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

[John Malone]

I completely agree that Mike Love was way out of line with his "probably" stance and should never have shined any light of attention on Evan Landy. However, as a casual observer over the years, I must nominate this thread for the "Bring Out the Worst in People" award for its sheer ugliness and petty personal nature of the commentary among many posters.

[John Manning]

I completely agree that Mike Love was way out of line with his "probably" stance and should never have shined any light of attention on Evan Landy. However, as a casual observer over the years, I must nominate this thread for the "Bring Out the Worst in People" award for its sheer ugliness and petty personal nature of the commentary among many posters.

Well said. This thread doesn't resemble the board I've been hanging out these last years. Naive old me has had a lesson in human realities. Ugly.

[Douchepool]

I completely agree that Mike Love was way out of line with his "probably" stance and should never have shined any light of attention on Evan Landy. However, as a casual observer over the years, I must nominate this thread for the "Bring Out the Worst in People" award for its sheer ugliness and petty personal nature of the commentary among many posters.

Well said. This thread doesn't resemble the board I've been hanging out these last years. Naive old me has had a lesson in human realities. Ugly.

+1

[Lee Marshall]

Yet it happens every week.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Boy this thread would've been real dull if he just said "No, I haven't seen it yet but I'm looking forward to it... it might dredge up some painful memories, but I'm proud of my cousin and what he's managed to achieve despite all the challenges he's had to face." and then just moved on. It wouldn't be Mike Love then, tho.... would it. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!

[CenturyDeprived]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

I took it you were making some kind of a comparison and the original statement was by Mike commenting on a relationship between Brian and Landy but had your example had the two in the relationship, Mike and Brian, commenting on each other rather than someone commenting on their relationship. So I made it Landy commenting on a relationship between Brian and Mike so the circumstance fit the comparison you were trying to make.

I was demonstrating the meaning of "probably".  If Brian said that Mike "probably" wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations he would be leaving room for doubt, because regardless of the level of likelihood implied by the word, it stops short of certainty...because that is the definition of probable/probably.

It does not matter who is asking/answering the question.  What matters is the meaning of the word.  Mike used to speak with certainty in regards to Landy's methods, and for that he should be commended.  But now, for reasons unknown to me, he reserves certainty only for Landy's money grab and speaks of his methods/therapy in probability.  He leaves the door open for the possibility it wasn't all that bad.  And then he furthers the point by referring to the Evan Landy article.

But you won't address the clear distinction between his "hell yeah" and his "probably", which mystifies me as much as Mike's choice of words.

EoL

Yes, the meaning of "probably" with a better (imo) oranges to oranges comparison is also what I was demonstrating.  I did address it repeatedly, "probably" is still affirmation of his previously strongly stated (more strongly worded if you wish because it makes no difference) denouncement of Landy and no one has demonstrated anything different. You are welcome to continue in your own smug and dismissive semantic gymnastics and refusal to take an answer but you haven't negated Mike's public denouncements with your opinion or semantics.

Cam - you seem to be  very focused on the fact that years earlier, Mike did not use the term "probably" when referring to this situation.  Which I agree, it was a good thing.  But if Mike had in fact  regularly used that word all along, would it bother you then?   Or is it only because he previously stated how passionate he was against Landy that makes you feel confident that his current word usage is of no concern, due to him in the past speaking more harshly, relatively – speaking?

[CenturyDeprived]

You know, it occurs to me that if the people closest to Mike themselves did not in any way, shape or form, stand to lose or gain anything out of his own will, that perhaps those people who were so close to him probably might try to talk some sense into him about using such controversial and insensitive language regarding this subject.

Probably.

I find it hard to believe that the people around him would think this is a perfectly appropriate way of speaking.  If it had been one of Mike's own children who experienced what Brian experienced from a psycho shrink, would he use the same terminology then? I bet they would get offended over that .Maybe they don't think they could ever change the actions of a 74 –year-old man, but they really should still try (if they aren't already trying).

