Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[filledeplage]

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

[Douchepool]

At least the good performances won't be wasted on them.

[HeyJude]

I don't get the anger over Mike Love's comments.  BW did have a rough, rough time, and Landy did save Brian's life, while providing him with the wrong medications and exploiting his fame and fortune.  What he said was basically true and said in response to a question about the movie that dealt with these issues.  I'm more interested in the accuracy of what he said about his involvement with Pet Sounds.   

I don't think there's much if anything in the interview that is factually, demonstrably false, and I don't think most of the understandably "bleccch" reaction has to do with the factual content of the interview.

I have a tough time believing much of anybody truly doesn't even *understand* why many if not most feel that the interview requires a deep, cleansing shower after reading it.

It's true, one shouldn't really be surprised by seeing an interview like this. But similarly, one shouldn't be surprised when said interview is called out for being another trainwreck, full of patronizing comments about Brian and self-serving commentary as usual.

Wirestone made a really good point: If this is what is said in a published interview, then wtf is being said behind closed doors, either indirectly or directly?

All of these guys have legit grips against other band members and against any number of other people or events. So why is it that Brian is able to get through interviews, including interviews with loaded questions about Mike (and the reunion, etc.), without making a bunch of d***head comments about Mike?

[marcusb]

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

I've seen Brian and I went to the 50th anniversary show. I had a great time at both. I know he praises Brian. Mike was great at the 50th show.. and then he went on to criticize the reunion publicly. At the show he was selling that new album.. really pumping it up. Later, he criticizes it.. because it didn't go to #1?! He takes a lot of cheap shots at Brian and others for just no good reason. So which Mike do you believe?

[Larry Franz]

I enjoy not reading Mike's interviews and wish I hadn't read this one. It's like he has a script that he can't avoid repeating, although the "probably" about Landy should be removed from future performances.

On judging people: We all make positive and negative judgments about public figures, given the information we have. The best way for Mike to avoid being judged negatively is to stop talking or at least change his script. Otherwise, he'll keep getting bad reviews.

[Empire Of Love]

"I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life.  Shocking maybe but their opinion."

Camster, you are too much.  Why did Mike despise Landy so much at the time?  Was it for the therapy or the things for which Mike says "hell yeah" (he was expensive) and "yes" (he wanted to write/produce with Brian)?  If it was for for the therapy, then what new information has he gained that has downgraded his stance to probably?  Was he there for the therapy at the time and he's forgotten, or was the money and co-writing all he ever cared about?  You've actually made the same case as the rest of us and you don't even realize it.

Here are Mike's comments:

"The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life."

Cam, what are the unethical, immoral, illegal behaviors Mike was so upset about at the time?  Please list them.  If this doesn't include the therapy, over medicating, etc...then it's just the money, right?  If it includes the therapy, why the down grade in opinion?  How is Mike so uncertain about the therapy when most of it is pretty public knowledge?

EoL

[Ang Jones]

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

You are wrong about this. I have seen the Beach Boys touring band. I saw them in 2004 because a friend asked my sister and me to accompany her. I booked to see them in 2011 but had to pass (having bought tickets) because of my mother's last illness. And again because of a friend, I saw them last year. The crowd enjoyed it. I thought it was quite lightweight, mainly with emphasis on material from the first 5 years of their career and a few songs that could be described as summer songs (Do It Again, Back to the Beach etc). I disliked the way the music was presented -  the beach balls, Mike's stage persona. Of course there was no antagonism as such - those with such strong feelings are not going to waste their money on tickets. I have heard Mike's praise of Brian. But I have also read - over and over again - the reminders that Brian did drugs. Refusing to see the band doesn't hurt me at all. Had I found the concert so enjoyable last year, of course I would have gone to see them again.

[HeyJude]

Regarding the “Mike praises Brian at concerts” thing, I have heard *multiple times* from multiple people who have taken non-fans or casual fans of the BB’s to shows where they literally come away with the impression based on Mike’s comments that Brian is dead and/or incapacitated or something to the point of not being able to perform anymore.

