Ian Lee interviews Mike Love

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Because most bullies are basically cowards

[Amy B.]

Yes, Brian is not known for being greedy about songwriting credits. Remember this quote from Van Dyke:
"My allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he’d give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn’t that the sign of a marvelous person?"

And also, Brian contributed the bridge (and possibly snippets from CIFTTM) to Little Bird but would not take any of the credit.

I think the blame needs to go to Murry.
But you know, the lawsuit is done. After all these years, Mike needs to move on and get over it.

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes, Brian is not known for being greedy about songwriting credits. Remember this quote from Van Dyke:
"My allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he’d give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn’t that the sign of a marvelous person?"

And also, Brian contributed the bridge (and possibly snippets from CIFTTM) to Little Bird but would not take any of the credit.

I think the blame needs to go to Murry.
But you know, the lawsuit is done. After all these years, Mike needs to move on and get over it.

Totally. This tells me that Brian isn't a greedy guy at all. Plus the Rocky story, and numerous others. Yet I am sure that if Mike was aware at the time of this arrangement that Brian told VDP about credits, that Mike would probably understandably have felt even more hurt at the time, considering his own situation.

Again, I believe that either Brian really felt it was out of his control/didn't feel he had the emotional capacity to deal with Murry, or possibly wanted to send Mike an indirect message to stop trying to inject himself into the songwriting process when Brian truly desired to work with other people. If that is the case, it may not have been right, but I could understand the mindset of that dysfunctional way of communicating, considering how messed-up these guys were from learning from their parents to communicate.

After all, if (and it remains an *if*) Brian wanted Mike to stop trying to push himself into the role of being the main collaborator, and Brian was afraid to actually say those words to Mike, what options did Brian have at his disposal to try and get Mike to take a hint? Would giving Mike the short end of the stick (or allowing a pre-existing crappy past situation with credits to continue) not be something that someone in Brian's shoes *might* have considered doing? As much as I feel that Mike may have intentionally tried to make the atmosphere for VDP as uncomfortable as possible in order for VDP to quit (or at least to diminish VDP's role), I feel it's conceivable that Brian could *possibly* have taken the same tack against Mike. And much in the way that I don't think Mike lost much sleep with sadness when VDP quit, so do I think that Brian wouldn't have lost much sleep if Mike had quit (or backed the f*ck off) around that time.

Again, not trying to "blame" Brian, because I feel that Mike made Brian feel trapped and guilt-tripped, and I feel that however dysfunctional a response that Brian might conceivably have had could be considered warranted by a man with mental health issues, if that was indeed the logic of why it was allowed to happen for so long. Not saying it would have been fair or right, but I could understand it. Fully willing to concede this is just a theory, and I certainly don't feel confident it's true, but I also see how it *could* potentially have some truth to it.

[mikeddonn]

Yes, Brian is not known for being greedy about songwriting credits. Remember this quote from Van Dyke:
"My allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he’d give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn’t that the sign of a marvelous person?"

And also, Brian contributed the bridge (and possibly snippets from CIFTTM) to Little Bird but would not take any of the credit.

I think the blame needs to go to Murry.
But you know, the lawsuit is done. After all these years, Mike needs to move on and get over it.

Totally. This tells me that Brian isn't a greedy guy at all. Plus the Rocky story, and numerous others. Yet I am sure that if Mike was aware at the time of this arrangement that Brian told VDP about credits, that Mike would probably understandably have felt even more hurt at the time, considering his own situation.

Again, I believe that either Brian really felt it was out of his control/didn't feel he had the emotional capacity to deal with Murry, or possibly wanted to send Mike an indirect message to stop trying to inject himself into the songwriting process when Brian truly desired to work with other people. If that is the case, it may not have been right, but I could understand the mindset of that dysfunctional way of communicating, considering how messed-up these guys learned from their parents to communicate.

