Good Vibrations Success and Smile's Demise

[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.    

  

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.

Emily - I don't like the threat. "I would advise that you cease saying that you don't form opinions without facts, however."  I was clear and quoted the text. It is on the direct text I based my opinion.    
[/quote]
My post #69 - is quoting Jules, and those are "his" words and not mine.  His account was already shown to deviate from others, which means there are varying accounts.  Reminds me of the movie, "Something's Gotta Give" when Nicholson's character tells Diane Keaton's character that he told her a "version of the truth" and she replies, "the truth doesn't have 'versions'." 

There is only one version here that should not deviate.

And it is not up to you to decide what "fails" here.  Having a printed up article to have in hand (the full one) might be helpful.  And, it is ok, for me, not going along with the prevailing position, where there are conflicting accounts.  Lone juror is fine for me.  Reasonable minds can differ.

 

[Emily]

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

[filledeplage]

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

That is your opinion.  Willful misreading is a judgment. It was fact-based.  You may not agree.  

[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.

Jules reported (and I don't have the article in front of me) that he was with them for about 2 months.  It is highly unlikely that Carol Kaye as the only woman, could be mistaken for much else that a guitar player.  Any photo I have seen of her, was seated with a guitar.  Percussionists often do both, especially if there is only one.   

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

That is your opinion.  Willful misreading is a judgment. It was fact-based.  You may not agree.  

She's saying that you willfully misread her post not the Siegel article, in this case.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

Jules reported (and I don't have the article in front of me) that he was with them for about 2 months.  It is highly unlikely that Carol Kaye as the only woman, could be mistaken for much else that a guitar player.  Any photo I have seen of her, was seated with a guitar.  Percussionists often do both, especially if there is only one.   

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

The point is she was a percussionist at the session he was referring to, regardless of the photos that you have seen.

[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.

Jules reported (and I don't have the article in front of me) that he was with them for about 2 months.  It is highly unlikely that Carol Kaye as the only woman, could be mistaken for much else that a guitar player.  Any photo I have seen of her, was seated with a guitar.  Percussionists often do both, especially if there is only one.   

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

The point is she was a percussionist at the session he was referring to, regardless of the photos that you have seen.

Jules was with them for 2 months.  So, she was a percussionist for 2 months?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

If he was at so many studio sessions, taking good note of the session musicians, why does he mostly only go into depth on one or two recording sessions? My conclusion: he didn't attend that many sessions or at least didn't watch them all carefully during those two months. If he did, we have a lot more in the article about studio work than simply a lengthy description of the Fire session.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Also, I'm on my way out right now but I'm just curious if anyone would like to provide a complete list of the session musicians that Siegel names in that article.

[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.

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.

That session was the day after the "MOLC" session, and she's logged as a bass player, as l recall (away from my archives right now for a few days). My take is that JS conflated/misremembered the finer detail here and there.

Also, someone keeps calling her a guitarist when for at least two years she'd been a leading electric bass player.

[filledeplage]

For those who have Badman, the journal-type entries start on page 142, and are dated from August 3rd, listed as Smile Session 1, and Carol Kaye is listed as on bass guitar.   Session 2 is Polman on bass guitar.  And, so forth...

Have not checked the other book by Rusten.    

[Paul J B]

It's funny, I've been wondering the same thing. I've been reading up on Brian Wilson lately, including old and recent topics on this board, and find it curious how little mental illness comes into the discussion. If BW was hearing voices, thought his music was causing fires, people were bugging his house and a witch was putting thoughts in his mind via ESP, then I would suggest trying to establish logical reasons for abandoning certain tracks or altering production credits is fairly pointless. I would guess his thought processes were often irrational and difficult to understand.

Pretty good point.

Actually a very good point. Don't hold your breath on any insight though. I'm still not clear on what mental issues were there. A schizo effective disorder....right? That's a broad label that encompasses a lot but is that not the best term to use these days? Even at the end of L&M you are kind of left hanging.

[Niko]

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

That is your opinion.  
Willful misreading is a judgment.
It was fact-based.  
You may not agree.  

...what?

What is her opinion? Which part of her post?

Wilful misreading is being intentionally ignorant to push your own bias and say what you want to say while also pretending to argue. That's what you have done in this thread.

What was fact based?

[Chownow]

[#Pretty good point.

Actually a very good point. Don't hold your breath on any insight though. I'm still not clear on what mental issues were there. A schizo effective disorder....right? That's a broad label that encompasses a lot but is that not the best term to use these days? Even at the end of L&M you are kind of left hanging.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think it would be very interesting to know what BW was going through internally at the time Smile fell apart. But I can also imagine it would be emotionally difficult to revisit as well. But bipolar  schizoaffective means having symptoms of bipolar disorder ("manic depression") while also having ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia. So swinging from racing thoughts, manic phases to extreme depression  , while also experiencing symptoms like delusions (having strange persistent beliefs - like supernatural beings putting thoughts in your mind or your family are conspiring together to poison you) or psychosis (such as hearing voices), and perhaps also having "negative symptoms", like social withdrawal, lack of motivation, emotional flatness, etc.


Obviously a very distressing condition for anyone suffering from it and for their friends and family, especially if they don't understand what is happening or why.

And before anyone says it: No! I'm not trying to internet diagnose anyone. I simply think its better to discuss stuff like this openly rather than being vague or using euphemism. It's like talking about Stephen Hawking's "problems" or "issues" instead of just saying he has ALS, he uses a wheelchair.

And also, BW seems like he's doing phenomenally well now. It's very inspiring!
 

[filledeplage]

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

That is your opinion.  
Willful misreading is a judgment.
It was fact-based.  
You may not agree.  

...what?

What is her opinion? Which part of her post?

