Rocky Pamplin's THE BEACH BOYS' ENDLESS WAVE completed and published

[CenturyDeprived]

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

OSD - not trying to start an argument either, and I also share many, many, many of your gripes about Mike Love, no doubt about it... but I'm trying to be realistic here. You have to admit that songs like Warmth of the Sun, Kiss Me Baby, All I Wanna Do, and Please Let Me Wonder, and much/all of the Wild Honey album are just about perfect, wouldn't you agree?

Or are there any parts of any of those songs that you feel are lacking in terms of lyrics? (Side note, if we're talking about preference of who sang what song, I would say that All I Wanna Do probably would rule even more if Carl or Brian sang it, although Mike's lead is solid).

I suppose one could make the argument that those songs turned out perfectly in spite of Mike Love's lyrics... but ultimately, absent Mike, those songs wouldn't exist in their current form. There's no way they would; it's the butterfly effect. Maybe Brian would have written similar songs, but some of those lyrics (and melodies?) would not exist, so I can't see how someone can say/imply that Mike's contributions were all garbage if that person actually enjoys those songs.

Again, we can talk (and probably find common ground) until the cows come home about the actual crappy stuff that Mike did over the years to the band, and his bandmates, which is mountainous. And I can also see how one could make the argument that Brian and the band could have done all sorts of wonderful, gorgeous, successful material minus Mike. I won't argue that is an alternate timeline that is not beyond the realm of reality. But if you like those songs, IMHO you have to be able to say that Mike undoubtedly - regardless of how much overreaching he did with credits - had to have had *some* good contributions to the band. I cannot see how logically you, or anyone, with a knowledge of the band and its history, could say otherwise.

I say this to you respectfully, and again - I definitely *do* understand how being super annoyed at tons upon tons of his actions can make it hard to want to give him praise... but once again, Mike acting like a yutz and his genuinely good contributions are not mutually exclusive. The only way I could truly understand your point of view, is if you genuinely think that every single one of Mike's lyrical contributions to the band were on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice (in other words, just a couple of supplemental words that are not really the actual lyrics to the songs). If you really think that ALL of Mike's objectively good lyrics (there are certainly bad lyrics he's written) were puffed-up credit fakery on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice, then I could understand (although not agree with) your point of view. Do you think that's the case? I could certainly believe that some (maybe even more than a few) instances of his credits were puffed-up nonsense, but no way that all/most were. I just can't believe that.

[SMiLE Brian]

There seems to be a pattern of Mike taking Brian’s money through lawsuits and song writing credits as a business plan. 10 million in 1994 was a bailout to Mike’s spendthrift ways...

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

There seems to be a pattern of Mike taking Brian’s money through lawsuits and song writing credits as a business plan. 10 million in 1994 was a bailout to Mike’s spendthrift ways...

Mike likes to bite the hand that feeds him.

[urbanite]

I had a very negative view of Mike Love and his lawsuit and all that, but his book lays out quite clearly his side of things.  There is no question, that Brian Wilson, through his father and attorneys, gave Mike the shaft and his case had merit.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I had a very negative view of Mike Love and his lawsuit and all that, but his book lays out quite clearly his side of things.  There is no question, that Brian Wilson, through his father and attorneys, gave Mike the shaft and his case had merit.

Yeah, poor, pitiful Mike. Such a shame he was Brian's cousin. I mean he coulda worked in a sheet metal factory and had a pension and all that. But no, Brian made him be in the band and ruined his life. So sad indeed. 

[mtaber]

This thread has turned into "Mike Love: Hero or Villain".  Which is probably a more interesting topic than the book..

[Juice Brohnston]

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

Just for fun, let's break down your "mere disagreement".  

1- -100 on the first paragraph.
Meaning: you turn a "+1" reference in a prior post into "-100".  So, not just "in my opinion you're wrong", but finding a way to immediately put him on his heels.
2- If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do
Meaning: you are small-minded enough that you are unable to avoid being mentally manipulated by Mike Love's scheming.
3- by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits.
Aside: Even the 2nd most virulent ML hater on this board wouldn't agree with you, that this what the Lovester was ever trying to accomplish.  That's really saying something.
4- It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for
Meaning: Only stupid people could fall for this.  ...Oh look, last sentence, I stated that you fell for this.  But hey, I'm just stating an opinion, and not calling you stupid!!  
5- Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson.
Aside: Again, this is so wildly absurd.  But you're not joking?
6- But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.
Meaning: Only friendly when you agree with him.