After all, if (and it remains an *if*) Brian wanted Mike to stop trying to push himself into the role of being the main collaborator, and Brian was afraid to actually say those words to Mike, what options did Brian have at his disposal to try and get Mike to take a hint? Would giving Mike the short end of the stick (or allowing a pre-existing crappy past situation with credits to continue) not be something that someone in Brian's shoes *might* have considered doing? As much as I feel that Mike may have intentionally tried to make the atmosphere for VDP as uncomfortable as possible in order for VDP to quit (or at least to diminish VDP's role), I feel it's conceivable that Brian could *possibly* have taken the same tack against Mike. And much in the way that I don't think Mike lost much sleep with sadness when VDP quit, so do I think that Brian wouldn't have lost much sleep if Mike had quit around that time.

Again, not trying to "blame" Brian, because I feel that Mike made Brian feel trapped and guilt-tripped, and I feel that however dysfunctional a response that Brian might conceivably have had would have been warranted by a man with mental health issues, if that was indeed the logic. Not saying it would have been fair or right, but I could understand it.

Yeah, does everyone forget good 'ole Chuck Berry getting screwed when it came to credit on Surfin' USA?  Or the lengthy discussion on this forum about some songwriter who was paid off by the group, but basically shafted, when it came to credit for writing a song.  Was it Sweet and Bitter?  I can't remember. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes, Brian is not known for being greedy about songwriting credits. Remember this quote from Van Dyke:
"My allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he’d give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn’t that the sign of a marvelous person?"

And also, Brian contributed the bridge (and possibly snippets from CIFTTM) to Little Bird but would not take any of the credit.

I think the blame needs to go to Murry.
But you know, the lawsuit is done. After all these years, Mike needs to move on and get over it.

Totally. This tells me that Brian isn't a greedy guy at all. Plus the Rocky story, and numerous others. Yet I am sure that if Mike was aware at the time of this arrangement that Brian told VDP about credits, that Mike would probably understandably have felt even more hurt at the time, considering his own situation.

Again, I believe that either Brian really felt it was out of his control/didn't feel he had the emotional capacity to deal with Murry, or possibly wanted to send Mike an indirect message to stop trying to inject himself into the songwriting process when Brian truly desired to work with other people. If that is the case, it may not have been right, but I could understand the mindset of that dysfunctional way of communicating, considering how messed-up these guys learned from their parents to communicate.

After all, if (and it remains an *if*) Brian wanted Mike to stop trying to push himself into the role of being the main collaborator, and Brian was afraid to actually say those words to Mike, what options did Brian have at his disposal to try and get Mike to take a hint? Would giving Mike the short end of the stick (or allowing a pre-existing crappy past situation with credits to continue) not be something that someone in Brian's shoes *might* have considered doing? As much as I feel that Mike may have intentionally tried to make the atmosphere for VDP as uncomfortable as possible in order for VDP to quit (or at least to diminish VDP's role), I feel it's conceivable that Brian could *possibly* have taken the same tack against Mike. And much in the way that I don't think Mike lost much sleep with sadness when VDP quit, so do I think that Brian wouldn't have lost much sleep if Mike had quit around that time.

Again, not trying to "blame" Brian, because I feel that Mike made Brian feel trapped and guilt-tripped, and I feel that however dysfunctional a response that Brian might conceivably have had would have been warranted by a man with mental health issues, if that was indeed the logic. Not saying it would have been fair or right, but I could understand it.

Yeah, does everyone forget good 'ole Chuck Berry getting screwed when it came to credit on Surfin' USA?  Or the lengthy discussion on this forum about some songwriter who was paid off by the group, but basically shafted, when it came to credit for writing a song.  Was it Sweet and Bitter?  I can't remember.  

I hardly think the songwriter who was paid off by the group was some master plan initiated by Brian Wilson. It was also during a period when the band was desperate, and hurting in a big way financially (doesn't make it right), but I tend to think that was a group decision coming from the era in which it occurred.

Regarding Chuck Berry, that was a one-off cover in the very early days of the band, when Murry was calling the shots. In both cases, this is not some regular collaborator with whom Brian had a close, ongoing connection with.

