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

[guitarfool2002]

It is an interesting question to consider because all parties have children, relatives, etc who have been on stage in the past year singing their fathers' and uncles' work. You had Carl's family, Brian's family, Al's family, Mike's family, various combinations and stage names, side projects, whatever...and it will definitely be an issue when the time comes as to who - if anyone - will assume the trademarked name once Mike is not using it to tour.

Unless specifics are already on paper and filed at a courthouse somewhere, you may have a dozen or more Wilsons, Loves, and Jardines who would benefit financially if they are the ones who can use "The Beach Boys" to market a concert after the original members can no longer be on the road. And it would all but suck to see a dozen or more outfits calling themselves "Beach Boys" and playing music that could range from good to poor. I doubt the latter can happen under any kind of legal agreement, but who knows.

[SMiLE Brian]

If he wants to tour solo without the others,he can't use the BBs name.

I think we've been over this before, but he can.  It's part of a BRI agreement that Brian voted for.

No, he can't - Mike's license is exclusive, as stated below. And Brian - or Brian's representative - voted for this state of affairs. Monetary concerns aside, Brian summed up his position on this quite nicely in an interview some years ago when pressed on the then-current touring scenario: "Well, Mike & Bruce are The Beach Boys, and Alan is Alan Jardine... but I'm Brian Wilson !"

You can almost see the big grin. 

Sorry, I was confused.  I thought that the "he" in SMiLE Brian's sentence referred to ML.

I did mean Mike Love.  

[SMiLE Brian]

It is an interesting question to consider because all parties have children, relatives, etc who have been on stage in the past year singing their fathers' and uncles' work. You had Carl's family, Brian's family, Al's family, Mike's family, various combinations and stage names, side projects, whatever...and it will definitely be an issue when the time comes as to who - if anyone - will assume the trademarked name once Mike is not using it to tour.

Unless specifics are already on paper and filed at a courthouse somewhere, you may have a dozen or more Wilsons, Loves, and Jardines who would benefit financially if they are the ones who can use "The Beach Boys" to market a concert after the original members can no longer be on the road. And it would all but suck to see a dozen or more outfits calling themselves "Beach Boys" and playing music that could range from good to poor. I doubt the latter can happen under any kind of legal agreement, but who knows.

I say take the  C50 band and build from there.

[AndrewHickey]

It is an interesting question to consider because all parties have children, relatives, etc who have been on stage in the past year singing their fathers' and uncles' work. You had Carl's family, Brian's family, Al's family, Mike's family, various combinations and stage names, side projects, whatever...and it will definitely be an issue when the time comes as to who - if anyone - will assume the trademarked name once Mike is not using it to tour.

Unless specifics are already on paper and filed at a courthouse somewhere, you may have a dozen or more Wilsons, Loves, and Jardines who would benefit financially if they are the ones who can use "The Beach Boys" to market a concert after the original members can no longer be on the road. And it would all but suck to see a dozen or more outfits calling themselves "Beach Boys" and playing music that could range from good to poor. I doubt the latter can happen under any kind of legal agreement, but who knows.

I say take the  C50 band and build from there.

A few posts ago you were complaining about a band with only two of the Beach Boys touring as the Beach Boys, now you want a band with *none* of the Beach Boys in to tour under that name?

[SMiLE Brian]

It is an interesting question to consider because all parties have children, relatives, etc who have been on stage in the past year singing their fathers' and uncles' work. You had Carl's family, Brian's family, Al's family, Mike's family, various combinations and stage names, side projects, whatever...and it will definitely be an issue when the time comes as to who - if anyone - will assume the trademarked name once Mike is not using it to tour.

Unless specifics are already on paper and filed at a courthouse somewhere, you may have a dozen or more Wilsons, Loves, and Jardines who would benefit financially if they are the ones who can use "The Beach Boys" to market a concert after the original members can no longer be on the road. And it would all but suck to see a dozen or more outfits calling themselves "Beach Boys" and playing music that could range from good to poor. I doubt the latter can happen under any kind of legal agreement, but who knows.

I say take the  C50 band and build from there.

A few posts ago you were complaining about a band with only two of the Beach Boys touring as the Beach Boys, now you want a band with *none* of the Beach Boys in to tour under that name?

GF meant once all the guys stop touring.

[Nicko1234]

I don't know that Mike looks on it as 'work' per se. Consider:

It gets him around the world in some comfort...

It keeps him fitter than most 71 year olds...

It makes a huge number of folk very happy for a few hours...

He gets to sing some of the best pop songs ever written.

