|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 27, 2019 13:03:10 GMT -5
With the Brother logo? Or, without? There were singles already out with the Brother logo. The singles with the Brother logo weren't released until July and August of 1967. The Smiley Smile album on Brother came out in September. "Smile", which was slated for release in January 1967 on Capitol, was well over with before the singles and album came out on the Brother label in 1967. In fact, there was a plan to release the Wild Honey album as Brother 9002, but it came out on Capitol instead. The Capitol Record Club also released "Smiley Smile" on the black Capitol rainbow label. Records with the Brother lablel were still distributed by Capitol. Thanks Mikie - somewhere I have those tan (non swirl) singles - Of course Capitol did the distribution, but with the Brother logo.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 13:19:56 GMT -5
iluveniloud, since you quoted me above and continued the discussion with some other valid points, I felt like I should respond.
However, I don't have much to add. I agree with you that any in-depth discussion of "the posse" should include breaking down each member and their respective role individually. You got my condensed version above because frankly, this isn't a subject that I'm passionate about, and as you (or somebody) alluded to, there isn't an overabundance of material out there regarding this subject (the posse).
I will repeat - something I'm good at - that I don't strongly begrudge the posse for what they did or did not "contribute" to Brian and SMiLE, because like I said, if I was given that opportunity I would've certainly jumped at it.
Again, I suppose what bothers me the most was the tolerance or the accepting of Brian's...indulgence. But - and here I go again - had I been there I might've done the same thing. I don't think I would've necessarily ENCOURAGED the drug intake and craziness, and I know I would've refused to be a part of any dealing or providing of the substances. But, would've I sat there and watched it? Probably. Would I have eventually walked away? Probably not. Not from Brian Wilson and SMiLE. Not from Brian Wilson and anything. So that must make me just like the posse! Who am I to judge them...
But I continue to ask myself, does the posse get a free pass with any damage to Brian's physical and mental health, simply because they didn't actually supply the drugs, unlike a Loren Schwartz, Brian's "friends" in the late 1960's/early 1970's, and Landy's Surf Nazis. The posse was just there for the work, the party, innocently enough, right?
Is there a correlation between Brian Wilson's "posse" and Elvis Presley's "Memphis Mafia"? As long as the guy is happy and producing and making music and making a lot of money and everybody is having fun and getting compensated for it - hey, what's the problem? In Elvis' case, eventually it did start to bother his handlers, and they either split or were fired. In Brian's case, things dissolved much quicker and under less dramatic circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 27, 2019 13:54:01 GMT -5
In fact, there was a plan to release the Wild Honey album as Brother 9002, but it came out on Capitol instead. **koff** 9003...
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 27, 2019 14:03:11 GMT -5
No idea where you got that notion from - Smile was always going to be on Capitol. With the Brother logo? Or, without? There were singles already out with the Brother logo. Smile was set to be released in January 1967 on Capitol 2580. Brother 1001 and 1002 came out in July and September 1967 respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jan 27, 2019 14:12:33 GMT -5
In fact, there was a plan to release the Wild Honey album as Brother 9002, but it came out on Capitol instead. **koff** 9003... You spelt "koff" wrong. It's "c o u g h." And yes, Brother 9003. You know what Brother 9002 was gonna be, don'tcha?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 27, 2019 14:16:26 GMT -5
With the Brother logo? Or, without? There were singles already out with the Brother logo. Smile was set to be released in January 1967 on Capitol 2580. Brother 1001 and 1002 came out in July and September 1967 respectively. Yes.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 14:19:37 GMT -5
