Mike Love - Unleash the Love - Due November 17 - w/ 2nd Disc of BB Remakes

[rab2591]

To clarify the IJWMFTTs comparison, in terms of quality and the reasons for their genesis’ they are definitely apples and oranges. The comparison was about listening to and enjoying originals over remakes. Anyways, it was a moot point that I used to lead up to a question.
________

As for Mike using The Beach Boys name to help sell this thing...

What a damn shame. To slap them Beach Boys name onto a solo record that sounds this bad...I think the sad part is that his remakes from earlier decades sound better because back then Mike didn’t sound like C-3PO singing karaoke in the cantina bar.

Mike HAD to have known about what an atrocity autotune is, otherwise he wouldn’t have whined like a child about it when asked about Brian’s single from years back...even if he was just bitching for the sake of being an ass, he still would’ve had to know what autotune is. Which begs the question: he knows what a shitty effect it can be, so why use it in laughable amounts on your own record!? Mike’s lead vocal on IGA sounds like when you logged into AOL on dialup back in the day. How did anyone in that booth not crack up when listening to the final mix?

Anyways, given how bad the lead vocals sound, I just pray that this isn’t something that will be going arm-in-arm with The Beach Boys name over the next few years.

[B.E.]

- I can’t get over how odd it is to re-record ‘Brians Back’ but it’s the best sounding sample I’ve heard thus far.

- comparatively the first disc seems like it will be a fun listen...I’m not a fan of the production at all but at least it’ll be original songs with a new sound to offer.

I know I commented on this already and alluded to this, but Brian's Back was included among the First Love songs and the Unleash The Love songs circa-2004, so in that sense, I'm not surprised (and therefore don't find it that odd) that it's included. I actually find it far more odd that Getcha Back is included on disc 1. I mean, Getcha Back is a hit Beach Boys song and probably the most popular late period Beach Boys song after Kokomo, and he's including it among the 'originals' disk and not the 'BBs re-records' disc. Bizarre.

- I really wonder what Mike’s intention is with recording all these songs.

Well, it's been mentioned that perhaps disc 2 was more-or-less a contractual obligation (ah, HeyJude beat me to it). That there could have been a tie-in with his book and that in order to release his original songs he'd have to release BBs titles as well. That's possible. But not knowing for sure, I just view it as an aging musician getting one last chance for a major release and including as much on it as possible. He's probably wanted to release some of these songs for decades and perhaps at some point also wanted to release his touring band performing BBs songs so this is what we get (and as guitarfool just said, Mike remakes BBs songs, it's what he does). I wouldn't underestimate releasing music just to release it. It's been a long time, hasn't it? It's too bad if proper care wasn't taken in the process (e.g. lazy use of autotune). Could it just be about the money? Possibly, but I don't think it's ever that simple. He sees Brian (and other '60s groups) releasing product, on some level, I'd think he'd want to prove that he can too. And, yes, of course he uses the BBs name to further his solo career as much as he possibly can. I've stated my position on those issues previously.

... Should this place be more positive oriented? Yes. ...

Agreed.

That would be pleasant.

[KDS]

IJWMFTT and Mike's latest album project are apples and oranges. Don Was performed with Brian and saw what he felt was something really special hearing Brian perform and wanted to capture that and share it on film. It did turn into therapy of sorts to help reacclimate Brian to recording and playing his music after the Landy years. Brian wanted to perform with the Beach Boys - the lawsuits prevented Mike from being in that film even though Don and Brian wanted him there. Don assembled his A-List of session players and got Brian back into the game. The fact they tackled some very challenging and personal songs Brian had not touched in years was icing on the cake.

I do agree that the genesis of the two projects - IJMFTWW and UTL Disc 2- are apples and oranges.  

The reason I made the comparison on the PSF that Rab mentioned is because they'll both likely rest unplayed on my shelf of BB related CDs as curios filled with inferior remakes (with the exceptions of Love and Mercy, which happens to be my favorite version of the song).  

I do agree that IJMFTWW is a very important album in launching Brian's solo career though.  

