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

[filledeplage]

Wait, how did ANOTHER puff piece on Stamos come out of this particular discussion?   

The response was to GF.   

[Jim V.]

Fans who post here, should not be put continuously on the defensive if they see all of the Beach Boys where ever they play. It is what has led many posters to leave this forum, which is pretty sad.  JMHO        

You're right, they shouldn't. But if a poster gets to see Mike n Bruce wherever they play because travel and concert ticket costs are being covered by someone involved in the group, then maybe it deserves to be brought up.

Seriously, I'm not the hugest Mike Love fan in the world, but if I were offered an opportunity to see their band quite a bit without having to spend hardly any money, I'd jump at that chance too. But I'd also admit it.

[HeyJude]

Wait, how did ANOTHER puff piece on Stamos come out of this particular discussion?   

The response was to GF.   

Obviously, yes. But the topic is about the possible similarity between Mike's book and posts on this board. I don't think GF was trying to restart the Stamos debate itself. Hence, the question of why we need a reasserted Stamos defense.

[filledeplage]

Fans who post here, should not be put continuously on the defensive if they see all of the Beach Boys where ever they play. It is what has led many posters to leave this forum, which is pretty sad.  JMHO        

You're right, they shouldn't. But if a poster gets to see Mike n Bruce wherever they play because travel and concert ticket costs are being covered by someone involved in the group, then maybe it deserves to be brought up.

Seriously, I'm not the hugest Mike Love fan in the world, but if I were offered an opportunity to see their band quite a bit without having to spend hardly any money, I'd jump at that chance too. But I'd also admit it.

That is very interesting to know that my gas is being paid for by the band.

And, I will have to double-check that against my credit card charges.  Then, I have to go check the mail for that check.    

[HeyJude]

If I was commenting on a band and/or reviewing shows and *any* aspect of it was "comped" by the band or any of its associates, I'd certainly have no problem saying so. I'd also certainly like to know when reading someone's comments on a band or a show if they're being comped anything by the band.

Also worth noting is that things (usually tickets, but also potentially other things) that are "comped" or "covered" is not the same thing as someone "paying for" something.

A band member or band associate could get comped hotel rooms and/or tickets for a fan without any "out of pocket" costs, and certainly without having to cut a check to a fan. I've never heard of a band comping tickets for someone by writing a check to pay for the tickets. Bands are usually allotted a big pot of comp tickets for friends and family; that cost is built into touring and built into the contracts with promoters and venues.

[SMiLE Brian]

So Filleplage has a vested interest to defend Mike practically to the death here...

[Cam Mott]

My observations were how some of the passages reminded me of things I have seen posted on this board, and in Cam's case, points and debates going back to the Smile Shop, "Sunshine Pop", and even forums prior to those.

So far I have accused no one of plagarism, or anything of the sort.

The Smile chapter was something of a letdown, because I was hoping to read some new firsthand insights from Mike regarding Smile that we've not heard before especially related to personal interactions during this period, but instead a lot of the chapter was Mike voicing what felt like his opinions and defenses of various issues or incidents. So to my eyes it read as if I had already read very similar "opinions" over a decade or more of reading Cam Mott's posts. From the drugs to the apparent degradation of having the band lie on the floor to cut vocals and make animal noises, to the notion that the Beach Boys were doing the heavy lifting on the road spreading the gospel while Brian stayed home in LA acting silly, it has all been offered previously. And in a few specific cases, it really did feel like I've read the same defenses offered by Cam Mott, and others.

Then this is solved because, besides Mike actually living it, all of my information in those regards came from publicly available sources, which I suppose a co-author would also find.  Usually my sources are cited so feel free to post them so we can see the sources.  I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it but if these suspect bits were to be posted it wouldn't be a spoiler because it has already happened.

Anything else?

[Cam Mott]

Well Filleplage and cam only post here anymore when there is a Mike controversial statement or topic to derail the thread.

That is hilarious. We could plug in your handle and it would be true of you.

[Jim V.]

Well Filleplage and cam only post here anymore when there is a Mike controversial statement or topic to derail the thread.

That is hilarious. We could plug in your handle and it would be true of you.

Will you be filing suit against your leader if indeed he has used your words without your consent? Or would you just consider it an honor?