Look, I can understand you feeling the way you do, but nowhere where I have read has fille acted that way with every young person in this place. You have strong opinions. There are going to be folks who don’t agree and will vigorously argue the other side. You have to expect this type of thing. This is why this place exists to discuss these types of things. No one has been nasty, there has been no name calling, there is no foul. To you and fille, please leave it and move on. Thank you. Point of contention--I don't care if someone disagrees with me, and both here and on PSF I've never had any issue with another poster with the exception of Filled. The reason is not because of the disagreements, the reason is because of her dishonest method of discussing said opinions. She does not argue in good faith, or if she does she's incapable of forming coherent arguments and ends up derailing the original discussion entirely. If it wasn't broken URLs to disreputable outlets, it was changing the subject and moving the goal posts so no one had the energy to counter every inaccuracy in her replies. She had a habit of calling someone out for an innocent submission they'd made. The biggest example off the top of my head was when I made a thread about constitutional amendments which she called "disturbing" and likened to a communist insurgency without reading. That was on PSF's political subforum, but since coming to EH and just talking about the Beach Boys themselves she's gone out of her way to condescend towards me for not listening to these albums as often as she has. (Forgive me for being in my mid-twenties as opposed to a grandmother.) It's a shame that the other board is dead now as I can't cite worse and/or specific examples of her behavior with screenshots to prove the pattern better. What it all comes down to is this: just because a poster hasn't called someone a bad name (which Filled has arguably done as well, if you count "Snowflake" and "brainwashed") doesn't mean they can't also be a corrosive presence on the forum. I may get blowback for coming out with all of this so openly but at a certain point a person just has to speak up. I really don't believe this behavior would be tolerated by a newbie to the forums. Im not accusing you or the other mods of deliberate favoritism, but after knowing someone for so long I can't help but wonder if most people in the online BB community just shrug off this antics as "that's just Filled being Filled" unaware at how abrasive it can be to others who've tried to respectfully disagree with her and walked away feeling like I just had a session with Professor Umbridge. In any case, there's the ignore button. I just had to clarify that point--I don't want it to be said that the only reason Filled annoys me enough to call attention to it is because we disagree on something. I won't say anything more about it.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 14:53:02 GMT -5
iluveniloud, since you quoted me above and continued the discussion with some other valid points, I felt like I should respond.
However, I don't have much to add. I agree with you that any in-depth discussion of "the posse" should include breaking down each member and their respective role individually. You got my condensed version above because frankly, this isn't a subject that I'm passionate about, and as you (or somebody) alluded to, there isn't an overabundance of material out there regarding this subject (the posse).
I will repeat - something I'm good at - that I don't strongly begrudge the posse for what they did or did not "contribute" to Brian and SMiLE, because like I said, if I was given that opportunity I would've certainly jumped at it.
Again, I suppose what bothers me the most was the tolerance or the accepting of Brian's...indulgence. But - and here I go again - had I been there I might've done the same thing. I don't think I would've necessarily ENCOURAGED the drug intake and craziness, and I know I would've refused to be a part of any dealing or providing of the substances. But, would've I sat there and watched it? Probably. Would I have eventually walked away? Probably not. Not from Brian Wilson and SMiLE. Not from Brian Wilson and anything. So that must make me just like the posse! Who am I to judge them...
But I continue to ask myself, does the posse get a free pass with any damage to Brian's physical and mental health, simply because they didn't actually supply the drugs, unlike a Loren Schwartz, Brian's "friends" in the late 1960's/early 1970's, and Landy's Surf Nazis. The posse was just there for the work, the party, innocently enough, right?
Is there a correlation between Brian Wilson's "posse" and Elvis Presley's "Memphis Mafia"? As long as the guy is happy and producing and making music and making a lot of money and everybody is having fun and getting compensated for it - hey, what's the problem? In Elvis' case, eventually it did start to bother his handlers, and they either split or were fired. In Brian's case, things dissolved much quicker and under less dramatic circumstances.