[guitarfool2002]

One major factor for me, and maybe I'm in the minority in this opinion, is how referring back to that pesky lawsuit Mike filed in 2005, Mike seemed to spew a lot of personal bile personally directed at Brian and Al for *daring* to perform and release their own versions of Beach Boys songs under their own names. Mike's word was "bastardized" to label what he thought Al did with the Family & Friends project, and also labeled Brian's Pet Sounds and Smile tours and subsequent releases in similar ways. It was suggested Brian was even harming Mike's own name and reputation as the 'face of the Beach Boys" by doing the Pet Sounds and Smile albums live in their entirety.

The hard fact is that any artist can record, perform, or even release their own version of any existing songs or even a full album if they pay the rights and license fees to do so commercially. The audience can decide based on the quality of that product and buy or not buy accordingly. If the project is crap, it will sink like a stone and not sell tickets or albums.

It feels more than hypocritical for Mike to file such strong opinions in a lawsuit for projects Al and Brian did *under their own names* and not as "The Beach Boys", when little more than a decade after that lawsuit Mike himself puts that "Beach Boys" logo on his own remakes and re-records of Beach Boys classics and seemingly doesn't try to draw a line between the Real Beach Boys and these solo remakes.

It feels like common sense to me, and it's as obvious as night and day that Mike is doing exactly what he hammered Brian and Al for doing, and in the case of Brian's Pet Sounds/Smile projects, the issue was even more of a moot point or non-issue because none of that was billed as anything but "Brian Wilson" doing what any existing artist can do with existing songs. If Mike thought Brian and Al had tarnished his reputation and the legacy of the Beach Boys by doing solo works that happened to be very well received by the critics and fans, what is Mike doing in 2017 with these remakes being presented with those hints of "The Beach Boys" and slapping that logo on the work?

[KDS]

I don't really see these remakes as tarnishing a legacy, so I'd have to disagree with Mike's assessment on Brian and Al's rerecordings / live releases.  But, as pointless as they are, I don't think Mike's 2017 rerecordings are tarnishing a legacy either. 

I just think it's another in the long line of BB remakes over the past 25 years when Brian, Al, and Mike have all proven that they can put out good original material.  Sure, it won't match what they did in the 1960s and early 1970s. 

[CenturyDeprived]

One major factor for me, and maybe I'm in the minority in this opinion, is how referring back to that pesky lawsuit Mike filed in 2005, Mike seemed to spew a lot of personal bile personally directed at Brian and Al for *daring* to perform and release their own versions of Beach Boys songs under their own names. Mike's word was "bastardized" to label what he thought Al did with the Family & Friends project, and also labeled Brian's Pet Sounds and Smile tours and subsequent releases in similar ways. It was suggested Brian was even harming Mike's own name and reputation as the 'face of the Beach Boys" by doing the Pet Sounds and Smile albums live in their entirety.

The hard fact is that any artist can record, perform, or even release their own version of any existing songs or even a full album if they pay the rights and license fees to do so commercially. The audience can decide based on the quality of that product and buy or not buy accordingly. If the project is crap, it will sink like a stone and not sell tickets or albums.

It feels more than hypocritical for Mike to file such strong opinions in a lawsuit for projects Al and Brian did *under their own names* and not as "The Beach Boys", when little more than a decade after that lawsuit Mike himself puts that "Beach Boys" logo on his own remakes and re-records of Beach Boys classics and seemingly doesn't try to draw a line between the Real Beach Boys and these solo remakes.

It feels like common sense to me, and it's as obvious as night and day that Mike is doing exactly what he hammered Brian and Al for doing, and in the case of Brian's Pet Sounds/Smile projects, the issue was even more of a moot point or non-issue because none of that was billed as anything but "Brian Wilson" doing what any existing artist can do with existing songs. If Mike thought Brian and Al had tarnished his reputation and the legacy of the Beach Boys by doing solo works that happened to be very well received by the critics and fans, what is Mike doing in 2017 with these remakes being presented with those hints of "The Beach Boys" and slapping that logo on the work?

