Why do you hate Mike Love?

[Mike's Beard]

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

This could tie in with what I said yesterday about SIP being in litigation hell. A bankrupt indie company no doubt losing it's rights for SIP to whoever they owed money to in the US, a rival major in EMI owing it in other territories and maybe not wanting to play ball?

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.

Without a doubt. No record company has ever had faith in a Brian free Beach Boys and most certainly not in the early 90s.

[guitarfool2002]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

I'm still trying to figure out some of the thinking behind this theory that there wasn't enough songwriting in the group's network at this time, as well as the contradictions in that 1989 article versus what eventually did happen.

If this were the Beach Boys pitching themselves on a new album deal with Capitol, they might say beyond the obvious we have a Grammy winning songwriter in Bruce whose music was recorded by Sinatra, we have Mike who has a wall full of gold records and an Oscar nomination for best song among others, we have Carl and Al who have been writing new material, and we can bring in Terry Melcher to reform the team that made Kokomo a #1 record.

Is it not true that Mike for decades has been talking about his accomplishments as a songwriter, specifically the #1 Good Vibrations, the #1 Kokomo, California Girls, etc? So where were the "good" songs when the band needed them?

Bruce got one of the ultimate compliments a songwriter of that era can get, not only a Grammy but to have Sinatra cover the song. In the article, he sounds like he's really hot to get a new original single on the radio, and not to become a touring oldies revue. So what happened?

Terry Melcher was even mentioned by the Capitol boss as being a key factor in getting some new music out there, again based on Kokomo which was still carrying some momentum into 1989. He'd be part of the same music team that got a hit record with Kokomo.

So where were the songs? More curious to me is, where is the notion of "lack of chops" coming from? You had an original Beach Boy whose songwriting record includes many classic hits, you have another Beach Boy who won a Grammy as a songwriter, you have a producer who had hits going back to the 60's and who just scored a #1, you have a legendary band with two solid musicians who also write songs...

Where is the lack of chops? And also, where were the hit songs from Mike, the principal songwriter among that group?

[JK]

For the people complaining that there is a 20 page thread about hating Mike Love ... I wouldn't recommend reading it all but if you do you'll see there's not much actual Mike Love hate in it. More arguing about side issues such as whether newspaper articles are fact-checked and the significance of including a live version of Summer in Paradise on MiC.

It's the topic title that gets up my nose. Pity it wasn't forcibly changed early on in the game...

[guitarfool2002]

The original poster has every opportunity to jump in. Why he hasn't done so is something only he can answer.

[drbeachboy]

SIP may be a great topic for an upcoming ESQ article. David Beard are you reading this?

How did the album come about?
Why was it rejected by Capitol?
If so, why wasn't it reworked to Capitol's satisfaction?
What legal issues were afoot keeping Brian from participating directly or indirectly?
What exactly was "Brother Entertainment" and its association with BRI.
Why was the album omitted from their album canon during C50?
Will it ever again see the light of day in the original mix or as a remix?

[Cam Mott]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.

I imagine SC, even with the required BW and all the participation of the others they desired, was a disappointment and would be grounds to not exercise an option.  

I doubt Capitol even ever heard SIP, since they had stipulated Brian's participation was needed long before anything was recorded. SC had already crashed two years before SIP was started.  I'm thinking Capitol just never exercised its option on the strength of SC's poor performance even with the initials BW.  After that market performance, why would Capitol even consider a second album from the BBs  at all especially without the required (way in advance) Brian in it?  

[Mike's Beard]

So where were the songs? More curious to me is, where is the notion of "lack of chops" coming from? You had an original Beach Boy whose songwriting record includes many classic hits, you have another Beach Boy who won a Grammy as a songwriter, you have a producer who had hits going back to the 60's and who just scored a #1, you have a legendary band with two solid musicians who also write songs...

Where is the lack of chops? And also, where were the hit songs from Mike, the principal songwriter among that group?

Carl and Al had all but dried up as songwriters by this point, Bruce's songwriting had slowed down vastly as the 80's wore on. Mike and Melcher could write some good stuff but couldn't muster a whole albums worth of quality songs by themselves and of course Brian was in the grips of Landy.

[drbeachboy]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.

I imagine SC, even with the required BW and all the participation of the others they desired, was a disappointment and would be grounds to not exercise an option.  

I doubt Capitol even ever heard SIP, since they had stipulated Brian's participation was needed long before anything was recorded. SC had already crashed two years before SIP was started.  I'm thinking Capitol just never exercised its option on the strength of SC's poor performance even with the initials BW.  After that market performance, why would Capitol even consider a second album from the BBs  at all especially without the required (way in advance) Brian in it?  

