Why do you hate Mike Love?

[KDS]

Makes sense. 

I just want to add that, while I get why many people don't like Kokomo, I think it's a good song.  And I'm looking forward to hearing it live on Aug 23rd with I see Mike and Bruce. 

 

(Awaiting for slings and arrows).

[filledeplage]

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.”

Hey Jude - this all sort of had synergy.  And, the song, was more of a slow burn than a traditional forest fire.  But it all came together.  The movie, the video, (Stamos) on the video Full House, appearances, Bay Watch (IIRC, Hoff had two hit series pretty much back to back, prime time. Knight Rider and Bay watch.) It was sort of an era.  It looks sort of contrived now, but these shows and the MTV thing came together, in an unpredictable way. I don't think you could make it up, in how weirdly it all dovetailed into each other or fed off each other.  

Kids who watched (mine anyway) Knight Rider, followed Haselhoff to Baywatch, while watching Full House.  These kids probably didn't see Cocktail, unless they were following Tom Cruise from some other movie or moms who had followed Bryan Brown from Thorn Birds, which had its own soundtrack. (Henry Mancini)

But they were watching VH1, and saw Cruise and the Boys, almost as an afterthought. The "afterthought" became a huge hit. Who are they? Oh, they're The Beach Boys!  

[Sheriff John Stone]

That Brian Wilson had all the bad luck...

After the Mike Love-led Beach Boys sign on to Cocktail and ride its coattails to a No. 1 single - despite the over 4 million people who bought the soundtrack album but DIDN'T but the single; remember it's the single that made it to No. 1 - Brian has the misfortune of latching onto Police Academy 4, Loverboy, and She's Out Of Control. Damn, think how different Brian's solo career would've gone if HE could've shared a Cocktail. Ah well, don't worry...be happy!

[Mike's Beard]

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.

You keep saying 'Mike this' and 'Mike that' but the point is ALL OF THE BAND FELL OUT WITH AL!!! Carl only made peace with him when he found out he had terminal cancer. And I am only repeating what others have said in the past that Al became 'unbearable' to be around. It certainly is a part of the band's dirty laundry that has never made fully public but insiders have made one or two vague references to it on the board over the years.

[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.

That would be libel or slander.

*sigh* actually no. Slander is intentionally saying something false with intent to harm. Libel is publishing with intent to harm. Look it up

[HeyJude]

You keep saying 'Mike this' and 'Mike that' but the point is ALL OF THE BAND FELL OUT WITH AL!!! Carl only made peace with him when he found out he had terminal cancer. And I am only repeating what others have said in the past that Al became 'unbearable' to be around. It certainly is a part of the band's dirty laundry that has never made fully public but insiders have made one or two vague references to it on the board over the years.

The idea that the entire band had a falling out with Al is a vast oversimplification. There were clearly issues with Al, as described as early as the Goldmine interview with Mike in 1992 or 93 (and Carlin’s book points all the way back to 1990).

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

But I didn’t see Brian running back to the BB touring band in 1998, as if Al was the issue Brian had. Clearly Brian had as many if not more issues with Mike or simply the BB’s as a concept or organization back then. To pin it all down to everyone falling out with Al is too simple. For that matter, who was the “whole band” at that stage? If we’re talking about the touring band, then we’re really just talking about Mike and Carl at that stage in the late 90s. Bruce didn’t count (he goes where Mike goes, and even if he didn’t agree with someone, he has/had no vote in the matter). Brian has never seemed more annoyed by or estranged from Al than he has from Mike (Al being a pain in the ass or being poopy about Gary Usher or spending too much time tuning his guitar or adjusting his stage monitor doesn’t count).

Just as Carl was ambivalent apparently about Mike’s plans for the touring operation, he was apparently ambivalent about Al (in the sense of not trying to boot Al or anything along those lines). So it wasn’t, in my view, a case of the entire band falling out with Al. It was Mike falling out with Al (and vice versa), with Carl being ambivalent but either knowingly or unknowingly keeping the peace, and then Carl eventually having to deal with more pressing concerns and understandably not being too concerned with the touring band stuff (e.g. sending a message to David Marks that he was glad Dave was there). Again, Bruce didn’t factor into it, and Brian was doing his own thing and estranged from the entire band. 

