interesting article: "Mike Love states his case"

[drbeachboy]

My God, this is a wind tunnel worse than anything over at the sand box?

Don't you guys ever get sick of saying the same damn things?

We are a bunch of opinionated wind bags. That's for damned sure.

[Cam Mott]

Did I read these wrong? Isn't Mike saying there were no real/concrete deals/offers brought to the table to be decided for or against by the group?

There was just talk, by someone. Isn't that also what Jon and/or Howie said back at the time?

My takeaway from the interview is that Mike is suggesting no discussions ever took place about a new album, which not only seems very odd, but contradicts what Mike himself said in interviews in 2012.

In terms of touring offers, Mike has said on numerous occasions that he had his own shows booked, and he felt BB tours should not play exclusively larger venues.

Do you really think that Mike would have agreed to extend the reunion tour if a firm offer for a show in Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden had been put on the table?

Further, doesn’t the implication that Mike would have agreed to these shows had they been firm, fully-backed offers *completely* contradict the “Set End Date” mantra we’ve been hearing since 2012? If there was a firm “set end date”, weren’t these offers completely irrelevant?

I’m also not convinced the process of show offers is as simple as Mike is suggesting in this interview. What is the implication? Con artists were offering fake show bookings? Who knows? Maybe as soon as promoters saw the clusterf*** that occurred just prior to the end of the tour, and/or when promoters were made aware that Mike was already booking his own shows, the offers for more reunion shows dried up.

We know that tour was successful financially and in terms of industry perception. It’s hard to believe they wouldn’t have had more offers on the table. Maybe the question should have been asked this way: Why didn’t you pursue another tour and/or more bookings for the reunion? That would of course get us back to the first set of 2012 reasons for ending the reunion (needing to book smaller markets, etc.).

My take away is just as he said someone was discussing stuff but nothing concrete ever came to discussion within the group. He said he was both ready to discuss what would come after the C50 agreement in place and that nothing concrete was discussed.

I'm not implying anything about offers. Just that so far it looks to me like everybody in the group may have been open to discussing post C50 but all of the talk didn't amount to anything actionable or something.  I wasn't there.

[Heysaboda]

The Beach Boys had a #3 album in 2012, their highest charting studio album, since…. Ah… dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

So, no one ever thought of doing a follow up?

They could have done a follow up and called it “Shooting Ourselves in the Foot”.

[Howie Edelson]

I love the absurdity that prior to anyone quoting any piece of this article (as if namechecking one's source isn't enough) one has to actually CONTACT David Beard.

In music,
Howie

[Autotune]

Some nuggets from this looping, shitty, thread:

"For a man who cheated the founder of the BBs out of the group and keep the name, Mike Love is a miserable man."

"I love how Mike forgets all of these facts that were reported and published, and thinks he can just have a clean slate every time he opens his mouth to defend his pathetic self."

"Mike is the king of straw grabs."

"Objectively, Mike’s interview is FAR more inflammatory than the press release for NPP."

"Is he really going to have to “respond” now every time any of the other band members simply mention that the reunion ended?"

"Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way."

"he wants NPP to not be great"

"If NPP should win some awards, or a Grammy no less, well I don't imagine Mike would be honestly, truthfully happy about that."

" It comes off so whiny and shameful for a man of his age."

Seriously, do you guys feel like rambling on?

Give him a fucking break.

[ontor pertawst]

I dunno, you seem like you want to. Sorry we all don't have your view of the situation.

[bgas]

I love the absurdity that prior to anyone quoting any piece of this article (as if namechecking one's source isn't enough) one has to actually CONTACT David Beard.

In music,
Howie

Guess I'm in trouble then, as I printed it out and used it to wipe my....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Some nuggets from this looping, shitty, thread:

"For a man who cheated the founder of the BBs out of the group and keep the name, Mike Love is a miserable man."

"I love how Mike forgets all of these facts that were reported and published, and thinks he can just have a clean slate every time he opens his mouth to defend his pathetic self."

"Mike is the king of straw grabs."

"Objectively, Mike’s interview is FAR more inflammatory than the press release for NPP."

"Is he really going to have to “respond” now every time any of the other band members simply mention that the reunion ended?"

"Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way."

"he wants NPP to not be great"

"If NPP should win some awards, or a Grammy no less, well I don't imagine Mike would be honestly, truthfully happy about that."

" It comes off so whiny and shameful for a man of his age."

Seriously, do you guys feel like rambling on?