Mike's the biggest hypocrite in the history of the music business. Or one of the biggest - he's in some elite company. That he completely purposefully omitted any mention of that lawsuit in his bio - and has the chutzpah to release this drek nowadays which is in direct "violation" of what his suit complained about - speaks volumes. I cannot believe no journalist has cornered him on it.

[B.E.]

If Mike thought Brian and Al had tarnished his reputation and the legacy of the Beach Boys by doing solo works that happened to be very well received by the critics and fans, what is Mike doing in 2017 with these remakes being presented with those hints of "The Beach Boys" and slapping that logo on the work?

I think most fans who are aware of the 2005 lawsuit and his comments on autotune acknowledge that Mike is being hypocritical. I don't see people defending him on those points. As you expressed in your previous post, Mike probably feels like it's okay for him to do it because he IS the Beach Boys, in his mind. That he is the face of the Beach Boys, and that he has earned that by touring as the Beach Boys for decades. I can understand the rationalization (not that I agree).

[HeyJude]

I dunno, I've listened to IJWMFTT quite often over the years. The arrangements and Brian's voice are so different from the originals, I don't really view it as a traditional "covers" album as such. It's more like a live album in a club featuring Brian running through some relatively deep cuts. (Yes, I know the stuff was actually cut without Brian and then he just added his leads).

I think the backing arrangement on "This Whole World" is great; I'd argue if you took that backing track and arrangement and put the BBs on backing vocals, it would be perfect.

My only beef with the IJWMFTT album has always been the backing vocals; they just don't fit.

But even in the realm of "is it better than the originals?", I think Mike's re-records are not analogous to Brian's IJWMFTT album. Brian's album features largely quite different arrangements. There's far more justification in my opinion to do a "covers" album when it's different. Mike's by default sticks out much more obviously as inferior because they all (for the most part anyway) try to replicate the originals.

Mike's covers are essentially as close as you can get to a disc of his live show, just recorded in a studio.

IJWMFTT proves that there *are* interesting things that can be done within the scope of doing an album of covers of your own stuff. I could think of ten ideas easily, yet Mike picked mostly well-worn, standard songs and did soulless (frankly evocative more and more as I listen to them of those Adrian Baker tracks) carbon copy recordings, with autotune to boot.

[wilsonart1]

B.E. you're correct, I "m sure back in the day ole Michael called the Wilson boys up and spun the tale of  all the song ideas he had and the gift of voice the good Lord gave him along with his gift at the piano could bring the Wilson's some good fortune some day.  Dennis wouldn't have to sit at the beach all day.  Brian no longer at the gas station. Carl just wondering what the future would bring.  Unleash the Love......Loves new album  should of been released April fool's day!!!

[NateRuvin]

"Mike's covers are essentially as close as you can get to a disc of his live show, just recorded in a studio. "

I agree, that's what I've said about the Summertime Cruisin' CD.

I don't think anyone has brought this up, but I'm really excited to have John Cowsill doing Wild Honey. I hope it's not autotuned to death!

[RubberSoul13]

I only see one purpose for this joke of an album, and that's to con little old ladies into buying a "new" Beach Boy record with "old" favorites at the merch booth.

I would be shocked if this gets any promotion anywhere. What mainstream morning, afternoon, or late night show would host this?

[B.E.]

B.E. you're correct

There you go. You stopped making sense after that point.

[rab2591]

I dunno, I've listened to IJWMFTT quite often over the years. The arrangements and Brian's voice are so different from the originals, I don't really view it as a traditional "covers" album as such. It's more like a live album in a club featuring Brian running through some relatively deep cuts. (Yes, I know the stuff was actually cut without Brian and then he just added his leads).

I think the backing arrangement on "This Whole World" is great; I'd argue if you took that backing track and arrangement and put the BBs on backing vocals, it would be perfect.

My only beef with the IJWMFTT album has always been the backing vocals; they just don't fit.