[filledeplage]

If Brian had been a stronger personality type, and not afraid of confrontation....
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
CD - this armchair analysis is absurd.  All the hypotheticals...they have lived their lives, made their mistakes, just like the rest of humanity.  They have come together, been divided (from without) and have been divided, on different levels,  from within, not unlike siblings.  They've been in the lowest and highest places, sometimes together, sometimes, not.  It is of no consequence.

But where the rubber meets the road, they get it together and perform for their fans.  They cannot go back for a do-over, anymore than the rest of us, as mere mortals.  It is fantasy.  I was lucky.  I got to see most (except the earlier eras) of the ups and downs and consistent and inconsistent eras when they were outright rejected in their homeland.  But bounced back, from time to time with a great surprise.  They worked to stay in the game and on someone's radar.  

Their interpersonal relationships, in my view are off limits.  It is like kids in a family.  Somedays get they get along, and other days they don't.  Who cares?  It isn't a straight line, but a winding path.  There is still that common background, that synergy, that they fall back into, just like riding a bike... And what happens in Vegas, should stay there...

[Mike's Beard]

I know, it's like I wonder if these people would be cool with Mike poking around in their private and professional lives and then publicly making judgements on them.

[Cam Mott]

*sigh* actually no. Slander is intentionally saying something false with intent to harm. Libel is publishing with intent to harm. Look it up

Yes. Good luck in court. 

[Mike's Beard]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

[guitarfool2002]

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, that info doesn't seem to be accurate, are you talking about the UK release date or something else? Because the Cocktail soundtrack first appeared on the Billboard Top-200 albums chart the week of August 13, 1988. By the November date you mentioned, it had already been in the top 10 albums for over a month solid.

And it first cracked the top-10 the same week the Bobby McFerrin single from the same Cocktail soundtrack album (and billed as such) hit #1 for two weeks in a row, starting Sept 24 1988.

The album would peak at #2, and was on the charts for 61 weeks.

Those are the facts according to the Billboard top-100 singles and top-200 album charts from that time period.

[HeyJude]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

Well, we only have the available evidence at hand. We have a reason why Al would have been pissed off (and, at least according to Al’s words, even that might be too strong a term; perhaps disappointed or frustrated are better possible terms) at Carl, and not much of any specifics as to why Carl would pissed off at Al. I’ve heard and read a lot of “pain in the ass” and “difficult” and whatnot, but not only are these vague references, they also don’t seem to amount to the serious, business/political/corporate loggerheads that have supposedly resulted in game-changing shifts within the group.

I’m not trying to downplay how much of a downer it can be if you are touring with someone who has a bad attitude, but I question how big of a deal it was for the BB’s, considering all of the members’ foibles and idiosyncrasies and handicaps they brought to the band over the years.

In short, I don’t think Al was edged out of the band primarily because he had a “bad attitude.” It certainly couldn’t have helped. But I think he just chose to “make waves” about the political/business setup of the band WAY too late in the game, and was left marginalized and powerless (e.g. the Spinal Tap-esque moment where David Marks rejoins the band and Al isn’t told, only eventually noticing that Dave keeps showing up at gigs), and making waves hastened his demise. I think he was subsequently humiliated and marginalized (punished, whatever you want to call it) excessively (I don’t want to start the “Family & Friends” debates again, but as Howie Edelson has said, nobody was confusing Daryl Dragon and Carnie/Wendy and Owen Elliott for “The Beach Boys”).

[Autotune]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

Well, we only have the available evidence at hand. We have a reason why Al would have been pissed off (and, at least according to Al’s words, even that might be too strong a term; perhaps disappointed or frustrated are better possible terms) at Carl, and not much of any specifics as to why Carl would pissed off at Al. I’ve heard and read a lot of “pain in the ass” and “difficult” and whatnot, but not only are these vague references, they also don’t seem to amount to the serious, business/political/corporate loggerheads that have supposedly resulted in game-changing shifts within the group.

I’m not trying to downplay how much of a downer it can be if you are touring with someone who has a bad attitude, but I question how big of a deal it was for the BB’s, considering all of the members’ foibles and idiosyncrasies and handicaps they brought to the band over the years.

