Why do you hate Mike Love?

[Cam Mott]

Who said anything about people enjoying it? The bizarre thing here is that people like Cam are arguing or trying to spin what is a fact that anyone can see by watching the video. Cocktail drove Kokomo, the song wouldn't exist nor would it have gotten the exposure or the type of video it received had it not been for the film. See Tom Cruise and scenes from the film in the Kokomo video? Again, case closed.

What I'm trying to understand is why try to spin if not change the facts over this of all topics? Kokomo was driven by, created for, and bankrolled for the promotion of the film Cocktail, as soundtrack albums and singles most often are and have been for decades. That's how things are done in the film and music business. The soundtrack sold 4 million in 6 months, the film did 78 million in 6 months...now what did this have to do with the Beach Boys, who didn't even have a label when the single came out on Elektra?

No Cocktail, no Kokomo. Period, end of story. Or, prove me wrong.

Maybe you should take a breath and be more careful about loose accusations of spin and calling people out by name with your claims of people representing their opinions as facts. Aren't you representing your opinions as facts by the way?

I have quoted 3 times what I said: "I'm sure the movie helped but probably not as much as some fans want to think." I represented my opinion as my opinion and gave my reasons for it.

[Moon Dawg]

  The movie drove the song and vice versa. (Same thing with the Elvis movie soundtracks.)  It is fair to say in 2015 that "Kokomo" the song has proven more durable than COCKTAIL the film.

[Cyncie]

I wonder if Mike approved of the drug references in Kokomo. Hold on to your ego or get a tropical contact high...

[guitarfool2002]

Trying to suggest the song and the film were not joined at the hip in terms of promotion, exposure, release, etc is spin, or else it's a basic misunderstanding of the way it actually happened back in 1988. What I'm wondering now is why try to put a different version of those events and the history of how it happened out there now, in 2015? Is there some negative aspect I'm not seeing if the way it actually happened from beginning to end in 1988 and 89 is what gets reported 27 years later? Seriously, I just don't get it. It's easy to sum up, if there were no Cocktail film or soundtrack, there would be no Kokomo as we know it today, it would have remained an obscure John Phillips solo track. That's not opinion, that's a fact. One which Mike Love himself has confirmed. Why change that around now?

[GhostyTMRS]

This is a case where AGD and GF are both right. "Kokomo" was certainly helped by the success of the film "Cocktail". Back then (pre-internet days for you kiddies) a hit movie was like it's own social media juggernaut. No matter how long the film actually stayed in theaters, the soundtrack album would perpetuate the film's brand much longer, there were TV tie-ins and then (like today) a second round of promotion tied in to the home video release. These were huge deals at the time. I know that the movie "White Knights" didn't hang around theaters for very long, but the Phil Collins/Marilyn Martin song "Separate Lives" and Lionel Richie's "Say You Say Me" were on MTV for months...and MTV wasn't the only outlet. NBC had Friday Night Videos which kept things going, and not to mention the all the smaller music video shows on syndicated channels.

But my 6 year old nieces would never have heard of the film "Cocktail" or even known what a cocktail was and they were bopping around singing it for months. Yes, people genuinely LOVED that song and still do (it probably gets more rotation on oldies stations these days than ever before, since the 80's are now oldies and stations try to avoid playing 60's music). When the reunited Beach Boys played Bonnaroo and started up "Kokomo" the audience went apesh*t. I doubt many if any of those 20-something had ever seen "Cocktail" or associated that song with the movie. The movie's kind of forgotten but the song certainly lives on.            

See, we were around in those years. We remember this and were at the age where discovering music was still fun even before it became a passion. Remember Miami Vice? Record labels were literally fighting to get a song placed on that show at one point. Look what it did for Phil Collins, Glen Frey, even Jan Hammer with his theme song that charted. It was an ultimate sales-driver in that era, along with MTV, along with soundtrack placement, the whole works.

But unlike AGD who may not have experienced this as we did in the US when it was all happening in 1988 and we were the MTV and blockbuster-movie-at-the-mall's-theater demographic, I know the film and that film's soundtrack were the main driving forces, and the MTV video which helped immensely was essentially a 4-minute long commercial for the movie as much as it was to promote the song and Elektra's soundtrack which contained it.