Overall: You weren't outwardly "making it personal" or an argument, but your post was steeped in bullying, as also shown in your reply when you passively say things like "you seem bruised" (Meaning: You are weak) and "or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you" (Meaning: You are worthless).  What you absolutely were doing, is stating the same broken record, obvious opinion that you have tens of thousands of times on various internet sites, semantically phrased like a total jerk and/or liar and/or actual crazy person.  With the background premise that you then retreat behind the internet's general inability to convey the semantics that you often show on here to many people, and hide behind "this is a place for opinions" and the cloud covering that it offers.  The problem is, it's not a place for everything else that you accidentally allow to slip out on a semi-regular basis, yet nobody here has ever really made efforts to stop you.  When people complain, that's what they are really complaining about.  

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

Just for fun, let's break down your "mere disagreement".  

1- -100 on the first paragraph.
Meaning: you turn a "+1" reference in a prior post into "-100".  So, not just "in my opinion you're wrong", but finding a way to immediately put him on his heels.
2- If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do
Meaning: you are small-minded enough that you are unable to avoid being mentally manipulated by Mike Love's scheming.
3- by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits.
Aside: Even the 2nd most virulent ML hater on this board wouldn't agree with you, that this what the Lovester was ever trying to accomplish.  That's really saying something.
4- It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for
Meaning: Only stupid people could fall for this.  ...Oh look, last sentence, I stated that you fell for this.  But hey, I'm just stating an opinion, and not calling you stupid!!  
5- Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson.
Aside: Again, this is so wildly absurd.  But you're not joking?
6- But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.
Meaning: Only friendly when you agree with him.

Overall: You weren't outwardly "making it personal" or an argument, but your post was steeped in bullying, as also shown in your reply when you passively say things like "you seem bruised" (Meaning: You are weak) and "or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you" (Meaning: You are worthless).  What you absolutely were doing, is stating the same broken record, obvious opinion that you have tens of thousands of times on various internet sites, semantically phrased like a total jerk and/or liar and/or actual crazy person.  With the background premise that you then retreat behind the internet's general inability to convey the semantics that you often show on here to many people, and hide behind "this is a place for opinions" and the cloud covering that it offers.  The problem is, it's not a place for everything else that you accidentally allow to slip out on a semi-regular basis, yet nobody here has ever really made efforts to stop you.  When people complain, that's what they are really complaining about.  

Like I said before, it's all opinion. If this is your opinion, fine, no problem whatsoever! 'Preciate your free range analysis! Seeing how you read what I post, could you please provide this service on all my future posts? Thanks, man!

[SMiLE Brian]

The dude abides!

[Don Malcolm]

Let's stay on topic, folks. Mike's actions are well-known and like other divide-and-conquer strategies are designed to create factions. Mike's "base" is pretty solid, and most of it is elsewhere, just as the band has been split into two factions.

What's at stake here is whether Rocky-Stan-Steve had some "goodies" on Mike that would undermine his position as long-suffering victim and clean-living icon of the "California Feeling." That was what Rocky intimated...albeit in a manic phase that may indicate that he was overplaying his hand/talking out of his hat.

The chances of us being able to track that down are probably about as good as that of a water buffalo going down a rabbit hole (which all of this innuendo might turn out to be...) BUT we can always hold out hope that someone will let something slip.

Failing that, I think we are pretty much done with this topic. I suspect that Rocky has been squelched. The best approach is for someone to determine if the Love brothers have in fact reconciled--if that's confirmed, we probably have 98% of our answer as to what happened.

[CenturyDeprived]

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

OSD - not trying to start an argument either, and I also share many, many, many of your gripes about Mike Love, no doubt about it... but I'm trying to be realistic here. You have to admit that songs like Warmth of the Sun, Kiss Me Baby, All I Wanna Do, and Please Let Me Wonder, and much/all of the Wild Honey album are just about perfect, wouldn't you agree?

Or are there any parts of any of those songs that you feel are lacking in terms of lyrics? (Side note, if we're talking about preference of who sang what song, I would say that All I Wanna Do probably would rule even more if Carl or Brian sang it, although Mike's lead is solid).

I suppose one could make the argument that those songs turned out perfectly in spite of Mike Love's lyrics... but ultimately, absent Mike, those songs wouldn't exist in their current form. There's no way they would; it's the butterfly effect. Maybe Brian would have written similar songs, but some of those lyrics (and melodies?) would not exist, so I can't see how someone can say/imply that Mike's contributions were all garbage if that person actually enjoys those songs.