[Marty Castillo]

My observations were how some of the passages reminded me of things I have seen posted on this board, and in Cam's case, points and debates going back to the Smile Shop, "Sunshine Pop", and even forums prior to those.

So far I have accused no one of plagarism, or anything of the sort.

The Smile chapter was something of a letdown, because I was hoping to read some new firsthand insights from Mike regarding Smile that we've not heard before especially related to personal interactions during this period, but instead a lot of the chapter was Mike voicing what felt like his opinions and defenses of various issues or incidents. So to my eyes it read as if I had already read very similar "opinions" over a decade or more of reading Cam Mott's posts. From the drugs to the apparent degradation of having the band lie on the floor to cut vocals and make animal noises, to the notion that the Beach Boys were doing the heavy lifting on the road spreading the gospel while Brian stayed home in LA acting silly, it has all been offered previously. And in a few specific cases, it really did feel like I've read the same defenses offered by Cam Mott, and others.

No accusation of plagarism, just noting the similarity.

For the record, and not wanting to review per se, the Smile chapter felt disjointed and out of chronology. There were events and scenes described that actually happened during the making of Smiley Smile, the timeline jumped back and forth from December 66 to April 67 to Smiley Smile summer 67 and back to February and March 67. There was no flow to the timeline, and some events told out of order seemed to be done to make a point rather than present the actual timeline of events. The band was recording in an empty swimming pool at Brian's house for SS, not the Smile sessions.

Fact checking 101.

It also felt more like Mike was defending accusations and charges made against him than trying to tell the story. Again, more of the usual points from years past. And in this case, to do so, there are quite a few excerpts used as quotes from Brian that came from various depositions Brian gave in lawsuits in the 90's, alongside the familiar 70's interviews where Brian would mention hashish and other points.

If I'm reading Mike's book, I'm more interested in what Mike has to say versus reading transcripts of what Brian testified in legal depositions from the 90's, pulled out of whatever context those depositions were pulled in order to do what looked like bolster Mike's opinions and defenses against the attacks.

I just reread your initial post and this comes off as the biggest backpedal...

[Cam Mott]

Well Filleplage and cam only post here anymore when there is a Mike controversial statement or topic to derail the thread.

That is hilarious. We could plug in your handle and it would be true of you.

Will you be filing suit against your leader if indeed he has used your words without your consent? Or would you just consider it an honor?

I'll have to see some/any evidence first, but IF it were true I'd be honored; just as i would be honored if it were Brian, Al, Bruce, David "quoting" me.

[guitarfool2002]

No spoilers, just a reference to a passage being discussed and challenged in another active thread.

David Anderle's son Jonathan posted a comment and rebuttal to a section of the book that appeared to link David Anderle to the "scam" of selling Sea Of Tunes to Irving/Almo/A&M, and mentioned how David ended up being enriched by the scam.

So that passage in the book does indeed make a very clear connection and charge against David Anderle, and what Jonathan Anderle reacted so strongly to is in fact pretty easy to pick out in that chapter.

But also in that chapter is what could be seen as the NY Times' reviewers notion of cherry picking the facts. This in regards to the 1969 Sea Of Tunes sale. Taking only what is in that chapter, its specific paragraphs relative to what's written about the sale itself, and David Anderle's association with A&M:

The book specifically says that on July 21 (1969), "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to liquidate Sea Of Tunes, and by August 20, it was liquidated.

Someone unfamiliar may read that passage alone and think Murry and Brian were the only ones who signed.

For one, Mike himself signed papers regarding that sale of SOT. He testified to it in Superior Court in October 1994, as reported by the LA Times:

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
LOS ANGELES : Beach Boys' Singer Testifies in Suit Against Brian Wilson
October 29, 1994

Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love testified Friday that he was told he would not get proper credit for the songs he co-wrote if he failed to sign a 1969 agreement to sell the group's 140-song catalogue.

"I signed it under duress, " Love testified in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both the group's manager and its attorney, Abraham Somer, told him to sign the agreement, Love said at the end of the fourth week of testimony in his suit.

The controversy began with the sale of the band's songs, known as Sea of Tunes, to Irving Music, a division of A & M Records. The late Murry Wilson, father of co-founder Brian Wilson and owner of the publishing rights, got $700,000 for the songs. The sale was negated in a 1992 settlement that netted Brian Wilson $10 million. Love, 53, sued his cousin, Brian Wilson, to obtain a share of royalties he claims he is owed for songs including "California Girls," "Dance, Dance, Dance" and "Help Me Rhonda."