Lot of good points and questions there. I personally dont think they get a free pass--they seem to get an undeserved lion's share of the blame these days from where I'm sitting. I don't think it's fair to blame them for Brian's unfortunate reactions to LSD...with the exception of Daro. I can sympathize with Daro's justifications given on SS, that Brian would have done it anyway so he might as well make sure he does it right. The problem is, I don't think Daro did a good job doing that. He was a textbook example of a bad trip sitter--laughing in Brian's face when he was freaking out and having a bad trip. And clearly he doesn't have the slightest bit of regret or humility about how Brian turned out, even decades later. But as far as I'm aware, Brian only ever did acid two or three times. If Im wrong, someone please let me know, but weren't all of his trips pre-SMiLE? Im not an expert on the different drugs taken during the sessions besides weed and hashish. But those really aren't hard drugs. Weed is one of the safest drugs there is in terms of damage to the body and propensity for addiction. People can disagree with me, or argue Brian shouldn't have been taking it anyway but that's a fact. So I don't think it's fair to blame these guys for not playing baby sitter to a grown man who's using one of the more benign drugs out there. It'd be one thing if Brian was using acid every week, or heroin or meth or something. Brian's unfortunate long-term damage from LSD was due to his latent mental illness, and that's not something any of them could have known about much less prevented. For myself, if I know someone who's doing weed a lot I might tell them it's probably a good idea if they cool it, but Im not gonna rip the joint out of their hand. Why would I? They're an adult, they paid for it, they have bodily autonomy and it's not my job to play mommy. As it happens one of my roommates in college smoked weed everyday. I used to join him in it, until it affected my mood and performance and then stopped joining him. He'd pressure me to do it again but I always refused. And he kept doing it, because he's gonna do what he'll do. It wouldn't be fair if someone else came to me years later (if it turned out he'd become mentally ill) and shame me for not proactively stopping him. He was an adult and made his own decisions, as was Brian. And if anyone would throw a random Leary anecdote in my face, I'd say it's completely irrelevant because the balance of power and positions of trust are not the same--just as they aren't for Brian and the Posse either. I think at least Vosse and Anderle were there to work. As far as Im aware, they were the only two on Brian's payroll. Vosse I believe was supposed to get the film division up and Anderle set up Brother Records (if Im wrong, someone please correct me.) They did what they could but when Brian crashed and burned they couldn't very well set these up without him. Vosse also took an active role helping Brian with the comedy skits (he's the one who came in with Hal, and the one trying to get a fight going on Brian's orders in the Lifeboat Tape) as well as the water sounds recordings.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 27, 2019 15:27:05 GMT -5
You spelt "koff" wrong. It's "c o u g h." And yes, Brother 9003. You know what Brother 9002 was gonna be, don'tcha? Of course.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 27, 2019 15:35:15 GMT -5
Look, I can understand you feeling the way you do, but nowhere where I have read has fille acted that way with every young person in this place. You have strong opinions. There are going to be folks who don’t agree and will vigorously argue the other side. You have to expect this type of thing. This is why this place exists to discuss these types of things. No one has been nasty, there has been no name calling, there is no foul. To you and fille, please leave it and move on. Thank you. Point of contention--I don't care if someone disagrees with me, and both here and on PSF I've never had any issue with another poster with the exception of Filled. The reason is not because of the disagreements, the reason is because of her dishonest method of discussing said opinions. She does not argue in good faith, or if she does she's incapable of forming coherent arguments and ends up derailing the original discussion entirely. If it wasn't broken URLs to disreputable outlets, it was changing the subject and moving the goal posts so no one had the energy to counter every inaccuracy in her replies. She had a habit of calling someone out for an innocent submission they'd made. The biggest example off the top of my head was when I made a thread about constitutional amendments which she called "disturbing" and likened to a communist insurgency without reading. That was on PSF's political subforum, but since coming to EH and just talking about the Beach Boys themselves she's gone out of her way to condescend towards me for not listening to these albums as often as she has. (Forgive me for being in my mid-twenties as opposed to a grandmother.) It's a shame that the other board is dead now as I can't cite worse and/or specific examples of her behavior with screenshots to prove the pattern better. What it all comes down to is this: just because a poster hasn't called someone a bad name (which Filled has arguably done as well, if you count "Snowflake" and "brainwashed") doesn't mean they can't also be a corrosive presence on the forum. I may get blowback for coming out with all of this so openly but at a certain point a person just has to speak up. I really don't believe this behavior would be tolerated by a newbie to the forums. Im not accusing you or the other mods of deliberate favoritism, but after knowing someone for so long I can't help but wonder if most people in the online BB community just shrug off this antics as "that's just Filled being Filled" unaware at how abrasive it can be to others who've tried to respectfully disagree with her and walked away feeling like I just had a session with Professor Umbridge. In any case, there's the ignore button. I just had to clarify that point--I don't want it to be said that the only reason Filled annoys me enough to call attention to it is because we disagree on something. I won't say anything more about it.Mujan - When a lot of this Smile stuff came out - it was in real time for me in grade school. And, I chased down everything in print, I could find, like a teeny bopper, and now I have changed my opinion about a lot of it for any number of reasons. You are listening to (and intensely studying) your grandparents' music. Fairly recently I took a second look at what I originally read in absolute blind adulation - now I know that a lot of it was propaganda and b.s. I read Jules, and all of them, and many original clippings from those magazines. I guess it is called critical thinking, going back and re-reading what I read as a naive pre-teen fan. Now, I think Jules is sort of a fraud, intolerant and disrespectful, for what he said about Carol Kaye - as she was a pioneer as a woman working in a man's world in music - not because she has a faulty memory, about stuff she recorded or worked on, or maybe, didn't. My political lens is different because I had the privilege (yes, the privilege) of studying the Constitution and I guess you would call me an "originalist" - is that wrong? If you put it out there (all this political discussion) and someone does not agree, you should not be shocked if everyone does not agree with you.