But even in the realm of "is it better than the originals?", I think Mike's re-records are not analogous to Brian's IJWMFTT album. Brian's album features largely quite different arrangements. There's far more justification in my opinion to do a "covers" album when it's different. Mike's by default sticks out much more obviously as inferior because they all (for the most part anyway) try to replicate the originals.

Mike's covers are essentially as close as you can get to a disc of his live show, just recorded in a studio.

IJWMFTT proves that there *are* interesting things that can be done within the scope of doing an album of covers of your own stuff. I could think of ten ideas easily, yet Mike picked mostly well-worn, standard songs and did soulless (frankly evocative more and more as I listen to them of those Adrian Baker tracks) carbon copy recordings, with autotune to boot.

Regardless how variant the covers are to their original, I’ll listen to the original version of Do It Again 20 times more than Brian’s cover. That is all KDS and I are saying. It’s not that we haven’t listened to IJWMFTTs many times (I love that version of Love and Mercy), it’s just that we listen to the originals more often than covers...that is the comparison I mentioned very clearly in my original post. No one is comparing these albums in regards to quality or genesis.
_____

I agree about the backing vocals on IJWMFTTs. It’s nice to hear something not stereotypically trying to sound like The Beach Boys, but it’s almost too unique.

One thing I love about that album is the included demo of ‘Still I Dream Of It’. Makes me want that Bedroom Tapes set every time I hear it.

[KDS]

I dunno, I've listened to IJWMFTT quite often over the years. The arrangements and Brian's voice are so different from the originals, I don't really view it as a traditional "covers" album as such. It's more like a live album in a club featuring Brian running through some relatively deep cuts. (Yes, I know the stuff was actually cut without Brian and then he just added his leads).

I think the backing arrangement on "This Whole World" is great; I'd argue if you took that backing track and arrangement and put the BBs on backing vocals, it would be perfect.

My only beef with the IJWMFTT album has always been the backing vocals; they just don't fit.

But even in the realm of "is it better than the originals?", I think Mike's re-records are not analogous to Brian's IJWMFTT album. Brian's album features largely quite different arrangements. There's far more justification in my opinion to do a "covers" album when it's different. Mike's by default sticks out much more obviously as inferior because they all (for the most part anyway) try to replicate the originals.

Mike's covers are essentially as close as you can get to a disc of his live show, just recorded in a studio.

IJWMFTT proves that there *are* interesting things that can be done within the scope of doing an album of covers of your own stuff. I could think of ten ideas easily, yet Mike picked mostly well-worn, standard songs and did soulless (frankly evocative more and more as I listen to them of those Adrian Baker tracks) carbon copy recordings, with autotune to boot.

Regardless how variant the covers are to their original, I’ll listen to the original version of Do It Again 20 times more than Brian’s cover. That is all KDS and I are saying. It’s not that we haven’t listened to IJWMFTTs many times (I love that version of Love and Mercy), it’s just that we listen to the originals more often than covers...that is the comparison I mentioned very clearly in my original post. No one is comparing these albums in regards to quality or genesis.
_____

Exactly.  Granted, as HJ pointed out, the IJWMFTT album did feature some different arrangements, but other than L&M and maybe Melt Away, I'm still going for the originals each time. 

I honestly can't think of any examples where an artist can covered his / her / their older work and actually improved on it.  Just seems like an exercise in futility. 

[HeyJude]

I guess what I'm saying is "it's a nice album that I listen to sometimes, but it doesn't better the original BB recordings" is different than "uninteresting carbon copy cover versions that I'll maybe play once and then file on the shelf." Those are two *very different* sets of standards. "Not as good" as something else can still be *very good.*

I listen to tons of BB concerts, and rarely are even *those* versions of the songs better than the original. They're different. I sometimes like them more, often not. But it's not as if "not as good as the original studio version" immediately relegates them to the shelf, rarely to be listened to.

With anywhere from two to four previous albums of BB cover recordings from Mike (depending on which ones we're counting), I'm not sure why a comparison has to be drawn to one of Brian's albums. Those Mike albums have far more in common with the second disc of Mike's new album than any of Brian's projects.

