Mike the dominant creative force when it came to conceptual content?

[Lee Marshall]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didn't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

[Wirestone]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didn't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didn't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

Mike has an undeniable charisma??? Where, what, how, why and really?  That's  an obvious head(with hair) scratcher. 

[Cam Mott]

Clay, Mike didn't say that either. He said "lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship". So when he and Brian wrote together, not he and Brian and somebody else, in a relationship he had always come up with more of the lyrics and concepts. Not all but more.

I didn't say they don't mean what they say, I'm saying he and Marilyn mean what they say.

Re. your small hand full of song titles: always dominant lyrically/conceptually in their songwriting relationship is the claim so that could be Mike being the lyrical/conceptual guy once more than half or a few less than all or somewhat more than Brian all of the time. You are challenging Mike's claim, what have you got?

I have a basic understanding of the band's history. Also general usage of the English language.

I would ask you this: Are you seriously suggesting that "I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship" means simply that Mike came up with full lyrics and concepts for 50 percent +1 of the songs he's credited with co-writing?

Because that sure doesn't square with the sense of Mike's statement, or any definition of "always" or "dominant" that I know. Here's one definition of "dominant," just for kicks: "commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others." So it's not just a simple substitution for the word "more." If one goes by the precise meaning of the word, it goes far further, in influence and extent.

I have a basic understanding of the band's history and also general usage of the English language as well.

That is an incomplete explanation and only one possibility but we agree that no it isn't that simple. Here's another definition of "dominant" just for kicks: "predominant; main; major; chief".

It does square with my sense of the statement and your sense of the statement is contradicted by the statement itself imo. I've already given my opinion and my reasons. We just won't agree on this for now.

[guitarfool2002]

My statement was aimed at the usual suspects who do have a personal dislike for Mike and it seems to cloud their judgement on interpretating everything the man does and says. It certainly has clouded this thread. I'd always just assumed it was a given that it was recognised in Mike and Brian's songwriting relationship, that it was predominantly Mike who came up with the lyrics/subject matter while the music and arrangements were almost exclusively Brian's. It's kind of surreal to see people claiming otherwise.

Maybe your assumption of this isn't as accurate as you think. At least, perhaps, not as accurate to allow that assumption to include each and every collaboration the two worked on.

With Good Vibrations, for the record, I do think Mike's lyrics were the better choice and made for a better song overall. However, the boy-girl element of that lyric was already in place in Tony's original lyrics, as others here have pointed out. So using the "interpretations" of Mike's answer to carry over to include that song's concept and subject matter doesn't hold up for obvious reasons. The most obvious being the boy-girl theme was already there before Mike wrote lyrics for it. The concept was there before Mike worked on it. Mike expanded on what was already there, exactly what he did when he reworked and revised John Phillips' "Kokomo".

And we'd also have to assume that Brian's working methods with his previous lyricists and collaborators like Roger Christian and Gary Usher were either totally different than those times he wrote with Mike, or we have to assume that lyrically Brian didn't bring as much of a lyrical and conceptual contribution into *those* collaborations, and we know that's not true. Example, Gary Usher did not bring the concept of "In My Room" into that song, that was Brian. Some of the Roger Christian car song lyrics, Brian had Roger grab the correct slang and lingo to be accurate but the song concepts themselves can't be pegged so definitely to Roger Christian's dominance in that collaboration. It simply was not that clear-cut as a general rule. At least not enough to use the word "always".

So Brian and Mike must have had a different method of collaborating than anyone else Brian worked with, Mike took the lead in bringing in the concept and the lyrics to the point where Brian basically stuck only to the music as Mike dominated the conceptual and thematic creation process...yet we know in the most obvious cases like Good Vibrations, even I Get Around (where Brian had the "I get around, from town to town, I'm a real cool head... section pretty much in place, right? And Mike added the hook "round round get around, I get around...), it didn't play out as consistently across the board as Mike's answer seemed to be describing it. Brian had "good, good, good...good vibrations, yeah" to which Mike translated into the hook "I'm picking up good vibrations" which was pinned to the bass line melody Brian also had in place on the earlier takes.