Again, we can talk (and probably find common ground) until the cows come home about the actual crappy stuff that Mike did over the years to the band, and his bandmates, which is mountainous. And I can also see how one could make the argument that Brian and the band could have done all sorts of wonderful, gorgeous, successful material minus Mike. I won't argue that is an alternate timeline that is not beyond the realm of reality. But if you like those songs, IMHO you have to be able to say that Mike undoubtedly - regardless of how much overreaching he did with credits - had to have had *some* good contributions to the band. I cannot see how logically you, or anyone, with a knowledge of the band and its history, could say otherwise.

I say this to you respectfully, and again - I definitely *do* understand how being super annoyed at tons upon tons of his actions can make it hard to want to give him praise... but once again, Mike acting like a yutz and his genuinely good contributions are not mutually exclusive. The only way I could truly understand your point of view, is if you genuinely think that every single one of Mike's lyrical contributions to the band were on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice (in other words, just a couple of supplemental words that are not really the actual lyrics to the songs). If you really think that ALL of Mike's objectively good lyrics (there are certainly bad lyrics he's written) were puffed-up credit fakery on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice, then I could understand (although not agree with) your point of view. Do you think that's the case? I could certainly believe that some (maybe even more than a few) instances of his credits were puffed-up nonsense, but no way that all/most were. I just can't believe that.

OSD, do you have any thoughts on my earlier post, above?

I will say this: I completely understand it may not easy or desired to say good stuff about a guy who has acted so unconscionably crappy on so, so many occasions, so believe me I do get it. I have real life friends (not on this board) who are BBs fans too, who also very understandably begrudge Mike for all sorts of stuff, and they also understandably aren't rushing out to heap praise on the guy for any particular reason whatsoever. So believe me - I understand that. It's not some alien concept to me. There are many fans of this band who hate his guts, and he's earned that many times over.

However, I just think that my earlier post above has some merit nonetheless, don't you think?

Unless you're gonna tell me that there are musical/lyrical problems with Kiss Me Baby, Warmth of The Sun, etc, I don't see how it can be said with a straight face that Mike never added anything decent to the band. The guy can regularly act like a total turd, be a credit-hogging, sue-happy, narcissistic greedy jerk - and still have contributed at least *some* undeniably solid contributions to the band in the early years.  Even assuming he contributed just a few parts of those songs (I have no idea what percentage of the lyrics on those songs were Mike's), there's not IMHO a single thing that is subpar with anything on them, so I don't get how anyone can't at least say the guy did good some of the time (even if it's just a small portion of the total timespan of this band).

It's complicated to reconcile, of course.

[SMiLE Brian]

Wasn’t Mike the “hook” guy for certain songs?

[Kid Presentable]

It's not "opinion" when you bully another poster out of the blue.  Also when you say that Mike Love's ultimate goal is to prove that he is as talented as Brian Wilson, that is about as "opinion" as saying that global warming is a hoax that was created by the Chinese. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Hey, don’t pee on the dude’s rug, man.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It's not "opinion" when you bully another poster out of the blue.  Also when you say that Mike Love's ultimate goal is to prove that he is as talented as Brian Wilson, that is about as "opinion" as saying that global warming is a hoax that was created by the Chinese. 

Didn't know you were Donny's security guard. Hey look man, if it's a big internet battle your lookin' for, your barking up the wrong tree. Unlike you, it's just not as important to me as it appears to be to you. If you think I'm bullying someone than ok. I didn't try to start a fire here and regardless of what you may think, my intent wasn't to bully Donny or anyone else. Quite frankly, I have the feeling that you haven't the slightest concept of what a real bully is, internet or a real time situation. If I remember correctly, you're not the most thought of poster here either.

[Kid Presentable]

This isn't about me, I'm not looking for a "battle" or whatever, I am just calling you a bully and you are stubbornly doubling down on yourself and trying to shine light elsewhere, like bullies usually do.  My point is made.  Peace

[Reynaldo]

Hey, don’t pee on the dude’s rug, man.

OMG - this is my favorite post. Thanks for the levity.
Once again I have been schooled a bit by the members of this site. Thanks all, positive or negative.
Here's my response which pertains what interested me about the book and why I stick to the fact that it is in fact, engaging and entertaining.
Also why I refer to Mike Love as the "glue" that kept that band together.

