Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

IIRC, there were "conditions precedent"...

Whenever I see quotation marks used in this manner, I mentally read it with a heavy emphasis, in Alan Rickman's voice. Please stop doing it, it's most disconcerting.

And you just did the same, didn't you ? 

Andrew - there is no punk-tuation requirement, given the general informality of this message board.  The legal term of art "condition precedent" was used as a descriptor, relative to the terms and conditions that were apparently un-fullfilled by Al Jardine leading to the litigation.  As terms of art, they are set apart grammatically. 

There is little censorship done on this board. And that would include manner-of-expression. 

As far as Alan Rickman's voice is concerned, from "Formula 'secret of perfect voice'" (BBC News) 30 May 2008 for wiki, 'Two researchers, a linguist and a sound engineer, found "the perfect [male] voice"to be a combination of Rickman's and Jeremy Irons' voices based on a sample of 50 voices."   At least you are "hearing these voices" in good quality.   

[filledeplage]

Cam and filledthepage(withdeflectionsandquotationmarks):



Number one at never giving an inch! And not answering your darned questions, 'CAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN AND I DON'T HAVE TO, YOU BULLY!

Cruz has proven himself not inflexible.  He just fired his spokesperson, for falsely attacking Marco Rubio. 

[filledeplage]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.
Many are "crossovers" who attend both.  If you saw the Touring Band  and Brian in a similar location you would see the same faces, seeing both contexts.  It presupposes "nothing came before" Smile and "nothing came after" Smile, and it is a window that has "stood still" in the continuum.  

Amazing. I did NOT "blanket" attack anything. I was initially referring to a sizable contingent of the causal fan attendees. Not that you or I have any way of quantifying the number, but I didn't say a sizable portion of the entire audience, just a good chunk of the group people who attend who I'd say fit into the casual fan group. So, a good portion - of a portion - of the attendees may have obtained an incorrect impression of Brian that was presented in the flim, especially if one looks back to 2000 and the first few years following the film's release.

I went out of my way to say that there are a good chunk of hardcore/huge fans who attend too. How on earth does this equate to any kind of blanket statement? A blanket statement is: All fans of M&B are casual fans who all got an impression of Brian from a film. I did not say anything of the sort.

The only blanket thing in this convo is how you blanket refuse to say anything remotely bad about Mike. Just like you ducked my questions when I inquired if you thought it was likely or not that Mike would have been deeply upset that some BB fans have the blanket "parasites" impression based on the film... and when I inquired if it makes any sense that Uncle Jesse being both a producer + Mike's good buddy would have had ZERO effect on how the film turned out.  

You cannot actually respond to those questions without saying something either outlandish or focusing on something unrelated.

I double dare you to actually answer my questions. Your favorite film must be Howard the Duck the Questions.

Double dare.  This board is to communicate and not to demand responses of others.  I am unmoved by insults or dares. 

the point is that a poster who refrains entirely from answering questions makes it seem like they're only there to spout on about whatever it is they do without having any intention having a discussion.

Woodstock - some posters are looking for others to change their positions, and that is not a requirement on this forum. The problem is that they don't like the response.  Not my problem.   

[Lee Marshall]

Wow!!!  Ain't this the typical of all typicals.  Ol' bald-head is found to be holding the smoking gun and the topic gets shifted to punctuation?  The weakest of the weak...of the week.  It is what it is and no matter how many road apples are tossed in to line this path it still leads to the guy who is, and who has been for decades, the problem.  Mike Love...period.

[Cam Mott]

Instead of insulting each other, we could agree to disagree about our elevated opinion of our opinions.

If anyone gets some real info from the people involved please share it.

[Angua]

You mean we should respect each other while the pro-Mike lobby are on the back foot and we can go back to not respecting each other when you have thought of something else to defend this indefensible position.

We have real information - the court has ruled on it - the end.

[KDS]

I'm gonna call it. 

Time of death for this thread: 9:51am EST. 

 

[HeyJude]

Andrew - there is no punk-tuation requirement, given the general informality of this message board. 

You do realize you spent several posts attacking someone else for using asterisks here, right? Even after they offered essentially the explanation you provide here. Seriously?

[HeyJude]

Instead of insulting each other, we could agree to disagree about our elevated opinion of our opinions.

If anyone gets some real info from the people involved please share it.

