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

[KittyKat]

I don't see how the Beach Boys reunion not continuing is a moral or ethical issue. No one got "screwed out of" anything. Unless you count a few fans who are mad. But we've heard it before. Even if it is a moral or ethical issue, fans arguing on that level are not going to get the Beach Boys reunited. It will either never happen or it will happen some time in another year or two or three.

[Don Malcolm]

As I think I noted elsewhere: whatever any of us think about Mike, good or bad (glad or sad), we always have his brothers to compare him to.

 

[HeyJude]

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.

I agree that more reunion stuff under duress is not good under any circumstances. But I don't think about that too much, because it would never happen. Functionally, it wouldn't work. They literally can't force each other to work together.

As for band member show don't want to work with others, all parties agree that Mike (and presumably Bruce, although he comically is never mentioned) did not want to work with Brian, Al, and David on shows that were being offered. It doesn't mean he had anything personal against those guys; Mike's reasons were either those stated in his own LA Times piece, and/or the other obvious possibilities involving money, control, etc.

But I don't personally buy into the "hey, at least Mike and Bruce are willing to tour together, so we should be thankful" reasoning in light of the fact that it was Mike that kept the entire five-piece lineup from continuing.

I also agree that it's better to have these guys touring in some configuration if they can't or won't work together. But that gets us back to the naming issue, and I think a lot of the criticism Mike gets from fans would be immediately diffused if he toured under his own name. At this point it is kind of just semantics in terms of the name they use, but I still tend to think the band's name is worth something.

If Brian, Al, and David retired and didn't want to do anything anymore, and only Mike and Bruce were left, and the only way we could see them tour is if they used the BB name, then that is the point where I would disagree that having any of them out there at all is preferable. But that's just my opinion.

[John Stivaktas]

The final verdict is that Mike was wrong about the Pet Sounds - Smile era. However, you can't expect much more from anyone that's not a musician or does not have an appreciation for musical influences. Hence, this is why Paul McCartney flipped for Pet Sounds as he was always trying to reinterpret his musical influences in his compositions during the 60's, just like Brian. Note also what the Wrecking Crew musicians thought of the Beach Boys compositions during 1966 - early 1967.

[Jim V.]

I agree that more reunion stuff under duress is not good under any circumstances. But I don't think about that too much, because it would never happen. Functionally, it wouldn't work. They literally can't force each other to work together.

As for band member show don't want to work with others, all parties agree that Mike (and presumably Bruce, although he comically is never mentioned) did not want to work with Brian, Al, and David on shows that were being offered. It doesn't mean he had anything personal against those guys; Mike's reasons were either those stated in his own LA Times piece, and/or the other obvious possibilities involving money, control, etc.

But I don't personally buy into the "hey, at least Mike and Bruce are willing to tour together, so we should be thankful" reasoning in light of the fact that it was Mike that kept the entire five-piece lineup from continuing.

I also agree that it's better to have these guys touring in some configuration if they can't or won't work together. But that gets us back to the naming issue, and I think a lot of the criticism Mike gets from fans would be immediately diffused if he toured under his own name. At this point it is kind of just semantics in terms of the name they use, but I still tend to think the band's name is worth something.

If Brian, Al, and David retired and didn't want to do anything anymore, and only Mike and Bruce were left, and the only way we could see them tour is if they used the BB name, then that is the point where I would disagree that having any of them out there at all is preferable. But that's just my opinion.

You're pretty much spot on. If Mike didn't wanna work with the other guys and wasn't using the name after refusing them, honestly I wouldn't be very troubled by it. People in bands don't owe it to us to stick together. If they wanna work with other people then so be it. The only problem to me is the fact that he wants to be in The Beach Boys without actually having to work with the real Beach Boys. And I just feel that's not cool. I understand that he makes more money this way and blah blah blah, but I think it comes down to ethics. And I don't think many people in similar positions to him would do the same as him. I don't think that even if he could, Roger Daltrey would go out there as "The Who" by himself (with Kenny Jones for arguments sake) without Pete Townshend. I don't think Mick Jagger would go out there with just Ron Wood and no Keith Richards. Even if these guys were in the exact same position as Mike Love, with the rights to the name or whatever, I don't think they'd do it. Cuz I'm pretty sure they understand that they are not the only essential piece to their group.

