New Article & Interview - Mike Love and Jeff Foskett

[guitarfool2002]

http://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/music/2016/11/16/beach-boys-seek-overcome-discord-new-wave-love/93977562/

[Amy B.]

Same old stuff. This is misleading:
“[Dennis] actually wanted us to join the Manson family. I didn’t necessarily want to do that. He was kind of a weird dude.”

I think Mike is being taken out of context. I think he's saying (as he said in his book) that Dennis wanted Mike to join in a Manson orgy. Mike never said in his book that Dennis wanted to "join the Manson family" (as in join his cult), let alone encouraged Mike to do so!

[Jim V.]

He has nothing bad to say about Brian. See guys!? Much ado about nothing....

....except for the fact that he says Brian's not in charge of his life and I guess therefore had nothin' to do with his book, even though apparently Brian and Mike's books were written the same way (i.e. likely fashioned into a coherent narrative with the help of a "real" writer).

Also it's hilarious that if Brian is quoted as saying Mike was his greatest partner, well for sure that's true. But if Brian points out that Mike was kinda douchey about not wanting to help write "Mexican Girl" well of course it's a fabrication that isn't on tape.

[HeyJude]

It's beyond weird that Jeff Foskett is turning to Michael Lloyd to offer a summation of anything to do with *Brian*. Has Lloyd ever even worked with Brian?

The very end of the piece is most telling.

The writer reminds Mike that Brian *FELT* like he had been fired on C50. Mike *immediately* goes into why *legally* that wasn't true. He then blames Al for "promulgating" the "fired" thing, even though it was the lazy media who did that, not Al.

As for Foskett, why is he even in this article? We get it, Jeff. You have a totally cushy job and Mike is awesome.

Mark my words: Foskett wants his hands on the touring license when Mike finally retires or otherwise is no longer fronting the band. There's all kinds of odd subtext to Foskett's role in this saga, and I'm just glad Brian's band has Matt Jardine there, a better singer who also doesn't play all of the bulls**t politics. 

I think it's hilarious that this is an interview where Mike apparently was actively trying to steer away from negative stuff, yet he trotted out *numerous* go-to negative bits, including classics such as the Manson stories and Brian "isn't in charge of his life."

[HeyJude]

He has nothing bad to say about Brian. See guys!? Much ado about nothing....

....except for the fact that he says Brian's not in charge of his life and I guess therefore had nothin' to do with his book, even though apparently Brian and Mike's books were written the same way (i.e. likely fashioned into a coherent narrative with the help of a "real" writer).

Also it's hilarious that if Brian is quoted as saying Mike was his greatest partner, well for sure that's true. But if Brian points out that Mike was kinda douchey about not wanting to help write "Mexican Girl" well of course it's a fabrication that isn't on tape.

What makes no sense is that many times that Mike brings up the "Brian's not in control" thing, he then immediately mentions that Brian often says nice things about him (Mike) in interviews. So is Melinda making Brian say that too? 

[Steve Latshaw]

<<It's beyond weird that Jeff Foskett is turning to Michael Lloyd to offer a summation of anything to do with *Brian*. Has Lloyd ever even worked with Brian?>>

Michael Lloyd worked with Brian on a stunning arrangement of "It's Like Heaven" which Lloyd produced for Shaun Cassidy in 1978.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

myKe luHv, once again, needs to reprogram his fantasy bubble that he resides within. For instance, he's hell bent on misinforming the public concerning the writing of the songs he tries to sing every night. " I wrote (yes, I WROTE he said) California Girls, I Get Around, Be True To Your School and Surfin' USA." So damn sickening how he tries to make it look like Brian didn't have diddly squat to do with any of those or others. Ahhh, the Prince of Horsesh*t at his skin shedding best.

[HeyJude]

Michael Lloyd worked with Brian on a stunning arrangement of "It's Like Heaven" which Lloyd produced for Shaun Cassidy in 1978.

But Lloyd is apparently commenting on Brian and Mike's early era collaboration and partnership. Lloyd offers no insight that one couldn't glean from a basic Beach Boys bio.

Some obscure track from the late 70s wouldn't really inform Lloyd as to the underlying, fundamental nature of Brian and Mike's role in the band's career itself.

Ralph Sall worked with Brian on "Wanderlust" and I wouldn't go to him for insight into Brian and Mike's working relationship either.

[Steve Latshaw]

Jude -

Just a reminder... your question, specifically, was "Has Lloyd ever even worked with Brian?"

I answered it.

[HeyJude]

Jude -

Just a reminder... your question, specifically, was "Has Lloyd ever even worked with Brian?"

I answered it.

Of course. But the obvious underlying point was whether Lloyd could possibly offer a unique insight into what he was taking about. I suppose a better way to ask would have been "Has Michael Lloyd ever worked with Brian and Mike together and witnessed first-hand the complex nature of their respective roles in the band?"

It's obviously mostly rhetorical questions when it comes to this stuff.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm getting so sick of the whole "Brian's not in control of his own life" bullshit.

[Robbie Mac]

I'm getting so sick of the whole "Brian's not in control of his own life" bullshit.