[rab2591]

I guess what I'm saying is "it's a nice album that I listen to sometimes, but it doesn't better the original BB recordings" is different than "uninteresting carbon copy cover versions that I'll maybe play once and then file on the shelf." Those are two *very different* sets of standards. "Not as good" as something else can still be *very good.*

I listen to tons of BB concerts, and rarely are even *those* versions of the songs better than the original. They're different. I sometimes like them more, often not. But it's not as if "not as good as the original studio version" immediately relegates them to the shelf, rarely to be listened to.

With anywhere from two to four previous albums of BB cover recordings from Mike (depending on which ones we're counting), I'm not sure why a comparison has to be drawn to one of Brian's albums. Those Mike albums have far more in common with the second disc of Mike's new album than any of Brian's projects.

If you read my initial post and my response to the plethora of subsequent posts regarding the comparison, I brought it up because the initial comparison to IJWMFTTs (in its cover nature ONLY) made me wonder if Mike recorded this for some kind of therapy of getting back into recording. I’ve explained this multiple times now.

I think we can all agree that IJWMFTTs has an infinite amount more artistic merit and meaning than Mike’s re-recordings here. But given that I, or KDS, weren’t implying this in the first place I don’t understand why it’s even being debated.

[HeyJude]

The "therapy" theory is certainly interesting.

I'm not even sure I'd frame IJWMFTT as a case of therapy as far as recording. Brian had already been recording plenty prior to that album/sessions, and apparently Brian did relatively minimal work on the album, with Was recording backing tracks and even having someone sing guide lead vocals (Andrew Gold I believe?), with Brian just coming in to add his leads.

I would guess Brian spent a lot more time in the studio working on "Orange Crate Art" and the Paley sessions.

It's certainly possible the IJWMFTT sessions amounted to some "anti-Landy" therapy if nothing else.

Back to Mike's album, I'm curious why he put everything in the lap of Michael Lloyd instead of just using the Paul Fauerso stuff from 2004. And why have other guest vocalists, but scrub the Christian Love leads from circa 2004?

How much other contemporary stuff does Michael Lloyd work on? I'm curious why this guy's work comes across as if he heard Joe Thomas had a thing for autotune, and he decided "Pffftt, you think *that's* autotune? Let me show you what autotune really is....."

[rab2591]

Yeah it honestly makes no sense to me. Nearly every moment of the samples I’ve heard is ruined by the horrible use of autotune. And was it even necessary? Does Mike’s voice sound that bad these days or do they really think this is going to excite the young crowd?

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

Mike is "getting too old for this sh*t" as Danny Glover might say. His voice is shot from overuse and he is showing every one of his 76 years in his stage moves. Should start doing 30 dates a year max and look after himself.

[CenturyDeprived]

Back to Mike's album, I'm curious why he put everything in the lap of Michael Lloyd instead of just using the Paul Fauerso stuff from 2004. And why have other guest vocalists, but scrub the Christian Love leads from circa 2004?
 

I wonder if Mike and Christian had a falling out? Being as he not only left his dad's band, but was wiped from recordings, it would seem a bit odd for that to speak of a great, happy relationship. Could be wrong of course.

[Jim V.]

Back to Mike's album, I'm curious why he put everything in the lap of Michael Lloyd instead of just using the Paul Fauerso stuff from 2004. And why have other guest vocalists, but scrub the Christian Love leads from circa 2004?
 

I wonder if Mike and Christian had a falling out? Being as he not only left his dad's band, but was wiped from recordings, it would seem a bit odd for that to speak of a great, happy relationship. Could be wrong of course.

It is curious, especially seeing as the uber-talented internet daddy defender Ambha Love is appearing on the album doing a lead or co-lead on two tracks.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike's album needs a secret track like 20/20's use of "workshop".

Preferably a recording of OSD holding his nose and singing!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

https://skyball.play.livearena.com/Live/4e8d62f821944525fb7048a41b92f99e

at the 6hr 20minute mark perhaps the worst Kokomo performance I've ever heard...

