Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board)

[KDS]

Please stop calling people who criticize Mike "haters." I guess that term has fallen into more common usage in recent years, but it implies that people who criticize him are being hateful, and it also ends up being rather dismissive.

"Anybody who doesn't like this must be a hater" is the same as "It's Mike's book so I'm sure it'll suck."

I think there's a few different levels of the anti Mike crowd. 

You have fans who don't much care for Mike, but still give him chances, and even attend his shows, but don't like the things he says interviews, and don't care for some of his past actions (ie. RNRHOF speech).  More like dislike. 

Then, you have others who've given Mike every chance in the book, but have given up based on his recent actions.  I think these fans dislike Mike, but might still pick up the book and give it a chance.

But, I think there is also a very small group of people who are legitimate "haters."  These are the ones who refuse to give Mike any credit for any past Beach Boys successes, or acknowledge any positive contributions he's made.  They also will poo poo anything Mike releases without hearing it (ie. the Christmas single and the book).  And some will generally trash almost anything with M. Love's name attached to it without being objective. 

I think that last group, especially on a board like this (as opposed to, say, YouTube commenters where the majority of people posting seem to hate *everything* ever) is so few in number that it's barely worth raising as a topic. And even those people probably didn't wake up one day not knowing who Mike Love was, saw a picture of him, and decided they "hated" him. Even that over-the-top blanket criticism stems to some degree from stuff Mike has done over the years.

The problem is that genuine criticism, especially when it has an extra layer of snark or edge to it, gets lumped in with the worst of the bunch.

There's also a frustrating tendency for an inflammatory Mike interview, for instance, to materialize, followed by criticism, followed by some folks assuming that criticism comes out of some deep-rooted hate of Mike. If Mike gives his 500th d***head interview and people criticize it, maybe they're still criticizing it because it's genuinely a lamentable interview. The criticism can become *redundant*, that's for sure. But it's not hate. And it's usually only redundant because Mike's statements and actions are often redundant in their negative, inflammatory nature.

I also find that the fewer years one has been a BB fan, the less fed-up those fans *sometimes* tend to be about Mike. Reading old interviews and learning the history is one thing; but if you've lived through decades and decades of this stuff in *real time*, it sometimes carries a little more weight. Absorbing the 50+ years of their history in a very short period of time is much easier now, and it sometimes softens the decades and decades of seeing and hearing the same thing over and over.

Which is why I think Mike really blew it in 2012, because he had won over many of those old, crusty, jaded fans who had found Mike unfortunate for decades prior.

Everything there makes sense. 

It's also kind of like people who say anything negative about Brian Wilson (be it an album, song, or concert) are accused of hating Brian and / or loving Mike. 

[HeyJude]

Everything there makes sense.  

It's also kind of like people who say anything negative about Brian Wilson (be it an album, song, or concert) are accused of hating Brian and / or loving Mike.  

Some BB/Brian fans can be too overly-forgiving and/or too defensive. I myself had to deal with that a bit with my middling review of the "No Pier Presure" album last year.

But I don't exactly liken massive, targeted criticism of Brian with criticism of Mike.

They *can* come from the same place. But, and this is just my gut, while I've seen plenty of criticism of Mike, it doesn't often really smell like it's coming from people with an apparent agenda. Again, apart from the small number of trolls out there (and even their agenda seems more to be a troll than it is an anti-Mike agenda), the criticism of Mike seems to be pretty boilerplate, expected reactions to what Mike does.

I would argue, again as objectively as I can, that I've seen more out-of-line "hit pieces" on Brian in recent years than I have Mike. That's not to say that some articles haven't gone hyperbolic in criticizing Mike (that usually comes from lazy journalists that can't really say much beyond "Mike is an a-hole" without giving it much context).

But stuff like a few Beard pieces from last year (ironically one being ostensibly an "interview" with Mike) are the sort of over-the-top, out of line, out of left field attack pieces that I haven't really seen on Mike.

And also ironically, I'd say the person doing essentially a series of hit-pieces on Brian is Mike himself, and that's something you certainly don't see in turn happening against Mike.

[KDS]

Everything there makes sense.  

It's also kind of like people who say anything negative about Brian Wilson (be it an album, song, or concert) are accused of hating Brian and / or loving Mike.  

Some BB/Brian fans can be too overly-forgiving and/or too defensive. I myself had to deal with that a bit with my middling review of the "No Pier Presure" album last year.

But I don't exactly liken massive, targeted criticism of Brian with criticism of Mike.

They *can* come from the same place. But, and this is just my gut, while I've seen plenty of criticism of Mike, it doesn't often really smell like it's coming from people with an apparent agenda. Again, apart from the small number of trolls out there (and even their agenda seems more to be a troll than it is an anti-Mike agenda), the criticism of Mike seems to be pretty boilerplate, expected reactions to what Mike does.

I would argue, again as objectively as I can, that I've seen more out-of-line "hit pieces" on Brian in recent years than I have Mike. That's not to say that some articles haven't gone hyperbolic in criticizing Mike (that usually comes from lazy journalists that can't really say much beyond "Mike is an a-hole" without giving it much context).