Wilful misreading is being intentionally ignorant to push your own bias and say what you want to say while also pretending to argue. That's what you have done in this thread.

What was fact based?

Woodstock...from specific articles/books...where I quoted directly as I will now...

Rusten/Stebbins, p. 121...from an interview with a "principal" Carl Wilson, from Rock Magazine, 1970...speaking against Capitol.

"They were against Pet Sounds and all the albums that came after.  They wanted us to stick with surfing and hot rod records, you know.  But we said, well you know, we don't want to do that now.  But they weren't going for it.  And so they had all these hundreds of people in their organization pushing another thing.  People were bound to get the wrong impression of he group."  

There is no editorializing, as with an "observer." Carl is speaking as a band-member, company-member (BRI) directly impacted by these corporate decisions.

Now, my viewpoint...as regards "retaliation."

same page from Rusten/Stebbins (p.121)

"In April, 1969, the band made the decision to formally terminate their relationship with Capitol, and simultaneously pursue a lawsuit against them, demanding back payments that they claimed they were owed.  Capitol responded by deleting their back catalog, thus cutting off the group's record royalties and much of their income stream."

This was two years post the Spring 1967 sabotage of the UK tour, where they were booked as a surf group and were not allowed to bring in 4 musicians to enhance the delivery of the advanced sound going forward from Pet Sounds.    

[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.

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

CSM - in the Badman book, p. 391 is an alphabetized list of session musicians.  

Carol Kaye is listed only as bass guitar.

Others are listed with multiple roles.  For percussion, either as drums and/or percussion: Hal Blaine, Frankie Capp, Gary Coleman (timpani/bongos), Frank De Vito, Steve Douglas (sax, flute, percussion) Gene Estes, (guitar, percussion, vibes, bells, piano) Ritchie Frost (drums), Jim Gordon, Dayton Howe (percussion), Norm Jeffries (drums), Nicholas Martinis (drums) Nick Pellico (percussion) Emil Radocchia (percussion), Chester Ricord (percussion) Julius Wechter (timpani, vibes, bicycle bell, finger symbols, tambourine, percussion), Jerry Williams (percussion).

There is no indication that Carol Kaye ever played percussion. She had a guitar on her lap, and that distinguishes her from a percussionist. She is listed as bass guitar.  

And also from Badman, verbiage that suggests that it is similar to Jules' article...referring to Anderle as the "mayor of hipness" but treats him generally, less well. (my opinion)

"...Anderle is an artist who has skipped back and forth between painting and the record business, with mixed results in both." p. 149, Badman in the October, 1966 section.  





  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

CSM - in the Badman book, p. 391 is an alphabetized list of session musicians.  

Carol Kaye is listed only as bass guitar.

Others are listed with multiple roles.  For percussion, either as drums and/or percussion: Hal Blaine, Frankie Capp, Gary Coleman (timpani/bongos), Frank De Vito, Steve Douglas (sax, flute, percussion) Gene Estes, (guitar, percussion, vibes, bells, piano) Ritchie Frost (drums), Jim Gordon, Dayton Howe (percussion), Norm Jeffries (drums), Nicholas Martinis (drums) Nick Pellico (percussion) Emil Radocchia (percussion), Chester Ricord (percussion) Julius Wechter (timpani, vibes, bicycle bell, finger symbols, tambourine, percussion), Jerry Williams (percussion).

There is no indication that Carol Kaye ever played percussion. She had a guitar on her lap, and that distinguishes her from a percussionist. She is listed as bass guitar.  

And also from Badman, verbiage that suggests that it is similar to Jules' article...referring to Anderle as the "mayor of hipness" but treats him generally, less well. (my opinion)

"...Anderle is an artist who has skipped back and forth between painting and the record business, with mixed results in both." p. 149, Badman in the October, 1966 section.  

Thank you. Ultimately I accept the reasoning given by Andrew above.

Like I said as well, I'm curious if anyone who has been through the article recently can say how many session musicians Siegel describes in any detail.

[filledeplage]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during the time of Jules' article?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

[filledeplage]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.  

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, the question to Carol really just calls for a yes/no response. So if she responds with just a yes or a no, I'm curious whether or not you would accept her response? Forgive my curiosity, I'm just trying to understand.

[Emily]

And before anyone says it: No! I'm not trying to internet diagnose anyone. I simply think its better to discuss stuff like this openly rather than being vague or using euphemism. It's like talking about Stephen Hawking's "problems" or "issues" instead of just saying he has ALS, he uses a wheelchair.

Not in the least an internet diagnosis. It's the diagnosis that B. Wilson himself has stated is his diagnosis - so no concern there.

[filledeplage]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.  

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, the question really just calls for a yes/no response. So if she responds with just a yes or a no, I'm curious whether or not you would accept her response? Forgive my curiosity, I'm just trying to understand.

Understand what ?  

That someone (me) does not accept as "dogma" an article written 48 years ago which disparages likely the only woman in that group of sessions players? And, there are likely all kinds of conflicting information in many of these accounts.  

No where else, have I ever seen her described as having any role but a bass player.  I would wonder if Jules had his eyes examined before he wrote, referring to her as a percussionist, and whether anyone had checked his work before it was published anywhere. So, this era is all on the table to be questioned, for me.  If he made a mistake with the only woman, are there likely other mistakes that people are relying on to write this music history that lands in academic texts for posterity.  

Did she ever hold a tambourine or play percussion?  Not according to the extensive list compiled by Badman.  

You are free to rely on whatever information you choose.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.  

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, the question really just calls for a yes/no response. So if she responds with just a yes or a no, I'm curious whether or not you would accept her response? Forgive my curiosity, I'm just trying to understand.

Understand what ?  

Your reasoning for what sources you consider to be legitimate.