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

[Dove Nested Towers]

Just want to chime in for a moment, at my peril. A real shame that Mike felt the need to re-cut the backing vocal for the alternate Big Sur, and that may be the likely reason that it was left off MIC. That context for its release would have been ideal for any other reason than self-aggrandizement (the new chord twist on the backing vocals in the snippet of the re-done version is actually interesting, but the original was lovely and quite sufficient, although of course it is his prerogative to belatedly reconfigure a previously unreleased track no matter how much it's been booted or otherwise circulated). When Al did it with Loop De Loop, the result was solid, if a bit sterile.

As regards his alleged contribution of seed $ to the labeling effort, it is consistent with his conservative politics, but somewhat craven (surprise!) That John Denver was to his left on the issue is quite amusing, as was the post citing his banal and piggish lyrics about "doing it" etc. which is equally as boorish as "backing that ass up" IMO. And "Fille", not to be unduly "confrontative", but if a person needs a label to anticipate that a hip-hop song is more likely to contain lyrics potentially corruptive to young ears than a mainstream pop tune (the aforememtioned ML example notwithstanding), then perhaps they shouldn't be entrusted with the care of children. Which is not to say that labeling is all bad, but censorship is IMO.

One excerpt that I find irritating is that Dennis had "lasting guilt" over his Manson association, a somewhat spurious re-phrasing and a dead horse which Mike seems determined to beat ad nauseum along with so many others. How about a more charitable view (what a concept) such as that Dennis's open heart, childhood emotional damage  and subsequent need for sensation resulted in some unfortunate, misguided choices which sadly ultimately led to an untimely end, but some forgiveness for his cousin rather than seemingly endless snarkiness and judgmentalism from the perspective of his more upper-class, Murry-less upbringing vantage point. Not forthcoming any time soon, methinks. I strive for objectivity and am not a gratuitous Mike-basher by any means BTW, and I think see the totality of his various crosses to bear, both internally and externally created, as completely anyone who is not him.

All good points. Well put.

The specious guess or assertion that Dennis's death had directly much to do with the Manson saga reads more like what a novice biographer would say. Dennis died, and it was in that sort of "not a suicide, but could have been sorta a bit like that" fashion, and Dennis had a Manson connection, therefore a line is connected between the two.

I'm curious to read what Jon Stebbins might have to say about the theory that Dennis's death had any strong, significant tie to guilt related to the Manson case.

I think it's been well established that he felt fundamentally ruined and destroyed by the experiences, which began a spiral of self-destructiveness exacerbated by his already free-wheeling and adventurous personality   Maybe not guilty per se, but possibly that as well, which doesn't mean that Mike should characterize it that way in the absence of his having gone on record as saying so.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Meanwhile,  the other guys are convinced we're delusional liars.  AGD says the ghostwriter visited SS once for correction on audio engineering lingo.

Really?

Cam is the delusional liar out of everybody. But what can you expect out of someone who posts like Van Dyke Parks writes lyrics, and comes across as a wannabe lawyer (not the good kind..the Saul Goodman kind)?

[Robbie Mac]

Meanwhile,  the other guys are convinced we're delusional liars.  AGD says the ghostwriter visited SS once for correction on audio engineering lingo.

Really?

Cam is the delusional liar out of everybody. But what can you expect out of someone who posts like Van Dyke Parks writes lyrics, and comes across as a wannabe lawyer (not the good kind..the Saul Goodman kind)?

Better Call Van. You don't want a criminal lyricist, you want a CRIMINAL lyricist.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[jeffh]

Another thread totally turned to sh*t.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Considering the first was about Mike teaching Dennis oral, well...

[Quincy]

I don't post often but I have to say it's going to be nice not dealing with Mottism anymore!

[guitarfool2002]

A point was raised in Mike's book which I'd like to address and discuss, as it has been discussed and debated quite a few times through the years. What happened to Bruce when Jack Rieley was managing the band and he ended up no longer in the band?

In Mike's book, the claim is made that Bruce was voted out of the band by the Wilsons with help from Jack Rieley.

What struck me is how that contradicts not only what several researchers here had posted about that situation, and I'll post the relevant quotes from this board's archives, but also what Mike himself told Keith Altham in a New Musical Express interview from June 1972 where he said "The Beach Boys never threw Bruce out...", "...Bruce said 'If that's the way you feel about it maybe I should just leave - I don't want to leave but maybe it's for the best!'. It was very amicable." And further "...when Bruce was confronted with it, he took it subjectively and he over-reacted, and said he would split."

That suggests pretty clearly that Bruce left, as reported by Mike, and according to Mike it was an amicable split.