But stuff like a few Beard pieces from last year (ironically one being ostensibly an "interview" with Mike) are the sort of over-the-top, out of line, out of left field attack pieces that I haven't really seen on Mike.

And also ironically, I'd say the person doing essentially a series of hit-pieces on Brian is Mike himself, and that's something you certainly don't see in turn happening against Mike.

I'm pretty sure that one "hit piece" on Brian - the one titled "Let's Debunk the Myth of Brian's Genius" or something or other - was written for the sole purpose of stirring things up, and maybe getting some clicks from loyal BB/BW fans.  That writer knew exactly what buttons to push (ie. slamming almost all of Brian's post PS material, Love You in particular) to get a rise out of fans. 

I can say whether or not the piece came directly from Mike's camp.  I honestly don't even think Mike would stoop that low. 

[HeyJude]

Hit pieces, which we're obviously using as a very loose term, wouldn't need to come from "Mike's camp."

I don't think *all* of the Brian pieces that could be called "hit pieces" have anything to do with Mike at all necessarily. 

I think something like those couple of Beard pieces, especially the one that was essentially a Mike monologue as well as the "Is Brian brain damaged? Yes." piece, did come from more of a "Pro-Mike, Anti-Brian" place. But they're not all like that.

When any "camp" has anything even tangentially to do with something negative being put around on someone else, it's usually more about using contacts and journalists and even fans and either knowingly or unknowingly parting out key pieces of information (and sometimes perks) that will just end up tending to surface in the form of things that paint the other "side" in a negative light.

That's why I laugh at all of the "on Mike's or Brian's payroll" stuff. It's wrong on either count. It's ludicrous in most cases, and in the likely rare cases where a band member *would* use someone to essentially assert their agenda online or wherever, it's not like they'd literally cut someone a "Say good things about me" check each month or something.

[IainLee]

Please stop calling people who criticize Mike "haters." I guess that term has fallen into more common usage in recent years, but it implies that people who criticize him are being hateful, and it also ends up being rather dismissive.

"Anybody who doesn't like this must be a hater" is the same as "It's Mike's book so I'm sure it'll suck."

I'm fully aware of the difference between critics and haters. I use the word deliberately.

 

Edit - to bring it back OT, it's a cracking read. Keen to hear your thoughts when you guys read it.

[HeyJude]

Please stop calling people who criticize Mike "haters." I guess that term has fallen into more common usage in recent years, but it implies that people who criticize him are being hateful, and it also ends up being rather dismissive.

"Anybody who doesn't like this must be a hater" is the same as "It's Mike's book so I'm sure it'll suck."

I'm fully aware of the difference between critics and haters. I use the word deliberately.

 

Edit - to bring it back OT, it's a cracking read. Keen to hear your thoughts when you guys read it.

Then I would suggest that bringing up "haters" in reference to Mike's book is pretty much a straw man argument. *Especially* when it comes to this board.

I think the word is misused and overused, and there are a myriad of articles specifically calling for people to stop using the word for these reasons.

As for the book, I've read excerpts and they read, thus far, somewhat like his longer Facebook posts (his description in the book of his recent birthday party and holiday season look to possibly be re-written/expanded versions of his actual Facebook posts). I already see plenty of spin, which is true of most any autobiography. It's part and parcel for Mike's writing to do stuff like the aforementioned "license revenue" and frame it *not* as Mike paying a relatively small fee to make a s**t-ton of money, but rather his "hard work" in bringing revenue into BRI.

The style of the writing thus far seems to be clear and concise and straightforward, and I always appreciate when unneeded writing devices and flourishes are dispensed with. I wouldn't say anything is really "brilliant" in terms of its prose. It's more like a concentrated dose of his monologues of recent years, with more room to breathe so that hopefully he doesn't have to mention on every page that the Wilsons did drugs and that he was ripped off on songwriting credits.

[KDS]

Please stop calling people who criticize Mike "haters." I guess that term has fallen into more common usage in recent years, but it implies that people who criticize him are being hateful, and it also ends up being rather dismissive.

"Anybody who doesn't like this must be a hater" is the same as "It's Mike's book so I'm sure it'll suck."

I'm fully aware of the difference between critics and haters. I use the word deliberately.

 

Edit - to bring it back OT, it's a cracking read. Keen to hear your thoughts when you guys read it.

I might have to wait a little bit.  I've been instructed not to buy the book, which likely means Little St. Nick will be dropped a copy down my chimney four months from tomorrow.  (I've been told the same about Brian's book). 

[urbanite]

Is there any discussion in the book about Mike's falling out with Al? 

[Debbie KL]

Ah, one of those threads I won't be touching with a 10-foot-pole.  People here were baited before by stuff like this.  I think, happily, I skipped it, or made a few vague comments.

I have no comments on this book.  I'll be back when it's out and there's a legitimate thread after it's release.

You're a little obvious this time, Iain.

[SMiLE Brian]

*yawn*

[Debbie KL]

*yawn*

Yep.

[Theydon Bois]

Enjoying the index!  Some highlights:

"acid alliteration," 151-53
   [Three pages!]