How was the reception to the song in 2012 when the reunited Beach Boys played Kokomo in the UK on those C50 dates?

And remember that every time that video was shown anywhere, there was a little block of text in the left hand corner of the screen at the beginning and the end of the clip telling you what album that song could be found on and what the label was.

I could go on and on about just how massive the Miami Vice soundtrack was at the time and how influential that album was, but I think we've discovered that we both have a tendency to divert into other music related topics pretty quickly, so I'll refrain.....but just this once    

[guitarfool2002]

This is a case where AGD and GF are both right. "Kokomo" was certainly helped by the success of the film "Cocktail". Back then (pre-internet days for you kiddies) a hit movie was like it's own social media juggernaut. No matter how long the film actually stayed in theaters, the soundtrack album would perpetuate the film's brand much longer, there were TV tie-ins and then (like today) a second round of promotion tied in to the home video release. These were huge deals at the time. I know that the movie "White Knights" didn't hang around theaters for very long, but the Phil Collins/Marilyn Martin song "Separate Lives" and Lionel Richie's "Say You Say Me" were on MTV for months...and MTV wasn't the only outlet. NBC had Friday Night Videos which kept things going, and not to mention the all the smaller music video shows on syndicated channels.

But my 6 year old nieces would never have heard of the film "Cocktail" or even known what a cocktail was and they were bopping around singing it for months. Yes, people genuinely LOVED that song and still do (it probably gets more rotation on oldies stations these days than ever before, since the 80's are now oldies and stations try to avoid playing 60's music). When the reunited Beach Boys played Bonnaroo and started up "Kokomo" the audience went apesh*t. I doubt many if any of those 20-something had ever seen "Cocktail" or associated that song with the movie. The movie's kind of forgotten but the song certainly lives on.            

See, we were around in those years. We remember this and were at the age where discovering music was still fun even before it became a passion. Remember Miami Vice? Record labels were literally fighting to get a song placed on that show at one point. Look what it did for Phil Collins, Glen Frey, even Jan Hammer with his theme song that charted. It was an ultimate sales-driver in that era, along with MTV, along with soundtrack placement, the whole works.

But unlike AGD who may not have experienced this as we did in the US when it was all happening in 1988 and we were the MTV and blockbuster-movie-at-the-mall's-theater demographic, I know the film and that film's soundtrack were the main driving forces, and the MTV video which helped immensely was essentially a 4-minute long commercial for the movie as much as it was to promote the song and Elektra's soundtrack which contained it.

How was the reception to the song in 2012 when the reunited Beach Boys played Kokomo in the UK on those C50 dates?

And remember that every time that video was shown anywhere, there was a little block of text in the left hand corner of the screen at the beginning and the end of the clip telling you what album that song could be found on and what the label was.

I could go on and on about just how massive the Miami Vice soundtrack was at the time and how influential that album was, but I think we've discovered that we both have a tendency to divert into other music related topics pretty quickly, so I'll refrain.....but just this once    

  LOL - Just this once! I'd shake on it but I know I couldn't keep that promise. I love talking about this stuff, and Miami Vice...I've just been watching some of the 2nd season these past weeks, will be dusting off my old copy of the soundtrack too very soon, brings back a lot of memories. But i won't divert, I promise... Topic for another discussion.

[18thofMay]

In Australia, the film clip was on Saturday and Sunday for months. I saw Cocktail and Kokomo as one in the same.

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

To Mujan:

Did you not read earlier every word I said just like that, it's not that complicated!

(and scene)

Just kidding. But really, I had said almost the same thing: "I agree, it certainly wasn't the way that said. I'm sure the movie helped but probably not as much as some fans want to think."

What the hell are you even saying in that bolded section? I honestly cannot comprehend your syntax.

So first you're saying the movie had nothing to do with it and the song was charting before it came out...now youre not. So, typical Cam running around in circles, never clarifying or admitting fault. Gotcha.

