After 50+ years, what's the final verdict on Mike Love?

[JR]

Glad that's settled. But have fun at Sea World with Mike, Bruce and Stamos. A "respected Beach Boys historian" cheering on that band calling itself "The Beach Boys." Yeah - that checks out.  

Which statement just torpedoed the listing remains of your flimsy credibility.  You really don't know anything about me, do you ?

Just too precious. Oh my...  

Oh, I do. And it speaks to your complete hypocrisy. You defend what Mike does, and yet...

[Andrew G. Doe]

There is little if any chance of me turning up at SeaWorld, as you would understand if you knew the first, most basic thing about me, as just about everyone here does. You really are incredibly stupid, but as you're giving me a good, no, a huge laugh, that's cool. And it's got nothing to do with my having regular contact with Bruce. Oh, I'm lovin' this. Keep digging. 

[JR]

There is little if any chance of me turning up at SeaWorld, as you would understand if you knew the first, most basic thing about me, as just about everyone here does. You really are incredibly stupid, but as you're giving me a good, no, a huge laugh, that's cool. And it's got nothing to do with my having regular contact with Bruce. Oh, I'm lovin' this. Keep digging. 

And you're a misinformed asshole who, it seems, has seen his sources dry up.

[hypehat]

Verdict on Mike?


B+, shows promise.

I think the worry in the fallout on his part in the LA Times articles of 'diluting the brand', whilst planning on doing the same low rent venues that's been his turf since the 90s is a bit rich. The Beach Boys being taken seriously is Mikes mission, and he took to it with zeal in the C50 press. And they played and carried themselves with the grace of the best American band ever during the tour. But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow? Mike has no one to blame for any 'dilution' but himself at this point. I have sympathy for his love of touring outweighing 70 dates with the C50 lineup, but he can't have his cake and eat it, IMO.

Now where's my apple juice and turban...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

There is little if any chance of me turning up at SeaWorld, as you would understand if you knew the first, most basic thing about me, as just about everyone here does. You really are incredibly stupid, but as you're giving me a good, no, a huge laugh, that's cool. And it's got nothing to do with my having regular contact with Bruce. Oh, I'm lovin' this. Keep digging.  

And you're a misinformed asshole who, it seems, has seen his sources dry up.

and you are a troll who kept on after I issued a warning in the other thread. Goodbye.

I need to say something...if one of you all has a problem with someone, fine. Just don't behave like a stalker and keep following the other guy around with every f****** post and start attacking others who don't agree with your viewpoint. and for f***'s sale, if issued a warning please pay attention to it

[SMiLE Brian]

But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow?

Great summary of what I was trying to say

[SMiLE Brian]

There is little if any chance of me turning up at SeaWorld, as you would understand if you knew the first, most basic thing about me, as just about everyone here does. You really are incredibly stupid, but as you're giving me a good, no, a huge laugh, that's cool. And it's got nothing to do with my having regular contact with Bruce. Oh, I'm lovin' this. Keep digging. 

And you're a misinformed asshole who, it seems, has seen his sources dry up.

and you are a troll who kept on after I issued a warning in the other thread. Goodbye.

Who shot JR? Billy C. Did!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[I. Spaceman]

Thank you, Billy.

[Jason]

Both of you take it to PMs or you're going to be banned.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

you're welcome Ian.

Jason you're a bit late lol. I had already warned him in other thread and he continued...

[filledeplage]

But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow?

Great summary of what I was trying to say

For many years, Disney/Universal and Seaworld, et al, have attempted to diversify their entertainment venues.  As far back, as the 1990's, areas of the parks, and hotels in the parks, have honored bands such as the Boys and other American institutions by having themed hotels, such one connected to music in Disneyworld and in one of the plazas, hosting bands such as The Association, The Turtles, etc., in an attempt to offer "something for every age." And it was delightful to see a picture of the Boys hung in the All Star Music hotel on Disney property.

This has often taken the sting out of taking children on a vacation "field trip" to a "kiddie park" and having only "child centered entertainment.  It has changed the dynamic of a family vacatiion.  The connection with MGM as between and among the parks is important as well as offering a menu that is "adult friendly."

Having availed myself of such a menu on many trips to visit Mickey and Minnie, with kids in tow, it is a formula that is family friendly and makes sense.  It provides entertainment for everyone and it's beyond me that anyone would find it so offensive that it is disparaged here.  

Top name entertainers have performed in all of those parks, to add a well-rounded accent to a family vacation.

[clack]

I judge artists by their accomplishments, and not for their failures -- and I would rate the 1964/65 Mike Love right up their with Jerry Goffin, Hal David, and Eddie Holland as a pop lyricist of the time.