[Nicko1234]

You're pretty much spot on. If Mike didn't wanna work with the other guys and wasn't using the name after refusing them, honestly I wouldn't be very troubled by it. People in bands don't owe it to us to stick together. If they wanna work with other people then so be it. The only problem to me is the fact that he wants to be in The Beach Boys without actually having to work with the real Beach Boys. And I just feel that's not cool. I understand that he makes more money this way and blah blah blah, but I think it comes down to ethics. And I don't think many people in similar positions to him would do the same as him. I don't think that even if he could, Roger Daltrey would go out there as "The Who" by himself (with Kenny Jones for arguments sake) without Pete Townshend. I don't think Mick Jagger would go out there with just Ron Wood and no Keith Richards. Even if these guys were in the exact same position as Mike Love, with the rights to the name or whatever, I don't think they'd do it. Cuz I'm pretty sure they understand that they are not the only essential piece to their group.

The problem is that The Beach Boys can't be compared with The Who or any other band because the situation is different. Would Mick Jagger go out on tour without Keith Richards now? No. Would he have gone out from the mid-60s onwards if Keith had retired from touring then (as Brian did)? Probably yes.

Mike has had the rights to the name since 1998 when another Beach Boy would have liked to have been able to use the name too. The debate about the ethics of that BRI decision are not really different now to then.

[Lowbacca]

Why a "final verdict" anyway? I'm sure he's still going to amaze us in the (near) future. Regarding any kind of verdict I'd wait for his autobiography first, too. That ought to be one hell of a read.

[Moon Dawg]

 The "final" verdict: Mike is crazy. Not Brian crazy, or Dennis crazy, but crazy nonetheless. At his best, he was/is a great frontman, a good lyricist, and a distinctive singer. His lack of writing credits for over 20 years caused him to be underrated as a creative force in the band, much to his chagrin. And he will probably be singing Beach Boys songs until he drops.

[Lowbacca]

The "final" verdict: Mike is crazy. Not Brian crazy, or Dennis crazy, but crazy nonetheless. At his best, he was/is a great frontman, a good lyricist, and a distinctive singer. His lack of writing credits for over 20 years caused him to be underrated as a creative force in the band, much to his chagrin. And he will probably be singing Beach Boys songs until he drops.

... and after that.

[Myk Luhv]

I can't wait for the holographic Mike they roll out to keep bringin' What The Fans Want!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The "final" verdict: Mike is crazy. Not Brian crazy, or Dennis crazy, but crazy nonetheless. At his best, he was/is a great frontman, a good lyricist, and a distinctive singer. His lack of writing credits for over 20 years caused him to be underrated as a creative force in the band, much to his chagrin. And he will probably be singing Beach Boys songs until he drops.

... and after that.

[SMiLE Brian]

Oh my God....

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

'We got braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains in mind'

[I. Spaceman]

Andrew G. sez "Me and Myke, we're coming to get you, oldsurferdude..........."



Sorry Andrew, couldn't resist.

[Cam Mott]

The "final" verdict: Mike is crazy. Not Brian crazy, or Dennis crazy, but crazy nonetheless. At his best, he was/is a great frontman, a good lyricist, and a distinctive singer. His lack of writing credits for over 20 years caused him to be underrated as a creative force in the band, much to his chagrin. And he will probably be singing Beach Boys songs until he drops.

Agreed.

[ontor pertawst]

Now I'll fill your hands
With kisses and a Tootsie Roll

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Awesome

[Ron]

What's your opinion of Mike Love?

1. Great frontman
2. Great singer
3. Loving Cousin (not sure about father/husband)
4. Badass, 'my way or the highway' mentality that doesn't jive well with sensitive, delicate people. 

[Awesoman]

I commented on one of Mike's Super Bowl posts on his Facebook. He "liked" my comment. So he's cool with me.   

[The Heartical Don]

Final Verdict On Michael Love:

the person who delivered the best Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame speech ever.

That's quite something.

[SgtTimBob]

Final Verdict On Michael Love:

the person who delivered the best Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame speech ever.

That's quite something.

LOL

I still can't believe that actually happened whenever I think about it.

Personally, when you look at the BB's career, I think he was a good bass/lead singer, with a knack for coming up with catchy lyrics that kids would relate to. I don't think there's much question that this stuff went a long way to pushing the BBs career forward in the beginning when they were churning out singles like a machine. The trouble starts, with charismatic people like Mike, when suddenly things start going differently to how they think they should. He quite obviously had commercial concerns about the direction Brian wanted to go; but there's plenty of evidence that he still supported Brian (even on the Smile Sessions he sang all his parts as requested, despite what he might have thought of them).

He might have gone too far in voicing his concerns, to the point where he alienated/upset the more sensitive people around him at the time: Brian/Van. I do think it's hard sometimes, for more outspoken people, to realise exactly what their loudmouthing can do to those around them. I just think he might not have realised what he was really doing, but he probably just saw all that as being thoughtful about the band's image and commercial appeal.

