Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[filledeplage]

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong.

As do insiders, which is why you don't completely trust or discount either outsiders or insiders purely on the basis that the source is one of those.
That said, it must be noted that even individuals have a wonderful capacity of lying to themselves about themselves. Therefore, in those cases, an outsiders' account has the capacity of being far more accurate than that of the individual.

CSM - Here is an outsider's vantage who got it right.  Darian, to work on the Smile project. That was not subjective, and based on a work product and not an assessment of people and their interactions. 

Where there are value judgments about personal issues, it is very important to know if there is a reason for an opinion, not unlike an editorial for a newspaper or some other publication. 

One must inquire as to whether there is an inherent bias, such as being an employee or being paid in some way for your opinion. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong.

As do insiders, which is why you don't completely trust or discount either outsiders or insiders purely on the basis that the source is one of those.
That said, it must be noted that even individuals have a wonderful capacity of lying to themselves about themselves. Therefore, in those cases, an outsiders' account has the capacity of being far more accurate than that of the individual.

CSM - Here is an outsider's vantage who got it right.  Darian, to work on the Smile project. That was not subjective, and based on a work product and not an assessment of people and their interactions. 

Where there are value judgments about personal issues, it is very important to know if there is a reason for an opinion, not unlike an editorial for a newspaper or some other publication. 

One must inquire as to whether there is an inherent bias, such as being an employee or being paid in some way for your opinion. 

There's an inherent bias in everything, including Darian's work on Smile, which was indeed subjective.

[filledeplage]

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong. Your suggestion of family therapy for "dysfunction" and there is no perfect family structure so all families experience some kind of dysfunction or another.  It is all a matter of degree.

And, I can liken the a school psychologist coming into a class to observe a child for a core evaluation for special education.  Often, they get it so wrong, after one half hour of observation.  Who pays for that objective opinion?  The child being sent to special education or not being placed appropriately.  

The question as I have seen it, is whether those who have written so "objectively" had a monetary incentive to do so.      

OK. So you actually do misunderstand my point.
I highly doubt the interviewees in those articles were paid. If they were, I'm sure the payment wasn't contingent on what they said in the interviews.
As to the reporters, obviously Jules Seigel had a monetary incentive to report something different. He lost his assignment because he refused to alter the text to please those who would've paid.

Do you know that they were not paid? They were not op-eds.  Sometimes op-ed pieces are paid.  

And, I do not know that Siegel lost the assignment for the refusal to "alter text" - and posted the eBay cover of the SEP to show their position on LSD.  They were likely never running that story, which conflicted directly with their editorial position.  

 

[filledeplage]

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong.

As do insiders, which is why you don't completely trust or discount either outsiders or insiders purely on the basis that the source is one of those.
That said, it must be noted that even individuals have a wonderful capacity of lying to themselves about themselves. Therefore, in those cases, an outsiders' account has the capacity of being far more accurate than that of the individual.

CSM - Here is an outsider's vantage who got it right.  Darian, to work on the Smile project. That was not subjective, and based on a work product and not an assessment of people and their interactions. 

Where there are value judgments about personal issues, it is very important to know if there is a reason for an opinion, not unlike an editorial for a newspaper or some other publication. 

One must inquire as to whether there is an inherent bias, such as being an employee or being paid in some way for your opinion. 

Darian's was not an assessment of personalities.  It was an assessment of a work product. That is the difference. He wasn't judging the persons, but the work product.
There's an inherent bias in everything, including Darian's work on Smile, which was indeed subjective.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In that case are you opposed to all writing that focuses on real life people?

[filledeplage]

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong.

As do insiders, which is why you don't completely trust or discount either outsiders or insiders purely on the basis that the source is one of those.
That said, it must be noted that even individuals have a wonderful capacity of lying to themselves about themselves. Therefore, in those cases, an outsiders' account has the capacity of being far more accurate than that of the individual.

CSM - Here is an outsider's vantage who got it right.  Darian, to work on the Smile project. That was not subjective, and based on a work product and not an assessment of people and their interactions. 

Where there are value judgments about personal issues, it is very important to know if there is a reason for an opinion, not unlike an editorial for a newspaper or some other publication. 

