Why do you hate Mike Love?

[clack]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

[Cam Mott]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

[CenturyDeprived]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

[Mike's Beard]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian? 

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

[CenturyDeprived]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

That may be true… But  hypothetically speaking, if it was going to come down to any one member having complete control over the brand name from 1980 to present, if somehow that power-play had actually happened… if that was a scenario that was going to play out, with one member having complete control over the live show performance aspect, over how the band was being promoted, and over projects, both new material and historical box set releases,  would Mike have been the best person for that?  With Mike wielding that much control, would we still have gotten the Pet Sounds Sessions box, Smile Sessions box? Would we have been gifted with multiple other albums like SIP? What do you think?

[bgas]

It's a sad day ( most every day lately) when the thread at the top of the page has hate for ANY of the members of the BBs a a title. This is just wrong. 

as to the what-ifs, if that's all there is to talk about, it'd be better just not

[Emdeeh]

It's a sad day ( most every day lately) when the thread at the top of the page has hate for ANY of the members of the BBs a a title. This is just wrong.

Amen to that!

[GhostyTMRS]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

That may be true… But  hypothetically speaking, if it was going to come down to any one member having complete control over the brand name from 1980 to present, if somehow that power-play had actually happened… if that was a scenario that was going to play out, with one member having complete control over the live show performance aspect, over how the band was being promoted, and over projects, both new material and historical box set releases,  would Mike have been the best person for that?  With Mike wielding that much control, would we still have gotten the Pet Sounds Sessions box, Smile Sessions box? Would we have been subjected to multiple other albums like SIP? What do you think?

Well, that's like asking what would've happened if Joe Walsh replaced Al or if The Beach Boys collaborated with Depeche Mode?  But the same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show. All of these veteran 60's acts were attempting to stay relevant in the 80's and pretty much failing across the board. The Rolling Stones released "Dirty Work" (their worst album ever), Bob Dylan had synthesizers on his records (God help us!) and Paul McCartney made "Give My Regards To Broad Street" and on and on it goes. With the CD boom of the late 80's/early 90's it became apparent pretty quickly that these 60's acts stood a much better chance at making money and (most importantly) bolstering ticket sales by issuing archival projects. If Bob Dylan, who notoriously hates the fan worship of his 60's catalog, would green light something like his Bootleg Series, it would stand to reason that if any one Beach Boy was put in charge of their recorded output they'd be okaying reissues galore (as they all have) because that's where the money is.  

[Cam Mott]

Well, that's like asking what would've happened if Joe Walsh replaced Al or if The Beach Boys collaborated with Depeche Mode?

Or Al replaced Mike with Peter Cetera.

[CenturyDeprived]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

That may be true… But  hypothetically speaking, if it was going to come down to any one member having complete control over the brand name from 1980 to present, if somehow that power-play had actually happened… if that was a scenario that was going to play out, with one member having complete control over the live show performance aspect, over how the band was being promoted, and over projects, both new material and historical box set releases,  would Mike have been the best person for that?  With Mike wielding that much control, would we still have gotten the Pet Sounds Sessions box, Smile Sessions box? Would we have been subjected to multiple other albums like SIP? What do you think?

Well, that's like asking what would've happened if Joe Walsh replaced Al or if The Beach Boys collaborated with Depeche Mode?  But the same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show. All of these veteran 60's acts were attempting to stay relevant in the 80's and pretty much failing across the board. The Rolling Stones released "Dirty Work" (their worst album ever), Bob Dylan had synthesizers on his records (God help us!) and Paul McCartney made "Give My Regards To Broad Street" and on and on it goes. With the CD boom of the late 80's/early 90's it became apparent pretty quickly that these 60's acts stood a much better chance at making money and (most importantly) bolstering ticket sales by issuing archival projects. If Bob Dylan, who notoriously hates the fan worship of his 60's catalog, would green light something like his Bootleg Series, it would stand to reason that if any one Beach Boy was put in charge of their recorded output they'd be okaying reissues galore (as they all have) because that's where the money is.  

No, it's simply asking if one member of this band was able to dictate the direction, to nix what they saw fit to nix, and for things to happen the way they wanted to, without anyone else getting a dissenting vote.