[Cam Mott]

I completely agree that Mike Love was way out of line with his "probably" stance and should never have shined any light of attention on Evan Landy. However, as a casual observer over the years, I must nominate this thread for the "Bring Out the Worst in People" award for its sheer ugliness and petty personal nature of the commentary among many posters.

Well said. This thread doesn't resemble the board I've been hanging out these last years. Naive old me has had a lesson in human realities. Ugly.

+1

+2

[Moon Dawg]

 Most would agree Mike Love came off as insensitive at best in the interview. Many on this board, or at least some, question what seems to be Cam's unwavering defense of Mike Love in any and all areas. But the personal attacks and bullying have become a bit much. Stop and think before you hit the "post" button.

  As stated, I believe so much of Mike's grudge centers around being deprived of so many songwriting credits for so many years. It was an injustice that impaired his rep with rock critics. Brian and Murry are/were not blameless. Why didn't Mike complain about this back in the 60s? Or did he?

  In retrospect it's obvious - the alpha male lyrics of "California Girls" are pure Mike Love. The Beach Boys needed this sort of cockiness, which Mike (and Dennis) brought  to the equation.

  While Brian Wilson was always the dominant force, the whole idea of the "Brian Wilson-Mike Love" songwriting team is less than it should be due to Mike's decades lack of lyrical credits. I do not shy away from being critical of Mike when he warrants it, and this interview is one of those times. I think he takes a perverse delight in ticking people off. Mike Love is indeed an eccentric.  

 

[Cam Mott]

  As stated, I believe so much of Mike's grudge centers around being deprived of so many songwriting credits for so many years. It was an injustice that impaired his rep with rock critics. Brian and Murry are/were not blameless. Why didn't Mike complain about this back in the 60s? Or did he?

 

Mike says he did and Brian told him he would do something about it but apparently it didn't ever happen. I'm guessing once the catalog was sold by Murry they both thought nothing could be done anymore.

[Moon Dawg]

  As stated, I believe so much of Mike's grudge centers around being deprived of so many songwriting credits for so many years. It was an injustice that impaired his rep with rock critics. Brian and Murry are/were not blameless. Why didn't Mike complain about this back in the 60s? Or did he?

 

Mike says he did and Brian told him he would do something about it but apparently it didn't ever happen. I'm guessing once the catalog was sold by Murry they both thought nothing could be done anymore.

 That makes sense. This is something I could see Brian not following through on, especially after Murry's deal. Mike has ticked me off many times but on this issue I see how he feels 100%. You would think the restored credits in the early 80s would have softened his grudge against Brian. But apparently not.

 Sometimes Mike's eccentricities are overlooked with all the Brian/Dennis/Murry drama, but I tell you the Love Man is one odd duck. I'm genuinely curious about the 1970 breakdown. Perhaps another thread. Please don't sue me Mike. 

[Douchepool]

Most would agree Mike Love came off as insensitive at best in the interview. Many on this board, or at least some, question what seems to be Cam's unwavering defense of Mike Love in any and all areas. But the personal attacks and bullying have become a bit much. Stop and think before you hit the "post" button.

+1

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Great buckets of bullshit! Mike Love could fart and you people would crucify him for that. Man o man if you despise the guy so much here's an idea.. Don't listen to the group he's in or see him in concert. There.. all better now we all can sleep tight now.

[Cam Mott]

They are all Wilsons I guess.

If Mike had/has a grudge it might also have something to do with the way it went down getting back that credit in the 90s.

[Douchepool]

Great buckets of bullshit! Mike Love could fart and you people would crucify him for that. Man o man if you despise the guy so much here's an idea.. Don't listen to the group he's in or see him in concert. There.. all better now we all can sleep tight now.

A net positive for humanity.

[CenturyDeprived]

Using the logic of anyone defending the usage of "probably"...