I’d say the court documentation on the 2005 case is actually a trove of “real info.” If someone just said “Remember when Mike did that lawsuit dealie about Smile in 2005?”, I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable getting into a detailed discussion. But we actually have the 2005 filing with oodles of “background” information, as well as a 2010 appeals court ruling that explains the history of the case itself.

This nonsense about haranguing the actual lawyers and asking, I guess, what they were thinking back five or ten years ago, is unrealistic and unneeded. The evidence is right there in those 2005/2010 documents.

I think that’s maybe what’s throwing people off. A couple people who won’t budge an inch in characterizing anything about Mike’s 2005 lawsuit as unfortunate or lamentable, who countless times have previously cited court documents and law to defend Mike against others.

Good lord, 16 or 17 years of reading about how the Al/BRI lawsuits proved what an a**hole Al Jardine is, yet when it comes to this 2005 Mike lawsuit, we just get a shoulder shrug and a “I’m waiting for “real info” comment?

Which comes back around to the first point, which is, has it just devolved into insulting each other? Well, I don’t think there have been much of any direct insults. But certainly, when it comes to a very small group of folks who won’t budge at all on this 2005 lawsuit issue, it does then become more about their motivations and potential inconsistency in discussing things related to the band. Is it okay to call another poster’s motivations into question, or to point out inconsistencies in their reasoning or apparent sense of fairness (or lack thereof)? I’d say it can be done respectfully. I’ve had it done to me, as most others have. But it does make things even more circular, and more a case of “debating about the debate.”

So it’s probably worth just dropping. But it’s a bummer, because much like Mike himself, I think if a few folks would just acknowledge one iota that Mike comes off badly in that 2005 lawsuit, it would help their credibility immensely, not to mention keep discussions from going off the rails.

[Ang Jones]

Instead of insulting each other, we could agree to disagree about our elevated opinion of our opinions.

If anyone gets some real info from the people involved please share it.

Would you care to forward this suggestion to Mike?

[filledeplage]

Andrew - there is no punk-tuation requirement, given the general informality of this message board. 

You do realize you spent several posts attacking someone else for using asterisks here, right? Even after they offered essentially the explanation you provide here. Seriously?

Hey Jude - it was the question of whether a bona fide usage exists.  It appears that is a function of text-speak or internet research search terms.  Prolly.

If one can be found, outside of the footnoting or end-noting in term papers, I would be highly interested.    

 

[filledeplage]

You mean we should respect each other while the pro-Mike lobby are on the back foot and we can go back to not respecting each other when you have thought of something else to defend this indefensible position.

We have real information - the court has ruled on it - the end.

Words to live by.  "The court has ruled on it - the end." 

[HeyJude]

Andrew - there is no punk-tuation requirement, given the general informality of this message board. 

You do realize you spent several posts attacking someone else for using asterisks here, right? Even after they offered essentially the explanation you provide here. Seriously?

Hey Jude - it was the question of whether a bona fide usage exists.  It appears that is a function of text-speak or internet research search terms.  Prolly.

If one can be found, outside of the footnoting or end-noting in term papers, I would be highly interested.    

 

Huh?

No, I think AGD correctly was highlighting a stylistic choice in your posts that, at best, is perhaps skewing the intended meaning of what you're trying to post and, at worst, is just annoying and makes people think of the Chris Farley "air quotes" character on SNL.

Conversely, your "asterisk" sidebar seems much more ad hominem-fueled pedantry.

But yeah, KDS is right. Thread is dead. I don't particularly want to pick at the corpse any longer if at all possible.

[filledeplage]

Instead of insulting each other, we could agree to disagree about our elevated opinion of our opinions.

If anyone gets some real info from the people involved please share it.

I’d say the court documentation on the 2005 case is actually a trove of “real info.” If someone just said “Remember when Mike did that lawsuit dealie about Smile in 2005?”, I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable getting into a detailed discussion. But we actually have the 2005 filing with oodles of “background” information, as well as a 2010 appeals court ruling that explains the history of the case itself.

This nonsense about haranguing the actual lawyers and asking, I guess, what they were thinking back five or ten years ago, is unrealistic and unneeded. The evidence is right there in those 2005/2010 documents.