Here are the relevant quotes from the archives on this issue:

Here is the paragraph from my book about this subject:
Bruce told the BBC in early 1974 that on “the last tour I was on, I kind of felt strange because the group had gotten kind of clubby again.  You had two guys, Mike and Al, who were deeply involved in meditation, you had Carl and Ricky that were kind of tight, you had Blondie who was kind of alone and Dennis (who) wasn’t quite sure of his role because he had an accident with his hand and he couldn’t play drums for a long time and he was trying to get used to the role of finally singing.  And so the group kind of felt a little uncomfortable with each other and we just kind of decided that it would be better to not play together and feel comfortable.” The Beach Boys had their own take on Bruce’s departure.  Brian told Record World in June 1973 that Bruce “got into a horrible fight with Jack Rieley. Some dispute and they got into a horrible fight and the next day he was gone.” Mike opined to Val Mabbs of Record Mirror that Bruce “left because he wasn’t too happy about things.  It was decided that because of a couple of feelings harbored by different members of the group and the way things went with Bruce developing a solo career it made it more or less an uncompromising situation.” Dennis told Martin Lewis of NME that “musically we didn’t click…appreciate each other, so one day we both said OK, that’s it.  He’s a good guy but he was writing stuff for a solo artist…we’re a band.” Chip Rachlin noted, “Bruce didn’t really have a buddy in the group and he was sort of the odd man out.  He didn’t get along with Jack Rieley and he could be a little meddlesome.”

Bruce: depends on who you listen to as to what happened. Bruce himself says he wasn't happy with the direction in which Rieley was taking the band, so he quit, amicably. According to Brian, there was a huge bust-up. But all agree, Bruce left - he wasn't fired.

Blondie: similarly, he quit, after a backstage altercation with then-manager Steve Love at Madison Square Garden, December 19th, 1973. Allegedly, racial epithets were applied to him.

So, neither fired.

As far as the idea of Bruce behing fired, that seems to stem from two Leafs:  David Leaf wrote in his book, "The one member who never wanted to leave the band was ultimately let go in the spring of 1972.  An Earl Leaf gossip column noted that 'On the seventh anniversary of attaining his official status as a Beach Boy, guitarman Bruce Johnston got the axe.  Carl Wilson, Mike Love and Al Jardine voted unanimously to drop him from the group due to hostile vibes his lefeways caused them.'"  DL then goes on to write, "Bruce claims that he left the group by mutual consent, but regardless of how 'mutual' the decision was, there is no question that it was Jack Rieley who forced Bruce out of the group.  Bruce:  'I don't know if he was trying to get rid of me; I think he was just trying to redirect a band.'"  Leaf, Gaines, and Bruce himself also imply that Bruce was trying to convince the group to sack Rieley.

Other sources say Rieley fired Bruce, Rieley in a 2013 Record Collector interview says he was asked to fire him by The Wilsons, yet others report that Jack hated Bruce, and Brian's quote in Ian's post above describes a blow-up between the two...

Needless to say, there is a lot going on here.

But again, what jumped out of the book as of 2016 was the claim that Bruce was voted out (essentially fired) by the Wilsons and helped by Jack Rieley, while Mike himself in 1972 told Keith Altham it was Bruce who left and it was amicable, and I think some of the writers quoted above and others took that NME interview as at least one of the official versions of events since it was coming from Mike himself. Now that narrative seems to have changed.

A bit confusing.

[wantsomecorn]

Huh. You'd think he could've just asked Bruce, seeing as how they spend half the year together on the road.

[Smilin Ed H]

There's a John Tobler book on the Boys in which neither Mike nor Dennis are particularly flattering about Bruce when he left (interviews taken from press cuttings around the time, I think) - of the course, the fact he was in the studio with them the next year makes you wonder. I have to say that reading between the lines from various things and comments here over the years, I can't help but think that Carl was the one who wanted to replace him with Billy Hinsche in the late 60s, so who knows - and I'm sure I read on here that it was Carl's decision not to have him in the group photo on Ten Years of Harmony, though there's only one studio album from that period he isn't on - even if he's not officially a BB on some of the others.

[guitarfool2002]

It is, to be blunt, confusing as hell.

The book suggests the Wilsons helped by Jack Rieley voted Bruce out.

C-Man referenced and Earl Leaf gossip column that reported Carl, Mike, and Al "voted unanimously" to oust Bruce.

Ian Rusten, C-Man, and Andrew Doe posted what they had researched, including comments from individual band members, and with the statement that Bruce was not fired.

Jack Rieley as recently as discussions here from the past few months has had his credibility challenged, and doubt cast on his word in general on the basis of certain "lies" he told being outed and disproven. With the implication that his word isn't trustworthy because of his lies in the past. So there is Jack's 2013 Record Collector interview saying "The Wilsons" were behind Bruce's removal. Do we trust him on that? Is that the source cited for the book's version of events?

But the main point seems to come back to Mike's own interviews. In the 1972 interview in NME, he specifically said Bruce was the one who walked away, in an amicable split, and gave further details which line up with several other quotes turned up by the researchers. He was also quoted in Record Mirror as saying Bruce "left".

We realize fact-checking and researching these things requires a lot of weighing of sources and trying to determine what is the most on-point version of events.

In this case, Mike's book in 2016 looks to be in direct conflict with what Mike himself said in 1972 when Bruce's departure was current news. Perhaps more of a clarification was necessary, because it doesn't add up as written. And the researchers quoted above, as well as their sources, paint a different picture than is presented in 2016 where "the Wilsons" are reported to be the ones who voted for Bruce's ouster.