It used to often have the tone of “Brian’s great, wish he was here with us”, and that used to be true during certain periods of the band’s history where Brian *chose* to not be a part of it (although, certainly in the 80’s, some of that may been due more to Landy than Brian; read Gary Usher’s book to see how Landy was trying to get Brian *away* from the BB’s as much as possible except where he could use their name recognition and fame). Post-2012 though, that tone in Mike’s show comments is just weird, given Mike left Brian in 2012 while Brian wanted to be a Beach Boy.

[filledeplage]

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

You are wrong about this. I have seen the Beach Boys touring band. I saw them in 2004 because a friend asked my sister and me to accompany her. I booked to see them in 2011 but had to pass (having bought tickets) because of my mother's last illness. And again because of a friend, I saw them last year. The crowd enjoyed it. I thought it was quite lightweight, mainly with emphasis on material from the first 5 years of their career and a few songs that could be described as summer songs (Do It Again, Back to the Beach etc). I disliked the way the music was presented -  the beach balls, Mike's stage persona. Of course there was no antagonism as such - those with such strong feelings are not going to waste their money on tickets. I have heard Mike's praise of Brian. But I have also read - over and over again - the reminders that Brian did drugs. Refusing to see the band doesn't hurt me at all. Had I found the concert so enjoyable last year, of course I would have gone to see them again.

The 2015 band is not the 2004 band.

Sorry about your mom.  

Usually the audience brings the beach balls...and I agree,  they can be a distraction and cause risk to the band members...

[John Malone]

I think a few things reading Mike’s interview.

1) I think the BRI has no management (e.g. Yoko shows up for Meat Free Monday PR launches. McCartney walks the red carpet at Harrison docs. THAT brand is alive and well. Money flows. Happiness runs.)

2) Nothing in past and/or future dramatic portrayals of The BB’s will ever show a fairer presentation of Mike Love’s worries regarding the BRAND in 1966/67 than Love & Mercy. He was portrayed fairly.

3) For as much as he loves his cousin, Mike never seemed to get around to listen to BWPS, yet used every interviewer’s question regarding the set to expound on Brian’s past (at that point his 20-plus year-old in the past street drug abuse and off the rails unchecked mental health issues.) History is repeating itself. Let’s hope a spiteful unwarranted lawsuit doesn’t follow, as well. This thing is rounding third and he's on the wrong side of history. HIS "managers and handlers" are advising him (and by extension, his legacy) in a pitiful and needless manner. He will be remembered (if at all) by future generations as a HUN and he doesn't need to be.

4) (Somewhat unrelated, but then again, NOT) I see Jeff Foskett singing “I heard the word, wonderful thing, a children’s song” (from a song I believe Mike did NOT want included on C50) on YouTube with Mike & The Mechanics in Manchester and feel like I’ve been had. 

I can't imagine a more thankless job than the one held by BRI's Elliott Lott. Jesus.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

Cam: do the words "Tardive Dyskinesia"mean anything to you?

Brian apparently sadly acquired this lifetime, chronic problem/disability directly due to being over-medicated by Landy. Landy nearly killed him, and then tried to change Brian's will. How can these actions be quantified anything short of absofrigginlutely going too far? How can you defend the "probably" verbage in Mike's verbage without thinking that Tardive Dyskinesia and changing a will is not necessarily going too far?

"Probably" means "without much doubt", meaning that there's still the possibility for a little bit of doubt that those actions were acceptable, and were not beyond the bounds of "going too far".

I can understand that Mike (and others) can feel that Landy initially saved Brian's life, and I would not fault anyone for thinking or saying such... BUT it must also be said that he subsequently went too far, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do you still defend the usage of the word "probably"? Just admit he had an off day and said an inappropriate word, man. C'mon.

[Cam Mott]

"I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life.  Shocking maybe but their opinion."