Not asking if some random other musician joined the band. Although the early '70s proved that when that happened, if the musician(s) were rad, the band could still benefit from outsiders joining. I, for one, think that some of Terry Melcher's contributions to the band in this era were ok-to-decent.

There are bands that exist where one longterm member yields such power as I've hypothesized, it does happen... so I'm asking what people think would have been the end result of Mike having such power from 1980 to present...

And you think that the "same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show?" That Carl or Al, either of them making the sole decision, would have made SIP or the cheerleaders happen? That Mike, if it was up to him and only him, would have had the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions released?

Maybe, and only maybe, could I see the box sets happening, and only in modified versions. Mike's the guy who held up the Pet Sounds Sessions box set release, right? It's fortunate it got released in Carl's lifetime, as the delay almost made that not happen. SIP or the cheerleaders under Al or Carl's sole direction? You gotta be kidding me.

[GhostyTMRS]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

That may be true… But  hypothetically speaking, if it was going to come down to any one member having complete control over the brand name from 1980 to present, if somehow that power-play had actually happened… if that was a scenario that was going to play out, with one member having complete control over the live show performance aspect, over how the band was being promoted, and over projects, both new material and historical box set releases,  would Mike have been the best person for that?  With Mike wielding that much control, would we still have gotten the Pet Sounds Sessions box, Smile Sessions box? Would we have been subjected to multiple other albums like SIP? What do you think?

Well, that's like asking what would've happened if Joe Walsh replaced Al or if The Beach Boys collaborated with Depeche Mode?  But the same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show. All of these veteran 60's acts were attempting to stay relevant in the 80's and pretty much failing across the board. The Rolling Stones released "Dirty Work" (their worst album ever), Bob Dylan had synthesizers on his records (God help us!) and Paul McCartney made "Give My Regards To Broad Street" and on and on it goes. With the CD boom of the late 80's/early 90's it became apparent pretty quickly that these 60's acts stood a much better chance at making money and (most importantly) bolstering ticket sales by issuing archival projects. If Bob Dylan, who notoriously hates the fan worship of his 60's catalog, would green light something like his Bootleg Series, it would stand to reason that if any one Beach Boy was put in charge of their recorded output they'd be okaying reissues galore (as they all have) because that's where the money is.  

No, it's simply asking if one member of this band was able to dictate the direction, to nix what they saw fit to nix, and for things to happen the way they wanted to, without anyone else getting a dissenting vote. Not asking if some random other musician joined the band.

There are bands that exist where one person yields such power, it does happen... so I'm asking what people think would have been the end result of Mike having such power from 1980 to present...

And you think that the "same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show?" That Carl or Al, either of them making the sole decision, would have made SIP or the cheerleaders happen? That Mike, if it was up to him and only him, would have had the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions released?

Maybe, and only maybe, could I see the box sets happening, and only in modified versions. Mike's the guy who held up the Pet Sounds Sessions box set release, right? It's fortunate it got released in Carl's lifetime, as the delay almost made that not happen. SIP or the cheerleaders under Al or Carl's sole direction? You gotta be kidding me.

The cheerleaders happened on Carl and Al's watch. Al might have complained after he was out of the "band" but he was up there smiling and laughing it up the whole time (and believe me, to the over-obsessed fan, Al was just as reviled as Mike at that time). I saw The Beach Boys live when that was going down. Nobody in the audience complained. Frankly, nobody cared. This is one of those things that hardcore fans freak out over like it altered the course of history but it had next to no impact on how the group was later perceived. Keep in mind, the hipster reevaluation of Pet Sounds, Brian's music, etc. all happened with the box set released around that same time, so obviously, the cheerleaders didn't matter.

 As for SIP, how is that album much different from "Still Cruisin'? (another lousy record) or even The Monkees "Pool It" album? Imagine if Landy had run the show, then you get "Smart Girls" with all the guys singing on it. Is that a much better option? (shudder). No matter who was running the show we would've gotten something very similar. All of the bands/acts I mentioned in my previous post put out similar crud during the same period. Is SiP more embarrassing than that McCartney dance medley of "Love Me Do/PS I Love You"? It seems unthinkable now that Paul would be out there on the stage dancing around to that horrific track and yet it happened! As I said, context is everything. Look at the horrors all of those 60's acts were committing in that era and then get back to me and say that SIP is some major aberration. Context is everything.   

