Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?

[CenturyDeprived]

I think there was fairly ample proof that Mike and Bruce weren't absent from that C50 final dinner due to a concert obligation, as Totten and other Mike band members were there at the dinner.

Again, we can point fingers and say it's lame all we want to... and I do think it's lame, although perhaps understandable under the circumstances... yet I'd be WAY less judgmental about it if Mike weren't so into the idea of calling out rock stars for missing events with their bandmates.

I just wish Mike had been at that dinner, along with photographers, to see the awkward look on his face as he'd keep trying to change the conversation subject from "why does C50 have to end" to "did you know I came up with the idea for Back in the USSR?"

[HeyJude]

Let's be clear: It's quite likely that Brian and Mike usually don't attend each other's functions because of the most obvious answer. Politics and interpersonal issues. Also sometimes pending legal stuff in eras where that was at play as well.

Brian didn't go to the Ella thing in 2014 because of this. There was that epic Mike birthday bash from a year or two ago where Mike posted an epic manifesto on how great the thing was, all serving as a big set up to report that "cousin Brian" didn't attend.

Brian even bowed out of the *luncheon* part of the Grammy thing in 2000, only attending the actual Grammy ceremony with Al, Mike, and Bruce (but all seated apart from each other apparently).

Similarly, Mike didn't do the Hawthorne thing. He's not at that C50 dinner for even more painfully obvious political reasons.

As far as I've heard, Brian and Mike have not been in the same room together since September 28, 2012, and prior to 2011 had rarely been together.

[HeyJude]

I think there was fairly ample proof that Mike and Bruce weren't absent from that C50 final dinner due to a concert obligation, as Totten and other Mike band members were there at the dinner.

Again, we can point fingers and say it's lame all we want to... and I do think it's lame, although perhaps understandable under the circumstances... yet I'd be WAY less judgmental about it if Mike weren't so into the idea of calling out rock stars for missing events with their bandmates.

I just wish Mike had been at that dinner, along with photographers, to see the awkward look on his face as he'd keep trying to change the conversation subject from "why does C50 have to end" to "did you know I came up with the idea for Back in the USSR?"

There are elements of the fallout of C50 that still haven't been reported much. It appears things were getting awkward and kind of icy earlier in the month (if not earlier) when the guys did the Grammy Museum thing. Al was reported as talking to Mike during the event and nearly begging Mike to reconsider ending the reunion. People who were there said there was a noticeable sort of pall over the proceedings. I think there are some posts on this board of some reports from the event.

By the final two UK dates, I think it was a "contractual obligation" situation.

But yeah, Mike and Bruce could have healed things a bit by doing the dinner.

[Jay]

Seriously though, just watch the tape and you'll see everything you need to see. Respect isn't the first word that comes to mind.

Alright, let's try "admire". I admire the fact that Mike ws probably the only one in the room to speak the truth. I concede that it wasn't the best situation to do it in though, and much of the rest of what he said embarrassed the group.

I suppose that's a fair statement to make, even though I don't quite agree with all of it.

Would you say you admire those who call out Mike for missing the Hawthorne dedication too? Aren't those people just speaking the truth too? Serious question.

I thought he *did* attend it. Unless I'm confusing it with something else. I remember seeing footage of Mike, David, and I believe Brian. Somebody held up pictures of Carl and Dennis. If that wasn't the actual dedication, then I admit that he essentially did what he called Paul out for doing.

Nope, he unfortunately did not attend it. I would know because I was there myself, and it was a really sad thing to witness firsthand. Really quite sad. All of these old-school Hawthorne people were there, a really cool physical monument was unveiled (made by Dennis' own son Scott, who built it), and Mike was a no-show.  And he had the added chutzpah to publicly state that he was too busy being on tour or something to that effect.

See, once you witness that firsthand in front of you, it becomes mighty hard to have respect for the guy for saying what he did in such a manner in 1988, and who has had no self-awareness of the hypocrisy in the years since;  despite doing the exact same actions himself in 2005, he continues to this day to double down on not apologizing for what and how he said what he said in 1988. It boggles the mind, and the situation is both hilarious in its ridiculousness as well as utterly sad. 