One must inquire as to whether there is an inherent bias, such as being an employee or being paid in some way for your opinion. 

There's an inherent bias in everything, including Darian's work on Smile, which was indeed subjective.

It was work being assessed and judged and not people.

[filledeplage]

In that case are you opposed to all writing that focuses on real life people?

CSM - As a teen, when I read all this stuff, I might have believed every single word (except negative stuff) about this music written by observers.  Not now.  Now, I want to know about bias.  As a teen I would not have read this critically.  

Too many "biographies" and other books and articles have come out that were trash.  

And, lots of bios are very credible.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In that case are you opposed to all writing that focuses on real life people?

CSM - As a teen, when I read all this stuff, I might have believed every single word (except negative stuff) about this music written by observers.  Not now.  Now, I want to know about bias.  As a teen I would not have read this critically.  

Too many "biographies" and other books and articles have come out that were trash.  

And, lots of bios are very credible.

I'm unclear. It seems you are equating biased with "trash" when everything is biased. Your posts are all biased, as are mine. Everything is biased. So given that saying a text is biased is as true as saying humans breathe air, I'm left curious why we should consider it. Obviously there are cases where we should consider it. But we certainly should not write something off as biased simply because we do not like the content because that's like dismissing an article because it contains words.

[filledeplage]

In that case are you opposed to all writing that focuses on real life people?

CSM - As a teen, when I read all this stuff, I might have believed every single word (except negative stuff) about this music written by observers.  Not now.  Now, I want to know about bias.  As a teen I would not have read this critically.  

Too many "biographies" and other books and articles have come out that were trash.  

And, lots of bios are very credible.

I'm unclear. It seems you are equating biased with "trash" when everything is biased. Your posts are all biased, as are mine. Everything is biased. So given that saying a text is biased is as true as saying humans breathe air, I'm left curious why we should consider it. Obviously there are cases where we should consider it. But we certainly should not write something off as biased simply because we do not like the content because that's like dismissing an article because it contains words.

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio on Brian is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.  

I can't comment on Landy's bio because I have not read it and I do not intend to. However, I would say that even if it were trash it would not be because it's biased but for other reasons.

Yes, there are problematic sexist remarks in Siegel's article. I probably wouldn't have written it the same way but I can't evaluate a text based on whether or not I would have written it that way. Furthermore, if we are prepared to dismiss an article because of sexist remarks then we should be prepared to dismiss about half of The Beach Boys lyrics while we're at it.

Obviously one should look out for inaccuracies but inaccuracies alone are not worth dismissing a piece unless the entire substance of something is inaccurate. A twenty page article, for example, that makes a few mistakes like getting a year wrong, or something, is not enough to write something off. Those kinds of errors are made all of the time.

[Emily]

Do you know that they were not paid? They were not op-eds.  Sometimes op-ed pieces are paid.  

 Read this again:

I highly doubt the interviewees in those articles were paid. If they were, I'm sure the payment wasn't contingent on what they said in the interviews.

And, I do not know that Siegel lost the assignment for the refusal to "alter text" - and posted the eBay cover of the SEP to show their position on LSD.  They were likely never running that story, which conflicted directly with their editorial position.  

OK. So Siegel was flat out lying is your current contention. It's no longer just bias? What motive do you think Siegel would have to make up a tale about his article being rejected?

And what bias do you have that you will jump through hoops to discredit Siegel - you've made many failed attempts so far* and are still trying?

*Saying he said that Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle
*Saying he did not work for the Saturday Evening Post
*Pointing out that he mistook a bass player for a percussionist
*Pointing out that he said sexist stuff
*Saying he's not a family member
*Saying he lied about his article being rejected.

There's only evidence for two of these things being true and all are irrelevant to whether or not he's giving an accurate account of what was happening with Brian Wilson, but you keep pushing it. Why? Have you considered that in this case you don't like the source and that's why you are trying to discredit the article?

All you are succeeding in doing is revealing your own bias.

edited the pink because of one other true thing.//editing it back!

[LostArt]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

[filledeplage]

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.  

I can't comment on Landy's bio because I have not read it and I do not intend to. However, I would say that even if it were trash it would be because it's biased but for other reasons.