I think that’s maybe what’s throwing people off. A couple people who won’t budge an inch in characterizing anything about Mike’s 2005 lawsuit as unfortunate or lamentable, who countless times have previously cited court documents and law to defend Mike against others.

Good lord, 16 or 17 years of reading about how the Al/BRI lawsuits proved what an a**hole Al Jardine is, yet when it comes to this 2005 Mike lawsuit, we just get a shoulder shrug and a “I’m waiting for “real info” comment?

Which comes back around to the first point, which is, has it just devolved into insulting each other? Well, I don’t think there have been much of any direct insults. But certainly, when it comes to a very small group of folks who won’t budge at all on this 2005 lawsuit issue, it does then become more about their motivations and potential inconsistency in discussing things related to the band. Is it okay to call another poster’s motivations into question, or to point out inconsistencies in their reasoning or apparent sense of fairness (or lack thereof)? I’d say it can be done respectfully. I’ve had it done to me, as most others have. But it does make things even more circular, and more a case of “debating about the debate.”

So it’s probably worth just dropping. But it’s a bummer, because much like Mike himself, I think if a few folks would just acknowledge one iota that Mike comes off badly in that 2005 lawsuit, it would help their credibility immensely, not to mention keep discussions from going off the rails.

Hey Jude - people assess material and make their own judgments.  They should not feel bullied into changing their opinions that they have been informed by whatever reading they have done.  It is not ok to question someone's sentiments if they don't happen to align with anyone else's. 

And, I have read thousands of U.S. (and some foreign) court cases.  The only ones that continue to shock me are medical malpractice/personal injury, where someone is killed. Or, employment or other discrimination.  Not much else is shocking, to me, at this point.

[leggo of my ego]

Read it all last night, just got the ish in the mail yesterday.

End of article is touching but what I took with me more than anything else is Mister Luv is a very bitter, angry man.
TM may be curbing his hate but it sure is NOT curing the problem.

He wants to relate to Brian, work with him -- on Mike Love's terms only.

He has a touch of entitlement mentality as well. Telling that he expected FREE tix to the biopic and when he didn't get them he just refused to go, says he "lived the movie".

At his age I don't see any change, he has the accumulated hate of 50 years to overcome.

[guitarfool2002]

Understand some fans joined this forum or similar forums in recent years and may have missed previous discussions going back 10 years or more, but there have been discussions on certain points from this thread in the past and which still exist in the archives. And for fans who remember those discussions, and recall who was involved and providing information on points like the American Family TV movie, it can be frustrating to see some in this discussion seemingly posting things like none of that info was ever revealed.

Want comments from people involved directly in that film, as in producers? We had that. It's in the archives. And beyond that, they're included in discussions that Cam Mott for one participated in, and also offered the "contact Kirk Ellis" comment going back roughly 9 years.

More info needed? Articles published in early 2000 when the film was coming out and a few years after wrote that Mike was a "technical adviser" on the film. In a July 2002 interview Mike said this about the film:



Two years after the fact, Mike seems to think the main issue most people who criticized the film, the way the characters were portrayed particularly Brian Wilson, was well done.

From this board's previous discussions, I'm also going by what board members like Andrew Doe had been saying here, that Mike did have an influence on the film. And there was info that the early versions of the script had been changed significantly by the time that "part 2" was broadcast, and that Brian Wilson (who had contributed a new vocal recording with Gary Griffin to the soundtrack) had not seen part 2 until just before it was broadcast and was not happy with the portrayal. It goes on and on. Quotes like this:

Going back to AAF, Mike himself said certain things in the movie bothered him. He didn't write or make it himself.

His name's not on it, granted, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a huge influence over what appeared onscreen.

And previous discussions like this:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2371.0.html

They tend to add up and stick in readers' minds especially when points previously made are dismissed or ignored as they have been in this discussion, in some cases by readers who know all of this has been available to read for years.

The frustration is there are people currently reading (and posting) that know the details beyond speculations or at least take the word of people who were providing the info from either direct or close sources, and those of us who have been doing this stuff for years if not decades prior to joining up in 2012 or whenever...yet the issues are being dodged and deflected while the main issues are allowed to be answered by either non-answers, sidetrack issues like punctuation, or the decade-old "ask Kirk Ellis" type of reply.

