I think I can understand why Brian might not wanna write much with Mike...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

[Nicko1234]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes but he is not saying that he made an equal contribution to Paul McCartney or saying they are the same type of musicians/songwriters. Only that just because one person may get all of the attention it doesn`t mean that other people can`t also make important contributions. No big deal.

[alf wiedersehen]

This conversation is so tired.

Who cares what happened 40 years ago? It happened. It's done.

Can we please talk about something else?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This conversation is so tired.

Who cares what happened 40 years ago? It happened. It's done.

Can we please talk about something else?

I'd like that more than just about anything else.... Trouble is, Mike will keep saying things because people will keep asking him the same damn questions forever and ever and ever....

[Micha]

yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

This phrase pretty much sums it up, I think: important, but in a VERY different way. He is not as much a creative contributor as through his singing voice, and especially in his role of a frontman. Brian is way less a frontman than Lennon was.

I think giving Mike 50% importance is to much though. What if Dennis had never suggested writing about surfing?

[smilethebeachboysloveyou]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

His point: "But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal."

That has very different meaning when discussing The Beatles and Lennon/McCartney credits than it does when discussing The Beach Boys and Wilson/Love ones.  Very frequently, Lennon/McCartney credits were not collaborations at all, but were written by either one or the other.  In most other cases, the song was written primarily by either Lennon or McCartney with some assistance by the other.  Therefore, it is possible to identify "And Your Bird Can Sing" as a John Lennon song and "Got To Get You Into My Life" as a Paul McCartney song, and pick a favorite (gravitate towards their creativity) based on whose songs you like better.  Furthermore, in addition to picking a favorite, it is possible to make a convincing case for either Lennon or McCartney as the more significant contributor to The Beatles based on which you prefer.

It's much harder to say that in the case of a Wilson/Love credit, which, by and large, are Brian Wilson compositions with lyrical contributions from Mike Love. While it's entirely possible to say that Mike Love or any non-Brian Wilson member is your favorite Beach Boy, unless you think that "Let the Wind Blow" is better than all of the other Wilson/Love compositions put together, it's difficult to see how you could make a case that Mike Love was a superior, or even equal, contributor to the band to Brian Wilson.

[Cam Mott]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

His point: "But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal."

That has very different meaning when discussing The Beatles and Lennon/McCartney credits than it does when discussing The Beach Boys and Wilson/Love ones.  Very frequently, Lennon/McCartney credits were not collaborations at all, but were written by either one or the other.  In most other cases, the song was written primarily by either Lennon or McCartney with some assistance by the other.  Therefore, it is possible to identify "And Your Bird Can Sing" as a John Lennon song and "Got To Get You Into My Life" as a Paul McCartney song, and pick a favorite (gravitate towards their creativity) based on whose songs you like better.  Furthermore, in addition to picking a favorite, it is possible to make a convincing case for either Lennon or McCartney as the more significant contributor to The Beatles based on which you prefer.

It's much harder to say that in the case of a Wilson/Love credit, which, by and large, are Brian Wilson compositions with lyrical contributions from Mike Love. While it's entirely possible to say that Mike Love or any non-Brian Wilson member is your favorite Beach Boy, unless you think that "Let the Wind Blow" is better than all of the other Wilson/Love compositions put together, it's difficult to see how you could make a case that Mike Love was a superior, or even equal, contributor to the band to Brian Wilson.

We will disagree. The Lennon/McCartney is about people's favorites in a band. Also it's not about our take, it Mike's take. He's not claiming McCartney is his equal, he's drawing a parallel. 

[El Molé]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

[TimmyC]

This conversation is so tired.

Who cares what happened 40 years ago? It happened. It's done.

Can we please talk about something else?

I don't understand this. If you don't like what's being discussed skip to another thread. Obviously some people want to talk about it. Who are you to tell them to stop? Isn't the point of a message board like this to talk about sh*t that 99.999999% of the human population thinks has no interest in?

Is someone making you read it? Just don't read the thread dude. Easy. To me this site is a fun (and wholesome!) way to sort of veg out once in a while. And if talking about this is what some of us want to talk about, who are you to tell us not to? READ ANOTHER THREAD. EASY.