Yes, there are problematic sexist remarks in Siegel's article. I probably wouldn't have written it the same way but I can't evaluate a text based on whether or not I would have written it that way. Furthermore, if we are prepared to dismiss an article because of sexist remarks then we should be prepared to dismiss about half of The Beach Boys lyrics while we're at it.

Obviously one should look out for inaccuracies but inaccuracies alone are not worth dismissing a piece unless the entire substance of something is inaccurate. A twenty page article, for example, that makes a few mistakes like getting a year wrong, or something, is not enough to write something off. Those kinds of errors are made all of the time.

It was a difficult read. And, I cannot get that time back.

But as far as the other stuff right, it is important to read with a critical eye and not be so quick to believe everything I read, drinking the Koolaid. We never knew that the record companies were publishing the teen magazines.  They were not independent publications as people took them to be.  

Who would have that skill set at the age of 11 or 12?  So the whole myth people were fed in the 60's was a largely a public relations sham.

And, as my gen's philosophy...to question things.    

[Andrew G. Doe]

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not.

No, he didn't. He referred to her as a percussionist.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

She was.

[Emily]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

good question.
Sessionographers?
answered.

[Emily]

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.  

I can't comment on Landy's bio because I have not read it and I do not intend to. However, I would say that even if it were trash it would be because it's biased but for other reasons.

Yes, there are problematic sexist remarks in Siegel's article. I probably wouldn't have written it the same way but I can't evaluate a text based on whether or not I would have written it that way. Furthermore, if we are prepared to dismiss an article because of sexist remarks then we should be prepared to dismiss about half of The Beach Boys lyrics while we're at it.

Obviously one should look out for inaccuracies but inaccuracies alone are not worth dismissing a piece unless the entire substance of something is inaccurate. A twenty page article, for example, that makes a few mistakes like getting a year wrong, or something, is not enough to write something off. Those kinds of errors are made all of the time.

It was a difficult read. And, I cannot get that time back.

But as far as the other stuff right, it is important to read with a critical eye and not be so quick to believe everything I read, drinking the Koolaid. We never knew that the record companies were publishing the teen magazines.  They were not independent publications as people took them to be.  

Who would have that skill set at the age of 11 or 12?  So the whole myth people were fed in the 60's was a largely a public relations sham.

And, as my gen's philosophy...to question things.    

Yeah but you missed the part where it said question everything equally.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

She was.

She was on the session or she was a percussionist there? If it's the latter then Siegel was correct this whole conversation?

[filledeplage]

Do you know that they were not paid? They were not op-eds.  Sometimes op-ed pieces are paid. 

 Read this again:

I highly doubt the interviewees in those articles were paid. If they were, I'm sure the payment wasn't contingent on what they said in the interviews.

And, I do not know that Siegel lost the assignment for the refusal to "alter text" - and posted the eBay cover of the SEP to show their position on LSD.  They were likely never running that story, which conflicted directly with their editorial position. 

OK. So Siegel was flat out lying is your current contention. It's no longer just bias? What motive do you think Siegel would have to make up a tale about his article being rejected?

And what bias do you have that you will jump through hoops to discredit Siegel - you've made many failed attempts so far* and are still trying?

*Saying he said that Van Dyke Park's introduced Anderle
*Saying he did not work for the Saturday Evening Post
*Pointing out that he mistook a bass player for a percussionist
*Pointing out that he said sexist stuff
*Saying he's not a family member
*Saying he lied about his article being rejected.

There's only evidence for two of these things and all are irrelevant to whether or not he's giving an accurate account of what was happening with Brian Wilson, but you keep pushing it. Why? Have you considered that in this case you don't like the source and that's why you are trying to discredit the article?

All you are succeeding in doing is revealing your own bias.

Emily - I quoted directly from work I read when it was released as opposed to now.  It is my right to critique what is written.  And review in that context.  Yes, I pointed out what I did after printing it and going through some sections line by line.  My prerogative. And I would love to know where this "evidence" is coming from.  

The article or a great portion of it, should be discredited, in my opinion, which I am entitled to.  The source is irrelevant.  It is some of the content that is incorrect.  And even Andrew Doe, (the biggest fact-stickler on the planet) agreed with the inaccuracy after some contention.    