In short, I don’t think Al was edged out of the band primarily because he had a “bad attitude.” It certainly couldn’t have helped. But I think he just chose to “make waves” about the political/business setup of the band WAY too late in the game, and was left marginalized and powerless (e.g. the Spinal Tap-esque moment where David Marks rejoins the band and Al isn’t told, only eventually noticing that Dave keeps showing up at gigs), and making waves hastened his demise. I think he was subsequently humiliated and marginalized (punished, whatever you want to call it) excessively (I don’t want to start the “Family & Friends” debates again, but as Howie Edelson has said, nobody was confusing Daryl Dragon and Carnie/Wendy and Owen Elliott for “The Beach Boys”).

I'm sure Brian's relationship with Al had its ups and downs too. Remember when he told Usher he thought Al was an ass.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

Most excellent research. I thank you for demonstrating what this forum can be when not derailed... and for the information.

[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, that info doesn't seem to be accurate, are you talking about the UK release date or something else? Because the Cocktail soundtrack first appeared on the Billboard Top-200 albums chart the week of August 13, 1988. By the November date you mentioned, it had already been in the top 10 albums for over a month solid.

And it first cracked the top-10 the same week the Bobby McFerrin single from the same Cocktail soundtrack album (and billed as such) hit #1 for two weeks in a row, starting Sept 24 1988.

The album would peak at #2, and was on the charts for 61 weeks.

Those are the facts according to the Billboard top-100 singles and top-200 album charts from that time period.

You are correct, I've been inadvertently using the UK release date, which is an embarrassingly dumb thing to do. Please ignore what I've noted previously.

[HeyJude]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

Well, we only have the available evidence at hand. We have a reason why Al would have been pissed off (and, at least according to Al’s words, even that might be too strong a term; perhaps disappointed or frustrated are better possible terms) at Carl, and not much of any specifics as to why Carl would pissed off at Al. I’ve heard and read a lot of “pain in the ass” and “difficult” and whatnot, but not only are these vague references, they also don’t seem to amount to the serious, business/political/corporate loggerheads that have supposedly resulted in game-changing shifts within the group.

I’m not trying to downplay how much of a downer it can be if you are touring with someone who has a bad attitude, but I question how big of a deal it was for the BB’s, considering all of the members’ foibles and idiosyncrasies and handicaps they brought to the band over the years.

In short, I don’t think Al was edged out of the band primarily because he had a “bad attitude.” It certainly couldn’t have helped. But I think he just chose to “make waves” about the political/business setup of the band WAY too late in the game, and was left marginalized and powerless (e.g. the Spinal Tap-esque moment where David Marks rejoins the band and Al isn’t told, only eventually noticing that Dave keeps showing up at gigs), and making waves hastened his demise. I think he was subsequently humiliated and marginalized (punished, whatever you want to call it) excessively (I don’t want to start the “Family & Friends” debates again, but as Howie Edelson has said, nobody was confusing Daryl Dragon and Carnie/Wendy and Owen Elliott for “The Beach Boys”).

I'm sure Brian's relationship with Al had its ups and downs too. Remember when he told Usher he thought Al was an ass.

Definitely. Brian also expressed displeasure with Al during an unedited 1985 interview tape (with Westwood One I think), talking about how Al was haranguing producer Steve Levine or some such thing (at some point evidently/allegedly Levine broke down and cried). I have no doubt these guys all have issues with each other.

But when we’re talking about Al’s “exit” from the touring band in 1998, I don’t think a “falling out” between Brian and Al (or between Al and anybody else other than Mike) had much if anything to do with it. If anything, it could have been a lack of contact/relationship at that particular moment that contributed to Brian not coming to Al’s defense at the time.

I also question the extent and magnitude of “issues” others may have had with Al, in the context of looking at all of the members’ issues over the years. That is, I don’t buy that Al having a ‘tude or being contrarian or anything was such a HUGE issue that it impacted the band *more* than all of the other power/money/ego/corporate stuff going on at that time (or before or since for that matter). Al being poopy in the late 90s may have hastened the motivation for Mike to not want to work with Al, but my opinion is that that was not the main motivating factor. Now, Al having an attitude *about* a business issue, that’s a separate but related issue. But Al saying “hey, I don’t like where this is headed, this isn’t a good idea to hand over so much power and control and income” (or whatever or however he would have put it) is not the same thing as being a stick in the mud or something out on the road on tour. Issues with business stuff are a substantive issue, and whether one would agree with Al’s stance on that issue given all the information, it’s certainly understandable to be vocal about something he disagreed with. Other members of the band surely have and still do vocalize their concerns I would imagine. Al just had bad timing and no support.