[Nicko1234]

I agree that Mike certainly isn`t 50% of The Beach Boys. Brian`s role as producer, songwriter, arranger etc. more than sees to that.

How the image of the group is to the average listener or concert goer is more debatable though. It was said for many years (and probably very truthfully) that many people going to see M&B in concert thought they were seeing more than 2 Beach Boys. Since the C50 tour though it must be more well known among the public that Brian and Al are not there. Yet it doesnt seem to have affected attendances at all which is a strange one. Many seem to be happy as long as the frontman is there.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The "average listener" though is largely a construction - in any thing. When I was a kid, I might say that I somewhat fit this title. It was the 80s, I was pre-10, I knew all the Endless Summer hits, I was delighted by Kokomo. I'd say maybe the most recognizable face of the Beach Boys was Mike. I'd say the second most recognizable face was Bruce. That being said, just because I knew Bruce Johnston better than most of the Beach Boys, I wouldn't necessary give him a high percentage of importance in the overall band.

[smilethebeachboysloveyou]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

Very nicely put.

[El Molé]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

His point: "But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal."

That has very different meaning when discussing The Beatles and Lennon/McCartney credits than it does when discussing The Beach Boys and Wilson/Love ones.  Very frequently, Lennon/McCartney credits were not collaborations at all, but were written by either one or the other.  In most other cases, the song was written primarily by either Lennon or McCartney with some assistance by the other.  Therefore, it is possible to identify "And Your Bird Can Sing" as a John Lennon song and "Got To Get You Into My Life" as a Paul McCartney song, and pick a favorite (gravitate towards their creativity) based on whose songs you like better.  Furthermore, in addition to picking a favorite, it is possible to make a convincing case for either Lennon or McCartney as the more significant contributor to The Beatles based on which you prefer.

It's much harder to say that in the case of a Wilson/Love credit, which, by and large, are Brian Wilson compositions with lyrical contributions from Mike Love. While it's entirely possible to say that Mike Love or any non-Brian Wilson member is your favorite Beach Boy, unless you think that "Let the Wind Blow" is better than all of the other Wilson/Love compositions put together, it's difficult to see how you could make a case that Mike Love was a superior, or even equal, contributor to the band to Brian Wilson.

We will disagree. The Lennon/McCartney is about people's favorites in a band. Also it's not about our take, it Mike's take. He's not claiming McCartney is his equal, he's drawing a parallel. 

Isn't it pretty obvious that there's slightly more to it than that? Nobody would claim that "John Lennon is the Beatles" simply because they like John Lennon. They'd say it because they think John's contributions to the Beatles significantly outweigh the other members contributions in one sense or another, to the point that John Lennon made the Beatles what they were with little significant input from anyone else. Mike rightly points out that this is pretty unfair on Paul McCartney who wrote, sang and played on a significant proportion of the material and John and Paul seem reasonably close to being equals in the band (in terms of the volume and success of their respective outputs, rather than my opinion on their contributions). It's a fair point by Mike, but he makes it whilst discussing others perceptions of his role in the Beach Boys. He's drawing a parallel between John's contribution versus Paul's and Brian's versus his (Mike's). I think that's a foolish parallel to draw beacuse:

1. John and Paul roughly matched each others output in a variety of ways, but Brian and Mike didn't at all
2. It could be taken to mean that Mike considers himself to be the equal of either Brian or Paul, and he's nowhere near either of them

I suspect Mike was probably thinking just that his contributions were more significant than he's often given credit for, in the same way that Paul's contributions were more significant than those people who say that John was the Beatles give Paul credit for. On that basis there are huge grey areas in play and Mike may not be overstating anything. But it's easily open to misinterpretation, confusion or wilful misuse. And that's generally my criticism of Mike, that he says the wrong things all too often, probably sometimes with different intended meanings than the ones that are understood by the reader/listener. It's gone on for so long that some fans take anything he says in a negative light, which is incredibly sad and frustrating. But he certainly doesn't help himself a lot of the time.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Mike's on record as believing he is responsible for the band's success so obviously he must feel underappreciated.

[Nicko1234]

Mike's on record as believing he is responsible for the band's success so obviously he must feel underappreciated.

Which comment are you talking about there?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Mike's on record as believing he is responsible for the band's success so obviously he must feel underappreciated.

Which comment are you talking about there?