I can't say I approve of what he's turned his version of the BB's into. I find his unwillingness to tour with Brian past the 50th makes me dislike him more. But he was obviously an essential ingredient for the BBs and Brian's initial rise. He contributed some great vocals on the records.

[filledeplage]

Final Verdict On Michael Love:

the person who delivered the best Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame speech ever.

That's quite something.

LOL

I still can't believe that actually happened whenever I think about it.

Personally, when you look at the BB's career, I think he was a good bass/lead singer, with a knack for coming up with catchy lyrics that kids would relate to. I don't think there's much question that this stuff went a long way to pushing the BBs career forward in the beginning when they were churning out singles like a machine. The trouble starts, with charismatic people like Mike, when suddenly things start going differently to how they think they should. He quite obviously had commercial concerns about the direction Brian wanted to go; but there's plenty of evidence that he still supported Brian (even on the Smile Sessions he sang all his parts as requested, despite what he might have thought of them).

He might have gone too far in voicing his concerns, to the point where he alienated/upset the more sensitive people around him at the time: Brian/Van. I do think it's hard sometimes, for more outspoken people, to realise exactly what their loudmouthing can do to those around them. I just think he might not have realised what he was really doing, but he probably just saw all that as being thoughtful about the band's image and commercial appeal.

I can't say I approve of what he's turned his version of the BB's into. I find his unwillingness to tour with Brian past the 50th makes me dislike him more. But he was obviously an essential ingredient for the BBs and Brian's initial rise. He contributed some great vocals on the records.

Historically, it seems that the pressure on "artistic" differences might have emanated from the record company.  Who knows?  Maybe they (the record company) went to Mike, as the co-writer and pressured him, to try to "talk to" Brian.  Wasn't Mike learning the business, in the studio?

They (the record company) were more concerned with their overseas talent than their own.  They didn't "make room" for Brian's creative and masterful work.  They appear to be the "fair weather friend" in this long history. 

And, I've read accounts where there were many (especially in hindsight) who agreed with the HOF remarks.  They did out-tour everyone.  And while disco was big, and rock music, somewhat in the trash, touring kept them out there, preserving and protecting the legacy of the music.  Touring is what they do.

[SgtTimBob]

Well yes, there was that as well, for definite. I've heard it said that Capitol were more concerned with milking the British invasion at this point.

So yeah, I don't think Mike is anything like as bad as what a lot of the generalizations make him out to be.

[filledeplage]

Well yes, there was that as well, for definite. I've heard it said that Capitol were more concerned with milking the British invasion at this point.

So yeah, I don't think Mike is anything like as bad as what a lot of the generalizations make him out to be.

Exactly!  And they didn't have to be competitors.  They were the American distribution source.  So they were 2nd in line, (releasing Rubber Soul, if I remember correctly, one day after the European release) and threw our guys under the bus.

They were both at the top (along with the bluesy Stones, who were sort of in their own category.)

The record company should have seen the emergence of more serious and contemplative work.  It is so easy to trace the progression from the beginning.  Pet Sounds should have surprised no one.  It was getting more elaborate, sophisticated, and had long moved past, the surf/cars/girls.  They re-invented themselves, in sort of a learning curve, as they evolved.

Too bad the record company did not accept it.  It's what annoys me most, hearing all this finger pointing and the blame game. Had they (the record company) done the right thing, ab initio (from the beginning) the band, would not have had to establish BRI.  It gave them some control, and at a point, it must have been empowering, even if they lost money, there is a certain pride in David's wresting power away from Goliath.

But to look at the other side of the coin, they (the record company has a right, in terms of business, to look at the production costs, and what they can recoup.) And, it would be terribly imbalanced to look at only one dimension.  But, history can merely look to the album releases, to allow the inference of "no confidence" and that should be sufficient to approach this big picture with a modicum of fairness.  Often, true "art" is not a moneymaker until much time as elapsed.

At any rate,  the British work should never have been promoted over the "home team." Where are they now? They disbanded 40 years ago.  And, when all has been said and done, there was more in common, with creativity, and TM, than not.  Brian and Paul look like old soul mates rather than competitors.

But, the record company could not stifle that later-in-time collaboration ( Brian and Paul) on Brian's album.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

In terms of music and lyrics, I like just about everything Mike did musically, lyrically, vocally and his choice of clothes before 1974. On the contrary, the opposite after 1974. Not to say everything, but most of it has been aweful IMO. But still some good.

But to be fair, Brian had a lot of awful songs himself since 1974 such as That Same Song, In My Car and Problem Child.