That's why I skip these interviews as well as his book.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Anybody with common sense (which rules out Andrew G. Phony) could see through the spin.

[SMiLE Brian]

AGP Really threw his credibility away for this petty man.

[bb4ever]

It does seem like Mike Love always manages to figure out a way to get into the 'drug' conversation and point out that Brian, Dennis and Carl succumbed to  temptation, while he did not.  I mean, does anyone on this board remember the late 60's and 70's?  Drugs were so prevalent during those times.  Nobody really knew what they were getting themselves into.  I can only imagine what it was like in the rock world where they had the money and means.  I'm really tired of Mike trying to demonize them and weave it into every convo.  Drugs and Manson....drugs and manson.  It doesn't elevate him in any way when he puts them down.  It only makes him look petty and unable to move on.

How about some thanks to Dennis for hooking him up with the Maharishi and getting Mike into TM?  Dennis was into everything and unafraid to try anything.  

[HeyJude]

The deal with the drug thing is, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that it had to be painful for Mike (and Al, and many others) to be around so many people ruining their lives with drugs.

But I know people who were close to people who used drugs, who were deeply and personally impacted by it, and I've never met someone who consistently brings up that drug use 30-40 years after the fact after everyone involved is either deceased or has been clean for decades.

If Brian were still using drugs or something, Mike *still* bringing it up would be more appropriate. Or, if *anyone* among Dennis, Carl, or Brian had denied they used drugs or denied the impact drug use had on the band, then it might be appropriate for Mike to bring it up.

But Dennis and Carl are dead, largely never particularly denied drug abuse (perhaps Carl fudged the details of Australia 1978, that's about all I can think of), and Brian has been clean for decades *AND* has been *VERY VOCAL* about his past drug abuse and all of its negative impact, going so far as to literally and very plainly state in interviews "Don't Do Drugs!" and "I wish I hadn't done drugs."

So what's Mike's excuse for this bringing this up? As they would say in court, this issue is "Asked and Answered" and has been for decades.

[CenturyDeprived]

The deal with the drug thing is, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that it had to be painful for Mike (and Al, and many others) to be around so many people ruining their lives with drugs.

But I know people who were close to people who used drugs, who were deeply and personally impacted by it, and I've never met someone who consistently brings up that drug use 30-40 years after the fact after everyone involved is either deceased or has been clean for decades.

If Brian were still using drugs or something, Mike *still* bringing it up would be more appropriate. Or, if *anyone* among Dennis, Carl, or Brian had denied they used drugs or denied the impact drug use had on the band, then it might be appropriate for Mike to bring it up.

But Dennis and Carl are dead, largely never particularly denied drug abuse (perhaps Carl fudged the details of Australia 1978, that's about all I can think of), and Brian has been clean for decades *AND* has been *VERY VOCAL* about his past drug abuse and all of its negative impact, going so far as to literally and very plainly state in interviews "Don't Do Drugs!" and "I wish I hadn't done drugs."

So what's Mike's excuse for this bringing this up? As they would say in court, this issue is "Asked and Answered" and has been for decades.

The excuse is that Mike *finally* can find something to state he is *better* at the Wilsons at. It would be hard for anyone to argue that Mike is anything but superior to the Wilsons at resisting hard drugs. He's got them beat there! Let's give Mike his due about that. Anyone would have to be seriously an ostrich to believe that Mike's actions for decades don't speak of a desire to level the playing field in terms of reputation. Especially after being denied his due for the California Girls credits. How *anyone* can argue this is clearly a (maybe not THE, but a) motivating factor in Mike's neverending parade of drug mentioning is beyond my comprehension.  Even if Mike isn't consciously trying to do this (I'm open to that), I honestly cannot believe that he isn't at least subconsciously trying to bring the Wilsons down several notches by pointing out how morally superior he was/is.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What's wrong with being an ostrich?  #OstrichLivesMatter

[CenturyDeprived]

What's wrong with being an ostrich?  #OstrichLivesMatter

 

[Amy B.]

The excuse is that Mike *finally* can find something to state he is *better* at the Wilsons at. It would be hard for anyone to argue that Mike is anything but superior to the Wilsons at resisting hard drugs. He's got them beat there! Let's give Mike his due about that. Anyone would have to be seriously an ostrich to believe that Mike's actions for decades don't speak of a desire to level the playing field in terms of reputation. Especially after being denied his due for the California Girls credits. How *anyone* can argue this is clearly a (maybe not THE, but a) motivating factor in Mike's neverending parade of drug mentioning is beyond my comprehension.  Even if Mike isn't consciously trying to do this (I'm open to that), I honestly cannot believe that he isn't at least subconsciously trying to bring the Wilsons down several notches by pointing out how morally superior he was/is.

Oh, 100 percent. And by constantly pairing these old, bitter re-hashings with his insistence that he's such a positive person, he just makes himself look worse.