[CenturyDeprived]

I also question the extent and magnitude of “issues” others may have had with Al, in the context of looking at all of the members’ issues over the years. That is, I don’t buy that Al having a ‘tude or being contrarian or anything was such a HUGE issue that it impacted the band *more* than all of the other power/money/ego/corporate stuff going on at that time (or before or since for that matter). Al being poopy in the late 90s may have hastened the motivation for Mike to not want to work with Al, but my opinion is that that was not the main motivating factor. Now, Al having an attitude *about* a business issue, that’s a separate but related issue. But Al saying “hey, I don’t like where this is headed, this isn’t a good idea to hand over so much power and control and income” (or whatever or however he would have put it) is not the same thing as being a stick in the mud or something out on the road on tour. Issues with business stuff are a substantive issue, and whether one would agree with Al’s stance on that issue given all the information, it’s certainly understandable to be vocal about something he disagreed with. Other members of the band surely have and still do vocalize their concerns I would imagine. Al just had bad timing and no support.

We certainly know this is the case. Only that for some posters here, it's magically always 100% ok, praiseworthy even, when one guy does it... regardless of context and potential artistic/interpersonal ramifications... yet those posters determine that it is unquestionably worthy of chiding Al for it when he does it. How exactly does that logic work?

And if Al got his way over what he was upset about, what do those people (who are critical of Al) think would be the detrimental thing that would have come about? Do you really think the band would have gone down a path any worse than the one they in fact did (with Al put in his place the way Mike wanted him to be)? I have a feeling that if we knew specifics, that Al very likely was very justified in what he was complaining about.

Funny thing how nobody, not even the greatest Mike apologists, has even tried to say that Al probably didn't have a justifiable point in what he was frustrated about, and that the band might have gone down a better road had Al gotten more of his way at the time.

Even if one thinks that Mike was justified in what he was complaining about and the way he did it, during SMiLE, Old Man River, and beyond... there's no logical reason for one to magically quantify Al's complaining as worse, or of Al potentially causing worse artistic ramifications by comparison. There is no comparison; Al got shafted because he was Al, while a particularly noted complaining lead singer within the band not only suffered no consequences for his questionable methods of vocalizing concerns, but spearheaded a maneuver to ensure anybody challenging his own vision years later would be muzzled.

If anything, perhaps everyone not named Al Jardine in the band who went along with Mike just got older and less able to tolerate dissenting voices or people trying to rock the boat by 1990, but that doesn't make Mike's hypocrisy about this topic any less apparent. His own "vocalizing concerns" and being an infamous dissenting voice in not the nicest of ways is a very well known thing. Maybe he felt like Kokomo's success made it perfectly ok for him to not have to listen to dissenting voices any longer, but it's still hypocrisy.

For the life of me, I don't know why some people are so afraid to just admit there was a level of hypocrisy involved here. It doesn't make anyone evil, and yes other band members surely have hypocritical viewpoints about other stuff too.  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Using the logic that the Tom Cruise (at the time the hottest actor on the planet following Top Gun)  hit movie didn't make the song a hit: this follow-up should have atleast charted then.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N6U2ubpBd28

[Autotune]

Bottom line: 'tis pure speculation. We know practically nothing about the acrimony with Al in the period in question. We don't know what the issues were, we don't know how these were worded. Per Mike, we know that it was hard for the band to deal with Al at the time; as per Al, we know he disliked some decissions. But we are clueless as to if Al's voicing of such disagreement were the reason for him being hard to deal with for the rest of the group.

Remember the tarmac episode. Those guys argued about issues that happened during the very beginning of the group. Who knows what these guys' issues were in the 90s.

[CenturyDeprived]

Bottom line: 'tis pure speculation. We know practically nothing about the acrimony with Al in the period in question. We don't know what the issues were, we don't know how these were worded. Per Mike, we know that it was hard for the band to deal with Al at the time; as per Al, we know he disliked some decissions. But we are clueless as to if Al's voicing of such disagreement were the reason for him being hard to deal with for the rest of the group.

