made industry headlines for premiering on a TV dance show (KHJ-TV in LA) rather than being premiered by a DJ on radio, which was the industry standard.

Gilliam was at the same agency as Tony Asher until he moved to the UK.

Consider that the musicians and people in the music industry in the airport photo went on to sell well over 100 million records combined and were parts of some of the most successful bands of the 60's and 70's, and in David Anderle's case, one of the most successful and respected producers and execs in Hollywood (specifically film soundtracks), I'd say the kids did quite well for themselves!

[filledeplage]

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

Still no defense to no big full out Pet Sounds promo tour in 1966.  And big TV push. TV variety shows always needed slots for entertainment filled and they were big, in the year prior, on the heels of Sloop, Barbara Ann, GOK, etc., 

GF - you are being too nice.   

[Emily]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

stumped

[filledeplage]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

stumped

Carl Bernstein did not graduate.  Woodward - Yale, 1965

[Emily]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

stumped

Carl Bernstein did not graduate.  Woodward - Yale, 1965

I can google. I'm just stumped where he's going with it.

[filledeplage]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

stumped

Carl Bernstein did not graduate.  Woodward - Yale, 1965

I can google. I'm just stumped where he's going with it.

Maybe Watergate? Woodward and Bernstein

But Bernstein (Leonard )was involved with Inside Pop.

[guitarfool2002]

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question. 

stumped

Carl Bernstein did not graduate.  Woodward - Yale, 1965

I can google. I'm just stumped where he's going with it.

Maybe Watergate? Woodward and Bernstein

But Bernstein (Leonard )was involved with Inside Pop.

We have a winner! Bernstein was a play on words/names with a dual meaning in tribute to Van Dyke Parks, who is in the photo. Woodward was a Navy man, and Carl Bernstein dropped out of college, a move which cost him good jobs at first but he eventually got in through his abilities as a journalist. But beyond that, these were also some of the college kids that came of age in the mid to late 60's and ended up changing the landscape in their respective fields.

Consider if that airport photo was a school class photo: We have key members of the Beach Boys, Three Dog Night, The Turtles, Jan & Dean, various published authors and musicians like Van Dyke Parks, we have a successful music exec in David Anderle, we have Michael Vosse who went on to win Emmy awards for his work in TV news...quite a class, in that photo, quite successful.

Where the notion comes from that these people were something other than successful on their own, or why that notion even exists, is beyond me.

[GhostyTMRS]

My point again is that none if these people, no matter how successful they were or would become, are in Brian's league. When we're talking about Brian Wilson, we're talking about one of the greatest visionary music makers not only in popular music but in music...period. The idea of "hipness" when it comes to Brian's music is pointless. It transcends whatever style, fad, fashion, cultural significance out there.

[Andrew G. Doe]

However, hipness in mid-sixties LA (and for that matter, London) was defined by a small, self-appointed clique of people and was nothing to do with music: if they didn't think you were hip, based on what they wore/drank/read, then you weren't hip. Simply put, The Beach Boys were so square, they were in danger of becoming ironically hip. Brian's music was way beyond what anyone else was doing back then, but in the eyes of the LA hip community, he might as well have been Pat Boone.

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

My point again is that none if these people, no matter how successful they were or would become, are in Brian's league. When we're talking about Brian Wilson, we're talking about one of the greatest visionary music makers not only in popular music but in music...period. The idea of "hipness" when it comes to Brian's music is pointless. It transcends whatever style, fad, fashion, cultural significance out there.

I dont think anyone here needs convincing of that.

Some of those hipsters seemed like pretty decently competent at worst and possibly far better at what they were hired to do, so I dont think they deserve the pounding theyre taking now by some. That said, those of us supporting their accounts are doing just that--saying they wrote some really interesting, comprehensive retrospectives on the project. No more, no less. Its not picking a side on whether Brian needed to be hip or not, or these guys really were hip themselves, to say Vosse seemed to be telling the honest truth and Anderle didnt come off as particularly biased in his account.

That said, my opinion, Brian didnt need these guys in a creative sense per se, but I do think they brought something really amazing to the music, and by being there they not only added to the intrigue but also preserved it for those of us curious nowadays. SMiLE is 20x better than even Pet Sounds in my opinion, and I think VDP added a lot to it with his lyrics and, I suspect, by introducing the Americana theme. SMiLE wouldnt be SMiLE without him; it wouldnt have the same intellectual overtones, the replay value, and the added wordplay and room for analysis. Thats a big part of the fun for me. Pet Sounds and the other stuff are great to listen to but they dont warrant careful study of everything from the lyrics, instruments used (we know VDP helped with arranging too) and even the booklet and cover like this album does. Thats what sets this one apart and makes it something really special.

You can be a Brian fan and think hes better than all them combined but still appreciate what VDP, Anderle, Vosse and the rest bought to the scene. They seem like genuine fans of his too, so I dont see the need to pick sides. The only person I strongly suspect never had his best interests at heart is Daro. And thats reflected too in his inputs, where all he has to offer is laughing about his bad trip, calling him a pig and Marilyn a cow, and claiming all the best songs were really written about him.