Not that his lyrics, line by line, were anything particularly wonderful. Rather, Mike had a knack for generating fresh subjects for songs, subjects that would immediately hook you into the song  -- 'Fun, Fun, Fun', 'I Get Around' 'When I Grow Up', 'California Girls' , etc. So much more original than the more generic song subjects of the day : "won't you be my girl?" "I'm glad you're my girl", "I wish you were still my girl" (not that Mike didn't occasionally resort to those more hackneyed subjects ).

After his golden period, Mike did struggle to fashion subjects for songs that addressed the new rock audience, the hippie/counter culture crowd (his 1966-73 work). His lyrics of the period were hit-and-miss -- his misses mostly being those lyrics that strived for "relevance". His lyrics of the period sometimes came across as the equivalent of a middle-aged businessman, who in order to get laid,  grows out his sideburns and puts on a Nehru jacket.

His post-1973 lyrics have been dire. He had it,  then he lost it. But once upon a time, he did have it, and for that I honor him.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If, as is claimed, he did write the lyric to "Kiss Me, Baby", well... I genuflect in his general direction, and that's without even considering the killer vocal.

[SMiLE Brian]

But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow?

Great summary of what I was trying to say

For many years, Disney/Universal and Seaworld, et al, have attempted to diversify their entertainment venues.  As far back, as the 1990's, areas of the parks, and hotels in the parks, have honored bands such as the Boys and other American institutions by having themed hotels, such one connected to music in Disneyworld and in one of the plazas, hosting bands such as The Association, The Turtles, etc., in an attempt to offer "something for every age." And it was delightful to see a picture of the Boys hung in the All Star Music hotel on Disney property.

This has often taken the sting out of taking children on a vacation "field trip" to a "kiddie park" and having only "child centered entertainment.  It has changed the dynamic of a family vacatiion.  The connection with MGM as between and among the parks is important as well as offering a menu that is "adult friendly."

Having availed myself of such a menu on many trips to visit Mickey and Minnie, with kids in tow, it is a formula that is family friendly and makes sense.  It provides entertainment for everyone and it's beyond me that anyone would find it so offensive that it is disparaged here.  

Top name entertainers have performed in all of those parks, to add a well-rounded accent to a family vacation.

Well made points, the concept of adult entertainment is very important at these parks. Older 2nd tier groups like "the turtles" and "the association" may need to play these venues and bring enjoyment to the vistors. The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

[AndrewHickey]

Well made points, the concept of adult entertainment is very important at these parks. Older 2nd tier groups like "the turtles" and "the association" may need to play these venues and bring enjoyment to the vistors. The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

Why?
There's a venue that will pay the band their fee, and an audience that want to see them. Who is harmed by Mike & Bruce playing those venues?

[Andrew G. Doe]

The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

Small hole in your theory: 2012 was the first time in 16 years that 'the full group' played together. Prior to that, 'the full group' hasn't gigged on a regular basis since spring 1965. Brian was usually the missing element, even in the late 70s.

[SMiLE Brian]

The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

Small hole in your theory: 2012 was the first time in 16 years that 'the full group' played together. Prior to that, 'the full group' hasn't gigged on a regular basis since spring 1965. Brian was usually the missing element, even in the late 70s.

Brian wants to tour with the BBs this time unlike the late 1970s tours. In 1964 with Brian they played the TAMI show and other classic shows, in 2012 with Brian they had their best tour since the 1993 box set tour or even the early 1970s tours. Brian wants to be a BB again, what is wrong with that?

[filledeplage]

But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow?

Great summary of what I was trying to say

For many years, Disney/Universal and Seaworld, et al, have attempted to diversify their entertainment venues.  As far back, as the 1990's, areas of the parks, and hotels in the parks, have honored bands such as the Boys and other American institutions by having themed hotels, such one connected to music in Disneyworld and in one of the plazas, hosting bands such as The Association, The Turtles, etc., in an attempt to offer "something for every age." And it was delightful to see a picture of the Boys hung in the All Star Music hotel on Disney property.

This has often taken the sting out of taking children on a vacation "field trip" to a "kiddie park" and having only "child centered entertainment.  It has changed the dynamic of a family vacatiion.  The connection with MGM as between and among the parks is important as well as offering a menu that is "adult friendly."

Having availed myself of such a menu on many trips to visit Mickey and Minnie, with kids in tow, it is a formula that is family friendly and makes sense.  It provides entertainment for everyone and it's beyond me that anyone would find it so offensive that it is disparaged here.  

Top name entertainers have performed in all of those parks, to add a well-rounded accent to a family vacation.

Well made points, the concept of adult entertainment is very important at these parks. Older 2nd tier groups like "the turtles" and "the association" may need to play these venues and bring enjoyment to the vistors. The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

I mention those bands who are "junior" to the Boys, but in almost baby boomer dynamic, and younger baby boomers, in fact because I saw them in Disneyworld with my kids.  They do have similar and larger names, as the venue dynamics have changed over time.  This takes on an "elitist" tone.  America has many faces, venues and fans are fans.  Many of those fans, even in other parts of the globe were not able to see the Band, for c50.  Kids under 18 are usually banned from adult venues.  This "democratizes" entertainment, as it were.  