Give him a fucking break.

To be fair, some of these SmileySmilers readily and happily gave Mike all the love and benefit of doubt possible during C50. I remember someone proudly stating "The is redemption" ..... (No, OSD, it wasn't you) ..... But we should have been well prepared all along for these Beach type guys to be themselves .... Like Blondie says in that Holland doc "The Beach Boys were always gonna be The Beach Boys" ...

I just can't help but feel like, what use is there to talk about someone when your personal opinion of the person will simply dictate your reaction to whatever this person says or does? ... Can't we try and be a bit more open minded? We're no more human than Mike. Maybe we have more hair and a better wardrobe, but he's still just a guy dealing with family, friends, business, Bruce, and all the headaches that come with it.

[HeyJude]

My take away is just as he said someone was discussing stuff but nothing concrete ever came to discussion within the group. He said he was both ready to discuss what would come after the C50 agreement in place and that nothing concrete was discussed.

He says in the interview that there was “never any discussions within the group” regarding another album. That sounds pretty specific, and it directly contradicts 2012 interviews where he said such things were being discussed. He doesn’t say “There were some discussions and ideas, but we never firmed anything up.” He never says “I was open to another album, but clearly Brian and I had different ideas as to how likely another immediate album was.”

No, he says there were *never* any discussions within the group, either during, at the end, or after the tour. He specifically says this. That sounds to me as if the topic was never even broached. Not only does that make no sense in light of rave reviews, solid sales, a #3 chart placement, etc, it also contradicts his own previous statements. It sounds like he doesn’t just want to say he didn’t want to do another album the way TWGMTR was done. He at least indicated that was the case to some degree in prior interviews, talking about not being able to write more with Brian, etc. Why this extreme, contradictory, ultra-defensive posture is being taken in 2015, I have no idea.

[Lee Marshall]

A bad article.  A bad day for Mike.  A bad day for the Beach Boys.  Everybody loses.  Sometimes you have to ask...WTF were they thinking when they decided to press 'post' with THAT? 

Negativity rules yet again...and WE'RE expected to be positive about it? 

Ain't gonna happen.

[DonnyL]

I think it's interesting that Mike Love is opposed to Autotune, and noticed it's detrimental affect on the 2012 BB record.

The executive producer didn't have a say in that did he? Someone called Mike Love according to the album credits.

ha ... I doubt Mike or Brian had much to do with many of the decisions made on that record!

[HeyJude]

A bad article.  A bad day for Mike.  A bad day for the Beach Boys.  Everybody loses.  Sometimes you have to ask...WTF were they thinking when they decided to press 'post' with THAT?  

Negativity rules yet again...and WE'RE expected to be positive about it?  

Ain't gonna happen.

It does seem to be a rather odd, puzzling side story as to why the guy the publishes ESQ seemingly stirred this entire thing up. I mean, has the mainstream media been beating up on Mike because “No Pier Pressure” isn’t a Beach Boys album? How many reviews of the album are even out there so far?

If I had never read the press release for NPP, and then read that article and Mike’s comments, I would come away assuming the NPP press release totally personally tears Mike a new one, and that swaths of media have been blaming Mike for NPP not being a BB album. But all of this because the press release said a BB album was “not to be”?

Frankly, I’ve seen more cranky “this album is better off without Mike” sort of comments than I’ve seen “how dare Mike now allow this to be a Beach Boys album!”

[Sam_BFC]

Read the article earlier at lunch time and have only skimmed this thread this evening, so forgive me If I'm missing something...

it seems to me that Mike was open to the idea of doing a follow up to TWGMTR in principle, but he was never open to the idea of said follow up being derived from the initial ideas that have now matured in to NPP as it is today.

[lostbeachboy]

Whats next a Mike biopic called Looking Back With Love   

[Paul J B]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

But who is arguing any of these things? We’re talking about, when it’s time to reconvene and do the first BB album in 20 years, and the first to include Brian in 23 years, and the first to include Brian in a substantial fashion in anywhere from 27 to 35 years, maybe it’s a bit of a cop-out to record an album of cover versions. I find it easy to believe Mike is more enthusiastic about old Everly Brothers songs than a new melancholy ballad penned by Brian and Joe Thomas. But not learning from the mistakes of things like “Stars and Stripes” or “Summer in Paradise” shows a lot of tunnel vision in my opinion.