And, I should be offended when you assume that the only news source I rely upon is Fox news, (which is false) which you have painted with a broad brush. But, I'm not. If you watched someone like Shep Smith - you might even agree with a lot of his positions. I don't agree, but I watch him anyway, so I might understand where his point of view comes from.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 27, 2019 16:19:04 GMT -5
You're assuming this: "Out in the studio, the musicians for the session were unpacking their instruments. In sport shirts and slacks, they looked like insurance salesmen and used-car dealers, except for one blond female percussionist who might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials."
...is him misremembering Kaye.
Chances are you're right, but his description of the men isn't exactly complimentary either.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 27, 2019 16:25:19 GMT -5
You're assuming this: "Out in the studio, the musicians for the session were unpacking their instruments. In sport shirts and slacks, they looked like insurance salesmen and used-car dealers, except for one blond female percussionist who might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials."
...is him misremembering Kaye.
Chances are you're right, but his description of the men isn't exactly complimentary either.
Andrew, that is exactly what came into my mind and you are 100% correct that he was not complimentary to the guys, either. And she was not a percussionist (bass guitar?)
|
|
|
Post by catbirdman on Jan 28, 2019 11:33:21 GMT -5
In regards to the bolded section: let's let everyone else weigh in. I think it was pretty clear why I brought up the Landy years in terms of explaining why we need to take Brian's more recent words on the subject with a grain of salt. I'm willing to bet you're the only one here who is too dense to understand something like that. Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise. I don't know why I'm even wading into this territory, but here goes: I am replying just to two minor points in this back and forth. The first point: iluvleniloud made a point that after years of over-medication, inflicted by himself and by Landy, Brian's current take on events that happened during the Smile era should be considered carefully and not taken as faultless. This is a very simple, clearly-stated point. Fille de Plage's continued references to "you brought up Landy and Landy wasn't in the picture at the time of Smile" is not at all valuable or relevant to what was originally stated. Secondly, Fille de Plage states: "Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise." It was never said that Brian didn't get drugs from Daro. This is not under dispute. Nor is it even being said that Brian DID get drugs from any other sources. iluvleniloud's point is simple: IF Brian hadn't gotten drugs from Daro, he WOULD have gotten them from somewhere else. It's a hypothetical. The intent and meaning is painfully obvious. These are only two points. But the same thing is happening, and always happens, across the board. It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jan 28, 2019 11:38:45 GMT -5
Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise. I don't know why I'm even wading into this territory, but here goes: I am replying just to two minor points in this back and forth. The first point: iluvleniloud made a point that after years of over-medication, inflicted by himself and by Landy, Brian's current take on events that happened during the Smile era should be considered carefully and not taken as faultless. This is a very simple, clearly-stated point. Fille de Plage's continued references to "you brought up Landy and Landy wasn't in the picture at the time of Smile" is not at all valuable or relevant to what was originally stated. Secondly, Fille de Plage states: "Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise." It was never said that Brian didn't get drugs from Daro. This is not under dispute. Nor is it even being said that Brian DID get drugs from any other sources. iluvleniloud's point is simple: IF Brian hadn't gotten drugs from Daro, he WOULD have gotten them from somewhere else. It's a hypothetical. The intent and meaning is painfully obvious. These are only two points. But the same thing is happening, and always happens, across the board. It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore. Thanks for the analysis, Peter! You should be a Mod here.