If you're going with the "Mike is a villain" scenario, so Brian releases his version of SMiLE in 2004, and true to form, Mike gets pissed off and releases the SMiLE sessions at either the same time or even BEFORE Brian's version comes out just to screw him over. "Hey, here are the REAL tapes. Don't buy my cousin's bogus SMiLE". I mean, using the "Mike is a villain" logic that would seem pretty logical. 

Regardless, these are all "what if" scenarios. Maybe fun to fantasize about all this but if the idea is to cast dispersion on Mike for things that he didn't even do in some alternate universe...I mean...I don't even know what to say to that. It'd be more fun to fantasize that Carl was still with us, Dennis never drowned, etc. At least that would be a nice fantasy.

[CenturyDeprived]

For those people bending themselves into a pretzel to try to prove the "shared blame" idea for all the lame ideas that Mike may have spearheaded most, above everyone else in the band… well, I'll admit there is some truth to that, but  how would you feel about the notion of Mike having full control over the band and brand name?  If he could somehow had found a way to do a power grab, circa 1980, and get total and complete control of the band from that point on, studio-wise, release-wise, etc... and nobody else in the band was able to do anything about it... do you think the musical output and direction of the band would have benefited, stayed the same, or been worse, in the time since then? And why?

The Beach Boys were lost in the 80's, just like most 60's acts : the Stones, Dylan, the Moody Blues, etc. and neither Mike, nor Brian, nor Carl could have rescued them.

By the late 80's, Brian was tied up with Landy, Carl and Bruce were played-out as writers, and the Love/Melcher team would ideally have been producing 2 or 3 cuts to fill out an album, not having to carry whole albums as the main songwriters.

So yeah, Mike stepped up as creative leader when he wasn't really capable of doing the job, but then who in the band was? Is Mike to be blamed for not being Brian?  

Good points. A lot of wishful thinking we do about what could have been probably ignores that the BBs actually did and do among the best that bands of their ilk or peers have done. Most bands didn't even survive it seems to me.

Would it have been a good thing for Mike to have had such complete control, had such a maneuver somehow happened as I've suggested?

None of them having complete control in the 80s would have been a good idea, none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

That may be true… But  hypothetically speaking, if it was going to come down to any one member having complete control over the brand name from 1980 to present, if somehow that power-play had actually happened… if that was a scenario that was going to play out, with one member having complete control over the live show performance aspect, over how the band was being promoted, and over projects, both new material and historical box set releases,  would Mike have been the best person for that?  With Mike wielding that much control, would we still have gotten the Pet Sounds Sessions box, Smile Sessions box? Would we have been subjected to multiple other albums like SIP? What do you think?

Well, that's like asking what would've happened if Joe Walsh replaced Al or if The Beach Boys collaborated with Depeche Mode?  But the same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show. All of these veteran 60's acts were attempting to stay relevant in the 80's and pretty much failing across the board. The Rolling Stones released "Dirty Work" (their worst album ever), Bob Dylan had synthesizers on his records (God help us!) and Paul McCartney made "Give My Regards To Broad Street" and on and on it goes. With the CD boom of the late 80's/early 90's it became apparent pretty quickly that these 60's acts stood a much better chance at making money and (most importantly) bolstering ticket sales by issuing archival projects. If Bob Dylan, who notoriously hates the fan worship of his 60's catalog, would green light something like his Bootleg Series, it would stand to reason that if any one Beach Boy was put in charge of their recorded output they'd be okaying reissues galore (as they all have) because that's where the money is.  

No, it's simply asking if one member of this band was able to dictate the direction, to nix what they saw fit to nix, and for things to happen the way they wanted to, without anyone else getting a dissenting vote. Not asking if some random other musician joined the band.

There are bands that exist where one person yields such power, it does happen... so I'm asking what people think would have been the end result of Mike having such power from 1980 to present...

And you think that the "same events probably would've occurred no matter who was running the show?" That Carl or Al, either of them making the sole decision, would have made SIP or the cheerleaders happen? That Mike, if it was up to him and only him, would have had the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions released?

Maybe, and only maybe, could I see the box sets happening, and only in modified versions. Mike's the guy who held up the Pet Sounds Sessions box set release, right? It's fortunate it got released in Carl's lifetime, as the delay almost made that not happen. SIP or the cheerleaders under Al or Carl's sole direction? You gotta be kidding me.