"All I Wanna Do," 231
"All I Want to Do", 204, 219, 375
   [The mind boggles as to why it's that way round.  And why the latter comes back on page 375.]

Hussein, Saddam, 382
Hutton, Danny, 149
   [Exciting that these two get the same number of pages.]

Looking Back With Love, 290-91
   [To be fair to Mike, it's more than I was expecting.]

Some family mentions...  See if you can spot the anomaly.
Love, Ambha (daughter)
Love, Brian (son)
Love, Christian (son)
Love, Hayleigh (daughter)
Love, Melinda (daughter)
Love, Mike Jr. (son)
Love, Shawn Marie
Love, Summer Bhavani (daughter)
Love, Teresa (daughter)

Love and Mercy (acclaimed and award-winning film featuring Mike Love as a character), not in index

Parks, Van Dyke, 149, 152, 156, 159, 163, 241, 330
   [That's more references than John Stamos!]

Summer Days (And Summer Nights!), 113
Summer in Paradise, 314
   [Same number of pages: same quality of album.  Neither as good as Looking Back With Love.]


... and finally, let's compare some sub-headings for "Love, Mike" and "Wilson, Brian":
[FULL DISCLOSURE: CHERRY-PICKING HAS OCCURRED]

Love, Mike:
   ability to cross racial boundaries, 15-16
   fundraising for charity challenge, 327-29
   lyrics, concern over Brian's, 151-53, 163-64
   lyrics, discussion of his own, not in index
   marriage to Cathy, 283-84, 410
   marriage to Frannie, 33-34, 68-69
   marriage to Jacquelyne, 363-64
   marriage to Sue, 268
   marriage to Suzanne, 123-24, 212, 217
   marriage to Tamara, 238
   marriage to Monica, Erica, Rita, Tina, Sandra, Mary, Jessica, you (see volume no. 5)
   not credited as songwriter, 76-77, 78, 119, 223, 225-26, 228, 342, 344, 351, 359 [JACKPOT #1]

Wilson, Brian:
   blame for his downfall, 160-162
   compulsive habits, 252
   confidence vs. fear, 158
   controlled by Eugene Landy, 254-56, 292-93, 309-10, 331-32, 333-41, 342-49
   drug use, 105-06, 132, 150-51, 158-59, 162-64, 224-25, 227, 275-78, 295, 346-48 [JACKPOT #2]
   erratic behavior and paranoia, 149-51, 153
   mental illness and brain damage caused by drugs*, 159-60, 164, 279, 292, 349, 367, 371, 375
   obsession with Phil Spector, 73-75, 107
   portrayed as a genius, 145-47, 164
   positive things said by Mike about, not in index

* Oh wow, even the index has to apportion the blame to drugs.  EVEN THE INDEX.


(NB Before anyone says otherwise, not a hater.  I really like "Big Sur" [not in index].)

[Pretty Funky]

Some family mentions...  See if you can spot the anomaly.

Love, Shawn Marie

Interesting. No mention of the relationship like the others.

[HeyJude]

I like that the phrase "it kinda feels like getting fired" has an entry in the index, apparently due to it being the title of an article. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Buying popcorn in bulk from Costco before the book is released...

[IainLee]

Ah, one of those threads I won't be touching with a 10-foot-pole.  People here were baited before by stuff like this.  I think, happily, I skipped it, or made a few vague comments.

I have no comments on this book.  I'll be back when it's out and there's a legitimate thread after it's release.

You're a little obvious this time, Iain.

Don't get the obvious line Debbie, sorry.

There are proofs out there. I'm reading it right now. Sorry. I thought a thread about Mike's book would be acceptable. Surprised that you're implying it's not, Debbie.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

This is book is brilliant. Genuinely brilliant. The haters are gonna have a field day, of course. But I'm really enjoying it.

That may be what raised an eyebrow...

[Rocky Raccoon]

[MrRobinsonsFather]

Haha that should of been the book cover

[IainLee]

Best part so far is Carl Wilson telling Mr T to 'shut the f*** up'!

[Competition Clutch]

   marriage to Cathy, 283-84, 410
   marriage to Frannie, 33-34, 68-69
   marriage to Jacquelyne, 363-64
   marriage to Sue, 268
   marriage to Suzanne, 123-24, 212, 217
   marriage to Tamara, 238
   

 

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

   marriage to Cathy, 283-84, 410
   marriage to Frannie, 33-34, 68-69
   marriage to Jacquelyne, 363-64
   marriage to Sue, 268
   marriage to Suzanne, 123-24, 212, 217
   marriage to Tamara, 238
   

 

 

[Rocky Raccoon]

   marriage to Cathy, 283-84, 410
   marriage to Frannie, 33-34, 68-69
   marriage to Jacquelyne, 363-64
   marriage to Sue, 268
   marriage to Suzanne, 123-24, 212, 217
   marriage to Tamara, 238
   

 

I love how the marriages to Sue and Tamara only need one page each.

[DonnyL]

Is this the book you guys are all talking about?

[terrei]

More excerpts here about Smile and Manson

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3761744/One-Charles-Manson-s-murderers-gang-babysat-two-children-says-Beach-Boys-star-Mike-Love.html