Remember the tarmac episode. Those guys argued about issues that happened during the very beginning of the group. Who knows what these guys' issues were in the 90s.

Fair enough; I'm aware that there is a good deal of speculation being involved here on the early 1990s Al matter. But the other side of that same token is that nobody should be so sure that the way things were worded, the tone of voice that was used, the body language, the cumulative repetition of all these things *didn't* have an effect on Brian during SMiLE. That's baseless speculation. Yet there are people on this board who would swear backwards and forwards of just that level of absolute, unwavering certainty regarding the SMiLE matter - and that is wrong. The ridiculousness of that extremist ideology is frankly one of the main motivating factors that many level-headed, balanced people come back to this board repeatedly to extinguish.

I'm well aware these are two unrelated incidents in the band's history, but the point of bringing them both up is that we all need to have an open mind and not be closed off to the fact that both men could have acted in a regrettable, hostile, and poor manner in these separate, respective incidents which could have had negative impacts on those around them. Nobody should be so closed off as to immediately poopoo that notion.  

[tpesky]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

Well, we only have the available evidence at hand. We have a reason why Al would have been pissed off (and, at least according to Al’s words, even that might be too strong a term; perhaps disappointed or frustrated are better possible terms) at Carl, and not much of any specifics as to why Carl would pissed off at Al. I’ve heard and read a lot of “pain in the ass” and “difficult” and whatnot, but not only are these vague references, they also don’t seem to amount to the serious, business/political/corporate loggerheads that have supposedly resulted in game-changing shifts within the group.

I’m not trying to downplay how much of a downer it can be if you are touring with someone who has a bad attitude, but I question how big of a deal it was for the BB’s, considering all of the members’ foibles and idiosyncrasies and handicaps they brought to the band over the years.

In short, I don’t think Al was edged out of the band primarily because he had a “bad attitude.” It certainly couldn’t have helped. But I think he just chose to “make waves” about the political/business setup of the band WAY too late in the game, and was left marginalized and powerless (e.g. the Spinal Tap-esque moment where David Marks rejoins the band and Al isn’t told, only eventually noticing that Dave keeps showing up at gigs), and making waves hastened his demise. I think he was subsequently humiliated and marginalized (punished, whatever you want to call it) excessively (I don’t want to start the “Family & Friends” debates again, but as Howie Edelson has said, nobody was confusing Daryl Dragon and Carnie/Wendy and Owen Elliott for “The Beach Boys”).

I'm sure Brian's relationship with Al had its ups and downs too. Remember when he told Usher he thought Al was an ass.

Definitely. Brian also expressed displeasure with Al during an unedited 1985 interview tape (with Westwood One I think), talking about how Al was haranguing producer Steve Levine or some such thing (at some point evidently/allegedly Levine broke down and cried). I have no doubt these guys all have issues with each other.

But when we’re talking about Al’s “exit” from the touring band in 1998, I don’t think a “falling out” between Brian and Al (or between Al and anybody else other than Mike) had much if anything to do with it. If anything, it could have been a lack of contact/relationship at that particular moment that contributed to Brian not coming to Al’s defense at the time.

I also question the extent and magnitude of “issues” others may have had with Al, in the context of looking at all of the members’ issues over the years. That is, I don’t buy that Al having a ‘tude or being contrarian or anything was such a HUGE issue that it impacted the band *more* than all of the other power/money/ego/corporate stuff going on at that time (or before or since for that matter). Al being poopy in the late 90s may have hastened the motivation for Mike to not want to work with Al, but my opinion is that that was not the main motivating factor. Now, Al having an attitude *about* a business issue, that’s a separate but related issue. But Al saying “hey, I don’t like where this is headed, this isn’t a good idea to hand over so much power and control and income” (or whatever or however he would have put it) is not the same thing as being a stick in the mud or something out on the road on tour. Issues with business stuff are a substantive issue, and whether one would agree with Al’s stance on that issue given all the information, it’s certainly understandable to be vocal about something he disagreed with. Other members of the band surely have and still do vocalize their concerns I would imagine. Al just had bad timing and no support.

I'm glad someone was haranguing Steve Levine over that production job!
I think one reason why Al gets labeled as the problem is because he was standing alone against some things. It's easy to label the single dissenter as crazy or a pain. If it was 3-2 or 2-2, it's not so much about 1 person.