The cheerleaders happened on Carl and Al's watch. Al might have complained after he was out of the "band" but he was up there smiling and laughing it up the whole time (and believe me, to the over-obsessed fan, Al was just as reviled as Mike at that time). I saw The Beach Boys live when that was going down. Nobody in the audience complained. Frankly, nobody cared. This is one of those things that hardcore fans freak out over like it altered the course of history but it had next to no impact on how the group was later perceived. Keep in mind, the hipster reevaluation of Pet Sounds, Brian's music, etc. all happened with the box set released around that same time, so obviously, the cheerleaders didn't matter.

 As for SIP, how is that album much different from "Still Cruisin'? (another lousy record) or even The Monkees "Pool It" album? Imagine if Landy had run the show, then you get "Smart Girls" with all the guys singing on it. Is that a much better option? (shudder). No matter who was running the show we would've gotten something very similar. All of the bands/acts I mentioned in my previous post put out similar crud during the same period. Is SiP more embarrassing than that McCartney dance medley of "Love Me Do/PS I Love You"? It seems unthinkable now that Paul would be out there on the stage dancing around to that horrific track and yet it happened! As I said, context is everything. Look at the horrors all of those 60's acts were committing in that era and then get back to me and say that SIP is some major aberration. Context is everything.  

If you're going with the "Mike is a villain" scenario, so Brian releases his version of SMiLE in 2004, and true to form, Mike gets pissed off and releases the SMiLE sessions at either the same time or even BEFORE Brian's version comes out just to screw him over. "Hey, here are the REAL tapes. Don't buy my cousin's bogus SMiLE". I mean, using the "Mike is a villain" logic that would seem pretty logical.  

Regardless, these are all "what if" scenarios. Maybe fun to fantasize about all this but if the idea is to cast dispersion on Mike for things that he didn't even do in some alternate universe...I mean...I don't even know what to say to that. It'd be more fun to fantasize that Carl was still with us, Dennis never drowned, etc. At least that would be a nice fantasy.

I too wish Carl and Dennis were still with us. Very much so. First and foremost of course because of their lives as people, and as musicians as a far second. And if they had lived (particularly a sober Denny), we would almost certainly not seen the band sink to the ridiculous depths that it did sink to. He'd have quit the band first, I would think. At the very least, he'd be much more of the mind to stand up to Mike. And that's not a band thing at all.

And just because the cheerleaders happened on "Carl and Al's watch", doesn't mean that they would have happened if either man was in sole control of the direction of the band. No way that would have happened.

And the SMiLE scenario you mentioned? Well, in lieu of the ridiculous and thrown-outta-court lawsuit that Mike actually leveled in that era, is that really so implausible? Bottom line is, I don't see that TSS release coming out at ALL if Mike alone was calling the shots, or if it did come out, it would only have come out as some sort of odd leverage pawn, perhaps something as you've outlined. No way we'd get a glorified box set like we did. He himself was putting down how bloated (I'm paraphrasing) the actual release was. He just *had* to throw a jab at the release, even something as deeply personal to his cousin as it was.  

Bottom line is that Mike spearheading certain elements, and in all likelihood grudgingly going along with others does not necessarily make him as equal a person to "spread" blame to. The bad stuff is not ALL his fault, he shouldn't be blamed for ALL the crap that he gets blamed for, absolutely... but likewise many of the band's crappiest moments were more his babies than the other guys.  That's the truth. Al and Carl did go along with some crappy stuff... but under either of their sole control/direction, the band would have benefited much more than the Mike Love show.

[clack]

You've lost me -- what might have happened if Dennis didn't die is a whole other order of speculation. We were talking about who among Mike, Carl, Al, and Bruce was in a better position to assume creative leadership.

If we're throwing in an alternate reality Dennis, why not a healthy Brian ?