[marcella27]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but there is an awesome (ahem) video on the Beach Boys' page on Facebook promoting Mike's book.  It's touted as a look at "one of the most misunderstood individuals in the music industry". 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[Mr. Verlander]

You know what's kind of funny (in a not really funny way); I've never posted much, but I've been around the boards forever. I was on the PSML, I remember reading the Cabinessence board, I was a regular visitor to the SMiLE shop. And even though Cam has always been a Mike Love lean, he always seemed to be a decent guy. And I know that a lot of people respected him. Back on the SS, he always had a lot of info on session sheets, and was willing to share any kind of info he had. Even his Mike Love defenses seemed to come off more as him just trying to get people to see things in a different light, like maybe not everything is "Brian is perfect and Mike is an asshole". The last couple years though, his posts seemed hellbent on just being Mike's defense lawyer, no matter how ridiculous he sounded. Sometimes, I don't even know if he believed some of the stuff that came out of his mouth. It's weird.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yeah, I've noticed that too.

That said, not our problem anymore.

[Debbie KL]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but there is an awesome (ahem) video on the Beach Boys' page on Facebook promoting Mike's book.  It's touted as a look at "one of the most misunderstood individuals in the music industry". 

   Just watched it.  Enough said.

[SMiLE Brian]

The 1988 rock and roll hall of fame speech removed all doubt about Mike.

[CenturyDeprived]

The 1988 rock and roll hall of fame speech removed all doubt about Mike.

I don't know why Mike won't fully own up to this being a low point and embarrassment that he regrets. You could be sure that if Denny had made some bizarre, egotistical (good luck at that!) rant at such an important induction, that Mike would be glad to criticize it and point it out in his book!

[Joel Goldenberg]

For the third time lately, I have bought a book at the Indigo book store in Montreal nearly two weeks before the official publication date. The latest book-the one under discussion in this thread. About to start reading!

Update: Just finished Chapter 1. A very engaging history of the Love family. Great so far!

[Bicyclerider]

Mike's 1972 interview just after Bruce left has to be taken with a grain of salt - I'm not surprised that IF Bruce was fired, Mike and the Wilsons would want the parting to appear as amicable as possible and try not to sabotage Bruce's reputation and spare him the humiliation of being "fired."  Plus if he was fired the press would of course want to know why - would Mike want to get into why Bruce didn't like the direction they weregoing and that he got into a big fight with our manager?

The key is the "solo"artist thing - Bruce wasn't making music that the group felt was relevant to the Beach Boys musical direction, he was doing his songs essentially solo and not collaborating with Jack or the other members of the group, which apparently Jack wanted, and he wasn't close to any of the band members and didn't hang out with them.

Someone needs to ask Bruce for his take today - was he voted out or was there a confrontation and he agreed to leave?  I suspect for obvious reasons he would take Mike's current version of the story.

[Debbie KL]

Mike's 1972 interview just after Bruce left has to be taken with a grain of salt - I'm not surprised that IF Bruce was fired, Mike and the Wilsons would want the parting to appear as amicable as possible and try not to sabotage Bruce's reputation and spare him the humiliation of being "fired."  Plus if he was fired the press would of course want to know why - would Mike want to get into why Bruce didn't like the direction they weregoing and that he got into a big fight with our manager?

The key is the "solo"artist thing - Bruce wasn't making music that the group felt was relevant to the Beach Boys musical direction, he was doing his songs essentially solo and not collaborating with Jack or the other members of the group, which apparently Jack wanted, and he wasn't close to any of the band members and didn't hang out with them.

Someone needs to ask Bruce for his take today - was he voted out or was there a confrontation and he agreed to leave?  I suspect for obvious reasons he would take Mike's current version of the story.

D'ya think?  I doubt that it matters at this point.  Things are always more complicated than they appear, and much simpler in a different perspective. Blaming it on the Wilsons - that doesn't make a lot of sense.  I doubt that Brian was interested in ousting Bruce by all indications, so there's a little something missing here, I'm thinking - like votes? But I wouldn't know.

[Jay]

Does anybody know what the band voting system was, prior to the infamous airplane tarmac incident?

[Debbie KL]

Does anybody know what the band voting system was, prior to the infamous airplane tarmac incident?

Not me.  In the old days I was "outside the vault."  Later I knew essentially nothing.

[Joel Goldenberg]

Finished Chapter 2-portrays an idyllic friendship between Mike and Brian and the angry relationship between Mike's father and a Murry jealous of the Loves' comparable financial success. Reading on, historical info about Al Jardine and his family, and the Mike and Dennis fishing trips and their sex and surfin' subject matter.

[urbanite]

I listened to the Howard Stern interview in which Mike is almost boastful about the Hall of Fame speech, not at all embarrassed.  Then I read something recently in which  he said that he hadn't meditated that day, in essence offering that up as an excuse for what happened.  So what is Mike's true feeling about the speech and why did he do it at what is normally an occasion to celebrate.