|
|
|
Post by catbirdman on Jan 28, 2019 11:49:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the analysis, Peter! You should be a Mod here. That's a good joke, Mikie. I don't think I'd ever touch that thankless task with a 10-foot pole for two reasons: 1. Basic self-preservation. LOL 2. No time. I have a baby daughter.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 28, 2019 12:13:10 GMT -5
Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise. I don't know why I'm even wading into this territory, but here goes: I am replying just to two minor points in this back and forth. The first point: iluvleniloud made a point that after years of over-medication, inflicted by himself and by Landy, Brian's current take on events that happened during the Smile era should be considered carefully and not taken as faultless. This is a very simple, clearly-stated point. Fille de Plage's continued references to "you brought up Landy and Landy wasn't in the picture at the time of Smile" is not at all valuable or relevant to what was originally stated. Secondly, Fille de Plage states: "Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise." It was never said that Brian didn't get drugs from Daro. This is not under dispute. Nor is it even being said that Brian DID get drugs from any other sources. iluvleniloud's point is simple: IF Brian hadn't gotten drugs from Daro, he WOULD have gotten them from somewhere else. It's a hypothetical. The intent and meaning is painfully obvious. These are only two points. But the same thing is happening, and always happens, across the board. It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore. catbirdman - Somehow maybe I was unclear and I will own that. I apologize if I was not clear. When I brought up Tim Leary losing his job at Harvard as a result of giving his students LSD, it was because of his position as a teacher/professor - which is one of entrustment and an implied duty not to cause harm - it related by analogy to Daro who was connected in business, or could have been a sub-agent. It was from a purely legal standpoint. And, I mentioned the Ronan Farrow exposé, it was to show that it matters who gives you a drug or who abuses you. That was an agent, Weinstein. There was a duty and alleged breaches of those duties. If you have a business relationship or a school relationship, the duty is higher not to harm that person. A corner drug dealer can't lose a license as an agent, or a license as a psychologist, nor do they have a higher duty as a result of the relationship to that individual they may have caused harm to. If you re-read what I wrote - I thought I was clear. If I was not clear, again, I apologize. And the window was the mid 60's, where Brian is on record, linking the LSD for his auditory hallucinations. It was not the Landy era - where everything was compounded - and he was given the trust of the court which he breached. (Landy II) The LSD damage was earlier in time. Yes, Landy had a quasi-medical relationship - but he could not prescribe and was, IIRC, using someone else in the field for medication, and he lost his license - which was not an MD even if he had a Ph.D. Yes - people called him Dr. Landy. The PSF is extinct - and this must stop, as well as targeting (either me or any other poster - for posts from another forum that does not exist.) And as far as politics is concerned - there are many boomers - from whose generation (the Vietnam era) this music has come - who have evolved over time, from very liberal politics to become more conservative. It was that generation who fought to enable this one to vote at 18. Even the early 70's BB concerts, had voter registration tables. There is no reason to get into this whole ageism thing. Congrats on your baby girl. p.s. in one of the emails - the exchange as a result of the propaganda and press...at the bottom of one of the emails... "PAUL:...So yeah, I'm very sympathetic to jules. I did the same thing. It's like when you find yourself in the middle of something that you realize is a myth, how can you resist myth-making about it. DAVID..."I guess we all do that. We all extend the story, don't we? It's satisfying. But what a burden for Brian." This propaganda machine was the point (as I saw it ) for the OP posting the emails and discussion. It became a needless and uncalled for rant. Just sayin'.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 12:24:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the analysis, Peter! You should be a Mod here. That's a good joke, Mikie. I don't think I'd ever touch that thankless task with a 10-foot pole for two reasons: 1. Basic self-preservation. LOL 2. No time. I have a baby daughter. Thank you for your earlier reply. Seriously, I feel like Im going crazy here sometimes in how Filled twists my words and nobody stands up for me, even just to acknowledge it's happening. For whatever it's worth, I think you'd make a good mod. Part of that job means understanding why conflicts happen as opposed to blanket blaming everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by catbirdman on Jan 28, 2019 12:29:16 GMT -5