I read Mike's book, and there were times when my heart went out to him. His parents weren't affectionate, he saw the BBs as his family, he was misled when it came to song credits... OK. But he can't lift himself up by putting others down. His constant need to point out the flaws of anyone named Wilson is ridiculous and frustrating. I'm still trying to figure out why he blamed Brian for failing to talk to Murry about the song-writing credits thing. He kept asking Brian about it and Brian kept saying his dad f-ed up. OK, well, Mike, you should have gone to Murry yourself, right? Why blame Brian for this when you never took the bull by the horns and went to Murry about it? And why, if you "didn't understand the business end of things," did you expect that Brian would?

And to re-state something someone else said, why is Melinda telling Brian what to say ONLY when Brian says things like "Mike is an aggressive person" but not when Brian says "Mike is a great singer"?  It seems Mike has an idea in his head of who Brian is. Who he wants Brian to be is Brian 1963. As Brian says in his book, "Mike talks about sitting in a room together to write songs, but I don't work that way anymore."

[Emdeeh]

This story claims that Mike gave Al credit for the 50th "firing" story. As I recall, the British press started that one -- at least that's where I first heard of it.

[bb4ever]

And one more thing regarding Mike's incessant chatter about the Wilson Brothers and their drug use.....how about their children/families?  Maybe they don't want mistakes of the past constantly brought up and rubbed in their faces.  They should have all agreed to let Mike use the Beach Boys name under the stipulation that he stop defaming the 'Beach Boys' name.   Stop dwelling on the negativity, Mr. Positivity.

[guitarfool2002]

This line: “He’s not in charge of his life, like I am in mine,” Love said. “His every move is orchestrated..."

So these articles where the comments about Brian being "controlled" or whatever else, up to and including Jim Hirsch's interview on the Pray For Surf podcast interview...where are the fact-checkers? Where is there proof to back up these claims and charges? There isn't any.

It brings up a few issues. First, these press interviews and the like are ultimately set up to promote something, in the case of these news articles to promote one of Mike's upcoming shows in the paper's local region, in the case of Hirsch to promote the book. So again maybe I'm missing something, but how does making a claim that Brian is being controlled, drugged, kept away from Mike, kept away from his "family" (which was debunked by a simple backstage photo which apparently Jim didn't see or know about before making the comments on the podcast) help the cause and purpose of getting people to buy tickets to Mike's concerts or buy his book? The "click-bait" argument only goes so far in terms of marketing, which is what these interviews really are - and would fans be inspired to buy tickets after reading Mike yet again make claims like these?

Second, the implication of the claims themselves. Hypothetically, what if Mike could snap his fingers and magically remove all the "controls" he says are currently on Brian's life.

What would Mike think Brian's priorities would be minus the "control"? Getting into a room with a piano to write songs with Mike? Brian being on stage behind a piano with Mike and Bruce? Brian leaving his wife of 20+ years, his family, his band, and everything around him which must be part of the "control" in order to do what exactly, according to Mike? Write songs, perform with Mike and Jeff Foskett...what, exactly?

Answer that question, and the nature of these comments might come into a more clear focus as to where they're coming from. From Mike, his fact-checkers, and everyone else who must believe these charges since none of those supposedly so invested in the facts bothers to step in and challenge them.

Third - Directed to everyone who goes on the record saying "It's all about the music".

How does Mike's making claims that Brian is "controlled" have f*ck-all to do with the music?

[JakeH]

I think Mike is being taken out of context. I think he's saying (as he said in his book) that Dennis wanted Mike to join in a Manson orgy. Mike never said in his book that Dennis wanted to "join the Manson family" (as in join his cult), let alone encouraged Mike to do so!

Mike Love's book says that in the summer of 1968, "Manson and his girls moved into Dennis's house, and Dennis joined the family."

[HeyJude]

This story claims that Mike gave Al credit for the 50th "firing" story. As I recall, the British press started that one -- at least that's where I first heard of it.

Mike used the odd word choice of "promulgated", which leaves open the possibility that he's not saying Al started it, but that he promoted the notion in interviews and whatnot.

But I don't recall Brian or Al ever saying they were actually fired. They made it very clear that Mike chose to go back to his own thing and expressed disappointment. Brian even went so far as to say in his LA Times letter that he knows he can't be fired but that it, let's say it altogether now, "FEELS" like being fired. Mike is just being purposely obtuse in ignoring that key fact.

As far as Al, my feeling is that Mike is just annoyed that Al complained (more than even Brian did) about the end of C50. I think there was that one weird interview a year or so back where the interviewer captured a post-interview continuation between Al, Al's wife, and the interviewer where they referred to the end of C50 and the continued difficulties in promoting the Brian/Al shows and being harangued about using the BB name to promote those shows. But even there, my recollection is that they were talking the same fashion as Brian did, that it was a de facto firing or splitting of the reunion, not a literal legal firing of anyone.

It's technically fair to say that Al, as an employee of "50 Big Ones Productions" for C50, was sort of "laid off", or at least certainly "not rehired."

In any event, Mike blaming Al for any of the "fired" stuff is patently unfair. That was (and continues to be) the lazy media. If any BB played a role in that beyond the lazy media, it was Mike's abrupt and tactless "announcement" and underlying decision at the end of C50 to go back to his own thing.