Making the venue the "star" rather than the music, is a distractor, given that they have played at colleges, prisons, hospitals, the Ellipse, fairs and church halls, etc.  While those C50 venues were impressive, it didn't change the performance delivery.  They play with as much enthusiasm and professionalism at smaller venues.  

I've seen Brian and Al at smaller venues and they have put on spectacular shows, so I guess I'm not getting this whole elitist venue thing, that would foreclose familiies, and do little more than "snob zone" the Band.  It seems a narrow view for such broad minded music.  Only an effortless performance cheapens the music.  I haven't seen that.

[EgoHanger1966]

The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

This isn't a solid fact, though. It's an opinion that is held by many people. The Beach Boys are obviously one of my favorite groups but I wouldn't consider them one of the top US rock bands, or even a "rock band". They have name recognition, many hits, and a long career. They are respected by many, but do we as fans always have to claim they are better than what venue they are playing? So, Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys play Seaworld, people make jokes, it's all good. They choose to play that venue, I'm sure they aren't ashamed of it. They make money, they please the crowd, they go home.

[AndrewHickey]

Brian wants to tour with the BBs this time unlike the late 1970s tours. In 1964 with Brian they played the TAMI show and other classic shows, in 2012 with Brian they had their best tour since the 1993 box set tour or even the early 1970s tours. Brian wants to be a BB again, what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that the band as a group don't want to work together. The proof of this is relatively simple: if all five of them (or even just the three BRI members) wanted to work together, they would be.
Given that they're not, that means at least one band member does not want to work with at least one of the others. Even assuming your hypothesis is correct, and Brian does want to work with the others, why should that wish outweigh the wish of the other members?

[SMiLE Brian]

Brian wants to tour with the BBs this time unlike the late 1970s tours. In 1964 with Brian they played the TAMI show and other classic shows, in 2012 with Brian they had their best tour since the 1993 box set tour or even the early 1970s tours. Brian wants to be a BB again, what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that the band as a group don't want to work together. The proof of this is relatively simple: if all five of them (or even just the three BRI members) wanted to work together, they would be.
Given that they're not, that means at least one band member does not want to work with at least one of the others. Even assuming your hypothesis is correct, and Brian does want to work with the others, why should that wish outweigh the wish of the other members?

What is wrong is one of the members is touring a group that pales in comparison to the C50 lineup at venues that don't deserve the BBs name.  While the rest don't use it for those purposes and want to revitalize the group and give the BBs one last go as a touring/recording act. If Brian wants to be BB, he has a right because he penned the music behind the lyrics Mike sings.

[drbeachboy]

Brian wants to tour with the BBs this time unlike the late 1970s tours. In 1964 with Brian they played the TAMI show and other classic shows, in 2012 with Brian they had their best tour since the 1993 box set tour or even the early 1970s tours. Brian wants to be a BB again, what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that the band as a group don't want to work together. The proof of this is relatively simple: if all five of them (or even just the three BRI members) wanted to work together, they would be.
Given that they're not, that means at least one band member does not want to work with at least one of the others. Even assuming your hypothesis is correct, and Brian does want to work with the others, why should that wish outweigh the wish of the other members?

What is wrong is one of the members is touring a group that pales in comparison to the C50 lineup at venues that don't deserve the BBs name.  While the rest don't use it for those purposes and want to revitalize the group and give the BBs one last go as a touring/recording act. If Brian wants to be BB, he has a right because he penned the music behind the lyrics Mike sings.

No, he doesn't have the right. He gave that up when he, as part of BRI, wrote up the licensing agreement.

[AndrewHickey]

What is wrong is one of the members is touring a group that pales in comparison to the C50 lineup at venues that don't deserve the BBs name.  While the rest don't use it for those purposes and want to revitalize the group and give the BBs one last go as a touring/recording act. If Brian wants to be BB, he has a right because he penned the music behind the lyrics Mike sings.

You've yet to give a coherent reason as to *why* those venues don't deserve to have the band playing there.
If the other band members don't want Mike touring, why haven't they stopped him? The Beach Boys have already had 'one last go as a touring/recording act'. It was last year.
And Brian stepped away from being a touring Beach Boy pretty much from the very beginning, and spent most of the last decade and a half publicly saying he wanted nothing to do with the band. Yet you're arguing that Mike should give up doing a job he enjoys, give up working with the band he's been working with for years, and completely change his entire lifestyle to accomodate the whims of someone who is notoriously unreliable?

[Andrew G. Doe]

...give the BBs one last go as a touring/recording act.

Am I missing something here ? I thought that's exactly what they did last year - #3 critically acclaimed album, 73-date tour that got rave reviews.