If Mike (or any member of the BB organization) had, at one or more earlier time(s), not used the word "probably", and had been more forceful in their language... but then years later softened their stance... it stands to reason that all of the following statements would have to be wholeheartedly unobjectionable if uttered in 2015 by that same member of the BB organization:

Mike probably got an unfair deal with songwriting credits in the 1960s.
Murry probably went too far in beating his kids.
Dennis probably drank too much.
Mike probably regrets the passing of two of his bandmates.
Mike probably doesn't currently have a full head of hair.
Brian was probably overweight in the 1970s.

I defy anyone here who defends Mike's usage of "probably" to additionally state that the term "probably" can rationally also be applied to any of the above statements.

If there's any difference in Mike's usage of "probably" compared to using "probably" in any of these statements, I'd sure like to know what that difference is. Much like the actual statement in question, the above are all preposterous (and in some cases, clearly offensive) statements. All are offbase and/or inappropriate. WHY is it so hard to see the same is true for the Landy comment???

(tumbleweeds)

This does not mean that Mike has to be a big, bad ogre. It just means that he used words in this instance that were not in keeping with reality.  

#probably
#derp
#derp
#derp
#flatearthsociety
#chickensh*t4evar
#derp

[drbeachboy]

Using the logic of anyone defending the usage of "probably"...

This does not mean that Mike has to be a big, bad ogre. It just means that he used words in this instance that were not in keeping with reality.

So, what do you suggest be done with him? How many more ways can we say that he was off-base, preposterous or used an inappropriate term? For this to go on for 24 pages does suggest Mike was being a "big, bad ogre" doesn't it?

[Douchepool]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[CenturyDeprived]

Using the logic of anyone defending the usage of "probably"...

This does not mean that Mike has to be a big, bad ogre. It just means that he used words in this instance that were not in keeping with reality.

So, what do you suggest be done with him? How many more ways can we say that he was off-base, preposterous or used an inappropriate term? For this to go on for 24 pages does suggest Mike was being a "big, bad ogre" doesn't it?

Nothing has to be done with Mike. The court of public opinion regarding this interview will have an effect, one way or another. A few posters on this board have said that this was the last straw, and that they won't be supporting the M&B show as a result of this.  Don't you think that's unfortunate? I do.

But ultimately, in answer to your question of what the point of a long thread is... the point is that the few straggling defenders have NOTHING to back up what they are grasping at straws trying to defend, and this should be regarded as a ridiculous "stance". The offensive examples of the use of the word "probably" which I listed off are equally ridiculous, and none of the "probably" defenders have said why those examples are so very different from Mike's example.

And everyone with an ounce of logic should think that the couple people still defending the usage of the term "probably" are way off-base, and should be called out on it by people across the political spectrum, including you (if you agree that they are off-base).

What this thread proves, above any other thread I can think of, is that there are a handful of people who cannot bring themselves to say a critical thing about anything that Mike says.

Don't you think?

That is a PROBLEM. A first-world problem, to be sure. Not on par with starvation and disease. But it's a problem on a discussion board. It's ABSURD.

I swear to you that if the couple of straggling defenders of the terminology had simply admitted that "probably" was not the best terminology to be used, that this thread would have ended AGES ago. Instead of focusing your reply to me, how about redirecting the frustration to the people who keep defending the use of probably without anything to back it up.

Why are they so afraid to reply to the question of appropriateness to the other "probably" scenarios? Hmm... could it be because they know that they are wrong, just as much as they know that Mike's "probably" was wrong? Do you think? Maybe, just maybe?

[Douchepool]

I think that Michael's use of "probably" was probably the wrong choice. Although he probably would have received a similar response if he left nothing up for debate. Probably.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think that Michael's use of "probably" was probably the wrong choice. Although he probably would have received a similar response if he left nothing up for debate. Probably.

In all honesty, and I know it's easy to make wordplay with the "probably" word (as I've done myself), but if we could check the sarcasm at the door for a moment (and I will do the same), would you honestly be willing to say that it was not the greatest choice of words (without preceding or following that statement with a "probably")? Because truthfully, a serious subject regarding a man nearly dying from being overly medicated should be a clear-cut statement that there is no room for any word indicating uncertainty.