Not that it needs to be defended, but Brian has cut many solo albums, so it’s easier to stomach albums of covers when we’ve also recently had albums of new material. If Brian’s first solo album in 1988 had been all covers, that would have been just as misguided of an idea.

Also not needing defending is that Brian charges money for tickets. Nobody ever claimed Brian doesn’t seek out chances to make money. Having an “artistic” slant simply to the degree of pursuing writing and recording new, original material does not mean one then should give the music away for free or lose money touring.

Uh..no...people do and are arguing these things. You can't have it both ways. It's bad for Mike to make money but not Brian, it's bad for Mike to do covers but not Brian. Sorry but that and numerous other hypocritical statements and allegations are tossed at Mike routinely. If you want to bitch about Mike stick to relevant facts instead of HYPING his persona in an attempt to convince people how evil he is.

I just read that Bill Pohlad who directed Love and Mercy is the son of a Billionaire. Hmmm.... I'm sure he's just fattening his already fat wallet too and sponging off Brian.

[D Cunningham]

If I’m reading the back of this box of Lucky Charms cereal—
with the “Reach the Pot o’ Gold” mini-maze—correctly,
I believe I can make some sense of our tale.  It would seem
that Mike Love took the left-side path, skirting the troll under
the stone bridge and perhaps hesitating when  he approached
the peat fire, and soldiered on.  Brian Wilson, on the other hand,
moved down the right side, likely slowed by visiting
the leprechaun library, but then made short work of the
stone path above the Viking landing.  Both reached the gold
reward, but with different stories to tell.
I’m thinking everyone was a winner.

[bossaroo]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

have you listened to the Gershwin album? are you familiar with Gershwin's catalog? the album and the material are ABSOLUTE art, and Brian invested himself into that record with a passion and dedication unlike any album he's ever done. as for the Disney album, I believe it was the required obligation in order to do the Gershwin album. a fair trade that produced two very unique and whimsical albums in the BW canon. far different from just "oldies covers" albums, and a very far cry from something like The Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

likewise, Brian's Christmas album was a labor of love, and a nod to Phil Spector's Christmas album which many people, Brian especially would consider art. or at least some of the best pop music arranging and recording ever made. a bit indulgent perhaps, but Brian has earned that.

and you're asking if SMiLE being reworked into 3 parts constitutes as art? um. yes?


I am aware that concerts typically cost an admission fee. Brian's tickets might even run slightly higher than Mike's, but you get what you pay for. he plays far fewer shows per year with a considerably higher production value. and yes, everyone likes to make a buck. but my real point is that making a buck is Mike's top priority, while Brian Wilson's is making art.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

have you listened to the Gershwin album? are you familiar with Gershwin's catalog? the album and the material are ABSOLUTE art, and Brian invested himself into that record with a passion and dedication unlike any album he's ever done. as for the Disney album, I believe it was the required obligation in order to do the Gershwin album. a fair trade that produced two very unique and whimsical albums in the BW canon. far different from just "oldies covers" albums, and a very far cry from something like The Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

likewise, Brian's Christmas album was a labor of love, and a nod to Phil Spector's Christmas album which many people, Brian especially would consider art. or at least some of the best pop music arranging and recording ever made. a bit indulgent perhaps, but Brian has earned that.

and you're asking if SMiLE being reworked into 3 parts constitutes as art? um. yes?


I am aware that concerts typically cost an admission fee. Brian's tickets might even run slightly higher than Mike's, but you get what you pay for. he plays far fewer shows per year with a considerably higher production value. and yes, everyone likes to make a buck. but my real point is that making a buck is Mike's top priority, while Brian Wilson's is making art.

See, this is what irks me to no end. These fawning, Benny Hinn attendee-like declarations of any damn thing Brian releases as art of the highest order! ..... Even when it's Gershwin material or Disney stuff ...... Meanwhile, Mike merely performs an original song live (Pisces Brothers) in rather unassuming fashion and gets nothing but insults hurled his way by those much more cultured and informed folk who know what true art is.....

And oh, multi-millionaire Brian only charges because he puts on such a huge, fantastic show, while multi-millionaire Mike only charges because he's greedy?

I call bullshite several million times over.

And what exactly is this "higher production value?" ..... Lazers? Explosions? More band members? What difference does that make? Does Earth Wind & Fire charge more for 45 members than U2 who only have 4? .... It's all just guys playing music and singing.