Cam, did SC really do badly? I heard that it went Platinum, though not sure how long it took to reach that status. As I recall, I thought I remember it selling pretty well.

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

Even if the airplane story is true as told by VDP, it doesn't seem to be the worst stiffing he has gotten by a Beach Boy.

Can you ever once NOT deflect blame by trying to throw someone else under the bus?

[JK]

The original poster has every opportunity to jump in. Why he hasn't done so is something only he can answer.

True. i suppose all one can do is change it as one posts. 

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

Every print and electronic media source is subject to scrutiny and bias.

You say the story wasn't fact-checked - you know this for a fact? Uhhhh no you don't. I'd be hard pressed to believe the reporter (who again works for the most respected and well known and 2nd most circulated newspaper of all time) didn't call up Mike and/or fax the story over to give Mike the chance to deny it and tell his side of the story. That's how it's usually done when it comes to major newspapers. But great that you magically know this story wasn't fact-checked.

I still don't understand how Park's getting some trivial facts wrong on a few Twitter posts has anything to do with him recalling a story from 8 years prior.

Those twitter posts are apparently there to educate the public.  And, they are false. Those are two I picked up on because I've done some research in both areas.

And, I don't put too much stock in the LA Times.  They (the media) are subject to error and manipulation like ABC news and George Stephanopoulos, being a Clinton operative and donor to the Clinton foundation and still working the political beat. Unbiased? Not. I think it is naive to think the media is all on the level.

Again, you still aren't telling me what some trivial wrong facts from a few Twitter posts in 2014+ has to do with a newspaper article in the New York Times from the year 2000. You keep monotonously reiterating this Twitter argument without making a clear connection between the two.

As for your outlook on certain newspapers and news outlets, I couldn't care less what your opinion is about them. I see that Mike has never publicly denied this story, nor was the NYTs forced to the redact the story. And it's a pretty popular story that has circulated numerous times on this very board that Mike supposedly reads while he eats his Wheaties in the morning. So again, I'm hard pressed to believe that this is all a fabrication.

Whatever the story is, doesn't affect me.  So I don't care.

Posts #379, #382, #386, and #393 refute that.

Rab-he made two boo-boos in less than a week. He was called out on the Abner Doubleday on his twitter. I'm won't be joining twitter to joust with him.  He can't even tell you what his lyrics mean. Fans wondered for decades, what do they mean. It is not unimportant.

Where is the cred of a lyricist who cannot explain his work? Writers can generally tell where their imagery is coming from or what inspired them. He can't.

That is three strikes in my book!

He is O-U-T!  

Three strikes and VDP is out according to you. How many strikes does it take to get Mike out?

As for the Cabinessence lyric, sometimes we have to search for our own meanings, which doesn't mean the lyricist didn't include them. This from Wikipedia:

"Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield
Over and over the thresher and hovers the wheatfield

"If the listener rearranges the last half of each line, they get "over and over the crow cries and hovers the wheatfield / over and over the thresher uncovers the cornfield", which makes them clearer. Parks penned additional lyrics to Cabinessence not heard on any official release, nor bootlegged. They are unknown to have ever been recorded during tracking sessions..."

Are these the reconnected telephone lyrics or something else I don't know about?

[clack]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

I'm still trying to figure out some of the thinking behind this theory that there wasn't enough songwriting in the group's network at this time, as well as the contradictions in that 1989 article versus what eventually did happen.

If this were the Beach Boys pitching themselves on a new album deal with Capitol, they might say beyond the obvious we have a Grammy winning songwriter in Bruce whose music was recorded by Sinatra, we have Mike who has a wall full of gold records and an Oscar nomination for best song among others, we have Carl and Al who have been writing new material, and we can bring in Terry Melcher to reform the team that made Kokomo a #1 record.

Is it not true that Mike for decades has been talking about his accomplishments as a songwriter, specifically the #1 Good Vibrations, the #1 Kokomo, California Girls, etc? So where were the "good" songs when the band needed them?

Bruce got one of the ultimate compliments a songwriter of that era can get, not only a Grammy but to have Sinatra cover the song. In the article, he sounds like he's really hot to get a new original single on the radio, and not to become a touring oldies revue. So what happened?

Terry Melcher was even mentioned by the Capitol boss as being a key factor in getting some new music out there, again based on Kokomo which was still carrying some momentum into 1989. He'd be part of the same music team that got a hit record with Kokomo.