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

Trying to suggest the song and the film were not joined at the hip in terms of promotion, exposure, release, etc is spin, or else it's a basic misunderstanding of the way it actually happened back in 1988. What I'm wondering now is why try to put a different version of those events and the history of how it happened out there now, in 2015? Is there some negative aspect I'm not seeing if the way it actually happened from beginning to end in 1988 and 89 is what gets reported 27 years later? Seriously, I just don't get it. It's easy to sum up, if there were no Cocktail film or soundtrack, there would be no Kokomo as we know it today, it would have remained an obscure John Phillips solo track. That's not opinion, that's a fact. One which Mike Love himself has confirmed. Why change that around now?

The truth conflicts with Cam's mantra that Mike is perfect and infallible and Kokomo is some testament to that. A #1 hit all on Mike's shoulders, and no one elses. The holy grail of Mike apologism. Cant let that get tarnished by them pesky facts and logic.

[elnombre]

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?

I assumed the reconnected telephone lyrics but I don't know if that is true.

Sorry, but what a bullshit tangent. A lyricists job is to create compelling lyrics that convey emotion or mood. Do they create a mood? That's up to the listener. Are they compelling? Uh, are we talking about them almost 50 years later?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Isnt that still all after the movie tho?

Yes but not months after and Kokomo was already charting in the 20s when the movie was released.

Not nationally. Movie was released July 29th, song charted in the mid-90s early September. Didn't hit the top 20 until 10/8. It was in the Top 40 from 9/24 to 12/31. Was Cocktail still hot all that time ? Or even still in the theaters ?

The soundtrack album wasn't released until 11/7, btw, by which point the single had peaked at #1. If the soundtrack album "drove" the single... why did the single drop from #1 to out of the Top 40 in the ensuing nine, ten weeks ? I'd argue the exact reverse: the soundtrack album very likely killed the single. Consider, you've got "Kokomo" on said album - why buy the single ?

Again, I'm not so dumb as to claim that the movie had no effect on the single, but the stats show that it really took off (Top 40) a good two months after the film was released. Seems the Cocktail effect may have been overstated.

[Andrew G. Doe]

No Cocktail, no Kokomo. Period, end of story. Or, prove me wrong.

Absolutely - the song was released in any form (Phillip's original version was in the can until the 2010 Many Mamas, Many Papas album) entirely due to the movie, because the band got the call. No argument there. But... the single only got real legs when the movie was fading in the theaters, if not actually off the screen. The single got an initial boost from the movie, but the movie demonstrably wasn't solely responsible for pushing it to #1, or even the top 20.

[Wirestone]

Thankfully, the amazing Internet can answer many of Andrew's questions with only a minute or so of searching!

Isnt that still all after the movie tho?

Yes but not months after and Kokomo was already charting in the 20s when the movie was released.

Not nationally. Movie was released July 29th, song charted in the mid-90s early September. Didn't hit the top 20 until 10/8. It was in the Top 40 from 9/24 to 12/31. Was Cocktail still hot all that time ? Or even still in the theaters ?

Movie releases in the U.S. were quite different in the late '80s compared with today. Films would play for months, and do well for the entire time. Cocktail was one of those films, staying in in wide release until the the third week of October. The film was one of the top 10 box office grossers for that entire period. What's more, it did particularly well the first week of September -- the long Labor Day weekend -- exactly at the time the song started to gain traction.

Sourcing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=cocktail.htm

Again, I'm not so dumb as to claim that the movie had no effect on the single, but the stats show that it really took off (Top 40) a good two months after the film was released. Seems the Cocktail effect may have been overstated.

Doesn't look to me like it's overstated at all. As I said, the movie was out for four months, and in 1,400 to 1,200 theaters for that entire time. It looks as though the Labor Day theatergoers became interested in the song, and the movie and single then played off each other for the next two months. The single hit No. 1 the week before the film closed out its run, so it looks as though they had a somewhat symbiotic relationship.

[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.