  

[Emily]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

She was.

She was on the session or she was a percussionist there? If it's the latter then Siegel was correct this whole conversation?

She talked about hammering things - I think everyone in that session was essentially a percussionist.

[filledeplage]

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.  

I can't comment on Landy's bio because I have not read it and I do not intend to. However, I would say that even if it were trash it would be because it's biased but for other reasons.

Yes, there are problematic sexist remarks in Siegel's article. I probably wouldn't have written it the same way but I can't evaluate a text based on whether or not I would have written it that way. Furthermore, if we are prepared to dismiss an article because of sexist remarks then we should be prepared to dismiss about half of The Beach Boys lyrics while we're at it.

Obviously one should look out for inaccuracies but inaccuracies alone are not worth dismissing a piece unless the entire substance of something is inaccurate. A twenty page article, for example, that makes a few mistakes like getting a year wrong, or something, is not enough to write something off. Those kinds of errors are made all of the time.

It was a difficult read. And, I cannot get that time back.

But as far as the other stuff right, it is important to read with a critical eye and not be so quick to believe everything I read, drinking the Koolaid. We never knew that the record companies were publishing the teen magazines.  They were not independent publications as people took them to be.  

Who would have that skill set at the age of 11 or 12?  So the whole myth people were fed in the 60's was a largely a public relations sham.

And, as my gen's philosophy...to question things.    

Yeah but you missed the part where it said question everything equally.

I must have missed that part.  

[Emily]

Do you know that they were not paid? They were not op-eds.  Sometimes op-ed pieces are paid. 

 Read this again:

I highly doubt the interviewees in those articles were paid. If they were, I'm sure the payment wasn't contingent on what they said in the interviews.

And, I do not know that Siegel lost the assignment for the refusal to "alter text" - and posted the eBay cover of the SEP to show their position on LSD.  They were likely never running that story, which conflicted directly with their editorial position. 

OK. So Siegel was flat out lying is your current contention. It's no longer just bias? What motive do you think Siegel would have to make up a tale about his article being rejected?

And what bias do you have that you will jump through hoops to discredit Siegel - you've made many failed attempts so far* and are still trying?

*Saying he said that Van Dyke Park's introduced Anderle
*Saying he did not work for the Saturday Evening Post
*Pointing out that he mistook a bass player for a percussionist
*Pointing out that he said sexist stuff
*Saying he's not a family member
*Saying he lied about his article being rejected.

There's only evidence for two of these things and all are irrelevant to whether or not he's giving an accurate account of what was happening with Brian Wilson, but you keep pushing it. Why? Have you considered that in this case you don't like the source and that's why you are trying to discredit the article?

All you are succeeding in doing is revealing your own bias.

Emily - I quoted directly from work I read when it was released as opposed to now.  It is my right to critique what is written.  And review in that context.  Yes, I pointed out what I did after printing it and going through some sections line by line.  My prerogative. And I would love to know where this "evidence" is coming from.  

The article or a great portion of it, should be discredited, in my opinion, which I am entitled to.  The source is irrelevant.  It is some of the content that is incorrect.  And even Andrew Doe, (the biggest fact-stickler on the planet) agreed with the inaccuracy after some contention.    

  

I do not in the least deny you your right to form an opinion and to proclaim your opinion, even though it is not based on fact. I would advise that you cease saying that you don't form opinions without facts, however.
The evidence I refer to is evidence that it's sexist (which, I know, is a whole other argument but at least FdP and I would agree on this one it seems) and that he's not a family member. I think those two alone have evidence to support them.
I would ask Andrew Doe to tell us which inaccuracy he agrees with.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

She was.

She was on the session or she was a percussionist there? If it's the latter then Siegel was correct this whole conversation?

She talked about hammering things - I think everyone in that session was essentially a percussionist.

I see! I was just thinking about the music that plays over the top of the hammering. But there you go. Siegel's comments about Kaye as a percussionist were correct.

[filledeplage]

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not.

No, he didn't. He referred to her as a percussionist.

And not a guitarist.

[Emily]

Lord. I'm going to take the dogs for a nice long walk.