So where were the songs? More curious to me is, where is the notion of "lack of chops" coming from? You had an original Beach Boy whose songwriting record includes many classic hits, you have another Beach Boy who won a Grammy as a songwriter, you have a producer who had hits going back to the 60's and who just scored a #1, you have a legendary band with two solid musicians who also write songs...

Where is the lack of chops? And also, where were the hit songs from Mike, the principal songwriter among that group?

It's common, as you know, for good and even great songwriters to lose their chops. Robbie Robertson. George Harrison. Carole King. Jagger/Richards. Etc. Brian is a rarity in that regard.

Al never had more than a minor songwriting talent. Mike was a lyricist, not a melody guy, and even as a lyricist he was running on fumes. Terry was an uninspired journeyman. Carl and Bruce had fallen silent for unknown reasons.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

It's just tiresome, and I get turned off on these constant threads that seem to have no purpose other than to denigrate someone.

Agreed. And as someone who seems to be tagged as a 'Mike Love apologist' I can honestly say that
I think Mike has made a few misguided artistic decisions in his time,
Was a dick to force out any BB associates who weren't in to TM,
Made an ass of himself at the R&R Hall of Fame,
Made a bigger ass of himself by trying to make a lawsuit out of a newspaper using a BBs photo on a free Brian solo cd,
Should choose his words more carefully when commenting on his cousin's mental health.
 

Even though we disagree on a number of things, it's good to see when people are able to at least admit to things like those stated above, instead of trying to deny any of these are worthy of criticism.

It is preposterous that several posters here could never admit to things like these being issues.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike gets to have all the "attitude problems" during the 1960s that he wants, but thinks he nonetheless gets to be completely absolved of any responsibility for his 1960s attitude having any negative effect on those around him... Mike questioning the direction of the band, questioning the lyrics, and perhaps being snarky about it - directed a very sensitive bandmate - is expected by him to be considered A-OK by the fans... that he is misunderstood and not guilty of any criticism... and yet Al is the one who gets literally sidelined and then fired for having a Love-described "attitude problem" in the 1990s. That brand of hypocrisy is one example of why people have intense feelings regarding this man.

I can appreciate his positive contributions... but for people to not see the blatant hypocrisy is rather astounding.

Mike questioned some lyrics and wondered if Brian's new 'out there' music would connect with their fanbase. That is not an attitude problem. It's been mentioned before that by the early 90s Mike, Carl and I'm guessing Bruce aswell could not bear to be in the same room as Al for very long, so bad was his negative attitude towards everything. Without wanting to speculate too much I think Al may have been dealing with issues beyond his stalling music career.

If Brian had been a stronger personality type, and not afraid of confrontation, he could have qualified Mike's probable less-than-polite repeated verbalizations as being an attitude problem, and tried to kick him out of the band or sideline him; yet we all know that isn't in Brian's nature. Brian himself has stated on camera that Mike is one of the reasons for SMiLE being abandoned. And if it's not Mike's SMiLE attitude, the Old Man River sessions is another example of a Mike "attitude problem".

Music projects (among the most beautiful of their career) STALLED in part because of Mike's bad vibes and negativity, which greatly affected Brian. Much like the bandmates you say couldn't bear to be in the same room with Al, Brian too could not stand to continue trying to create art with a bandmate being overbearing and negative. The worst thing that Al would have stalled would have been a show or two. It's not like any great art circa 1990 was abandoned or lost as a result.

It is crazy to keep minimizing every attitude problem that Mike exhibited over the years as being something excusable, while saying that a fed-up-with-the-embarrasing-cheapening-of-the-brand Al exhibited an attitude problem. Either they both exhibited an attitude problem, or neither of them did.

[CenturyDeprived]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.

Was the inclusion of "Surfin'", and thus the "BW" album songwriting credit, possibly a hare-brained scheme to make it seem like some Brian involvement was present on the album? It seems unlikely to me that the song's inclusion had zero political motivation behind it, especially considering how much an album completely sans Brian would make things more difficult in getting distribution... though perhaps I'm totally wrong.

[Cam Mott]

Even if the airplane story is true as told by VDP, it doesn't seem to be the worst stiffing he has gotten by a Beach Boy.

Can you ever once NOT deflect blame by trying to throw someone else under the bus?

Oh, it's no bother, I imagine those so bothered about the airplane story also want to get upset about similar stories.  Think of it as perspective.