Camster, you are too much.  Why did Mike despise Landy so much at the time?  Was it for the therapy or the things for which Mike says "hell yeah" (he was expensive) and "yes" (he wanted to write/produce with Brian)?  If it was for for the therapy, then what new information has he gained that has downgraded his stance to probably?  Was he there for the therapy at the time and he's forgotten, or was the money and co-writing all he ever cared about?  You've actually made the same case as the rest of us and you don't even realize it.

Here are Mike's comments:

"The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life."

Cam, what are the unethical, immoral, illegal behaviors Mike was so upset about at the time?  Please list them.  If this doesn't include the therapy, over medicating, etc...then it's just the money, right?  If it includes the therapy, why the down grade in opinion?  How is Mike so uncertain about the therapy when most of it is pretty public knowledge?

EoL

Thanks, you're too much too EoL.

Where I come from "probably" means you believe it but you can't be certain. I presume Mike means it in this way since he wasn't eyewitness to the therapy but we know he believes it because he went up against Landy over it and other crimes back in the day.

[Mike's Beard]

It's true, one shouldn't really be surprised by seeing an interview like this. But similarly, one shouldn't be surprised when said interview is called out for being another trainwreck, full of patronizing comments about Brian and self-serving commentary as usual.

Wirestone made a really good point: If this is what is said in a published interview, then wtf is being said behind closed doors, either indirectly or directly?

All of these guys have legit grips against other band members and against any number of other people or events. So why is it that Brian is able to get through interviews, including interviews with loaded questions about Mike (and the reunion, etc.), without making a bunch of d***head comments about Mike?

Brian may take the high road but he's also kept a tight lip at times when bandmembers could have used a little public support. Has he ever publicly apologized for the outright bullshit he allowed Landy to write in his 'autobiography' slamming Mike and Carl? Ever gone out of his way to let it be known that they are not the people the book portrayed them to be? Sometimes sitting back and saying nothing can be just as harmful as criticizing.

[Mike's Beard]

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

Cam: do the words "Tardive Dyskinesia"mean anything to you?

Brian apparently sadly acquired this lifetime, chronic problem/disability directly due to being over-medicated by Landy. Landy nearly killed him, and then tried to change Brian's will. How can these actions be quantified anything short of absofrigginlutely going too far? How can you defend the "probably" verbage in Mike's verbage without thinking that Tardive Dyskinesia and changing a will is not necessarily going too far?

No one is disputing that Landy's over medication did untold damage to Brian but it's unclear if Brian developed Tardive Dyskinesia as a result of it. A couple of posters in the medical profession have stated on the board in the past that Brian doesn't match the exact criteria to have this condition.

[HeyJude]

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but might it be a stretch to suggest Mike wasn’t privy in any way to the treatment aspect of Brian’s years with Landy? Obviously, he wasn’t intimately involved on a day-to-day basis, and there was plenty of estrangement. But I’ve read harrowing tales from folks who had far *less* contact with Brian and Landy than Mike would have had, who have reported troubling issues specifically concerning the treatment going on and Brian’s condition (as opposed to costs or writing credits). All of these people in the 80’s who have their one random weird eyewitness account of Brian being all f-ed up due to Landy, and Mike *never* saw something like that? He really only saw the bills and Landy trying to horn in on songwriting? Those stories of Brian taking a break during a Beach Boys business meeting and returning to the meeting a zombie, none of that stuff was ever witnessed by and/or filtered down to Mike?

There also appear to have been plenty of “stories” and “reports” filtering through the various organizations.

In my opinion, it appears Mike doesn’t want to directly and unequivocally endorse anything about the “Love & Mercy” film (due to whatever political, emotional, or ego, or whatever reasons), so he even has to slightly hedge on agreeing with a wholly negative portrayal of Eugene Landy himself. Again, as I mentioned before, this reeks of having a predisposition to not want to support the film, and then seeking out something (e.g. the Evan Landy piece) that might have an alternative point of view. How Mike doesn’t see that Evan Landy is *not* the credible guy you want to invoke when exploring an alternative viewpoint, I don’t know. And even if if you *didn’t* know anything about Evan Landy, his interview is far from a fair, level-headed, alternative viewpoint. He basically just ignored most of the accusations that have been made.