So once again, that particular song's actual, factual history doesn't back up the way others here are using it to "interpret" what Mike said, in any way. The concept was there, the concept was there in the lyrics about good vibrations and a boy picking them up from a girl...Mike ran with it, revised and reshaped it using the same basic concept as Asher, and delivered the goods.

But it wasn't his concept any more than Wouldn't It Be Nice or or In My Room or Little Deuce Coupe were dominated by the lyricist of those tunes. They each talked, they each shared, they each listened...and the songs took shape. That's how Brian collaborated, that's how the songs took shape, it *has* to be a give and take and a sharing process to work as well as it did. Now we're to believe that process was completely different with songs he wrote with Mike? Brian's lyrical contributions were "always" that slim as to justify this conclusion? "Lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

Was the conceptual aspect of the Wilson-Asher tracks on Pet Sounds dominated by Asher's concepts, or did Asher write from the conversations he had with Brian about each song?  Brian fed him the ideas, they talked at length about the subject matter of each song (i.e. the concepts behind each song), Brian gave him the musical feels, and Tony put them into more organized verse. Roger and Gary did that same exact thing when they collaborated with Brian. I guess some are suggesting Mike did not as a general rule?

Point is, Brian wasn't just showing up with chords and a few rough musical ideas only to have Mike or any other lyricist-collaborator completely take over the process or the subject matter to suit their needs. That just isn't what happened with Mike, Roger, Gary, Tony, etc, and if it did happen on a few occasions perhaps, it can't be translated into the kind of wording as we just read in that interview.

[Wirestone]

Cam, you first wrote that:

always dominant lyrically/conceptually in their songwriting relationship is the claim so that could be Mike being the lyrical/conceptual guy once more than half or a few less than all or somewhat more than Brian all of the time.

Then I asked you whether:

"I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship" means simply that Mike came up with full lyrics and concepts for 50 percent +1 of the songs he's credited with co-writing.

And you replied:

That is an incomplete explanation and only one possibility but we agree that no it isn't that simple

Seems to me as though you're acknowledging you painted yourself into a corner with your earlier argument. And if that's the case, do you now believe that Mike was exaggerating?

You also write:

Here's another definition of "dominant" just for kicks: "predominant; main; major; chief"

And that means 50 percent +1?

Here's another question. Surely something in Mike's statement is hitting a nerve with people. Mike's interviews tend to lead to long threads here, but I can't recall another one in which it was his descriptions of co-writing that sparked debate. And we've both been around a long time. So why do you think this interview led to such discussion? I mean, it's not like it's a thread featuring OSD solo. Folks like Billy and GF and Howie have interpreted something condescending and false about the statement as well. Why do you think that is?

[Wirestone]

Well, GF just said it better and more completely than I could ever hope to.

That's the whole point in a nutshell. What we know about Brian's working methods just does not square with Mike's statement, in whatever reading of it you choose to believe.

(For that matter, how "conceptual" is it to decide to put sad words to a sad melody? The very chords and music chosen create a concept. And Mike isn't known for writing sets of lyrics and bringing them to Brian. It's always been him writing to Brian's melodies, whether pounded out on the piano or already recorded in the studio.)

[Mike's Beard]

My statement was aimed at the usual suspects who do have a personal dislike for Mike and it seems to cloud their judgement on interpretating everything the man does and says. It certainly has clouded this thread. I'd always just assumed it was a given that it was recognised in Mike and Brian's songwriting relationship, that it was predominantly Mike who came up with the lyrics/subject matter while the music and arrangements were almost exclusively Brian's. It's kind of surreal to see people claiming otherwise.

But that's not what Mike said.

If that was what Mike said, there would be no thread.

Some folks' overwhelming sympathies toward Mike are clouding their ability to see how he comes off. And not just here, but for the last quarter century.

Let's look at two statements. See if you can spot the difference.

1.) I was usually the guy who came up with the lyrics and subject matter when we wrote together.

2.) Lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship.

One is plainspoken, but still making a point. One is bloated with self importance and superlatives to the point of hilarious falsity.

Both statements are essentially saying the same thing. I grant you the way Mike chose to word his views are not the most tactful or modest usuage of the English language but as pointed out Mike is a bragger. He's never been one shy of tooting his own horn and for anyone to expect him to stop at 74 is unrealistic. It just doesn't bug me like it does some people, I just sort of roll my eyes and think 'that's our Mike' and move on.