The testimony in 1994 was that Mike also signed paperwork agreeing to the sale, but that he signed "under duress". So it wasn't a case of "Murry and Brian" alone signing those papers, because Mike signed them too, whether under duress or not.

That makes the definitive statement in that section of the book not entirely accurate. If the statement is made in the context it was in that chapter about the sale in 1969, it should have been noted too that Mike signed under duress, but that he too signed an agreement. If you leave that chapter, you get the impression Murry and Brian signed it. That isn't entirely accurate, if the October 1994 testimony is factored in.

Beyond that, prior to October 1994, Mike had already received over a million dollar settlement from Irving/Almo over the nature of the sale, and how it was found to be deceptive, negligent, etc etc.

And even more striking is that the reason why Mike was in court in October 1994 hinged on the court decision made in Brian's favor that declared the original sale was invalid, and that Brian was owed back royalties and compensation for the money lost due to what Brian's legal team had proven to the court was a sale that was deceptive, fraudulent, and in some cases had accusations of signatures being forged, papers being given to Brian to sign without full knowledge of what was being signed, and a partnership contract between Brian and Murry that wasn't valid under California contract law when it was agreed by both parties because Brian was underage at the time of the agreement.

So is it "cherry picking" to not say in the chapter where it was written that "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to unload Sea Of Tunes that Mike also signed papers agreeing to the sale, that he later testified he signed but signed under duress, and that the entire sale was found by a court to have been deceptive and fraudulent enough for that court to award Brian back royalties and payments for the income lost due to that sale?

That's one issue that also stood out, made even more glaring by what Jonathan Anderle wrote a few days ago. There could have been more info given related to the details of that sale, if it was a topic in that particular chapter, so people reading would have all the facts and not just a statement that "Murry and Brian" signed away Sea Of Tunes in summer 1969.

[guitarfool2002]

I just reread your initial post and this comes off as the biggest backpedal...

Reread it again Marty and tell me where I suggested plagarism or made a claim that anything was plagarized. I said I noticed similarities, gave several specific examples and names when asked, and can continue to do so. I thought passages in the book sounded familiar - and they do. Familiar defenses, familiar topics, and familiar points of discussion as I had seen on this and other boards. I never said posts were stolen, lifted, or plagarized by anyone. I said passages of the book might look familiar to those who have been following the discussions on this forum.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I was the one who sarcastically suggested plagarism, not Craig, and my words were 'pretty much plagarized'.

[Doo Dah]

I may have this all backwards, but assuming the publisher submitted the edited extracts to the Daily Mail to publish (which I would assume would be the case), it's funny that Mike and his publisher went to the Daily Mail for publicity for his book; was it not the Daily Mail that was part of the mid-2000s lawsuit from Mike regarding the free CD promotion?

As was the Daily Mail the source of the Evan Landy interview (referenced by Mike in one of his many set-the-record-straight recent interviews).

To me it's the old axiom of throwing sh*t up on the wall, and hoping for the best.

[Doo Dah]

Most of us haven't read it, but the excerpts confirm what we expected.

Makes me wonder - is Mike expecting some type of mea culpa from the industry? And just who is going to give it?

Industry peers? Doubt it. Will we see any fellow musico's come out in favor of this whitewash?
The journalistic community? So far, it doesn't look good.
The fans? Well...aren't their opinions hardened already? The closest he came to a reevaluation was C50, and that went down the commode.

I just don't see how he wins here. Just don't. He gets his word out, but he still ends up the same bitter, defensive old fool that he's always been. Like a bug in amber. Permanent.

[HeyJude]

Urbanite...Of course "candid" in no way, shape, or form is a substitute for the word honest.  They're not even distant cousins.  [kind of like law and justice aren't related]  I'm sure that the Back in the USSR myth survives because Paul has too much class to AGAIN try to set the record straight.

I think the thing with McCartney is that he doesn't give Mike much thought. For that matter, I think Paul's main interest has been pretty focused on Brian and "Pet Sounds" and not a great deal else related to the BBs.

Van Dyke Parks later related what he claimed John and Paul thought of Mike, by way of conversations he (Parks) had with Lennon. I'll let people look those stories up.  