I don't know why I'm even wading into this territory, but here goes: I am replying just to two minor points in this back and forth. The first point: iluvleniloud made a point that after years of over-medication, inflicted by himself and by Landy, Brian's current take on events that happened during the Smile era should be considered carefully and not taken as faultless. This is a very simple, clearly-stated point. Fille de Plage's continued references to "you brought up Landy and Landy wasn't in the picture at the time of Smile" is not at all valuable or relevant to what was originally stated. Secondly, Fille de Plage states: "Yes, he could have gotten LSD elsewhere, but the admissions by Daro tell us otherwise." It was never said that Brian didn't get drugs from Daro. This is not under dispute. Nor is it even being said that Brian DID get drugs from any other sources. iluvleniloud's point is simple: IF Brian hadn't gotten drugs from Daro, he WOULD have gotten them from somewhere else. It's a hypothetical. The intent and meaning is painfully obvious. These are only two points. But the same thing is happening, and always happens, across the board. It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore. catbirdman - Somehow maybe I was unclear and I will own that. I apologize if I was not clear. When I brought up Tim Leary losing his job at Harvard as a result of giving his students LSD, it was because of his position as a teacher/professor - which is one of entrustment and an implied duty not to cause harm - it related by analogy to Daro who was connected in business, or could have been a sub-agent. It was from a purely legal standpoint. And, I mentioned the Ronan Farrow exposé, it was to show that it matters who gives you a drug or who abuses you. That was an agent, Weinstein. There was a duty and alleged breaches of those duties. If you have a business relationship or a school relationship, the duty is higher not to harm that person. A corner drug dealer can't lose a license as an agent, or a license as a psychologist, nor do they have a higher duty as a result of the relationship to that individual they may have caused harm to. If you re-read what I wrote - I thought I was clear. If I was not clear, again, I apologize. And the window was the mid 60's, where Brian is on record, linking the LSD for his auditory hallucinations. It was not the Landy era - where everything was compounded - and he was given the trust of the court which he breached. (Landy II) The LSD damage was earlier in time. Yes, Landy had a quasi-medical relationship - but he could not prescribe and was, IIRC, using someone else in the field for medication, and he lost his license - which was not an MD even if he had a Ph.D. Yes - people called him Dr. Landy. The PSF is extinct - and this must stop, as well as targeting (either me or any other poster - for posts from another forum that does not exist.) And as far as politics is concerned - there are many boomers - from whose generation (the Vietnam era) this music has come - who have evolved over time, from very liberal politics to become more conservative. It was that generation who fought to enable this one to vote at 18. Even the early 70's BB concerts, had voter registration tables. There is no reason to get into this whole ageism thing. Congrats on your baby girl. I don't dispute your subsequent points at all, and I'm sure they have sound internal logic. But they aren't the points that were originally made at all. Nobody brought up Landy in the context of anything you are saying. I doubt anyone disagrees with you, at least broadly. I was only observing a dynamic that happens between you and iluvleniloud specifically, and felt it might be best for your health and the health of all that you both don't reply to each other. But it's painfully obvious to me now that it's really not my business and I probably should have just butted out, and left such matters to the mods! Sorry folks. LOL Disclaimer: as for PSF and politics, if there was any content in this thread that might have veered into those territories, I purposefully did NOT read it, nor did I intend to refer to any such subject matter, indirectly or otherwise, in my post. Thanks for the congrats. What an amazing thing, having a baby and being a dad. It makes me just grateful to be in this world.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 28, 2019 12:35:45 GMT -5
catbirdman - Somehow maybe I was unclear and I will own that. I apologize if I was not clear. When I brought up Tim Leary losing his job at Harvard as a result of giving his students LSD, it was because of his position as a teacher/professor - which is one of entrustment and an implied duty not to cause harm - it related by analogy to Daro who was connected in business, or could have been a sub-agent. It was from a purely legal standpoint. And, I mentioned the Ronan Farrow exposé, it was to show that it matters who gives you a drug or who abuses you. That was an agent, Weinstein. There was a duty and alleged breaches of those duties. If you have a business relationship or a school relationship, the duty is higher not to harm that person. A corner drug dealer can't lose a license as an agent, or a license as a psychologist, nor do they have a higher duty as a result of the relationship to that individual they may have caused harm to. If you re-read what I wrote - I thought I was clear. If I was not clear, again, I apologize. And the window was the mid 60's, where Brian is on record, linking the LSD for his auditory hallucinations. It was not the Landy era - where everything was compounded - and he was given the trust of the court which he breached. (Landy II) The LSD damage was earlier in time. Yes, Landy had a quasi-medical relationship - but he could not prescribe and was, IIRC, using someone else in the field for medication, and he lost his license - which was not an MD even if he had a Ph.D. Yes - people called him Dr. Landy. The PSF is extinct - and this must stop, as well as targeting (either me or any other poster - for posts from another forum