[HeyJude]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

But who is arguing any of these things? We’re talking about, when it’s time to reconvene and do the first BB album in 20 years, and the first to include Brian in 23 years, and the first to include Brian in a substantial fashion in anywhere from 27 to 35 years, maybe it’s a bit of a cop-out to record an album of cover versions. I find it easy to believe Mike is more enthusiastic about old Everly Brothers songs than a new melancholy ballad penned by Brian and Joe Thomas. But not learning from the mistakes of things like “Stars and Stripes” or “Summer in Paradise” shows a lot of tunnel vision in my opinion.

Not that it needs to be defended, but Brian has cut many solo albums, so it’s easier to stomach albums of covers when we’ve also recently had albums of new material. If Brian’s first solo album in 1988 had been all covers, that would have been just as misguided of an idea.

Also not needing defending is that Brian charges money for tickets. Nobody ever claimed Brian doesn’t seek out chances to make money. Having an “artistic” slant simply to the degree of pursuing writing and recording new, original material does not mean one then should give the music away for free or lose money touring.

Uh..no...people do and are arguing these things. You can't have it both ways. It's bad for Mike to make money but not Brian, it's bad for Mike to do covers but not Brian. Sorry but that and numerous other hypocritical statements and allegations are tossed at Mike routinely. If you want to bitch about Mike stick to relevant facts instead of HYPING his persona in an attempt to convince people how evil he is.

I just read that Bill Pohlad who directed Love and Mercy is the son of a Billionaire. Hmmm.... I'm sure he's just fattening his already fat wallet too and sponging off Brian.

Who said it's "bad for Mike to make money but not Brian"? There's a difference between being primarily or solely motivated by money, and simply making money. It's a very, very easy distinction to make.

Please direct me to a fan or other comment where someone specifically suggested that Mike shouldn't make money but Brian should.

Same thing with covers. It sounds like, in the specific case of the first new BB album in 20 years, Mike may have preferred to do an album of covers. Brian had over an album's worth of NEW songs. Thankfully the album ended being the latter. To suggest that was a good decision is not to suggest that "it's bad for Mike to do covers but not Brian." EVERYBODY knows that Brian has done albums of covers, and I and many other Brian fans have expressed mixed and sometimes negative feelings about some of those projects (and other projects of his). What this discussion has been about pertains specifically to C50. That a member of the band thought that THAT album should have been covers instead of new material speaks to their preference and thought process. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure exactly wtf the director of "Love and Mercy" has to do with what we're discussing. If you want to turn a discussion of the Mike article into a diatribe against, I guess, a perceived anti-capitalist mentality or something, you'll probably have better luck in other forums.

[CenturyDeprived]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

have you listened to the Gershwin album? are you familiar with Gershwin's catalog? the album and the material are ABSOLUTE art, and Brian invested himself into that record with a passion and dedication unlike any album he's ever done. as for the Disney album, I believe it was the required obligation in order to do the Gershwin album. a fair trade that produced two very unique and whimsical albums in the BW canon. far different from just "oldies covers" albums, and a very far cry from something like The Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

likewise, Brian's Christmas album was a labor of love, and a nod to Phil Spector's Christmas album which many people, Brian especially would consider art. or at least some of the best pop music arranging and recording ever made. a bit indulgent perhaps, but Brian has earned that.

and you're asking if SMiLE being reworked into 3 parts constitutes as art? um. yes?


I am aware that concerts typically cost an admission fee. Brian's tickets might even run slightly higher than Mike's, but you get what you pay for. he plays far fewer shows per year with a considerably higher production value. and yes, everyone likes to make a buck. but my real point is that making a buck is Mike's top priority, while Brian Wilson's is making art.

See, this is what irks me to no end. These fawning, Benny Hinn attendee-like declarations of any damn thing Brian releases as art of the highest order! ..... Even when it's Gershwin material or Disney stuff ...... Meanwhile, Mike merely performs an original song live (Pisces Brothers) in rather unassuming fashion and gets nothing but insults hurled his way by those much more cultured and informed folk who know what true art is.....

And oh, multi-millionaire Brian only charges because he puts on such a huge, fantastic show, while multi-millionaire Mike only charges because he's greedy?

I call bullshite several million times over.

Y'know, Pinder... I like Cool Head, Warm Heart (for an example of a late-era Mike song)... I thought that it was surprisingly the best new song by any member of The BBs on the Hallmark CD, and still think that. But Pisces Brothers rubs me (and others, I think) in somewhat the wrong way, because it seems to be unnecessary name-dropping in the form of a song. Much like the endless, endless interview mentions by Mike of his contributions, exaggerated or otherwise, to Back in the USSR.