[Cam Mott]

Mike was asked to respond to a quoted characterization of an Associated Press review of the movie L&M.  So Mike is responding to that reviewer's characterization as not true. He has already explained he hasn't seen the movie yet but he is "anxious to see it to see what the whole story is".

If we're getting into specifics his comments still make no sense because the AP quote the interviewer asked about said nothing about Mike being totally against the release of Pet Sounds. The AP quote only talks about "bickering" and some of the bickering actually happened. It is Mike who brings up these ridiculous claims that he was against the release of Pet Sounds which isn't even in the movie.

Even though Mike has said he hasn't seen the movie the interviewer follows up with another claim about the movie's portrayal of Landy and asks him if Mike has a comment about the portrayal the interviewer read about in the movie Mike hasn't seen. So the interviewer is asking a question about stuff he read about the movie and Mike responds with something he read about the movie. He doesn't say Evan's "dissertation" is true or untrue or good or bad just an interesting read of "a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy".

No one here said any differently.

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

Mike wasn't in the therapy so he answered "probably" about it? I wasn't around Idi Amin during his reign of terror in Uganda, so he was only "probably" an evil man? It's called factual evidence, Cam. For flips sake. Landy was proven to have been overmedicating Brian, proven to have been blocking phone calls, proven to have changed Brian's will....and he "probably" overstepped the bounds of therapy? Also, as KDS points out: the fact that Landy saved Brian's life is not shocking, no one here holds that opinion.

1. The interviewer uses a quote from a reviewer about the movie regarding bickering during PS, Mike has just said he hasn't seen the movie and can't comment on it so he comments on how untrue the reviewer's characterization (and others) is about how it was with him and Brian during PS.  Not ridiculous at all, on topic and in context.

2. I didn't say anyone here HAD said anything different, I didn't see where anyone mentioned it at all but I haven't read every post.

3. See my post to EoL, please.

[ppk700]

It doesn't really show him against "Good Vibrations" tho, whoever told him that is clearly wrong. It shows him helping Brian at the piano with the song in a quite nice little moment, actually. That if he wasn't such a weirdo, he'd have seen and appreciated. Oh, I guess he means his character's outburst about the strings doing their staccato thing for hours? A scene meant to show BW's perfectionism in his pursuit of what he wanted more than just paint Mike Love as an asshole? It showed Dennis Wilson bored and plunking away at a piano before being shushed, does that means Dennis was against it too?

 One line of frustration in the studio does not equal him being "against Good Vibrations."

Precisely.

[HeyJude]

It's true, one shouldn't really be surprised by seeing an interview like this. But similarly, one shouldn't be surprised when said interview is called out for being another trainwreck, full of patronizing comments about Brian and self-serving commentary as usual.

Wirestone made a really good point: If this is what is said in a published interview, then wtf is being said behind closed doors, either indirectly or directly?

All of these guys have legit grips against other band members and against any number of other people or events. So why is it that Brian is able to get through interviews, including interviews with loaded questions about Mike (and the reunion, etc.), without making a bunch of d***head comments about Mike?

Brian may take the high road but he's also kept a tight lip at times when bandmembers could have used a little public support. Has he ever publicly apologized for the outright bullshit he allowed Landy to write in his 'autobiography' slamming Mike and Carl? Ever gone out of his way to let it be known that they are not the people the book portrayed them to be? Sometimes sitting back and saying nothing can be just as harmful as criticizing.

Sorry, but Brian allegedly “not apologizing” for the 1991 autobiography is not the same as Mike actively saying negative things about Brian in numerous published interviews.

We don’t know for certain whether Brian ever offered any apologies for that. I think it was understood, certainly by fans in any event, that the book was a direct result of an abusive situation Brian was in the midst of. Whether that absolves Brian of any blame in the matter, that’s certainly up for debate.