You might be thinking about the Capitol rooftop reunion which was in 2006.

It was indeed the Capitol rooftop reunion I was thinking of. I didn't know that Dennis's son made the actual monument. For that reason alone Mike should have been there. I do recall a particularly evil thing Mike once said when the Wilson house was destroyed. I believe he called it "poetic justice".

That's a bad one, Jay. Something just occurred to me: I think one thing that particularly irks many folks about him is that the Beach Boys represent something very important to them, a symbolic ideal of good times, comfort, beauty or what have you, more than most bandsand for that ideal concept or entity to have a nasty pest continually marring it in their eyes with bad acts and statements is doubly irritating, for that reason. The reverse of what the Wicked Witch of the West said: "how can such a little girl destroy my beautiful wickedness." How can such a mean old man diminish our wonderful band? Just a theory.

Exactly. I have great memories of my cousin and I as kids, listening to The Beach Boys(and Jan and Dean), and the happy and wonderful feeling it gave us. We saw our first BB's show in 1992. Then, life rears it's ugly head, and Carl dies. Then came all the legal nonsense between Mike and Al. Then somehow 2012 happened. It was literally like God himself pulled all the forces together, and gave us this beautiful moment with an amazing tour and album. To slightly paraphrase Andrew Doe(I know, I know...), "The way things stood in 2012, they had absolutely no right to be 1/10th as good as they were". I completely agree with him. Then, to quote Jim Morrison, "Everything's f***ed up as usual". Paul could have given everybody a similar moment. But as I read the above messages, I guess I do see the hypocrisy of it all.

For people who like to over analyze things(i.e. me lol), the *only* thing I can figure about the "poetic justice" comment is that in his own somewhat backhanded compliment way, Mike meant to convey that it was "poetic justice" that the house that Murry abused his children in was leveled to the ground.

[HeyJude]

So why wasn't Mike or Bruce there?

Previous obligations.

Ah yes, Mike and Bruce's little-known leaner, two-man "Beach Boys" show....

They both just play tambourine I guess.

[Robbie Mac]

I expect my rock stars to shoot off the mouth about stuff, scandalize the bourgeois bien pensants (like with that picture with President Trump)

Nothing says rebellion like a photo-op with a radical right-wing billionaire.

[Jim V.]

So why wasn't Mike or Bruce there?

Previous obligations.

Ah yes, Mike and Bruce's little-known leaner, two-man "Beach Boys" show....

They both just play tambourine I guess.

Let's be honest, the dude is no punk. He is a joke. As I said, I like him as a singer, but he's a joke. And he's about as far from punk as one could be. He's a money hungry, commercially-minded guy who hob-nobs with establishmentarians like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. I won't mention Trump cuz he's just a joke.

[SMiLE Brian]

I despise him in a crowd of one if that is worth a damn!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Endless syncopation for sure! Where's my due??

[SMiLE Brian]

OSD is welcome!

[kreen]

But back on that HOF speech, no matter what the opinions in 2017 may be, it's there on video above for all to watch and to me it doesn't come off 29 years later as much more than a guy making an ass out of himself in spite of his bandmates who wisely got the hell out of there and away from Mike, whatever opinions of the event itself may be. CD is onto something in his post about it.

That speech was entertainment. It's still got us talking all these years later. It was the punk rock thing to do. It was Keith Moon driving his car into the hotel swimming pool and getting the whole band banned.

If you guys would rather get the excruciating platitudes that make up 99,9 % of all speeches at the HoF, then we have a different idea of what should be expected of rock n' roll.

Two questions for you, kreen:

- So you're not bothered by the fact that Mike is a hypocrite who did the exact same thing as Paul in 2005 when he was a no-show for Hawthorne?  That's ok and cool?

- Does that mean that if a fan goes to the Hawthorne monument and holds a press conference to discuss the finer points of why Mike is pathetic for not showing up at the dedication, that the fan who does this is being "punk rock" and should be patted on the back for making "entertainment"?