Pisces Brothers just strikes me as cheesy and inauthentic, suggesting a closer friendship that by all accounts never existed. (By the way, BW's A Friend Like You could be fingered as similarly being somewhat inauthentic about the relationship between a BB and a Beatle... but of course you have Paul himself on it, which more or less nullifies that idea, and gives it a ton more cred).

So don't assume that people are insulting a Mike song just because it's a Mike song. I, for one, will criticize something I think sucks for a reason, not because of its author.

[HeyJude]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

have you listened to the Gershwin album? are you familiar with Gershwin's catalog? the album and the material are ABSOLUTE art, and Brian invested himself into that record with a passion and dedication unlike any album he's ever done. as for the Disney album, I believe it was the required obligation in order to do the Gershwin album. a fair trade that produced two very unique and whimsical albums in the BW canon. far different from just "oldies covers" albums, and a very far cry from something like The Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

likewise, Brian's Christmas album was a labor of love, and a nod to Phil Spector's Christmas album which many people, Brian especially would consider art. or at least some of the best pop music arranging and recording ever made. a bit indulgent perhaps, but Brian has earned that.

and you're asking if SMiLE being reworked into 3 parts constitutes as art? um. yes?


I am aware that concerts typically cost an admission fee. Brian's tickets might even run slightly higher than Mike's, but you get what you pay for. he plays far fewer shows per year with a considerably higher production value. and yes, everyone likes to make a buck. but my real point is that making a buck is Mike's top priority, while Brian Wilson's is making art.

See, this is what irks me to no end. These fawning, Benny Hinn attendee-like declarations of any damn thing Brian releases as art of the highest order! ..... Even when it's Gershwin material or Disney stuff ...... Meanwhile, Mike merely performs an original song live (Pisces Brothers) in rather unassuming fashion and gets nothing but insults hurled his way by those much more cultured and informed folk who know what true art is.....

And oh, multi-millionaire Brian only charges because he puts on such a huge, fantastic show, while multi-millionaire Mike only charges because he's greedy?

I call bullshite several million times over.

One of the problems is that you're taking two contentions (in some cases exaggerated contentions), and ascribing both of them to same theoretical person and charging "hypocrisy!" to some unknown straw man.

Some find Brian's covers (or whatever else) to be "art" by whatever definition they have. Others didn't like "Pisces Brothers." I'm not sure all of the people who hold one of these opinions hold both opinions.

Apart from a few troll-type commentators, I think most fans here explain their criticism and praise fairly. I'm not super into "Pisces Brothers" *or* Brian's Gershwin or Disney albums. If someone out there likes the Gershwin album and thinks "Pisces Brothers" blows, maybe they just feel that way and they're not motivated by hatred of Mike or any band member.

Again, apart from a few trollers, I think most folks on this board who might tend to make critical comments about Mike do so not because they have, at the outset, a bias against him. Rather, they are responding to specific actions/comments, etc.

I'm pretty sure even at least *some* who tend to walk the fence or try to stay positive about all factions of the band would admit that this latest Mike interview is a trainwreck for numerous reasons.

[HeyJude]

Y'know, Pinder... I like Cool Head, Warm Heart (for an example of a late-era Mike song)... I thought that it was surprisingly the best new song by any member of The BBs on the Hallmark CD, and still think that. But Pisces Brothers rubs me (and others, I think) in somewhat the wrong way, because it seems to be unnecessary name-dropping in the form of a song. Much like the endless interview mentions of Mike's contributions, overplayed or otherwise, to Back in the USSR.

The song just strikes me as cheesy and inauthentic, suggesting a closer friendship that by all accounts never existed. So don't assume that people are insulting a Mike song just because it's a Mike song. I, for one, will criticize something I think sucks for a reason, not because of its author.

Well put. I think, musically, "Pisces Brothers" is fine. It's inoffensive at worst. I indeed recall that some of the criticisms of the track when it got a wide airing publicly had to do the irony of suggesting a close connection to George Harrison that, for those are familiar with George's career and life, may not have been mutual.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

no, Mike got exactly what he wanted. business as usual. casinos and SeaWorld. Stamos, Foskett, and Johnston. and himself at the helm. he doesn't care about the band's legacy or Brian's muse. he doesn't care about making art. he cares about making a buck and a few babes along the way.