The only Love story I recall in McCartney's "authorized" bio by Barry Miles was Paul recounting that Mike would go "into town" and buy up batteries and things like that in bulk and then bring them back and re-sell the stuff to others in the camp. That's right, even in the lap of pure TM bliss at the dawn of the Maharishi hippy era, Mike was a "business guy."

It is funny that it's Foskett, by way ENTIRELY of his connection with Brian Wilson, who still gets backstage and posts selfies with McCartney despite having left Brian's employ almost three years ago. I wonder if Paul knows what Jeff's new boss says in interviews about Brian, to say nothing of *why* he says the things he says.

[Cam Mott]

No spoilers, just a reference to a passage being discussed and challenged in another active thread.

David Anderle's son Jonathan posted a comment and rebuttal to a section of the book that appeared to link David Anderle to the "scam" of selling Sea Of Tunes to Irving/Almo/A&M, and mentioned how David ended up being enriched by the scam.

So that passage in the book does indeed make a very clear connection and charge against David Anderle, and what Jonathan Anderle reacted so strongly to is in fact pretty easy to pick out in that chapter.

But also in that chapter is what could be seen as the NY Times' reviewers notion of cherry picking the facts. This in regards to the 1969 Sea Of Tunes sale. Taking only what is in that chapter, its specific paragraphs relative to what's written about the sale itself, and David Anderle's association with A&M:

The book specifically says that on July 21 (1969), "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to liquidate Sea Of Tunes, and by August 20, it was liquidated.

Someone unfamiliar may read that passage alone and think Murry and Brian were the only ones who signed.

For one, Mike himself signed papers regarding that sale of SOT. He testified to it in Superior Court in October 1994, as reported by the LA Times:

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
LOS ANGELES : Beach Boys' Singer Testifies in Suit Against Brian Wilson
October 29, 1994

Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love testified Friday that he was told he would not get proper credit for the songs he co-wrote if he failed to sign a 1969 agreement to sell the group's 140-song catalogue.

"I signed it under duress, " Love testified in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both the group's manager and its attorney, Abraham Somer, told him to sign the agreement, Love said at the end of the fourth week of testimony in his suit.

The controversy began with the sale of the band's songs, known as Sea of Tunes, to Irving Music, a division of A & M Records. The late Murry Wilson, father of co-founder Brian Wilson and owner of the publishing rights, got $700,000 for the songs. The sale was negated in a 1992 settlement that netted Brian Wilson $10 million. Love, 53, sued his cousin, Brian Wilson, to obtain a share of royalties he claims he is owed for songs including "California Girls," "Dance, Dance, Dance" and "Help Me Rhonda."


The testimony in 1994 was that Mike also signed paperwork agreeing to the sale, but that he signed "under duress". So it wasn't a case of "Murry and Brian" alone signing those papers, because Mike signed them too, whether under duress or not.

That makes the definitive statement in that section of the book not entirely accurate. If the statement is made in the context it was in that chapter about the sale in 1969, it should have been noted too that Mike signed under duress, but that he too signed an agreement. If you leave that chapter, you get the impression Murry and Brian signed it. That isn't entirely accurate, if the October 1994 testimony is factored in.

Beyond that, prior to October 1994, Mike had already received over a million dollar settlement from Irving/Almo over the nature of the sale, and how it was found to be deceptive, negligent, etc etc.

And even more striking is that the reason why Mike was in court in October 1994 hinged on the court decision made in Brian's favor that declared the original sale was invalid, and that Brian was owed back royalties and compensation for the money lost due to what Brian's legal team had proven to the court was a sale that was deceptive, fraudulent, and in some cases had accusations of signatures being forged, papers being given to Brian to sign without full knowledge of what was being signed, and a partnership contract between Brian and Murry that wasn't valid under California contract law when it was agreed by both parties because Brian was underage at the time of the agreement.

So is it "cherry picking" to not say in the chapter where it was written that "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to unload Sea Of Tunes that Mike also signed papers agreeing to the sale, that he later testified he signed but signed under duress, and that the entire sale was found by a court to have been deceptive and fraudulent enough for that court to award Brian back royalties and payments for the income lost due to that sale?