It's in the board's archives, for one, if getting the facts is the goal. So far, getting the facts doesn't seem to be as much of a goal as derailing the thread with non-issues or declaring it dead and allowing non-issues to stand in place of what was said years ago by people who would know.

So are we interested in getting the facts out there? I'd hope so.

And as far as connecting the 2000 film to the 2005 lawsuit, the issue there is the similarity between the portrayal of people and events in 2000 from the film and portrayals of the same people and events in a 2005 legal filing. For everyone from participants to the real people being portrayed to the fans watching to the critics who reviewed the film in 2000 and beyond, the characterizations in "Part 2" were some of the main reasons why the film lost its credibility. Yet 2 years after the fact, Mike points them out as a positive in an interview, then in 2005 similar portrayals appear in a lawsuit with his name as the plaintiff filing the suit.

It's all there, from the text of the various cases to the previous discussions and comments on this board, including those of one of the people involved in making the film. Maybe those should be considered for historical purposes if nothing else, unless the priority is punctuation and finding contact info for Kirk Ellis.

[Emily]

So we have two very similar depictions with Mike Love closely related to the development in both cases; even if he didn't write it or originate it, he was in a position to correct it and didn't. He must have sanctioned it, which is a shame. What I'm curious about is whether this is actually how he perceived/perceives events. I would guess it is and that his skewed perception is what gets him so at odds.

[HeyJude]

There's an interview from somewhere in the early 2000s where Stamos seems to acknowledge that "An American Family" was a debacle. I can't find that one. But here's a few words from him from a 2010 Rolling Stone article, concerning his then-new plans to do some sort of non-biographical BB project (which thankfully hasn't come to pass so far):

Stamos says he doesn"t want to repeat the American Family miniseries, which, as Rob Sheffield wrote in Rolling Stone in 2000, "presents Pet Sounds as a fiasco and Mike Love as the group"s real creative brain."

"It was so personal and some of it upset certain people," Stamos says. "That's the last thing I want to do to my heroes, you know? That's why I thought I would never do another Beach Boys project. But this one made so much sense. All it could do is really help [them]."

[HeyJude]

Also just some extra context from a 2000 LA Times article concerning "An American Family":

Sahanaja remembers a rehearsal last summer when Wilson's wife and comanager, Melinda, was on the phone with a copy of the script in front of her, yelling at one of Love's representatives over certain questionable content. Brian was so upset that he asked for the keys to the car and sat in the parking lot until the incident was over. "It was so sad," says Sahanaja, "because Brian's happier now, trying to move on -- and yet this stuff from the past keeps popping up to haunt him. My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

[guitarfool2002]

That Beach Boys project that didn't materialize was a musical which Stamos was trying to make happen which would have been produced by the same Zadan-Meron-Stamos production team that was responsible for the 2000 TV movie.

Edit: The project is/was titled "All Summer Long" and actually got bought by Fox 2000 back in 2010. Edit #2: As of this month, the film musical project is still in development according to reports.

[petsoundsnola]

If Mike Love articles can spark so many responses, I can only imagine the number of pages a future "Mike Love Book Released" thread will generate.  The website owners may have to invest in new servers.

[SMiLE Brian]

Checkmate from GF2002 and hey jude!

[SMiLE Brian]

If Mike Love articles can spark so many responses, I can only imagine the number of pages a future "Mike Love Book Released" thread will generate.  The website owners may have to invest in new servers.

SS board kickstarter?

[CenturyDeprived]

Scenario 2 – His lawyers are to blame for the wording and concealed it from Mike.  Mike apparently did nothing when he found out about it, didn’t issue an apology or retraction nor did he bring a suit against them and is still using them.   He may not have been aware or responsible initially but his later actions mean he has tacitly absorbed responsibility for the words used.

The first rule of Mike Club: ****never publicly apologize**** and never back down. Apologies are for chickenshits.

[CenturyDeprived]

Instead of insulting each other, we could agree to disagree about our elevated opinion of our opinions.

If anyone gets some real info from the people involved please share it.

Ducking questions isn't agreeing to disagree. Ducking questions is ducking questions, and it's a pathetic way of having a conversation, especially when one of the prime duckers has the unbridled temerity and chutzpah to call out *other* people for avoiding/ducking.  

People don't just duck questions for no reason. There's always a reason, and "not wanting to answer" with no further comment is not an actual reason.