I'm trying to see a situation where Brian made an intentional Mike-screwjob decision based on greed (the only potential viewpoint I could consider why Mike would have ongoing anger towards Brian about to this day), when we have the case study of Brian going out of his way to be extremely generous to people like VDP... and I'm just not seeing it. It doesn't quite add up. I think either Brian felt emotionally unable to take actions to correct the issue (with which his dad was also entangled with) and that Brian can't really be held accountable for that... or that there were possibly some intentional passive-aggressive motives at play, which wouldn't have happened without a reason (not greed).

[Pretty Funky]

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

[guitarfool2002]

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

Mike was asked about Back In The USSR after describing how McCartney had the song but no bridge in India, in the Facebook interview he did with John Stamos recently.

JS: "Now you knew about publishing at that point, why didn't you ask for ten percent then?"
ML: "Because I was meditating too much (laughs)"

And that was about all he said.

[CenturyDeprived]

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

Mike was asked about Back In The USSR after describing how McCartney had the song but no bridge in India, in the Facebook interview he did with John Stamos recently.

JS: "Now you knew about publishing at that point, why didn't you ask for ten percent then?"
ML: "Because I was meditating too much (laughs)"

And that was about all he said.

Just imagine... Upon returning to the US, Paul asks Mike to join the band, and Mike quits The BBs to become the fifth Beatle.

[SMiLE Brian]

And the Beatles would still be touring!

[Pretty Funky]

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

Mike was asked about Back In The USSR after describing how McCartney had the song but no bridge in India, in the Facebook interview he did with John Stamos recently.

JS: "Now you knew about publishing at that point, why didn't you ask for ten percent then?"
ML: "Because I was meditating too much (laughs)"

And that was about all he said.

Too 'chicken sh*t' to take on the mop tops huh?

[guitarfool2002]

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

Mike was asked about Back In The USSR after describing how McCartney had the song but no bridge in India, in the Facebook interview he did with John Stamos recently.

JS: "Now you knew about publishing at that point, why didn't you ask for ten percent then?"
ML: "Because I was meditating too much (laughs)"

And that was about all he said.

Too 'chicken sh*t' to take on the mop tops huh?

He's never taken on Chuck Berry either, even though I believe Berry was in jail when the song he got credited for was actually made.

One issue that relates to this too is the Christmas song, as others noticed and brought up, Ron Altbach co-wrote the song and Mike on his own website promoting the song around Christmas time and the Bill Murray show said Altbach co-wrote it, yet the releases only had Mike credited as the writer. No mention of Altbach.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is a different topic but what accounted for authorship of a song back in the 60s was a lot murkier than it is today, and it is murky enough today. To be honest, I think it should be murky because it produces a lot of great music as a result. Indeed, I think a lot of people would be shocked to learn just how much, say, a universally acclaimed album like Freewheelin' Bob Dylan uses other uncredited sources. I think it was less a case of screwing other artists than it was a different understanding of how cultural exchange worked.

[JakeH]

Regarding credits-

The question why, or how it came to be that Mike Love was uncredited on certain songs is not necessarily that interesting. There's no indication that the Beach Boys really supported or backed one another up (compare to other bands of the time); it was dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, so it makes sense that Mike would get the short end on certain songs, just as it makes sense that Brian Wilson had to go outside the group to the likes of Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks to get the collaborative support he needed in order to create certain music.  There are tons of examples of the group members undercutting and sabotaging one another in various ways; that was how they went about things. 

What's more curious is that (a) Mike was in fact originally credited on certain songs - "Little Honda," "Warmth of the Sun," "Fun Fun Fun," etc. Why? How come they didn't rip him off on those too? Anybody have any explanation? (b) Post-Smile, Mike is suddenly, and apparently without threat of litigation, being credited again - certain songs on Smiley Smile, and all of the originals on Wild Honey.  The last tunes (in chronological terms) on Mike's lawsuit list are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "I Know There's An Answer." After that, it was apparently all good, no need for lawsuits because he began to receive credit. So what happened to precipitate that turnabout? Explanations or theories?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What's more curious is that (a) Mike was in fact originally credited on certain songs - "Little Honda," "Warmth of the Sun," "Fun Fun Fun," etc. Why? How come they didn't rip him off on those too? Anybody have any explanation? (b) Post-Smile, Mike is suddenly, and apparently without threat of litigation, being credited again - certain songs on Smiley Smile, and all of the originals on Wild Honey.  The last tunes (in chronological terms) on Mike's lawsuit list are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "I Know There's An Answer." After that, it was apparently all good, no need for lawsuits because he began to receive credit. So what happened to precipitate that turnabout? Explanations or theories?