[Mike's Beard]

Well, GF just said it better and more completely than I could ever hope to.

That's the whole point in a nutshell. What we know about Brian's working methods just does not square with Mike's statement, in whatever reading of it you choose to believe.

Does it though? Brian could have had a totally different working relationship with collaborators outside of the band to the one he had with Mike.

(For that matter, how "conceptual" is it to decide to put sad words to a sad melody? The very chords and music chosen create a concept. And Mike isn't known for writing sets of lyrics and bringing them to Brian. It's always been him writing to Brian's melodies, whether pounded out on the piano or already recorded in the studio.)

I'll agree with you there, Brian's music obviously dicitated the tone of what Mike was going to sing about.

[Pretty Funky]

Mike doesn't take enough pride in certain undeniable facts IMO. Whether you like it or not he has been a force in keeping the band touring with some pretty sweet set-lists. A consistent performer over 100 plus shows a year regardless of the venue size. The constant presence of the bands name over that period has probably helped in record sales and radio play.

He should sing those praises more than the creative aspect as they could be claimed to be just as important.

[Cam Mott]

I haven't seen anyone claim there wasn't back and forth or that Mike was responsible for every lyric and concept. Mike only claims he did more of it, was dominant, in the lyrics and concepts in their relationship.  Not other collaborators', just Mike and Brian's.

"Concept" seems to be the sticking point.  "Concept" does not mean only original idea, it also means a general idea or understanding of something, a plan, a unifying idea or theme.

[Lee Marshall]

Mike doesn't take enough pride in certain undeniable facts IMO. Whether you like it or not he has been a force in keeping the band touring with some pretty sweet set-lists. A consistent performer over 100 plus shows a year regardless of the venue size. The constant presence of the bands name over that period has probably helped in record sales and radio play.

He should sing those praises more than the creative aspect as they could be claimed to be just as important.

True.[escept maybe for the radio play.]

[Howie Edelson]

No.

The sticking point is not the word "dominant," but the words "dominant creative force."

And the REAL sticking point is that that comment (along with that transparent travesty of Beard's “interview”) is that it seems that Mike is setting things up to change history, presumably for his book. What I find interesting is that Mike’s supporters are ALWAYS claiming a bias from others against him because of the things he says when they knock Brian Wilson.

For DECADES Mike talks about Brian’s mental, emotional, and substance issues with abandon.
When was the last time you heard Brian (or Melinda) discuss Mike in any negative light?
They haven’t.

I fear that that will be the crux of Mike’s book: BRIAN WILSON’S STORY THROUGH THE EYES OF MIKE LOVE. Because that’s the story of the band, they were all -- even Dennis -- satellites of BW. What's Mike really going to write about? HIS songs? HIS marriages? HIS kids?

Two themes: Brian and TM.

This book is his last shot at public redemption. I know his people read this board, so I’m gonna say it straight to them: Do the right thing. Don’t hire fact checkers to change history to present situations in a positive light when they weren’t. Own up to how it went down. Brian Wilson has. Everyone will appreciate an honest Mike Love book that simply calls it like he sees it rather than taking away from Brian Wilson’s gifts and catalogue. His life has been a fascinating enough journey without having to do that.

If Mike and his staff go with “That’s mine/that’s me” they lose -- especially after Love And Mercy.
Trying to knock/hurt this guy is the dumbest (professionally and monetarily) thing they can do.
They will be SLAUGHTERED by the press.

“Dominant creative force" is a red flag, and Mike Love’s supporters on this board always end up spending weeks arguing semantics (e.g. what words REALLY mean), this thread has become that now, too.

Cam -- the lesson is as old as the ages: If you have to s hit on someone to win, you don’t win.

Stop fighting.
Go outside.
Kiss your kids.
Have fun.
I love you.