And in the bargain, his cousins and a former band-mate also profit. If it was Brian doing all this, hell, the Blooies would have him up for the Nobel Prize for Sheer Awesomeness.

You forgot to mention that he also gets to sleep with hundreds of girls less than half his age.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

A few years ago, I started a similar topic

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,8284.0.html

This is a good one to print up and read through. Lots of juicy arguments, but also a great read. I may do the same with this one to see how much things have changed in 3 years. Personally, I was a defender of Mike's for the most part, but that changed last fall when he decided not to keep the group together. At least what I have read, Al and Brian wanted to keep it together. That sort of put him back on my naughty list.

I know Mike has the legal right. In the mid 70s, Mike pushed for what most fans wanted which was more oldies, and more money. Even when it be in bad taste, such appearences on Bay Watch, Full House and Home Improvement is what a lot of people wanted the Beach Boys to be. Same with Kokamo, and that 90s country album. Maybe his hall of fame speach was a jerk moment, or a bad ass rock n roll moment depending on your perspective. He even added more deep cuts to his set list (perhaps seeing that Brian's audience showed there was a strong fan base for it?) The reunion setlist was great, that Mike himself apparently was in charge of and likely took ideas from the other guys. He seemed like the ultimate team guy. Then he did what was best for him in spite of everyone else.

If he brings the guys back for another summer tour, I may lighten up on this as well. But right now his stock is down in my eyes.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

Well, ya know, when someone calls someone else incredibly stupid, they should expect to be called the same or worse back.... and should be able to handle it .... It's only fair....

[Andrew G. Doe]

When someone keeps insisting I only have one source - Bruce - and that said source has dried up when neither is the case, then yes, I think calling them incredibly stupid is entirely in order. Because they are. I might be many questionable things, but a liar isn't one of them.

And I can handle it - the troll & stalker comments weren't mine.

[I. Spaceman]

Yeah, he started the whole thing, right out of the gate. And kept on going. And that's ME saying that.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Word.

[SMiLE Brian]

That guy was a jerk, plain and simple.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

In any case he is gone and let's leave it at that. No sense dwelling on it.

[AndrewHickey]

That guy was a jerk, plain and simple.

Something in this thread that SMiLE Brian and I both agree on, at last!

[SMiLE Brian]

That guy was a jerk, plain and simple.

Something in this thread that SMiLE Brian and I both agree on, at last!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

When someone keeps insisting I only have one source - Bruce - and that said source has dried up when neither is the case, then yes, I think calling them incredibly stupid is entirely in order. Because they are. I might be many questionable things, but a liar isn't one of them.

And I can handle it - the troll & stalker comments weren't mine.

I took it as he meant Bruce's shorts from 1981 were all dried up from being washed 100,000 too many times... My bad.

[Mike's Beard]

This is pure speculation on my part but maybe Mike's reasons for not wanting to continue reunion were not just financial? Maybe he and Al have not completely buried the hatchet? Maybe they just agreed to put their differences aside for a short term working relationship?
As for Mike and Brian - yes I've no doubt they love each other but they seem to be able to love each other better 'from afar'. If everybody was on their best behaviour for the start of the tour who's to say that maybe as time wore on small personality 'niggles' didn't begin to rear their heads?

There was a reason these people spent the best part of 20 years away from each other professionally.

Maybe Mike just sensed that the 'honeymoon' period was over and it was time to bow out while the whole thing was on a high rather than to keep pushing it?

Perhaps for Mike it was enough that he got to strike "Make another decent album with Brian and tour it" off his bucket list and then felt it was time to move on? Back to business as usual.
Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Fascinating speculation.

[Shady]

This is pure speculation on my part but maybe Mike's reasons for not wanting to continue reunion were not just financial? Maybe he and Al have not completely buried the hatchet? Maybe they just agreed to put their differences aside for a short term working relationship?
As for Mike and Brian - yes I've no doubt they love each other but they seem to be able to love each other better 'from afar'. If everybody was on their best behaviour for the start of the tour who's to say that maybe as time wore on small personality 'niggles' didn't begin to rear their heads?

There was a reason these people spent the best part of 20 years away from each other professionally.

Maybe Mike just sensed that the 'honeymoon' period was over and it was time to bow out while the whole thing was on a high rather than to keep pushing it?

Perhaps for Mike it was enough that he got to strike "Make another decent album with Brian and tour it" off his bucket list and then felt it was time to move on? Back to business as usual.
Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

Al did speak about feeling a little left out during the tour. I can't find the exact interview but he was being pretty candid.

Each living Beach Boys is a drama queen to some extent. Both Dennis and Carl while not intoxicated were pretty peaceful.

Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce and David. 5 completely different personalities, all snakes in the grass. I can't imagine the backstabbing, bitching and gossiping that went on during the C50 tour..and not just from the wives.

[AndrewHickey]

Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

EXACTLY. I would have loved to see the reunion tour carry on. But even if the decision to stop was *entirely* Mike's, and for no better reason than "I just don't want to do that any more", what else was he meant to do if he genuinely didn't want to do it?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

EXACTLY. I would have loved to see the reunion tour carry on. But even if the decision to stop was *entirely* Mike's, and for no better reason than "I just don't want to do that any more", what else was he meant to do if he genuinely didn't want to do it?

The decision to stop on 9/28/12 was made at a corporate level and voted on by the executive members of BRI, two of whom then changed their minds really late in the game. In the current set-up, two votes are not enough to carry a motion. No single member of BRI can decide to do something like that.

[AndrewHickey]

Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

EXACTLY. I would have loved to see the reunion tour carry on. But even if the decision to stop was *entirely* Mike's, and for no better reason than "I just don't want to do that any more", what else was he meant to do if he genuinely didn't want to do it?

The decision to stop on 9/28/12 was made at a corporate level and voted on by the executive members of BRI, two of whom then changed their minds really late in the game. In the current set-up, two votes are not enough to carry a motion. No single member of BRI can decide to do something like that.

I suspected that was the case -- I was just arguing from the "even if the worst things being said about him were, hypothetically, true" point of view.

[CarlTheVoice]

It's so sad that we're having to discuss this issue about the tour. It should have ended on a high (which for me it did). Love him or hate him, Mike has contributed a lot to the Beach Boys world and they would not be the band they are today without him. Whilst my fave was Carl I respect that Mike shared a lot of lyrics, songs and harmonies that helped make the songs we all love. No one is perfect and we shouldn't criticise him for everything! I do not know him personally so I can't judge him!

[HeyJude]

This is obviously true. But even Mike's own statement to the LA Times seemed to suggest the lateness of the changing of minds was not the sole reason behind not continuing. He wanted to go back to his own thing, apparently whether the reunion was successful or not. I for one wish he would have simply said that rather than trying to mitigate it with a bunch of silly assertions such as the "smaller markets" desperately needing his cheaper-to-operate version of the band.

I'm really surprised that the emotional/moral/ethical, etc. has been completely removed from the argument for many defending Mike's decision to halt reunion activities. For years the fans have discussed how so many people just didn't "get" Brian's genius in the 60's, or stifled the creativity of the band in a non-measurable but  obvious way, etc. But now, with this reunion, all of a sudden we're falling back purely on legal/coporate reasoning. Those who are frowning on Mike halting more reunion activities aren't suggesting he did anything legally wrong. But he, by his own admission, turned down Brian, Al, and David's enthusiasm for continuing to keep the band together. If AGD's or anyone's hypothetical biography of the band ends with a summation of the reunion in which all is okay with the world because Mike was legally okay in rejecting keeping the band together, that would be pretty disappointing. Maybe some are overcorrecting in light of the sometimes unfair villifying of Mike in the past......

[AndrewHickey]

I'm really surprised that the emotional/moral/ethical, etc. has been completely removed from the argument for many defending Mike's decision to halt reunion activities. For years the fans have discussed how so many people just didn't "get" Brian's genius in the 60's, or stifled the creativity of the band in a non-measurable but  obvious way, etc. But now, with this reunion, all of a sudden we're falling back purely on legal/coporate reasoning. Those who are frowning on Mike halting more reunion activities aren't suggesting he did anything legally wrong. But he, by his own admission, turned down Brian, Al, and David's enthusiasm for continuing to keep the band together. If AGD's or anyone's hypothetical biography of the band ends with a summation of the reunion in which all is okay with the world because Mike was legally okay in rejecting keeping the band together, that would be pretty disappointing. Maybe some are overcorrecting in light of the sometimes unfair villifying of Mike in the past......

It's precisely because of the moral issues that some of us are OK with it. At least some of the band members (and none -- or very few -- of us actually know which ones, or why) don't want to perform with the others. Whatever the reasons, then *it is better for the band not to continue, than for it to continue under duress, with people forced to work with people they don't want to work with, or in situations they don't feel comfortable in*. It would be immoral to coerce these people to work together if they don't want to.

And given that, from a purely emotional perspective, I would rather have *some* of the Beach Boys continue to tour in some configuration than to have none of them tour. So if Mike and Bruce want to tour together, great! If Brian, Al and David want to perform together, great! I would *infinitely* rather that than a joyless pretence at unity.