I don't care ML wasn't at that dedication, and as for that second question, I wouldn't care either way

Mike Love is a guy with a high school education, and he improvised his RRHOF speech without reading from any prepared notes. So obviously we were not going to get the Gettysburg Address. The BB had gone through years where they were out of favor commercially speaking, so this was a chance for ML, out of cockiness, to rub the other acts' faces in their inability to show up at the event or continue to perform. This was basically, "you guys think you're so hot, but you can't do what we do".

[kreen]

I expect my rock stars to shoot off the mouth about stuff, scandalize the bourgeois bien pensants (like with that picture with President Trump)

Nothing says rebellion like a photo-op with a radical right-wing billionaire.

You're being sarcastic, but for anybody in the arts and culture field to openly support President Trump is actually the epitome of rebelliousness.

[Jay]

To be honest, I think Mike was drunk when he made that speech, and he just ran his mouth a bit to much.

[Hickory Violet Part IV]

Mike Love is a guy with a high school education, and he improvised his RRHOF speech without reading from any prepared notes. So obviously we were not going to get the Gettysburg Address. The BB had gone through years where they were out of favor commercially speaking, so this was a chance for ML, out of cockiness, to rub the other acts' faces in their inability to show up at the event or continue to perform. This was basically, "you guys think you're so hot but you can't do what we do"

Two points here Kreen.

First, Mike is an intelligent guy who has proved himself time and again in interviews to be verbose and sharp witted. To blame his speech on poor education is quite ungracious to the person you're defending.

Secondly, I don't get anything cocky, rock'n'roll or punk from Mike's speech. What I get is his usual sour grapes, (which has been directed towards Brian in recent years). In this case the sour grapes stem from the fact that all the acts he mentions were, at that time more artistically respected than the Beach Boys. And Mike's chagrin at this may have been justified if he hadn't been the one who has consistently gone for the commercial over artistic route.

Kreen, I respect and would fight for your right to be impressed by Mike's speech. But punk it is not

Anybody in the arts and culture field to openly support President Trump is actually the epitome of rebelliousness.

To also address this, I agree wholeheartedly with you here. But is rebelliousness always a desirable and commendable action?

Serial killers are rebelling against the societal norm which dictates that killing is wrong.

Early supporters of the Nazis were rebelling against a failing political system in Germany.

Am I also a rebel for being one of the few UK citizens under the age of 50 to NOT be riddled with tattoos? As we know, tattoos are the epitome of rebelliousness.

[rab2591]

But back on that HOF speech, no matter what the opinions in 2017 may be, it's there on video above for all to watch and to me it doesn't come off 29 years later as much more than a guy making an ass out of himself in spite of his bandmates who wisely got the hell out of there and away from Mike, whatever opinions of the event itself may be. CD is onto something in his post about it.

That speech was entertainment. It's still got us talking all these years later. It was the punk rock thing to do. It was Keith Moon driving his car into the hotel swimming pool and getting the whole band banned.

If you guys would rather get the excruciating platitudes that make up 99,9 % of all speeches at the HoF, then we have a different idea of what should be expected of rock n' roll.

Two questions for you, kreen:

- So you're not bothered by the fact that Mike is a hypocrite who did the exact same thing as Paul in 2005 when he was a no-show for Hawthorne?  That's ok and cool?

- Does that mean that if a fan goes to the Hawthorne monument and holds a press conference to discuss the finer points of why Mike is pathetic for not showing up at the dedication, that the fan who does this is being "punk rock" and should be patted on the back for making "entertainment"?

I don't care ML wasn't at that dedication, and as for that second question, I wouldn't care either way

Mike Love is a guy with a high school education, and he improvised his RRHOF speech without reading from any prepared notes. So obviously we were not going to get the Gettysburg Address. The BB had gone through years where they were out of favor commercially speaking, so this was a chance for ML, out of cockiness, to rub the other acts' faces in their inability to show up at the event or continue to perform. This was basically, "you guys think you're so hot, but you can't do what we do".

Ahh yes, the old I’m so rebellious I’m gonna drink a lot of liquid courage then say a bunch of hypocritical bullshit routine. Such courage. So hip. And what part of this cool rebellious hip attitude played into him being a fuckin douchebag to Brian while Brian himself tried to give his speech? Not actually asking you, Kreen, as you have a penchant for ignoring questions directed at you. Btw, Brian had a high school level education to, and stage fright, yet he managed to walk away from the event without being called out by Bob Dylan, unlike the guy you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel to defend.