[CenturyDeprived]

There’s no indication from what I’ve seen that Carl had a “falling out” with Al. Rather, by Al’s own words, there was an estrangement due to Carl not opposing the issues Al did in the late 90s. That struck me much more as Al being troubled by Carl’s actions than Carl being troubled by Al.

That's the sort of thing that could go both ways. "I'm pissed off with you because..." "Yeah, well I'm pissed off with you because..." Also Bruce may not have been a corporate member but he would still have an opinion on stuff.

Well, we only have the available evidence at hand. We have a reason why Al would have been pissed off (and, at least according to Al’s words, even that might be too strong a term; perhaps disappointed or frustrated are better possible terms) at Carl, and not much of any specifics as to why Carl would pissed off at Al. I’ve heard and read a lot of “pain in the ass” and “difficult” and whatnot, but not only are these vague references, they also don’t seem to amount to the serious, business/political/corporate loggerheads that have supposedly resulted in game-changing shifts within the group.

I’m not trying to downplay how much of a downer it can be if you are touring with someone who has a bad attitude, but I question how big of a deal it was for the BB’s, considering all of the members’ foibles and idiosyncrasies and handicaps they brought to the band over the years.

In short, I don’t think Al was edged out of the band primarily because he had a “bad attitude.” It certainly couldn’t have helped. But I think he just chose to “make waves” about the political/business setup of the band WAY too late in the game, and was left marginalized and powerless (e.g. the Spinal Tap-esque moment where David Marks rejoins the band and Al isn’t told, only eventually noticing that Dave keeps showing up at gigs), and making waves hastened his demise. I think he was subsequently humiliated and marginalized (punished, whatever you want to call it) excessively (I don’t want to start the “Family & Friends” debates again, but as Howie Edelson has said, nobody was confusing Daryl Dragon and Carnie/Wendy and Owen Elliott for “The Beach Boys”).

I'm sure Brian's relationship with Al had its ups and downs too. Remember when he told Usher he thought Al was an ass.

Definitely. Brian also expressed displeasure with Al during an unedited 1985 interview tape (with Westwood One I think), talking about how Al was haranguing producer Steve Levine or some such thing (at some point evidently/allegedly Levine broke down and cried). I have no doubt these guys all have issues with each other.

But when we’re talking about Al’s “exit” from the touring band in 1998, I don’t think a “falling out” between Brian and Al (or between Al and anybody else other than Mike) had much if anything to do with it. If anything, it could have been a lack of contact/relationship at that particular moment that contributed to Brian not coming to Al’s defense at the time.

I also question the extent and magnitude of “issues” others may have had with Al, in the context of looking at all of the members’ issues over the years. That is, I don’t buy that Al having a ‘tude or being contrarian or anything was such a HUGE issue that it impacted the band *more* than all of the other power/money/ego/corporate stuff going on at that time (or before or since for that matter). Al being poopy in the late 90s may have hastened the motivation for Mike to not want to work with Al, but my opinion is that that was not the main motivating factor. Now, Al having an attitude *about* a business issue, that’s a separate but related issue. But Al saying “hey, I don’t like where this is headed, this isn’t a good idea to hand over so much power and control and income” (or whatever or however he would have put it) is not the same thing as being a stick in the mud or something out on the road on tour. Issues with business stuff are a substantive issue, and whether one would agree with Al’s stance on that issue given all the information, it’s certainly understandable to be vocal about something he disagreed with. Other members of the band surely have and still do vocalize their concerns I would imagine. Al just had bad timing and no support.

I'm glad someone was haranguing Steve Levine over that production job!
I think one reason why Al gets labeled as the problem is because he was standing alone against some things. It's easy to label the single dissenter as crazy or a pain. If it was 3-2 or 2-2, it's not so much about 1 person.

Al seemed to come to his senses at some point in the 80s moreso than any other member, relatively speaking. Tough to not have respect for him about that.

[GhostyTMRS]

Bottom line: 'tis pure speculation. We know practically nothing about the acrimony with Al in the period in question. We don't know what the issues were, we don't know how these were worded. Per Mike, we know that it was hard for the band to deal with Al at the time; as per Al, we know he disliked some decissions. But we are clueless as to if Al's voicing of such disagreement were the reason for him being hard to deal with for the rest of the group.