Oh dear, we're back to the ol' Mike is the reason Smile was shelved. Groundhog Day. He kicked up over a few lyrics, which he then sung anyway, so it's not like the project ground to a halt because of it. They were Van's lyrics anyway, not Brian's. EVERY band that ever was has creative conflict from time to time, it has nothing to do with an 'attitude problem'. Dig up some aural evidence of Mike bullying and berating Brian for hours in the studio and then we'll talk.
And as I mentioned before Al seemed to be having problems far beyond being against a few cheerleaders on stage. He apparently was dragging up issues dating back 20 years and dwelling on them.

I assume that Al's "attitude problem" did not mean he tried to puncture tour bus tires or pee in Mike's soup. He probably was at times unpleasant to deal with, was grumpy and started some arguments, complained about the legitimately crappy, creatively-empty, bottom line-focused, Wal Mart-of-bands road that the band was going down (which, by the way, people should empathize about any BB member voicing dissatisfaction over band direction in such a creatively pitiful era)... Even if his frustrations wound up spilling out into bringing up old matters, focusing on that aspect of Al's gripes was probably just a Mike excuse to beat down and minimize Al's ultimate legitimate points, which had to have posed a threat to Mike's deep, all-important vision.

It's not like Mike isn't constantly bringing up old resentments in nearly all interviews! He is surely much worse than Al about that; I cannot fathom anyone doing it and dwelling on old issues *more* than Mike, can you?

But ultimately, as far as I know, Al was ultimately gonna still do his job and play shows, the same way that Mike eventually sang his parts after making an unpleasant environment for Brian and Van with his complaints and snarky negativity; otherwise, if it were more serious than simply being tough to work with, Al's "attitude problem" would likely be quantified more severely by Mike as being more akin to boycotting or something. And it wasn't. Al did his job, but an empowered Mike probably didn't want anyone messing up his post-Kokomo ego trip where he could have his way like never before, that is, until the M&B show came to exist).

You assume that Al was so incredibly tough to deal with that his (probable Mike-spearheaded) near-permanent ejection in the early 90s was perfectly justiable, and not the slightest bit hypocritical considering Mike's attitude during the SMiLE era?

If Al was soooo tough to deal with, why isn't his then-attitude or his current attitude the stuff of legend? You have Brian, Van, and a host of other people who were there at the time talking about Mike's bad vibrations, you have Brian saying on camera that Mike was a contributing factor in a project being shelved... yet all of that is to be considered a complete non-issue, while Al's "attitude problem" is just assumed to be of such a larger relative magnitude in the history of this band that it warranted him, a founding 30+ year member, from being kicked out? It ain't right. Regardless if Bruce and a tired-of-fighting Carl went along with it (actions which I do not applaud, either), it seems a Mike-masterminded plan, which stinks most of all considering his own attitude problems which are not dismissable non-issues, no matter how much anyone wants them to be.

No hypocrisy there from Mike? Even a tad? Just consider what was at stake in both instances, and what the world maybe, just maybe lost as a partial (even slight) result of Mike's short-sighted vision and lack of understanding of how to deal with emotionally sensitive people (not necessarily his fault, either)... Compared to Al's gripes, which if Al got his way about the things he probably complained about, the world would likely have been "deprived" of vital things like the cheerleaders or whatever similar drek that the band was focused on at the time (instead of making quality music).  

For Mike of all people to try to justify Al's sacking by pinning the "drudging up the past" label on Al, and to have zero acknowledgement of his own bad attitude over the years, pegging the attitude problem thing just on Al - of all people, the guy who sided with Mike numerous times years earlier - well if those aren't hypocritical and backstabbing power-play moves, I'd don't know what would be.

[Cam Mott]

Trying to suggest the song and the film were not joined at the hip in terms of promotion, exposure, release, etc is spin, or else it's a basic misunderstanding of the way it actually happened back in 1988. What I'm wondering now is why try to put a different version of those events and the history of how it happened out there now, in 2015? Is there some negative aspect I'm not seeing if the way it actually happened from beginning to end in 1988 and 89 is what gets reported 27 years later? Seriously, I just don't get it. It's easy to sum up, if there were no Cocktail film or soundtrack, there would be no Kokomo as we know it today, it would have remained an obscure John Phillips solo track. That's not opinion, that's a fact. One which Mike Love himself has confirmed. Why change that around now?