Brian reportedly *did* admit (perhaps under oath?) that he had never even read the book. He certainly admitted the book was a sham.

If Brian, after the book lawsuits and after being extricated from Landy, then *continued* to contend in interviews that the book was still valid and he stood by the content, then perhaps that would be a more comparable situation to these Mike interviews.

I would imagine Brian has been far from blameless concerning the billion different business, financial, political, personal, and emotional issues that have come up within the band over the years. For a random example, he clearly didn’t actively support Al in the late 90s/early 2000’s during all of those legal issues. He passively and/or actively helped craft the licensing situation to where it is today.

Brian has in past years occasionally been a bit snippy about some of the other BB’s. I wasn’t a fan of his occasional references in the 2000’s to his touring band being better than the Beach Boys (when he wasn’t just talking about musicianship). But by and large, and certainly post-C50, he has wisely stayed away from saying much of anything about Mike at all, and certainly anything negative.

But Mike’s interviews show an active, willing motivation. He sometimes goes to places the interviewers don’t even seem to ask him to go. He’s the only guy in the BB’s organization, full of largely wealthy, successful, wanting-for-nothing individuals, who still comes across as hugely disenfranchised. He’s got the license to use the BB name, he runs his own band, does exactly what he wants, and he’s still disenfranchised because someone made a movie about Brian Wilson, or because someone mentioned in passing that Brian’s solo album theoretically could have been a Beach Boys album had Mike not chose to leave Brian. 

[Sound of Free]

In the end, history repeats itself:

1. Mike gives an interview. Gets asked about Brian. Responds with typical answers.

I disagree with this. I normally stay out of these threads, and don't feel the need to bash Mike endlessly.

However, it's the one completely NON-typical answer, the sympathy for Landy, that's the one that most people are harping on and rightly so.

[CenturyDeprived]

In my opinion, it appears Mike doesn’t want to directly and unequivocally endorse anything about the “Love & Mercy” film (due to whatever political, emotional, or ego, or whatever reasons), so he even has to slightly hedge on agreeing with a wholly negative portrayal of Eugene Landy himself. Again, as I mentioned before, this reeks of having a predisposition to not want to support the film, and then seeking out something (e.g. the Evan Landy piece) that might have an alternative point of view. 

Exactly. It's such a blatant straw-grab to try and find a way to plant a tiny seed of doubt about the facts being portrayed in the film (as a whole). Hoping against hope that promoting Evan Landy's point of view helps the public perhaps take the film 0.01% less as gospel than they would otherwise. Mike's a real alternative kind of guy.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

Cam: do the words "Tardive Dyskinesia"mean anything to you?

Brian apparently sadly acquired this lifetime, chronic problem/disability directly due to being over-medicated by Landy. Landy nearly killed him, and then tried to change Brian's will. How can these actions be quantified anything short of absofrigginlutely going too far? How can you defend the "probably" verbage in Mike's verbage without thinking that Tardive Dyskinesia and changing a will is not necessarily going too far?

No one is disputing that Landy's over medication did untold damage to Brian but it's unclear if Brian developed Tardive Dyskinesia as a result of it. A couple of posters in the medical profession have stated on the board in the past that Brian doesn't match the exact criteria to have this condition.

If Landy's blatant ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR only strikes a "probably" on the Mike Standards For Abuse Meter®,  what type of abuses to Brian do you think Landy would have had to do to get a "hell yes" from Mike?

Your statement "No one is disputing that Landy's over medication did untold damage to Brian" is not really true; Mike is ever so slightly disputing it by quantifying it as "probably", leaving a seed of doubt that the untold damage was not going too far. Let's just all agree (I know you do agree, Mike's Beard, and I am glad you have said so) that this was really unacceptable, icky verbage which should not be defended (but continues to be defended by approximately two people on this board, who cannot seem to find fault in that verbage).

[Mike's Beard]

Thanks CD.

[HeyJude]

There are some people whose speech pattern is such that they understate consistently, they hedge on everything. Some people say “probably” about something they firmly believe, but their personality or pattern of speech is such that they have to be overly-humble and hedge. You know, the sort who would say “I think it’s probably a bad idea to shop lift” or something.