"Ultimately I think the Beach Boys meant so much to so many people because of the positivity and that was me." - Endless Harmony doc

[SMiLE Brian]

Endless Harmony


Edit: Rockandroll beat me to it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Endless Harmony


Edit: Rockandroll beat me to it.

Doesn't matter though. Nicko has already suggested before that I am too obsessed with that quote and that it shouldn't be considered since it was said so long ago. Regardless, it's clear that the same sentiment is at work when he makes the Lennon/McCartney comment.

[Nicko1234]

"Ultimately I think the Beach Boys meant so much to so many people because of the positivity and that was me." - Endless Harmony doc

Which is not the same thing at all is it. I`m not saying I agree with Mike`s comment because I think there was plenty of positivity in Brian`s music but Mike is talking about one aspect of The Beach Boys that he thinks was important. He doesn`t say that positivity was the only important thing above the harmonies, music, productions etc.

The way that doc was structured gave a few minutes to Carl, Dennis and Mike. Mike was presumably asked what he thought his contribution was and that was his answer. In other interviews Mike has said he doesn`t think he was as talented as Brian and he has thanked Brian for giving them all great lives.

[Cam Mott]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

His point: "But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal."

That has very different meaning when discussing The Beatles and Lennon/McCartney credits than it does when discussing The Beach Boys and Wilson/Love ones.  Very frequently, Lennon/McCartney credits were not collaborations at all, but were written by either one or the other.  In most other cases, the song was written primarily by either Lennon or McCartney with some assistance by the other.  Therefore, it is possible to identify "And Your Bird Can Sing" as a John Lennon song and "Got To Get You Into My Life" as a Paul McCartney song, and pick a favorite (gravitate towards their creativity) based on whose songs you like better.  Furthermore, in addition to picking a favorite, it is possible to make a convincing case for either Lennon or McCartney as the more significant contributor to The Beatles based on which you prefer.

It's much harder to say that in the case of a Wilson/Love credit, which, by and large, are Brian Wilson compositions with lyrical contributions from Mike Love. While it's entirely possible to say that Mike Love or any non-Brian Wilson member is your favorite Beach Boy, unless you think that "Let the Wind Blow" is better than all of the other Wilson/Love compositions put together, it's difficult to see how you could make a case that Mike Love was a superior, or even equal, contributor to the band to Brian Wilson.

We will disagree. The Lennon/McCartney is about people's favorites in a band. Also it's not about our take, it Mike's take. He's not claiming McCartney is his equal, he's drawing a parallel. 

Isn't it pretty obvious that there's slightly more to it than that? Nobody would claim that "John Lennon is the Beatles" simply because they like John Lennon. They'd say it because they think John's contributions to the Beatles significantly outweigh the other members contributions in one sense or another, to the point that John Lennon made the Beatles what they were with little significant input from anyone else. Mike rightly points out that this is pretty unfair on Paul McCartney who wrote, sang and played on a significant proportion of the material and John and Paul seem reasonably close to being equals in the band (in terms of the volume and success of their respective outputs, rather than my opinion on their contributions). It's a fair point by Mike, but he makes it whilst discussing others perceptions of his role in the Beach Boys. He's drawing a parallel between John's contribution versus Paul's and Brian's versus his (Mike's). I think that's a foolish parallel to draw beacuse:

1. John and Paul roughly matched each others output in a variety of ways, but Brian and Mike didn't at all
2. It could be taken to mean that Mike considers himself to be the equal of either Brian or Paul, and he's nowhere near either of them

I suspect Mike was probably thinking just that his contributions were more significant than he's often given credit for, in the same way that Paul's contributions were more significant than those people who say that John was the Beatles give Paul credit for. On that basis there are huge grey areas in play and Mike may not be overstating anything. But it's easily open to misinterpretation, confusion or wilful misuse. And that's generally my criticism of Mike, that he says the wrong things all too often, probably sometimes with different intended meanings than the ones that are understood by the reader/listener. It's gone on for so long that some fans take anything he says in a negative light, which is incredibly sad and frustrating. But he certainly doesn't help himself a lot of the time.

All I'm saying is people are adding meaning to the quote that isn't there and then seeming to hold Mike responsible to what he didn't say. Imo.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Which is not the same thing at all is it.