If you are directing this to me or others including me, please don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me over your words.

I didn't say a word about the song being written for the film, let alone spin or dispute it.

I didn't dispute or spin the symbiotic relationship of the promotion, exposure, release etc., I acknowledged it. Four times so far.

I also actually said I think "it is probably hard to sort out" how much of the sales of the song were down to the movie and how much were down to the song's own merits. You have an opinion on that and I guess I have a different opinion on it.

If you weren't talking to me then never mind and have a nice day.

[Cam Mott]

To Mujan:

Did you not read earlier every word I said just like that, it's not that complicated!

(and scene)

Just kidding. But really, I had said almost the same thing: "I agree, it certainly wasn't the way that said. I'm sure the movie helped but probably not as much as some fans want to think."

What the hell are you even saying in that bolded section? I honestly cannot comprehend your syntax.

So first you're saying the movie had nothing to do with it and the song was charting before it came out...now youre not. So, typical Cam running around in circles, never clarifying or admitting fault. Gotcha.

You didn't get it? Ah phooey. Oh well. No worries.

Thanks for the unjustified personal insults and have a blessed day.

[Cam Mott]

Isnt that still all after the movie tho?

Yes but not months after and Kokomo was already charting in the 20s when the movie was released.

Not nationally. Movie was released July 29th, song charted in the mid-90s early September. Didn't hit the top 20 until 10/8. It was in the Top 40 from 9/24 to 12/31.

Right, but it was already charting in local markets.

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

To Mujan:

Did you not read earlier every word I said just like that, it's not that complicated!

(and scene)

Just kidding. But really, I had said almost the same thing: "I agree, it certainly wasn't the way that said. I'm sure the movie helped but probably not as much as some fans want to think."

What the hell are you even saying in that bolded section? I honestly cannot comprehend your syntax.

So first you're saying the movie had nothing to do with it and the song was charting before it came out...now youre not. So, typical Cam running around in circles, never clarifying or admitting fault. Gotcha.

You didn't get it? Ah phooey. Oh well. No worries.

Thanks for the unjustified personal insults and have a blessed day.

Umm...those werent personal insults. If I made fun of you for being gay or something, or called your mother a whore, that would be a personal insult. I'm just pointing out that this is what you do: defend Mike unapologetically against all reason, then deflect/evade/divert/side-step whenever someone challenges your BS or calls you out on what it is you do. Sorry but that's what youre known for, and every time I personally have interacted with you, you confirm it. That's the niche, the identity you've created for yourself. Just like Im the long-winded SMiLE posts guy who also "hates" Sgt Pepper. Own it or evolve from it.

[Cam Mott]

To Mujan:

Did you not read earlier every word I said just like that, it's not that complicated!

(and scene)

Just kidding. But really, I had said almost the same thing: "I agree, it certainly wasn't the way that said. I'm sure the movie helped but probably not as much as some fans want to think."

What the hell are you even saying in that bolded section? I honestly cannot comprehend your syntax.

So first you're saying the movie had nothing to do with it and the song was charting before it came out...now youre not. So, typical Cam running around in circles, never clarifying or admitting fault. Gotcha.

You didn't get it? Ah phooey. Oh well. No worries.

Thanks for the unjustified personal insults and have a blessed day.

Umm...those werent personal insults. If I made fun of you for being gay or something, or called your mother a whore, that would be a personal insult. I'm just pointing out that this is what you do: defend Mike unapologetically against all reason, then deflect/evade/divert/side-step whenever someone challenges your BS or calls you out on what it is you do. Sorry but that's what youre known for, and every time I personally have interacted with you, you confirm it. That's the niche, the identity you've created for yourself. Just like Im the long-winded SMiLE posts guy who also "hates" Sgt Pepper. Own it or evolve from it.

That would be libel or slander.