Just curious...were the Disney and Gershwin albums art? I would argue they were oldies covers. Kind of the stuff Mike seems hung up on. How about the Christmas album by Brian or re-working Smile into a 3 part album?

Also, the last time I saw Brian live I paid $100 bucks face value. ...so everyone likes to make a buck.

have you listened to the Gershwin album? are you familiar with Gershwin's catalog? the album and the material are ABSOLUTE art, and Brian invested himself into that record with a passion and dedication unlike any album he's ever done. as for the Disney album, I believe it was the required obligation in order to do the Gershwin album. a fair trade that produced two very unique and whimsical albums in the BW canon. far different from just "oldies covers" albums, and a very far cry from something like The Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

likewise, Brian's Christmas album was a labor of love, and a nod to Phil Spector's Christmas album which many people, Brian especially would consider art. or at least some of the best pop music arranging and recording ever made. a bit indulgent perhaps, but Brian has earned that.

and you're asking if SMiLE being reworked into 3 parts constitutes as art? um. yes?


I am aware that concerts typically cost an admission fee. Brian's tickets might even run slightly higher than Mike's, but you get what you pay for. he plays far fewer shows per year with a considerably higher production value. and yes, everyone likes to make a buck. but my real point is that making a buck is Mike's top priority, while Brian Wilson's is making art.

See, this is what irks me to no end. These fawning, Benny Hinn attendee-like declarations of any damn thing Brian releases as art of the highest order! ..... Even when it's Gershwin material or Disney stuff ...... Meanwhile, Mike merely performs an original song live (Pisces Brothers) in rather unassuming fashion and gets nothing but insults hurled his way by those much more cultured and informed folk who know what true art is.....

And oh, multi-millionaire Brian only charges because he puts on such a huge, fantastic show, while multi-millionaire Mike only charges because he's greedy?

I call bullshite several million times over.

One of the problems is that you're taking two contentions (in some cases exaggerated contentions), and ascribing both of them to same theoretical person and charging "hypocrisy!" to some unknown straw man.

Some find Brian's covers (or whatever else) to be "art" by whatever definition they have. Others didn't like "Pisces Brothers." I'm not sure all of the people who hold one of these opinions hold both opinions.

Apart from a few troll-type commentators, I think most fans here explain their criticism and praise fairly. I'm not super into "Pisces Brothers" *or* Brian's Gershwin or Disney albums. If someone out there likes the Gershwin album and thinks "Pisces Brothers" blows, maybe they just feel that way and they're not motivated by hatred of Mike or any band member.

Again, apart from a few trollers, I think most folks on this board who might tend to make critical comments about Mike do so not because they have, at the outset, a bias against him. Rather, they are responding to specific actions/comments, etc.

I'm pretty sure even at least *some* who tend to walk the fence or try to stay positive about all factions of the band would admit that this latest Mike interview is a trainwreck for numerous reasons.

I know you're probably absolutely correct, but it gets hard sometimes to believe when it's open season on Mike seemingly 24/7 on this board.

[HeyJude]

I know you're probably absolutely correct, but it gets hard sometimes to believe when it's open season on Mike seemingly 24/7 on this board.

One potential source of the criticisms would be overzealous, biased fans. That is the cause sometimes. As I've often said, I think there are really very few folks on this board that fall firmly into that category.

Other times, especially when the critical comments are not random or unprompted, but are made in reaction to a particular discussion topic, or article, interview, etc., then I think it's more about the source rather than those reacting to it.

In other words, maybe sometimes (or often, or usually; opinions vary of course) Mike gets criticized because he does or says things that warrant criticism.

[GhostyTMRS]

I'm pretty sure Brian has talked about doing a covers album in the past, long before C50 (just like that "rock and roll" album he's talked about since the 90's: see "Imagination" promo material). While I'd much rather hear new material from Brian (even if it's all co-writes with Joe Thomas) and I'm excited about NPP, it's certainly plausible that Brian would suggest doing an album of covers and Mike would be "stoked" about it, considering Brian's done a ton of them his whole professional life and obviously must love recording them.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Capitol chose the songs for inclusion on TWGMTR and the album's producer and executive producer were mostly in the dark about what was going to be on it. Personally I had always assumed the surplus of material that was rejected from those sessions would constitute the next Beach Boys album, if there was ever going to be one. Considering there's also a large chunk of material that was recorded for NPP but has been left off....there's a future box set in there somewhere.