[drbeachboy]

Mike gets to have all the "attitude problems" during the 1960s that he wants, but thinks he nonetheless gets to be completely absolved of any responsibility for his 1960s attitude having any negative effect on those around him... Mike questioning the direction of the band, questioning the lyrics, and perhaps being snarky about it - directed a very sensitive bandmate - is expected by him to be considered A-OK by the fans... that he is misunderstood and not guilty of any criticism... and yet Al is the one who gets literally sidelined and then fired for having a Love-described "attitude problem" in the 1990s. That brand of hypocrisy is one example of why people have intense feelings regarding this man.

I can appreciate his positive contributions... but for people to not see the blatant hypocrisy is rather astounding.

Mike questioned some lyrics and wondered if Brian's new 'out there' music would connect with their fanbase. That is not an attitude problem. It's been mentioned before that by the early 90s Mike, Carl and I'm guessing Bruce aswell could not bear to be in the same room as Al for very long, so bad was his negative attitude towards everything. Without wanting to speculate too much I think Al may have been dealing with issues beyond his stalling music career.

If Brian had been a stronger personality type, and not afraid of confrontation, he could have qualified Mike's probable less-than-polite repeated verbalizations as being an attitude problem. Brian himself has stated that Mike is one of the reasons for a certain famous album being abandoned. And if it's not Mike's SMiLE attitude, the Old Man River sessions is another example of a Mike "attitude problem". Music projects (among the most beautiful of their career STALLED in part because of Mike's bad vibes and negativity, which greatly affected Brian. Much like the bandmates you say couldn't bear to be in the same room with Al, Brian too could not stand to continue trying to create art with a bandmate being overbearing and negative.

It is crazy to keep minimizing every attitude problem that Mike exhibited over the years as being something excusable, while saying that a fed up Al exhibited an attitude problem. Either they both exhibited an attitude problem, or neither of them did.

Man, you just never stop, do you. Is there anything that Mike did right in your eyes? Next you'll be trying to convince me that Mike's birth in March 1941 foreshadowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Also, I would suggest trying to forgive Mike for all of his past transgressions. Will a 1000 Hail Mary''s and another thousand Lord's Prayer's  make all forgiven?

[Jay]

Was Brian ever invited to take part in the SIP sessions? I always thought it was odd that that is the only BB's album with no Brian involvement whatsoever. Did he refuse to record with them?

[drbeachboy]

Was Brian ever invited to take part in the SIP sessions? I always thought it was odd that that is the only BB's album with no Brian involvement whatsoever. Did he refuse to record with them?

Mike has claimed that Brian was invited, but that Landy kept Brian from participating.

[guitarfool2002]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.

Was the inclusion of "Surfin'", and thus the "BW" album songwriting credit, possibly a hare-brained scheme to make it seem like some Brian involvement was present on the album? It seems unlikely to me that the song's inclusion had zero political motivation behind it, especially considering how much an album completely sans Brian would make things more difficult in getting distribution... though perhaps I'm totally wrong.

That's hard to tell. But the fact is Capitol was eager to jump on the momentum that Kokomo created in bringing the Beach Boys back as a viable commercial entity, and if you read what the boss said in 1989, they were hoping for new material as well as having the CD reissues in the works. They seemed positive about getting new BB's material into the marketplace, now whether that was part of how the band pitched themselves to the label or if it was confidence in the brand name and the fact Kokomo put them back onto the charts, who knows. But you don't have - as Al described - a major label banking on the band delivering three hit singles and albums as part of a deal without some level of trust or confidence that they could deliver such things to the label.

Still Cruisin didn't quite work out, though, did it? In the article it sounds like they were expecting more new material to balance out the "compilation" nature of the tracks that were slated to appear. Did that happen? Still Cruisin is basically a plate of leftovers, whatever chart positions or numbers it did reach, it was still comprised of material that fans had most likely already heard or known. And were there any singles of note to be spun off of anything between Kokomo and Summer In Paradise that would fill Capitol's expectation of 3 singles as Al described it?

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike gets to have all the "attitude problems" during the 1960s that he wants, but thinks he nonetheless gets to be completely absolved of any responsibility for his 1960s attitude having any negative effect on those around him... Mike questioning the direction of the band, questioning the lyrics, and perhaps being snarky about it - directed a very sensitive bandmate - is expected by him to be considered A-OK by the fans... that he is misunderstood and not guilty of any criticism... and yet Al is the one who gets literally sidelined and then fired for having a Love-described "attitude problem" in the 1990s. That brand of hypocrisy is one example of why people have intense feelings regarding this man.

I can appreciate his positive contributions... but for people to not see the blatant hypocrisy is rather astounding.