[GhostyTMRS]

Again, NOTHING The Beach Boys were doing during this time was out of the ordinary. I was a die-hard Beatles fanatic and I had to put up with seeing stuff like this when I was 20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik3Kzv_d6Fk

Was Mike behind this? Isn't this the SIP version of "Surfin''" for Beatles fanatics? I think you're starting from the position that Mike was the sole cheese guy during that era and that all the other Beach Boys would've NEVER allowed such a thing to happen to if they were running the show, but that's overlooking a lot...I mean, a LOT. I'm very skeptical of that line of thinking because I remember all the horrible cheese everybody else was doing at that time. And look at the crowd at that McCartney show eating it up! By the way, none of them thought it was cheese at the time. When Brian was stalking the stage in leather pants and singing "Nightime", people actually thought that was cool. I swear to God. I'm sure that when the Rolling Stones released "Rock and A Hard Place" (arguably the worst song they ever recorded and it makes some of the stuff on SIP look like genius work) they weren't thinking they were doing anything that would make them look bad in 2015. Same with Roger Waters and his appalling staging of The Wall in Berlin that even managed to make Van Morrison look like the biggest tool on the planet.

Take this discussion into a more recent period, like say the past 10 years, when the Beach Boys reputation is now carved in stone and all of Mike's 60's peers carry themselves a little better...or at least a little more age appropriate and then you might have an argument.  

That period from 1988 to the mid-90's was bad for a LOT of those guys in hindsight. I was in my 20's then. I was there. I know. It sucked.

[CenturyDeprived]

You've lost me -- what might have happened if Dennis didn't die is a whole other order of speculation. We were talking about who among Mike, Carl, Al, and Bruce was in a better position to assume creative leadership.

If we're throwing in an alternate reality Dennis, why not a healthy Brian ?

Well, with the sad realities of no Dennis and with Brian in Landy's clutches, I think that the level of cheese and embarrassing content would have decreased by a perceptible amount if Mike had no say in things, or if he quit the band. I do not think the '80s/'90s would have rendered the band free from all cheesy aspects, but I think it would not sunk to the level that it did.

Did "Masterpiece" get shelved because of the potential to work with Brian again during the Paley era? Was it gonna be SIP Part II? Does anyone know?

I just think that of all the possible scenarios of any of the living bandmembers getting control of the band name, that Mike would be the last guy who anyone with their right mind would want to have such control, if it was gonna have to be one of them. Mike's talents suit the band better when he yields less control and is more reigned in. I can dig (or at least dig as guilty pleasures) a few songs from SIP. I don't mind admitting such, and I think it's underrated (compared to the line of thinking that it's 100% devoid of anything listenable). But if Carl or Al were able to call the shots of what was released (not necessarily meaning they would have to be the sole songwriters or creative contributors - just that they and they alone could nix or approve releases), I think we'd have gotten better relative results than SIP, for one. The cheerleaders is a no-brainer.  That embarrassment would not have happened, and every die-hard Mike defender knows it.

Mike is and has always been the most power-hungry guy in the band, and frankly that isn't and hasn't ever been a good thing.

[GhostyTMRS]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

[CenturyDeprived]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  
 

[GhostyTMRS]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy. 

[CenturyDeprived]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy.  

At least Mike found the love of his life that way, but it was an embarrassing low point.

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

[Cam Mott]

They all were the best choice and they all were in charge of each of the products.

[GhostyTMRS]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy. 

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

[CenturyDeprived]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy. 

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

I agree that the golden era music is and will be the most famous and remembered portion of the band's career. But that doesn't mean that blights don't diminish it. If even one fan is put off by ridiculous rubbish like the cheerleaders, which wouldn't have happened if Al or Carl were solely running the show, that's one fan too many.

[CenturyDeprived]

They all were the best choice and they all were in charge of each of the products.

I'm sure "best choice Al Jardine" was in charge of being kicked of his own band. 

If the group was so equal in terms of all the guys in the band being capable and important cogs in the machine, it should be unconscionable for him to have been squeezed out for having a dissenting opinion in such an "equal" environment. But I'm sure there's a defense for that just waiting around the corner.

[clack]

People talk as if the cheesy 80's-90's stuff was an anomaly : you know, Full House appearances, the cheerleaders defiling the high culture legacy of these grand artistes. C'mon, this is pop music, you don't get to stand on your dignity.

The 60's Beach Boys would have been delighted with regular appearances on, say, Gilligan's Island, and if they could have afforded them, the boys would not have been above including Shindig-style go-go dancers as part of their stage act.

[Cam Mott]

Al is still a Beach Boy.