Remember the tarmac episode. Those guys argued about issues that happened during the very beginning of the group. Who knows what these guys' issues were in the 90s.

Fair enough; I'm aware that there is a good deal of speculation being involved here on the early 1990s Al matter. But the other side of that same token is that nobody should be so sure that the way things were worded, the tone of voice that was used, the body language, the cumulative repetition of all these things *didn't* have an effect on Brian during SMiLE. That's baseless speculation. Yet there are people on this board who would swear backwards and forwards of just that level of absolute, unwavering certainty regarding the SMiLE matter - and that is wrong. The ridiculousness of that extremist ideology is frankly one of the main motivating factors that many level-headed, balanced people come back to this board repeatedly to extinguish.

I'm well aware these are two unrelated incidents in the band's history, but the point of bringing them both up is that we all need to have an open mind and not be closed off to the fact that both men could have acted in a regrettable, hostile, and poor manner in these separate, respective incidents which could have had negative impacts on those around them. Nobody should be so closed off as to immediately poopoo that notion.  

Admittedly, I'm not on this board constantly, so I don't see 'the ridiculousness of that extremist ideology is frankly one of the main motivating factors that many level-headed, balanced people come back to this board repeatedly to extinguish." What I see are some people who probably don't even care for Mike Love personally stepping in to combat the relentless attacks on him. I mean, if ever there was a definition of an obsession it would have to be the endless vilification of Mike. Yeah, I get it. He's done some crummy things in his day, but come on, man....aren't we supposed to be fans of this band?


I have no doubt Mike had big problems with the SMiLE stuff and voiced them. Considering his personality, I don't imagine he approached Brian about those concerns like a Mr. Rogers either. What I DO sense here (and elsewhere) is an obsessive desire to lay the blame on SMiLE's collapse almost exclusively on Mike. That's conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room, which is Brian's drug abuse during that period. The drug abuse that, to quote Brian "shattered my mind"..As he said "you can experiment and experiment and experiment and experiment yourself right out of action". I mean, there's a reason why Brian constantly brings up regretting taking drugs in interviews, even when it's not even asked about (like he's done his FB Q&A's). Brian is no dummy. He knows that he never should have gone down that road. Crap, it nearly killed him! Any discussion about why SMiLE failed has to begin and end with Brian's drug abuse. Personally, I think even if all of the guys had cheered Brian from the sidelines during that whole period (and they weren't around for much of it actually) we may have gotten something SMiLE-like out of Brian but it would've been foggy at best (something I think the film Love & Mercy illustrates quite well).

...and this is not a case of me slamming Brian. I've often stated on this board that I wish interviewers would NOT focus on Brian's drug abuse and the years where he was out of action, because it's become so much a part of the narrative of his story that in some ways, it almost threatens to take the focus away from his music. Heck, when I interviewed him I never brought it up! I really enjoyed Love & Mercy because it was a fantastic film that showed how the drug use exacerbated Brian's underlying psychological problems and made them even worse. I recognize that telling that story may be beneficial to other people thinking of going down that road (and I've lost some people who did, and it truly sucks) but a part of me was like "Ugh, this is going to be the focus of every interview again, when I'd rather we talk about NPP".


I've stated it before and I'll do it again. I'm a Brian fanatic but also a Beach Boys fanatic. They may say or do things that make me cringe sometimes (okay...a lot..with these guys) but the positive far outweighs the bad, and to continually focus on the negative only serves to make the experience of being a fan a lot less fun. And I'll say it again, I think Brian is a genius and I think all of the Beach Boys...ALL of them...Carl, Dennis, Al, Mike, David and Bruce are musical heavyweights and deserve some measure of respect from their own fan base (I mean, geez, at the very least from their own fans!)

...on the other side of the coin, obviously I think the music is fair game. So go right ahead and crap on SIP (although I really like at least 3 songs on it)

[CenturyDeprived]

Bottom line: 'tis pure speculation. We know practically nothing about the acrimony with Al in the period in question. We don't know what the issues were, we don't know how these were worded. Per Mike, we know that it was hard for the band to deal with Al at the time; as per Al, we know he disliked some decissions. But we are clueless as to if Al's voicing of such disagreement were the reason for him being hard to deal with for the rest of the group.

Remember the tarmac episode. Those guys argued about issues that happened during the very beginning of the group. Who knows what these guys' issues were in the 90s.