that does not exist.) And as far as politics is concerned - there are many boomers - from whose generation (the Vietnam era) this music has come - who have evolved over time, from very liberal politics to become more conservative. It was that generation who fought to enable this one to vote at 18. Even the early 70's BB concerts, had voter registration tables. There is no reason to get into this whole ageism thing. Congrats on your baby girl. I don't dispute your subsequent points at all, and I'm sure they have sound internal logic. But they aren't the points that were originally made at all. Nobody brought up Landy in the context of anything you are saying. I doubt anyone disagrees with you, at least broadly. I was only observing a dynamic that happens between you and iluvleniloud specifically, and felt it might be best for your health and the health of all that you both don't reply to each other. But it's painfully obvious to me now that it's really not my business and I probably should have just butted out, and left such matters to the mods! Sorry folks. LOL Disclaimer: as for PSF and politics, if there was any content in this thread that might have veered into those territories, I purposefully did NOT read it, nor did I intend to refer to any such subject matter, indirectly or otherwise, in my post. Thanks for the congrats. What an amazing thing, having a baby and being a dad. It makes me just grateful to be in this world. It was just the three emails that Cam posted. Important, historically, and a cautionary tale as to the backstory. You are a very lucky man.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 15:56:41 GMT -5
It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore. This. With all due respect, Cassandra, you're wasting your breath, time and energy. And believe me, that's painful to behold.
|
|
|
Post by drbeachboy (Dirk) on Jan 28, 2019 16:57:51 GMT -5
Folks, give it a rest. If you don't like the posts, then don't read them. Everyone looks at these things through their own eyes. May I suggest that you don't respond to each other's posts. Ignore in your heads if the forum function is not enough.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 28, 2019 17:01:33 GMT -5
It appears to me that Fille de Plage just willfully tries to misinterpret iluvleniloud's posts. Then in turn, iluvleniloud can't resist replying. Which doesn't help. My suggestion is that both of you don't reply to each other anymore. This. With all due respect, Cassandra, you're wasting your breath, time and energy. And believe me, that's painful to behold. to both jk and catbirdman - there is no "willful intent" to misinterpret any posts of any member of any forum. I've been a fan over 50 years. There is no motivation on my end. And every post is always in good faith. Everyone here brings something different and we are blessed to have experts who have written books or who toured with the band, etc. I've learned a great deal. And, I have absolutely no motivation to be dishonest, either. I call it as I see it after 50 years. Just because one does not agree with an individual, or they don't like your point-of-view, does not make your post dishonest. It is inappropriate to read about an extinct forum while this forum was set up to get a fresh start. Those emails show a lot. That 65-66-67 era was a very stressful one for the band (Carl's draft, an overwhelming project, yada, yada yada) and there had to be reasons for that. But as the old saying goes, "it all comes out in the wash." There is a lot to unpack. And these emails reveal some of the rough-and-tumble of the back-room public relations, the back-biting, and politics surrounding how "image building" (myth building) went on in the 60's. And with guys in the band, who were only in their 20's. The emails also demonstrate how many people ingratiated themselves, many self-serving, and rode the coat-tails of the musicians, the creators of this incredible body of work. Maybe there is a way to open the link and read it as a document - or a PDF - I think it is an important history lesson. If we get off the track and become distracted, with "he-said, she said," the real intent of the thread, and the generosity of the OP sharing the links, was for nothing. Peace.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:22:35 GMT -5
Talking about what transpired on an older forum is perfectly reasonable when it establishes a pattern of behavior--especially when that pattern is continued into the new forum. Just saying.
Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy and other people saw what's been going on with Filled too. And after the responses I've gotten on this thread as well as the likes they received, I'm content.
To get back on topic, I don't think these messages prove anything--tho they are interesting and I thank the OP for sharing. Without hard evidence or corroborating testimony, it's textbook he said, she said. All we know for a fact from these correspondences is that Jules Siegal and David Anderle hate each other.
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jan 28, 2019 17:43:38 GMT -5
OK, the negative personal exchanges and references between Mujan and Filledeplage will stop right HERE. This is it! No more! From here on out, if you have differences with one another, please take it to PM's. If the sparring continues, we'll have to do something a little more drastic and we don't want to go there. Everybody try to be nice to each other, OK? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 29, 2019 3:56:43 GMT -5
Thanks, Mikie - that was getting really tedious.
|
|