That's one issue that also stood out, made even more glaring by what Jonathan Anderle wrote a few days ago. There could have been more info given related to the details of that sale, if it was a topic in that particular chapter, so people reading would have all the facts and not just a statement that "Murry and Brian" signed away Sea Of Tunes in summer 1969.

Isn't this in the book, Daily Mail quoted it as from the book I thought:

"And in 1969, we learned that our entire catalogue of songs – 140 to 150 of them, including about 80 I had co-written, though I had received credit on only a fraction of them – was to be sold. A&M agreed to pay $700,000 for the entire catalogue. And the payment was going, not to the band, but to Uncle Murry. In cash.
I drove to Brian’s house in Bel Air to see if he knew what was going on. At the time, Brian was not in good shape. He was using cocaine and living in the chauffeur’s quarters of his home while his wife Marilyn slept in the bedroom.
I reached his house, stormed into his room and asked what happened with our songs.
‘My dad f***ed us,’ he said.
‘Yeah, no s***.’
For the deal to go through, the agreement had to be signed by Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, and me. I complained to the lawyers that songs like California Girls, I Get Around and Surfin’ USA, while co-written by me, had never been credited. If I signed, I’d lose the chance to claim them. But if I didn’t, he said, I might lose credit for Good Vibrations, Surfin’ Safari and The Warmth Of The Sun, which did bear my name.
What could I do? I had to sign the agreement to retain what I had. Everyone else signed too, and we lost all we had created.
It wasn’t until 1994, as I faced Brian in a courtroom, that jurors ruled that I deserved credit on 35 Beach Boys songs that had been solely credited to Brian for decades, leaving him facing potential damages of between $58m and $342m.
I had no interest in crushing my cousin, and it wasn’t about the money anyway. It was about getting credit for my songs. I proposed that he give me $5m and we move on. Brian agreed."

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

That's all the context it gave.

Could you go ahead and post the claim about David Anderle with its context?  Feel free to post anything of mine you suspect.   Thanks.

[Marty Castillo]

I just reread your initial post and this comes off as the biggest backpedal...

Reread it again Marty and tell me where I suggested plagarism or made a claim that anything was plagarized. I said I noticed similarities, gave several specific examples and names when asked, and can continue to do so. I thought passages in the book sounded familiar - and they do. Familiar defenses, familiar topics, and familiar points of discussion as I had seen on this and other boards. I never said posts were stolen, lifted, or plagarized by anyone. I said passages of the book might look familiar to those who have been following the discussions on this forum.

I was the one who sarcastically suggested plagarism, not Craig, and my words were 'pretty much plagarized'.

Well, all you have to do is read the first page and a half and many people were jumping on the plagiarism bandwagon until Craig attempted to extinguish the garbage fire he started with the initial post. Craig, when you have to make multiple posts to clarify you weren't suggesting

Also, how many threads do we need on Mike's book? There are 4 or 5 threads within the first 10 posts all discussing the book (two started by the same author, I might add). Is there any way we can combine these conversations?

[HeyJude]

I'm kind of curious how, as a result of Mike not signing the sale agreement, Mike's name could have been taken *off* of the songs he was already credited for. Presumably they were registered already through ASCAP or BMI or whatever, his name had already appeared on record labels, etc.

Is he implying he was told they would illegally take his name off the songs in retribution for souring the deal?

Seems like that would have been a potentially easy case to prove back then if they all of a sudden took his name off of EIGHTY songs *immediately* after he refused to sign a sale agreement.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Seems like that would have been a potentially easy case to prove back then if they all of a sudden took his name off of EIGHTY songs *immediately* after he refused to sign a sale agreement.

Exactly...and why wait so many years?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Oh, and someone from 'the other forum' mentioned that Brian 'called Al a racist in his book'.

You know, the one Brian had nothing to do with?

Apples and oranges, unless it turns out Mike's book was ghosted by Evan Landy...

[DonnyL]

Is Andrew G. Doe really Eugene Landy to Mike’s Todd Gold (James S. Hirsch)? The world may never know.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Is Andrew G. Doe really Eugene Landy to Mike’s Todd Gold (James S. Hirsch)? The world may never know.

I personally was referring to current members

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

At the time, Brian was not in good shape. He was using cocaine and  living in the chauffeur’s quarters of his home while his wife Marilyn slept in the bedroom.

[/b]

In 1969? I thought he moved to the chauffeur's quarters in 1972...