That is a VERY good question.

[Emily]

My question with the whole writing credits thing is this: What was keeping MIKE from standing up to Uncle Murry to get the credits he deserved? Why is it Brian's fault that Mike didn't do anything?

Thank you Cyncie, for intelligibly saying what I was incoherently trying to say.

[Emily]

Regarding credits-

The question why, or how it came to be that Mike Love was uncredited on certain songs is not necessarily that interesting. There's no indication that the Beach Boys really supported or backed one another up (compare to other bands of the time); it was dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, so it makes sense that Mike would get the short end on certain songs, just as it makes sense that Brian Wilson had to go outside the group to the likes of Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks to get the collaborative support he needed in order to create certain music.  There are tons of examples of the group members undercutting and sabotaging one another in various ways; that was how they went about things. 

What's more curious is that (a) Mike was in fact originally credited on certain songs - "Little Honda," "Warmth of the Sun," "Fun Fun Fun," etc. Why? How come they didn't rip him off on those too? Anybody have any explanation? (b) Post-Smile, Mike is suddenly, and apparently without threat of litigation, being credited again - certain songs on Smiley Smile, and all of the originals on Wild Honey.  The last tunes (in chronological terms) on Mike's lawsuit list are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "I Know There's An Answer." After that, it was apparently all good, no need for lawsuits because he began to receive credit. So what happened to precipitate that turnabout? Explanations or theories?

I have no answer but it's a very interesting question. I hope people with ideas regarding this will chime in.

[CenturyDeprived]

Regarding credits-

The question why, or how it came to be that Mike Love was uncredited on certain songs is not necessarily that interesting. There's no indication that the Beach Boys really supported or backed one another up (compare to other bands of the time); it was dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, so it makes sense that Mike would get the short end on certain songs, just as it makes sense that Brian Wilson had to go outside the group to the likes of Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks to get the collaborative support he needed in order to create certain music.  There are tons of examples of the group members undercutting and sabotaging one another in various ways; that was how they went about things.  

What's more curious is that (a) Mike was in fact originally credited on certain songs - "Little Honda," "Warmth of the Sun," "Fun Fun Fun," etc. Why? How come they didn't rip him off on those too? Anybody have any explanation? (b) Post-Smile, Mike is suddenly, and apparently without threat of litigation, being credited again - certain songs on Smiley Smile, and all of the originals on Wild Honey.  The last tunes (in chronological terms) on Mike's lawsuit list are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "I Know There's An Answer." After that, it was apparently all good, no need for lawsuits because he began to receive credit. So what happened to precipitate that turnabout? Explanations or theories?

I theorize at least with regards to the songs post-Smile, that Mike took it upon himself to REALLY make a big deal to make sure nothing ever happened to him again like that. Maybe he had a talk with Brian and really put his foot down, and/or made some arrangement with someone working for the BBs organization to have his back, and to make sure that everything was very strictly accounted for credit-wise. Probably California Girls was the final straw, in that a major song which was a huge hit (that he cowrote) was missing his credit. That must have been the big kahuna, because no big hits (and very few songs at all) after that point were missing Mike's name.

I think with Pet Sounds, Brian was very much intentionally trying to keep Mike at bay, and to NOT have Mike be the main lyricist on the album (despite the fact that Mike had earlier collaborated on some certainly solid 1964 lyrics on I'm Waiting For the Day). If Mike's name was omitted on I Know There's An Answer... that song, of all songs, had a very contentious creation process, with Mike finally getting his way with scrapping the "ego" lyrics in the end. Do I think that Brian was upset about that (regardless of how solidly the song turned out in the end)? Yes, and I could understand if not crediting Mike on that song - in particular - was an intentional passive-aggressive move. I'd say that's a possibility for that song. Feasible.