Fair enough; I'm aware that there is a good deal of speculation being involved here on the early 1990s Al matter. But the other side of that same token is that nobody should be so sure that the way things were worded, the tone of voice that was used, the body language, the cumulative repetition of all these things *didn't* have an effect on Brian during SMiLE. That's baseless speculation. Yet there are people on this board who would swear backwards and forwards of just that level of absolute, unwavering certainty regarding the SMiLE matter - and that is wrong. The ridiculousness of that extremist ideology is frankly one of the main motivating factors that many level-headed, balanced people come back to this board repeatedly to extinguish.

I'm well aware these are two unrelated incidents in the band's history, but the point of bringing them both up is that we all need to have an open mind and not be closed off to the fact that both men could have acted in a regrettable, hostile, and poor manner in these separate, respective incidents which could have had negative impacts on those around them. Nobody should be so closed off as to immediately poopoo that notion.  

Admittedly, I'm not on this board constantly, so I don't see 'the ridiculousness of that extremist ideology is frankly one of the main motivating factors that many level-headed, balanced people come back to this board repeatedly to extinguish." What I see are some people who probably don't even care for Mike Love personally stepping in to combat the relentless attacks on him. I mean, if ever there was a definition of an obsession it would have to be the endless vilification of Mike. Yeah, I get it. He's done some crummy things in his day, but come on, man....aren't we supposed to be fans of this band?


I have no doubt Mike had big problems with the SMiLE stuff and voiced them. Considering his personality, I don't imagine he approached Brian about those concerns like a Mr. Rogers either. What I DO sense here (and elsewhere) is an obsessive desire to lay the blame on SMiLE's collapse almost exclusively on Mike. That's conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room, which is Brian's drug abuse during that period. The drug abuse that, to quote Brian "shattered my mind"..As he said "you can experiment and experiment and experiment and experiment yourself right out of action". I mean, there's a reason why Brian constantly brings up regretting taking drugs in interviews, even when it's not even asked about (like he's done his FB Q&A's). Brian is no dummy. He knows that he never should have gone down that road. Crap, it nearly killed him! Any discussion about why SMiLE failed has to begin and end with Brian's drug abuse. Personally, I think even if all of the guys had cheered Brian from the sidelines during that whole period (and they weren't around for much of it actually) we may have gotten something SMiLE-like out of Brian but it would've been foggy at best (something I think the film Love & Mercy illustrates quite well).

...and this is not a case of me slamming Brian. I've often stated on this board that I wish interviewers would NOT focus on Brian's drug abuse and the years where he was out of action, because it's become so much a part of the narrative of his story that in some ways, it almost threatens to take the focus away from his music. Heck, when I interviewed him I never brought it up! I really enjoyed Love & Mercy because it was a fantastic film that showed how the drug use exacerbated Brian's underlying psychological problems and made them even worse. I recognize that telling that story may be beneficial to other people thinking of going down that road (and I've lost some people who did, and it truly sucks) but a part of me was like "Ugh, this is going to be the focus of every interview again, when I'd rather we talk about NPP".


I've stated it before and I'll do it again. I'm a Brian fanatic but also a Beach Boys fanatic. They may say or do things that make me cringe sometimes (okay...a lot..with these guys) but the positive far outweighs the bad, and to continually focus on the negative only serves to make the experience of being a fan a lot less fun. And I'll say it again, I think Brian is a genius and I think all of the Beach Boys...ALL of them...Carl, Dennis, Al, Mike, David and Bruce are musical heavyweights and deserve some measure of respect from their own fan base (I mean, geez, at the very least from their own fans!)

...on the other side of the coin, obviously I think the music is fair game. So go right ahead and crap on SIP (although I really like at least 3 songs on it)

Many good points there. For the record, I'm both a Brian fanatic and a Beach Boys fanatic, I embrace a good amount of later material including some guilty pleasure SIP and Still Cruisin' stuff that many hardcore Brian fans would turn their nose to, and I absolutely do not lay the blame on SMiLE's collapse anywhere near almost exclusively on Mike.

[Pretty Funky]

Iian Lee. Thread originator (his 4th post on this board)

No posts since.

Last active August 6 (about page 4 of this thread, now 25 pages)

Is this some kind of board record?