Yeah, quite pathetic and if you notice his idiotic *wheeeeeeeeeeeennnnn* intro has been considerably cut down to just a few seconds. And, as usual, he can't STFU in between songs. 

[guitarfool2002]

One major factor for me, and maybe I'm in the minority in this opinion, is how referring back to that pesky lawsuit Mike filed in 2005, Mike seemed to spew a lot of personal bile personally directed at Brian and Al for *daring* to perform and release their own versions of Beach Boys songs under their own names. Mike's word was "bastardized" to label what he thought Al did with the Family & Friends project, and also labeled Brian's Pet Sounds and Smile tours and subsequent releases in similar ways. It was suggested Brian was even harming Mike's own name and reputation as the 'face of the Beach Boys" by doing the Pet Sounds and Smile albums live in their entirety.

The hard fact is that any artist can record, perform, or even release their own version of any existing songs or even a full album if they pay the rights and license fees to do so commercially. The audience can decide based on the quality of that product and buy or not buy accordingly. If the project is crap, it will sink like a stone and not sell tickets or albums.

It feels more than hypocritical for Mike to file such strong opinions in a lawsuit for projects Al and Brian did *under their own names* and not as "The Beach Boys", when little more than a decade after that lawsuit Mike himself puts that "Beach Boys" logo on his own remakes and re-records of Beach Boys classics and seemingly doesn't try to draw a line between the Real Beach Boys and these solo remakes.

It feels like common sense to me, and it's as obvious as night and day that Mike is doing exactly what he hammered Brian and Al for doing, and in the case of Brian's Pet Sounds/Smile projects, the issue was even more of a moot point or non-issue because none of that was billed as anything but "Brian Wilson" doing what any existing artist can do with existing songs. If Mike thought Brian and Al had tarnished his reputation and the legacy of the Beach Boys by doing solo works that happened to be very well received by the critics and fans, what is Mike doing in 2017 with these remakes being presented with those hints of "The Beach Boys" and slapping that logo on the work?

Mike's the biggest hypocrite in the history of the music business. Or one of the biggest - he's in some elite company. That he completely purposefully omitted any mention of that lawsuit in his bio - and has the chutzpah to release this drek nowadays which is in direct "violation" of what his suit complained about - speaks volumes. I cannot believe no journalist has cornered him on it.

Mike's book completely ignored the 2005 lawsuit, his co-author James Hirsch completely ignored the topic in subsequent hours of interviews plugging the book, and it feels like the topic is one which Mike fought for almost 4 years of appeals to various courts (who all rejected the appeals) that some in that camp would just as soon see whitewashed off the history books entirely.

The third rail of Mike's "setting the record straight".

I'm also pretty sure that if any writer, namely anyone close who has some kind of access to "The Beach Boys" officially or semi-officially ever brought up that lawsuit in a direct question, they'd be blackballed faster than the speed of sound.

But it is especially relevant and very much "on-topic" now that Mike has done exactly what he charged, chastised, and insulted Al and Brian with and for doing in that 2005 legal case. And those two didn't have the gall to slap a Beach Boys official logo on their solo releases.

Unbelievable.

If Mike or his co-author (or, let's just say it, his flacks) had even tried to tell Mike's side of that 2005 issue or even explain why Mike unloaded so personally on Al and Brian, when Al wasn't even a named defendant in that filing, it may have gone a long way toward healing some of the divisions. Instead, they whitewashed it off the books. And Mike is doing the same thing in 2017.

[guitarfool2002]

When the song "Brian's Back" was mentioned, it reminded me of when Mike went on the TV show "Current Affair" (I think it was Current Affair) at the time of his 90's lawsuit, and broke down and started sobbing when he tried to sing the song to the interviewer. Seems that clip has disappeared from YouTube. I wonder if that was one of the normal copyright purges, or whether this one was targeted because it would potentially embarrass Mike when he's going to be out promoting this new album.

Either way, the song was dreadful decades ago in every incarnation I've heard it, and it's kind of baffling why Mike would put that on this new release.