[SMiLE Brian]

MAGA- Mike's anger gets around......

[Jim V.]

Hey everybody! Guess what? Kreen also thinks "grabbin' em by the pu$$y" is punk as well!

Which shows he's basically a piece of sh*t!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Mike Love is a guy with a high school education, and he improvised his RRHOF speech without reading from any prepared notes. So obviously we were not going to get the Gettysburg Address. The BB had gone through years where they were out of favor commercially speaking, so this was a chance for ML, out of cockiness, to rub the other acts' faces in their inability to show up at the event or continue to perform. This was basically, "you guys think you're so hot, but you can't do what we do".

So his big, great point is to essentially say, "You guys may have all had more consistent commercial success than us but we can do something you can't - appear places." What a sick burn!

Most of the musicians from that era didn't have anything more than a high school education but they managed to not make completely embarrassing speeches. I mean, Mike boasts all the time about his ability to turn a phrase and relate to the people and yet he can't manage to cobble together a coherent line of thought. I mean seriously, when he goes on one minute about we are all one people and need to find harmony with each other and then the next minute about the Stones being chickensh*t, it's pretty clear even he doesn't know what he means.

for anybody in the arts and culture field to openly support President Trump is actually the epitome of rebelliousness.

Many celebrities wouldn't like Mike's support of Trump but it's not actually rebellious to support the leading symbol of the Establishment. In a larger context, it's just devotion to a powerful person. Just because something ruffles someone's feathers doesn't make it rebellious as pointed out by Hickory Violet IV. You have to be ruffling feathers to disrupt the status quo for it to actually constitute rebelliousness. But to be fair to Trump, he's done a good job at swindling people that his project of reinforcing the power structure is in some way different.

[Cabinessenceking]

I expect my rock stars to shoot off the mouth about stuff, scandalize the bourgeois bien pensants (like with that picture with President Trump)

Nothing says rebellion like a photo-op with a radical right-wing billionaire.

"shoot off the mouth" AKA talking sh*t and being an insufferable boor while lying to yourself and to others that such behaviour is justified in removing the totalitarianism of civility, decency and PC culture.

[Jim V.]

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internet praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internett praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

.
Personally, I think this attitude drives people further into the arms of powerful right-wing extremists.

[rab2591]

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internett praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

In addition to your thoughts on him/her, I also think they’re a previously banned poster with a dummy account. This utterly juvenile and nonsensical discourse is something we’ve seen from previous posters before. Almost verbatim.

[Jim V.]

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internett praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

.
Personally, I think this attitude drives people further into the arms of powerful right-wing extremists.

So you're saying we should handle these "snowflakes" with kid gloves?

It's pretty rich that it would be the words coming from someone like me driving a pour tortured soul like kreen into extremism, as I'm sure he's spent time before likely making fun of "snowflakes" with "safe spaces." Yet it's little old him (or her) who we need to tip-toe around.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internett praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

.
Personally, I think this attitude drives people further into the arms of powerful right-wing extremists.

So you're saying we should handle these "snowflakes" with kid gloves?

It's pretty rich that it would be the words coming from someone like me driving a pour tortured soul like kreen into extremism, as I'm sure he's spent time before likely making fun of "snowflakes" with "safe spaces." Yet it's little old him (or her) who we need to tip-toe around.

No, I'm saying petty, empty rhetoric makes our argument look weak, not theirs and yes, that has all sorts of dangerous effects.

[Jim V.]

No, I'm saying petty, empty rhetoric makes our argument look weak, not theirs and yes, that has all sorts of dangerous effects.

I absolutely agree Shake Man.

However, lately I have been making a point to take back "snowflake" and I know, maybe in a way it's sinking to their level, but all I know is last year, the whole "when they go low, we go high" thing was shown to be a lovely thought, be still leaves us in the dust. So I feel like you can't keep bringing a knife to a gun fight.

And yes, I know, this has f***-all to do with The Beach Boys.