Doesn't make it right, but again, maybe there was no other way for Brian to try and get Mike to take a hint to keep away from the songwriting process, which Brian frankly deserved to have control over without Mike's two cents. I think Brian should have had a "Mike Love not allowed" sign in the lyric writing room if Brian wanted to be free of Mike's unsolicited (yet nevertheless, often good) advice.

Let's just get it out of the way and say that WIBN is kind of a straw-grab for a handful of scatting words, and more of an anomaly.

As for the earlier songs which some had Mike's credit and some didn't - that's much more baffling, and perhaps a nuanced answer will one day emerge. I can only think that maybe Brian was actually afraid of putting Mike's name down every time because he didn't want to "hear it" from Murry, and perhaps thought that if he could occasionally omit Mike's name, and keep down the percentage of cowrites, that his dad wouldn't make as big a deal out of things. That is, if Brian was indeed the person who would have had any kind of control submitting the crediting names.  I'm really unclear as to how that submission process worked, and where the chain-of-command started and ended.

[HeyJude]

My issue with the "songwriting credits" saga and the resulting lawsuits is that it *shouldn't* be much of an issue anymore.

Little is in dispute about it. While some fans and scholars and participants question a few of the credits (WIBN being the most common), nobody from fans on down to Brian deny that Mike wrote lyrics to songs and didn't get the credit.

Mike had a legit gripe. Maybe he should have pursued it more over the years (and his *not* pursuing it, his *non-action*, is ironically perhaps akin to Brian's *non-action* on the issue vis-à-vis Murry back in the 60s), but he was wronged.

If the story ended there, Mike should *totally* still be complaining. But that's not where the story ends.

Brian agreed Mike should get the credit, has never claimed Mike didn't contribute to those songs, and nobody else has suggested otherwise. Further, Mike then WON THE LAWSUIT concerning the issue. He got a monetary settlement, got his name on the songs, and thus all future royalties that he would be entitled to.

So it's a frustrating story with a *full resolution* in favor of Mike.

Why is he STILL pissed about it? He's complaining about stuff nobody disagrees with him on.

The answer in part, as told in the Rolling Stone piece from February is, in my mind, essentially that Mike *can't get over it.* The guy who complained back in the 90s to Goldmine about Al Jardine getting hung up on old stuff, the guy who said he *doesn't* do that but instead looks towards the future, is now the guy who *WILL NOT EVER LET THE ISSUE GO* despite a resounding court victory where *every possible* wrong that could be righted was in fact righted.

THAT is the problem, and THAT is why Mike comes across poorly by still beating the issue to death.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

And the Beatles would still be touring!

 

[rab2591]

And the Beatles would still be touring!

Post of the month

[Don Malcolm]

Jim Murphy pointed out in his book BECOMING THE BEACH BOYS that Mike was looking for songwriting credit from the very beginning, and that he was very aggressive about it. So his behavior in this area seems to go back to the dawn of the band's career and is, as everyone but the most egregious Mike apologist would acknowledge, clearly something that created a rift with Brian early on--a rift that has been in play, in one form or another, for more than 50 years.

What we've been seeing is nothing more or less than a continuation of this dynamic, one that ebbs and flows and is dependent on other forces in terms of how it becomes more or less toxic in the overall scheme of things. My sense is that Mike has sealed his doom with the new book (the reviews are coming in, and they are mostly negative) by deciding to double down on the media sound bites he's generated over the years as a result of the developing tensions that produced the bitter denouement to the C50 tour.

The sad thing is that there is a good side to Mike, and he has in many ways gotten himself into a much better place thanks to his marriage to Jacqui...we see fatherly and familial fealties in him that have grown over the years that reveal someone capable of genuine, positive emotion and empathy. But he just can't bring himself to give any of this to the Wilson side of his family, and it is going to cement his reputation as the "biggest a*hole in the history of pop music" even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Iain Lee is just one of several interviewers who've found a way into this side of Mike, but the problem is that this side will just "go away for awhile" (usually a good long while...)  in favor of the cocky smart-ass high-school jock-clique persona that he feels compelled to cram down everyone's throat.