 I've been in the management business, show business, the film business and the entertainment world since my early 20s managing talent, producing pics overseeing a publishing company, making records, blah, blah. I'm hardly a big shot, but I know the territory. One of my buddies back when I was producing a 2ed feature film,  after I told him that my producer's fee was either already spent or spoken for, before we had ever shot a frame of footage, said, and I'll never forget it, "Yes, but you have a wealth of experience." Ha. That and 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
There was wisdom in what he said and I've gained plenty more experience since.
The fact that the BB are still around, unlike the Beatles or Jimmy Hendricks, for instance, is a show business miracle in many ways. It's not just the music!
It took a masterful continuity of spirit to keep that Band current. They're still playing. There was no Berry Gordy or Motown machine buoying them up, changing band members, owning the group name with interchangeable parts.That is impressive. Take it from someone who knows and understands the territory.
I'm not fawning over Mike Love. I'm tipping my hat to the guy that was there, day in, day out for 50 years. Hey, Al Jardine. My hat's off to you as well.
Like I said, I have enormous respect for everyone in the book.

That's what the book is partly is about and that's why I say it is entertaining and engaging and a peek behind the veil. It's not just the music.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey Renaldo! "I'm not fawning over Mike Love" He's the "glue" that kept the band together??? Obviously, you still believe in The Tooth Fairy. He fired Al Jardine twice (the best voice in the group to date) and after Carl passed away. How is that keeping the group together. He fired Brian Wilson!! And, on top of all that, he thinks he is the Beach Boys. Nice slap in the face at both the Wilson brothers and Al who all were infinitely more talented than he will ever be. Get a grip, man.  :

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

OSD - not trying to start an argument either, and I also share many, many, many of your gripes about Mike Love, no doubt about it... but I'm trying to be realistic here. You have to admit that songs like Warmth of the Sun, Kiss Me Baby, All I Wanna Do, and Please Let Me Wonder, and much/all of the Wild Honey album are just about perfect, wouldn't you agree?

Or are there any parts of any of those songs that you feel are lacking in terms of lyrics? (Side note, if we're talking about preference of who sang what song, I would say that All I Wanna Do probably would rule even more if Carl or Brian sang it, although Mike's lead is solid).

I suppose one could make the argument that those songs turned out perfectly in spite of Mike Love's lyrics... but ultimately, absent Mike, those songs wouldn't exist in their current form. There's no way they would; it's the butterfly effect. Maybe Brian would have written similar songs, but some of those lyrics (and melodies?) would not exist, so I can't see how someone can say/imply that Mike's contributions were all garbage if that person actually enjoys those songs.

Again, we can talk (and probably find common ground) until the cows come home about the actual crappy stuff that Mike did over the years to the band, and his bandmates, which is mountainous. And I can also see how one could make the argument that Brian and the band could have done all sorts of wonderful, gorgeous, successful material minus Mike. I won't argue that is an alternate timeline that is not beyond the realm of reality. But if you like those songs, IMHO you have to be able to say that Mike undoubtedly - regardless of how much overreaching he did with credits - had to have had *some* good contributions to the band. I cannot see how logically you, or anyone, with a knowledge of the band and its history, could say otherwise.

I say this to you respectfully, and again - I definitely *do* understand how being super annoyed at tons upon tons of his actions can make it hard to want to give him praise... but once again, Mike acting like a yutz and his genuinely good contributions are not mutually exclusive. The only way I could truly understand your point of view, is if you genuinely think that every single one of Mike's lyrical contributions to the band were on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice (in other words, just a couple of supplemental words that are not really the actual lyrics to the songs). If you really think that ALL of Mike's objectively good lyrics (there are certainly bad lyrics he's written) were puffed-up credit fakery on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice, then I could understand (although not agree with) your point of view. Do you think that's the case? I could certainly believe that some (maybe even more than a few) instances of his credits were puffed-up nonsense, but no way that all/most were. I just can't believe that.

OSD, do you have any thoughts on my earlier post, above?

I will say this: I completely understand it may not easy or desired to say good stuff about a guy who has acted so unconscionably crappy on so, so many occasions, so believe me I do get it. I have real life friends (not on this board) who are BBs fans too, who also very understandably begrudge Mike for all sorts of stuff, and they also understandably aren't rushing out to heap praise on the guy for any particular reason whatsoever. So believe me - I understand that. It's not some alien concept to me. There are many fans of this band who hate his guts, and he's earned that many times over.

However, I just think that my earlier post above has some merit nonetheless, don't you think?