Mike questioned some lyrics and wondered if Brian's new 'out there' music would connect with their fanbase. That is not an attitude problem. It's been mentioned before that by the early 90s Mike, Carl and I'm guessing Bruce aswell could not bear to be in the same room as Al for very long, so bad was his negative attitude towards everything. Without wanting to speculate too much I think Al may have been dealing with issues beyond his stalling music career.

If Brian had been a stronger personality type, and not afraid of confrontation, he could have qualified Mike's probable less-than-polite repeated verbalizations as being an attitude problem. Brian himself has stated that Mike is one of the reasons for a certain famous album being abandoned. And if it's not Mike's SMiLE attitude, the Old Man River sessions is another example of a Mike "attitude problem". Music projects (among the most beautiful of their career STALLED in part because of Mike's bad vibes and negativity, which greatly affected Brian. Much like the bandmates you say couldn't bear to be in the same room with Al, Brian too could not stand to continue trying to create art with a bandmate being overbearing and negative.

It is crazy to keep minimizing every attitude problem that Mike exhibited over the years as being something excusable, while saying that a fed up Al exhibited an attitude problem. Either they both exhibited an attitude problem, or neither of them did.

Man, you just never stop, do you. Is there anything that Mike did right in your eyes? Next you'll be trying to convince me that Mike's birth in March 1941 foreshadowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Also, I would suggest trying to forgive Mike for all of his past transgressions. Will a 1000 Hail Mary''s and another thousand Lord's Prayer's  make all forgiven?

There are plenty of things that Mike did right in my eyes. The Warmth of the Sun, Kiss Me Baby, Please Let Me Wonder, I'm Waiting For the Day, Meant For You, California Girls, All I Wanna do, Cool Head Warm Heart (best new song on the Hallmark CD), Kokomo (I like the song), Lahaina Aloha (I like this song too, and yes, I just listed it in the same sentence as Today songs)... just to name a few. There are many more. I have perspective. I can appreciate good things he's done, across many eras, including eras which many people dog him for.

However, there quite simply needs to be a recognition of the man's unfortunate hypocrisy instead of defending it to the nth degree. What motivates me to post in this thread is to dispel absolute B.S. spewed by a few posters trying to defend certain things that are simply not worth defending. If you think balanced people such as myself are going on too much about the same topic, you might want to try to talk some sense into the few extremists who are unable to say a critical word about the man, and to let THEM know how absurd that notion is, not to mention how their actions inadvertently help fan flames.

Pro-Mike extremism does not help any cause whatsoever, and that's the reason topics like this get discussed the way they do. Can I forgive him? Yes. Can I accept people ham-fistedly trying to rewrite history, denying that some things are just plain bad? No. Could I accept the extremists changing their tune a bit, and saying "well, yeah... these actions were pretty sh*tty, but he deserves forgiveness anyway?" YES. I could accept that wholeheartedly, and I'd happily shut my trap after hearing that.

[Cam Mott]

Cam, did SC really do badly? I heard that it went Platinum, though not sure how long it took to reach that status. As I recall, I thought I remember it selling pretty well.

I don't know really.

Could have been something mundane like Berman got fired from Capitol in the interim.  

Maybe it was something else like someone Capitol had required to participate as a condition of a second album couldn't or didn't want to be involved in a second album for some reason. Doesn't seem likely to me.

Maybe it will come out in the autobios if it hasn't already come out in the press.

[Cam Mott]

Was Brian ever invited to take part in the SIP sessions? I always thought it was odd that that is the only BB's album with no Brian involvement whatsoever. Did he refuse to record with them?

Mike has claimed that Brian was invited, but that Landy kept Brian from participating.

Oh.  Well there you go.

[guitarfool2002]

Was Brian ever invited to take part in the SIP sessions? I always thought it was odd that that is the only BB's album with no Brian involvement whatsoever. Did he refuse to record with them?

Mike has claimed that Brian was invited, but that Landy kept Brian from participating.

Oh.  Well there you go.

Consider in 1989-90 the accounts of the band deliberately scheduling sessions so Brian wouldn't be able to make it, among other similar things. Look it up, ask around, etc. So they wanted him back after asking him to make music with them, but set it up so he wouldn't be able to make it?

[Cam Mott]

Was Brian ever invited to take part in the SIP sessions? I always thought it was odd that that is the only BB's album with no Brian involvement whatsoever. Did he refuse to record with them?

Mike has claimed that Brian was invited, but that Landy kept Brian from participating.

Oh.  Well there you go.

Consider in 1989-90 the accounts of the band deliberately scheduling sessions so Brian wouldn't be able to make it, among other similar things. Look it up, ask around, etc. So they wanted him back after asking him to make music with them, but set it up so he wouldn't be able to make it?

Who has said this?