[filledeplage]

Is it fair to say that Mike Love's lyrics to "Spring Vacation" proves that he was the dominant creative force in selling fans the fact that C50 symbolized the FUTURE of the BB's? (No mention of an "end date" anywhere that I can recall. . . )

Hmmmm.  Just a few tweaks and…

Driving around living the dream
I'm crusin' the town, diggin' the scene
I'm not gonna stress, not gonna worry
Doing our best, no need to hurry
Lookin' ahead with anticipation
To the set end date of this celebration
Seems like it could take forever
Al even thinks we can all stay together

Maybe Joe Thomas did some editorial work. It would explain why Mike doesn't want him in the "room"!

Cyncie - last night, on AXSTV, I caught Fleetwood Mac. It was a Joe Thomas production.  And, found it was excellent. I gotta give the "devil his due" for this one. Superb.  But, must admit I know their work less well as compared to the BB's. Other big FM fans might think I'm off base.  But the video is great.

And I'm one of those in the minority who likes Stars and Stripes, for the "concept" ( a semantic ) of bringing the country headliners with the BB's.  His lyrics are another story, and I would agree it is not his "strong suit."

[Mike's Beard]

No.

The sticking point is not the word "dominant," but the words "dominant creative force."

And the REAL sticking point is that that comment (along with that transparent travesty of Beard's “interview”) is that it seems that Mike is setting things up to change history, presumably for his book. What I find interesting is that Mike’s supporters are ALWAYS claiming a bias from others against him because of the things he says when they knock Brian Wilson.

For DECADES Mike talks about Brian’s mental, emotional, and substance issues with abandon.
When was the last time you heard Brian (or Melinda) discuss Mike in any negative light?
They haven’t.

I fear that that will be the crux of Mike’s book: BRIAN WILSON’S STORY THROUGH THE EYES OF MIKE LOVE. Because that’s the story of the band, they were all -- even Dennis -- satellites of BW. What's Mike really going to write about? HIS songs? HIS marriages? HIS kids?

Two themes: Brian and TM.

This book is his last shot at public redemption. I know his people read this board, so I’m gonna say it straight to them: Do the right thing. Don’t hire fact checkers to change history to present situations in a positive light when they weren’t. Own up to how it went down. Brian Wilson has. Everyone will appreciate an honest Mike Love book that simply calls it like he sees it rather than taking away from Brian Wilson’s gifts and catalogue. His life has been a fascinating enough journey without having to do that.

If Mike and his staff go with “That’s mine/that’s me” they lose -- especially after Love And Mercy.
Trying to knock/hurt this guy is the dumbest (professionally and monetarily) thing they can do.
They will be SLAUGHTERED by the press.

“Dominant creative force" is a red flag, and Mike Love’s supporters on this board always end up spending weeks arguing semantics (e.g. what words REALLY mean), this thread has become that now, too.

Cam -- the lesson is as old as the ages: If you have to s hit on someone to win, you don’t win.

Stop fighting.
Go outside.
Kiss your kids.
Have fun.
I love you.

I honestly hope Mike's book will not be a hatchet job on Brian because (1) I really want to hear Mike's lifestory and (2) this board will self destruct if it is.
However realistically, to some on this board and elsewhere the man cannot say or do no right. Let's just remember that there are always two sides to each story and both men are going to air theirs. Somewhere between the two will lie the truth.

[Sheriff John Stone]

No.

The sticking point is not the word "dominant," but the words "dominant creative force."

Yeah, but you - and others - are conveniently and repeatedly leaving out the words "lyrically" and "in that relationship". And, including those words makes all the difference. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, knowing that you are a seeker of THE TRUTH!

[Cam Mott]

Howie,

I just respectfully disagree on this Mike quote.

I'm not going to pre-judge Mike's (or Brian's) book but I don't want Mike's book to be that either.

Even though we've never met, I respect your work and participation with us, and I love you too.

(I am saying that without irony just so there isn't any Internety misunderstanding.)

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Howie,

I just respectfully disagree on this Mike quote.

I'm not going to pre-judge Mike's (or Brian's) book but I don't want Mike's book to be that either

Even though we've never met, I respect your work and participation with us, and I love you too.

(I am saying that without irony just so there isn't any Internety misunderstanding.)

   WTF  

[clack]

What is a song concept?