[JK]

How about a musical interlude, just to give the dust a chance to settle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1dZK8fY00A

[Pretty Funky]

When ever the subject of 'Kokomo' comes up I tie it in to a perfect storm. Ok song+ MTV+Movie+Tom Cruise+Big Budget=No1.

The who, how, whens and why are secondary.

[rab2591]

Thankfully, the amazing Internet can answer many of Andrew's questions with only a minute or so of searching!

Isnt that still all after the movie tho?

Yes but not months after and Kokomo was already charting in the 20s when the movie was released.

Not nationally. Movie was released July 29th, song charted in the mid-90s early September. Didn't hit the top 20 until 10/8. It was in the Top 40 from 9/24 to 12/31. Was Cocktail still hot all that time ? Or even still in the theaters ?

Movie releases in the U.S. were quite different in the late '80s compared with today. Films would play for months, and do well for the entire time. Cocktail was one of those films, staying in in wide release until the the third week of October. The film was one of the top 10 box office grossers for that entire period. What's more, it did particularly well the first week of September -- the long Labor Day weekend -- exactly at the time the song started to gain traction.

Sourcing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=cocktail.htm

Again, I'm not so dumb as to claim that the movie had no effect on the single, but the stats show that it really took off (Top 40) a good two months after the film was released. Seems the Cocktail effect may have been overstated.

Doesn't look to me like it's overstated at all. As I said, the movie was out for four months, and in 1,400 to 1,200 theaters for that entire time. It looks as though the Labor Day theatergoers became interested in the song, and the movie and single then played off each other for the next two months. The single hit No. 1 the week before the film closed out its run, so it looks as though they had a somewhat symbiotic relationship.

Great post Wirestone.

[KDS]

No Cocktail, no Kokomo. Period, end of story. Or, prove me wrong.

Absolutely - the song was released in any form (Phillip's original version was in the can until the 2010 Many Mamas, Many Papas album) entirely due to the movie, because the band got the call. No argument there. But... the single only got real legs when the movie was fading in the theaters, if not actually off the screen. The single got an initial boost from the movie, but the movie demonstrably wasn't solely responsible for pushing it to #1, or even the top 20.

When did the video enter heavy rotation on MTV?  Back then, MTV could make or break a song. 

[filledeplage]

No Cocktail, no Kokomo. Period, end of story. Or, prove me wrong.

Absolutely - the song was released in any form (Phillip's original version was in the can until the 2010 Many Mamas, Many Papas album) entirely due to the movie, because the band got the call. No argument there. But... the single only got real legs when the movie was fading in the theaters, if not actually off the screen. The single got an initial boost from the movie, but the movie demonstrably wasn't solely responsible for pushing it to #1, or even the top 20.

When did the video enter heavy rotation on MTV?  Back then, MTV could make or break a song. 

Exactly. MTV and VH1 (the PG 13 version.) 

[HeyJude]

To add a more general point to Wirestone’s excellent post above, it’s also worth noting that charts in 1988 probably were different in several respects to how they are now. It seems much more often now that, outside of a few HUGE sensations that continue to build (especially after winning Grammies, etc.), most albums and singles peak *very early* on the charts, often in the first week. Much less stuff “builds” momentum. When Brian or the BB’s put out an album in 2012 or 2015, the first week is almost always going to be the best in terms of sales and chart performance. People have more immediate knowledge of releases, more immediate access to releases, and charts are tabulated more easily.

I’m not an expert on this, but SoundScan appears to have come into play in 1991. So when “Kokomo” came out in 1988, I’m guessing stuff wasn’t as quickly and accurately tracked. Indeed, according to the SoundScan wiki article, prior to 1991: “Billboard tracked sales by calling stores across the U.S. and asking about sales - a method that was inherently error-prone and open to outright fraud.“

In a more extreme case, look back at US charts from the 60s. Huge hit Beatles singles would debut at like #87 and eventually build up to hitting #1. It probably wasn’t that slow of a build by 1988, but you have to allow for several weeks if not a few months when looking at a 1988 single and how other factors impacted its immediate sales. A single could get a “bump” and then still take several weeks to show that “bump.”