Whether Landy saved Brian's life is a subject that people might debate for years to come; whether Landy subsequently went too far should be up for as much debate as a discussion about whether the Holocaust went "too far", or any other despicable act of human exploitation.

It's offensive on a basic level to anyone who thinks exploitation of vulnerable people is despicable, and even if it did not have some evil, ill intent behind it, it should be agreed that it was not a good term to use.

[John Manning]

Using the logic of anyone defending the usage of "probably"...

This does not mean that Mike has to be a big, bad ogre. It just means that he used words in this instance that were not in keeping with reality.

So, what do you suggest be done with him? How many more ways can we say that he was off-base, preposterous or used an inappropriate term? For this to go on for 24 pages does suggest Mike was being a "big, bad ogre" doesn't it?

Nothing has to be done with Mike. The court of public opinion regarding this interview will have an effect, one way or another. A few posters on this board have said that this was the last straw, and that they won't be supporting the M&B show as a result of this.  Don't you think that's unfortunate? I do.

But ultimately, in answer to your question of what the point of a long thread is... the point is that the few straggling defenders have NOTHING to back up what they are grasping at straws trying to defend, and this should be regarded as a ridiculous "stance". The offensive examples of the use of the word "probably" which I listed off are equally ridiculous, and none of the "probably" defenders have said why those examples are so very different from Mike's example.

And everyone with an ounce of logic should think that the couple people still defending the usage of the term "probably" are way off-base, and should be called out on it by people across the political spectrum, including you (if you agree that they are off-base).

What this thread proves, above any other thread I can think of, is that there are a handful of people who cannot bring themselves to say a critical thing about anything that Mike says.

Don't you think?

That is a PROBLEM. A first-world problem, to be sure. Not on par with starvation and disease. But it's a problem on a discussion board. It's ABSURD.

I swear to you that if the couple of straggling defenders of the terminology had simply admitted that "probably" was not the best terminology to be used, that this thread would have ended AGES ago. Instead of focusing your reply to me, how about redirecting the frustration to the people who keep defending the use of probably without anything to back it up.

Why are they so afraid to reply to the question of appropriateness to the other "probably" scenarios? Hmm... could it be because they know that they are wrong, just as much as they know that Mike's "probably" was wrong? Do you think? Maybe, just maybe?

You're probably thinking about this too much.

It's probably time this thread was put out of its misery.

[Douchepool]

In all honesty, and I know it's easy to make wordplay with the "probably" word (as I've done myself), but if we could check the sarcasm at the door for a moment (and I will do the same), would you honestly be willing to say that it was not the greatest choice of words (without preceding or following that statement with a "probably")? Because truthfully, a serious subject regarding a man nearly dying from being overly medicated should be a clear-cut statement that there is no room for any word indicating uncertainty.

Whether Landy saved Brian's life is a subject that people might debate for years to come; whether Landy subsequently went too far should be up for as much debate as a discussion about whether the Holocaust went "too far", or any other despicable act of human exploitation. It's offensive on a basic level to anyone who thinks exploitation of vulnerable people is despicable.

I've never denied that it was a poor choice of words. And I'm probably the biggest Kokomaoist here. It was a foot-in-mouth moment. Did Michael have an ulterior motive for his choice of words? Most likely not. I don't think he's that evil or that stupid.

You're probably thinking about this too much.

It's probably time this thread was out out of its misery.

+1

[drbeachboy]

Yes, it was a very bad choice of words. I can't do a damn thing about and it isn't worth getting in an uproar about.

I am not defending what he said, but people do use terms inappropriately. It happens all of the time. Watch the news sometime, somebody always has "foot in mouth disease". At this point, I really don't give two shits about what they say to or about each other. They never get as mad at each other as we do about them.

[John Manning]

They never get as mad at each other as we do about them.

+1 !