[Debbie KL]

And the Beatles would still be touring!

Post of the month

Agreed.  Hilarious.

[Debbie KL]

Jim Murphy pointed out in his book BECOMING THE BEACH BOYS that Mike was looking for songwriting credit from the very beginning, and that he was very aggressive about it. So his behavior in this area seems to go back to the dawn of the band's career and is, as everyone but the most egregious Mike apologist would acknowledge, clearly something that created a rift with Brian early on--a rift that has been in play, in one form or another, for more than 50 years.

What we've been seeing is nothing more or less than a continuation of this dynamic, one that ebbs and flows and is dependent on other forces in terms of how it becomes more or less toxic in the overall scheme of things. My sense is that Mike has sealed his doom with the new book (the reviews are coming in, and they are mostly negative) by deciding to double down on the media sound bites he's generated over the years as a result of the developing tensions that produced the bitter denouement to the C50 tour.

The sad thing is that there is a good side to Mike, and he has in many ways gotten himself into a much better place thanks to his marriage to Jacqui...we see fatherly and familial fealties in him that have grown over the years that reveal someone capable of genuine, positive emotion and empathy. But he just can't bring himself to give any of this to the Wilson side of his family, and it is going to cement his reputation as the "biggest a*hole in the history of pop music" even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Iain Lee is just one of several interviewers who've found a way into this side of Mike, but the problem is that this side will just "go away for awhile" (usually a good long while...)  in favor of the cocky smart-ass high-school jock-clique persona that he feels compelled to cram down everyone's throat.

Interesting take on how long this has been going on.  And in my eyes, how utterly ridiculous it's become. Brian can actually write music to this day (of course) - he doesn't need someone else to do that for him. Mike always had the capacity to challenge uncle Murry about his credits.  Given the psychology we now know, he probably had more ability to do that than Brian at the time.

As far as his personal life - I know nothing.

Also, when it comes to Iain Lee, I find his empathy for Mike disturbing, at best.  I don't find them to be a good "pair."

[HeyJude]

Mike gravitates towards interviewers like Mr. Lee for the same reason he gravitates towards, say, Bill O'Reilly. They're sympathetic to Mike. It's going to be, in part, a "Hey Mike, let's talk about how *other* people are a bunch of a**holes." 

Look at that O'Reilly interview with Mike from back around the mid-2000s "Smile" lawsuit. Similar thing to what would now be a "So Mike, I think you're unfairly criticized by some fans."

Hardly anyone in the media, and sadly not a great deal even within music critic/writer circles, is well-versed enough on the history of the BBs to both *get* an interview with Mike *and* ask the important questions. So what you get is mostly local paper fluff pieces that just advertise Mike's upcoming show (and most any artist on a big tour gets such coverage, including Brian, though Mike often gets some inflammatory stuff in on even some of those otherwise-innocuous pieces), and then occasionally Mike seeks out an opportunity that will be comfortable to him to go into more detail. Thus, the Wink Martindale thing from last year (is *that* guy really the guy anyone wants to see interview a major musical figure?), the John Stamos Q&A on Facebook, that "Love Lounge" thing or whatever it was called that never went anywhere, and so on.

On rare occasion, somehow an interviewer/writer gets down to something more noteworthy and something that gets to the core of Mike a bit more. Not hit pieces, but rather just writers that know their s**t and will be fair to Mike but not suck up to him or write a puff piece. These pieces are pretty rare. Howie Edelson got some good coverage during C50 on Mike. A few book authors have gotten some tidbits from Mike. Jason Fine's 2012 Rolling Stone article on C50 also was quite good, as was this year's February Rolling Stone piece.

Even when it has nothing to do with a "pro-Mike" agenda, the mainstream media stuff is a losing battle from the outset. They don't know and/or don't care about much but either the common told-a-million-times BB story, or something recent and controversial (C50 "firing" headlines, the Manson stuff from Mike's book).

[thorgil]

And the Beatles would still be touring!

LOL !!!