For instance, the concept for 'Surfin' USA' isn't "surfing", it's "if everyone in the US had an ocean like California's, then everyone would be surfing like we do here". That concept was gold -- it made the record a nation-wide hit, it made surfing a subject of interest even for kids in the Midwest, and it helped make Southern California the center of youth culture.

I don't know whether it was Mike or Brian who came up with the concept, but the record is carried by the melody, the vocals, the arrangement, and the concept. The job of the lyrics is to put across the concept in a concrete way. That 's the way most Beach Boys songs work -- it's not so much the lyrics as the idea behind the lyrics.

Now, I have a feeling that Mike may be exaggerating a bit on the "lyrically and conceptually" front. Maybe Mike came up with only 60% of the concepts, say. Is 60% dominating? I'd say not, though others may differ.

But this is one of the reasons why I believe that Mike's book has the potential to be the most important yet on the subject of the Beach Boys, if the book goes into detail on how the songs came to be written, and who contributed what.

[drbeachboy]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didnh't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

Mike has an undeniable charisma??? Where, what, how, why and really?   That's  an obvious head(with hair) scratcher.  

What I find the most interesting with you and Mike is that you both are so much alike. Especially, the way you both stick with the same lines. It really gets to be hard to take what either of you say seriously when the message never changes.

Happy Mother's Day to all of you lovely mothers who post here and to all of the rest here and their lovely mothers.

[Cam Mott]

I take it we're all just speculating on who did how much of what on most of the songs with any of his collaborators?  I do wonder why Brian would write so few songs alone and want so many collaborators if he was the one who was dominant in the lyrical/conceptual side.

[Robbie Mac]

You don't have to be the sole lyricist to be creattively dominant. Sometimes, a lyricist will "translate" someone else's grand concepts or ideas.

[filledeplage]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didnh't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

Mike has an undeniable charisma??? Where, what, how, why and really?   That's  an obvious head(with hair) scratcher.  

What I find the most interesting with you and Mike is that you both are so much alike. Especially, the way you both stick with the same lines. It really gets to be hard to take what either of you say seriously when the message never changes.

Happy Mother's Day to all of you lovely mothers who post here and to all of the rest here and their lovely mothers.

Thanks for that Happy Mother's Day wish - Dr.BB   - in Stevie Nick's fairly recent DVD, which has been on Netflix, she discusses her creative "process" which begins with "verse" or poetry...so this hotly debated "chicken or egg" and the "value" attributed to any artist is up for semantic debate.  And it seems that the creative process is very difficult to quantify.  Her process might be different from the BB's. 

The "verse" could, in some cases precede the "melody" so I'm thinking maybe this process (which I'm not familiar with as a non-artist) might be an amalgam of sorts.  And, I'm considering all the options, here! 

[Ang Jones]

No.

The sticking point is not the word "dominant," but the words "dominant creative force."

Yeah, but you - and others - are conveniently and repeatedly leaving out the words "lyrically" and "in that relationship". And, including those words makes all the difference. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, knowing that you are a seeker of THE TRUTH!

You've left one out as well. 'Conceptually'.  If we define concept as a unifying idea or theme, I don't think Mike has a very strong argument. The unifying themes of surfing and drag racing were surely inspired by Dennis. Mike used TM as a theme, otherwise some of the concept albums and concepts in the songs, were not down to Mike but to others including Van Dyke Parks and Brian himself. Mike wrote many lyrics, admittedly but to claim he was 'always the dominant creative force in that relationship' is untrue because it suggests that his lyrics were more creative than Brian's music.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didnh't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

Mike has an undeniable charisma??? Where, what, how, why and really?   That's  an obvious head(with hair) scratcher.  

What I find the most interesting with you and Mike is that you both are so much alike. Especially, the way you both stick with the same lines. It really gets to be hard to take what either of you say seriously when the message never changes.

Happy Mother's Day to all of you lovely mothers who post here and to all of the rest here and their lovely mothers.

And I try so damn hard to painstakingly craft my posts so even you'll like them. Man, I'm soooo sorry! I will undoubtedly be doubling my efforts. And knowing that you are one of myKe's steadfast lieutenants, I guess I have to thank you for putting me right up there with the LuhVster on your most liked list. Let's see, only 5 more wives to go and I'll really be...  ...