And heeeeeeeere we go.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing. When a band means a lot to a lot of people, what do you take that to mean? Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to say that Mike is taking responsibility for the band's success because, to use his words exactly, he is really just taking responsibility for the fact that the band means so much to so many people?

I`m not saying I agree with Mike`s comment because I think there was plenty of positivity in Brian`s music but Mike is talking about one aspect of The Beach Boys that he thinks was important. He doesn`t say that positivity was the only important thing above the harmonies, music, productions etc.

Well, I don't know what Mike thinks is important or what he thinks it would mean to use the word important. Maybe he thinks that harmonies are important but he certainly doesn't think that they are what have allowed the band to mean a lot to so many people.

The way that doc was structured gave a few minutes to Carl, Dennis and Mike. Mike was presumably asked what he thought his contribution was and that was his answer. In other interviews Mike has said he doesn`t think he was as talented as Brian and he has thanked Brian for giving them all great lives.

He's not commenting on who has the most talent. I never suggested Mike was taking credit for having all the talent in the band, did I?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All I'm saying is people are adding meaning to the quote that isn't there

You are the leading practitioner of doing that in this thread when you suggest that he's simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band. Talk about a counter-reading!

[Nicko1234]

Which is not the same thing at all is it.

And heeeeeeeere we go.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing. When a band means a lot to a lot of people, what do you take that to mean? Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to say that Mike is taking responsibility for the band's success because, to use his words exactly, he is really just taking responsibility for the fact that the band means so much to so many people?

I`m not saying I agree with Mike`s comment because I think there was plenty of positivity in Brian`s music but Mike is talking about one aspect of The Beach Boys that he thinks was important. He doesn`t say that positivity was the only important thing above the harmonies, music, productions etc.

Well, I don't know what Mike thinks is important or what he thinks it would mean to use the word important. Maybe he thinks that harmonies are important but he certainly doesn't think that they are what have allowed the band to mean a lot to so many people.

The way that doc was structured gave a few minutes to Carl, Dennis and Mike. Mike was presumably asked what he thought his contribution was and that was his answer. In other interviews Mike has said he doesn`t think he was as talented as Brian and he has thanked Brian for giving them all great lives.

He's not commenting on who has the most talent. I never suggested Mike was taking credit for having all the talent in the band, did I?

I notice that you ignore the fact that he thanked Brian for giving them all great lives...

[Nicko1234]

I suspect Mike was probably thinking just that his contributions were more significant than he's often given credit for, in the same way that Paul's contributions were more significant than those people who say that John was the Beatles give Paul credit for. On that basis there are huge grey areas in play and Mike may not be overstating anything. But it's easily open to misinterpretation, confusion or wilful misuse. And that's generally my criticism of Mike, that he says the wrong things all too often, probably sometimes with different intended meanings than the ones that are understood by the reader/listener. It's gone on for so long that some fans take anything he says in a negative light, which is incredibly sad and frustrating. But he certainly doesn't help himself a lot of the time.

Absolutely. A hell of a lot of truth there.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Which is not the same thing at all is it.

And heeeeeeeere we go.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing. When a band means a lot to a lot of people, what do you take that to mean? Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to say that Mike is taking responsibility for the band's success because, to use his words exactly, he is really just taking responsibility for the fact that the band means so much to so many people?

I`m not saying I agree with Mike`s comment because I think there was plenty of positivity in Brian`s music but Mike is talking about one aspect of The Beach Boys that he thinks was important. He doesn`t say that positivity was the only important thing above the harmonies, music, productions etc.

Well, I don't know what Mike thinks is important or what he thinks it would mean to use the word important. Maybe he thinks that harmonies are important but he certainly doesn't think that they are what have allowed the band to mean a lot to so many people.

The way that doc was structured gave a few minutes to Carl, Dennis and Mike. Mike was presumably asked what he thought his contribution was and that was his answer. In other interviews Mike has said he doesn`t think he was as talented as Brian and he has thanked Brian for giving them all great lives.

He's not commenting on who has the most talent. I never suggested Mike was taking credit for having all the talent in the band, did I?

I notice that you ignore the fact that he thanked Brian for giving them all great lives...

I notice you ignored every point I raised that responded to your attempts to re-imagine what Mike actually said.