However, someone who in the very same paragraph offers an emphatic “hell yes!” doesn’t fit this pattern.

This is the same sort of grudging partial agreement stuff we see quite often. Random example: The interview bit with Mike from “Endless Harmony” where he’s talking about Smile-era stuff and says that “some people” like that stuff. That is most assuredly not an untrue statement. But it sounds like a guy who has to grudgingly admit that some people like it, knowing that it’s not the type of musical vision *he* had for the band, and was written largely with a co-writer who was not him, and a writer that he had issues with to boot.

[Ang Jones]

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

You are wrong about this. I have seen the Beach Boys touring band. I saw them in 2004 because a friend asked my sister and me to accompany her. I booked to see them in 2011 but had to pass (having bought tickets) because of my mother's last illness. And again because of a friend, I saw them last year. The crowd enjoyed it. I thought it was quite lightweight, mainly with emphasis on material from the first 5 years of their career and a few songs that could be described as summer songs (Do It Again, Back to the Beach etc). I disliked the way the music was presented -  the beach balls, Mike's stage persona. Of course there was no antagonism as such - those with such strong feelings are not going to waste their money on tickets. I have heard Mike's praise of Brian. But I have also read - over and over again - the reminders that Brian did drugs. Refusing to see the band doesn't hurt me at all. Had I found the concert so enjoyable last year, of course I would have gone to see them again.

The 2015 band is not the 2004 band.

Sorry about your mom.  

Usually the audience brings the beach balls...and I agree,  they can be a distraction and cause risk to the band members...

Thanks for your kind comments about my Mum.

Of course, the M&B Beach Boys have changed since 2004 - not a lot though since 2014, when I last saw them.

[Autotune]

I'll say it again: Mike battled Landy publically back in the day when it needed to be done. That his opinions in an interview 25 years after the fact don't match our wording or our concept doesn't mean he has to be written off as a jerk. And may I remind you the crap that he, along with Brian's family including his mother had to endure back then.

A book that appeared under Brian's name treated Carl as an alcoholic and blamed him for Dennis' death (i.e. delaying treatment with Dr. Landy); it went as far as removing praising of Carl in the segments it plagiarized from other writings; and Mike is portrayed as a giant-turd-shitting bully. Those people had to endure some utter crap themselves, and while Brian was the real victim of the situation, those things are hard to overlook, specially under the light of Brian's tight-lipped silence the last couple of decades as a previous poster mentions.

A 1991 People mag article may illustrate some of the points here.

Lovely thoughts from Brian to his mother:
"The fact that my mother is involved against me in this conservatorship suit really scrambles my brain... I hate to say this, but I don't think she loves me." And does he love her? "Somewhat," he replies.


Mike's take on Landy, which is not that differet from his statements in the 2015 interview:
Mike Love agrees—to a point. "Gene might have saved his life," he says, "but he went from psychologist to life manager, and that's way beyond the bounds of standard ethical procedures." Particularly rankling to Love are the facts that Landy has become involved in guiding Brian's musical career and that Brian will not write or record with the Beach Boys. "Gene doesn't want us around Brian, because were he to record with us again and be successful with the Beach Boys, it would prove that he doesn't need Landy anymore," says Love. "Brian has been with him since 1983 and hasn't had any success, while we've enjoyed one of our biggest records [the vapid 1988 hit "Kokomo"] since then." Love, who very much wants to collaborate with Brian again for a much-needed Beach Boy renaissance, adds, "The thing about Landy is that he has all the ambition of a rock musician but none of the talent."


And Landy's opinion on Mike. I'm sure many here will sympathize with the lyricist of Smart Girls:
"Mike wants commercialism, and Brian wants art," says Landy. "Mike would write a song about the Vietcong if he thought it would sell. Mike still wants sand, surf, sun and screwing in his songs. Brian grew out of that phase in 1966 with Pet Sounds."