Unless you're gonna tell me that there are musical/lyrical problems with Kiss Me Baby, Warmth of The Sun, etc, I don't see how it can be said with a straight face that Mike never added anything decent to the band. The guy can regularly act like a total turd, be a credit-hogging, sue-happy, narcissistic greedy jerk - and still have contributed at least *some* undeniably solid contributions to the band in the early years.  Even assuming he contributed just a few parts of those songs (I have no idea what percentage of the lyrics on those songs were Mike's), there's not IMHO a single thing that is subpar with anything on them, so I don't get how anyone can't at least say the guy did good some of the time (even if it's just a small portion of the total timespan of this band).

It's complicated to reconcile, of course.

CD, I apologize for not responding in a timely manner. I was busy with trying to convince a poster that I wasn't a bully. Imagine that! I've got to say how much I enjoy your insightful posts and consider you and GF my favorite posters and fans. You guys always nail it for me. In trying like hell to address your posts about Mike Love's contributions to the band, I don't think I'm qualified to supply a legitimate, unbiased answer that you're looking for from me. As a young kid listening to them in the early to mid60's, I didn't care about who was who and what they did. I only knew that I liked Brian's singing and was attracted to the tunes. I guess I was all of about 15 or 16 and what in the world did I know about anything except maybe about the music I liked and being on the high school wrestling team and taking my girlfriend to the drive in on weekends. Some world, huh? Of course as time went on, my fascination with Brian was on a growth spurt. These melodies were mind boggling and had difficulty in understanding how someone could create like he did. The lyrics were somewhat secondary and seemed like a necessity, but I often read the label credit and wondered if Brian had the lyrics in his head and maybe Mike helped fleshed them out a bit with Brian, who was always intimidated by Mike, gave in and gave Mike the credit. It's a case of not trusting the integrity of the lovester. The tunes you speak of were no doubt classic but always seemed like Brian's original thoughts that were really Brian's idea from the beginning and knowing the predatory nature of Mike, Brian caved and gave him credit with Love only adding a line here and a line there similar to Wouldn't It Be Nice. My take on Mike is that he was an insane opportunist who relied on the incredible naivety of Brian during those golden years. Add that to all that has gone down between then and now and I end up with a person in my favorite band of all time that I just can't feel anything but extreme disgust and dislike.

[mtaber]

OSD harkens back to a simple premise - a time when I would listen to music, and  form my opinion of that music based solely on how it sounded to me.  I didn't know or care who wrote any or all of the music, who wrote any or all of the lyrics, who sang any or all of the vocals, who produced any or all of the whole work. But we get into knowing more and more about each piece of music and it's participants, sometimes to the detriment of enjoyment of the music.  We get into "that song has so-and-so's name on the credits, so I don't like it because I don't like so-and-so". I frequently wonder if many of the posters on sites such as this are actually fans of the MUSIC, or if they're merely fans of all the DRAMA behind the music.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

OSD harkens back to a simple premise - a time when I would listen to music, and  form my opinion of that music based solely on how it sounded to me.  I didn't know or care who wrote any or all of the music, who wrote any or all of the lyrics, who sang any or all of the vocals, who produced any or all of the whole work. But we get into knowing more and more about each piece of music and it's participants, sometimes to the detriment of enjoyment of the music.  We get into "that song has so-and-so's name on the credits, so I don't like it because I don't like so-and-so". I frequently wonder if many of the posters on sites such as this are actually fans of the MUSIC, or if they're merely fans of all the DRAMA behind the music.

I think that it would be difficult not to get into the drama especially if you've been a dire fan of a group for, say, 5-10 years or so. Now imagine if you've been a fan of the music for a 50+ span, there's no way to escape that drama which seeps into the music compliments of the internet which we did not have when we were quite young. And, if the music is done by a group with five different personalities and lifestyles, yes the drama can be sometimes as fascinating as the music itself. Does that make any sense?

[Robbie Mac]

OSD harkens back to a simple premise - a time when I would listen to music, and  form my opinion of that music based solely on how it sounded to me.  I didn't know or care who wrote any or all of the music, who wrote any or all of the lyrics, who sang any or all of the vocals, who produced any or all of the whole work. But we get into knowing more and more about each piece of music and it's participants, sometimes to the detriment of enjoyment of the music.  We get into "that song has so-and-so's name on the credits, so I don't like it because I don't like so-and-so". I frequently wonder if many of the posters on sites such as this are actually fans of the MUSIC, or if they're merely fans of all the DRAMA behind the music.

I think that it would be difficult not to get into the drama especially if you've been a dire fan of a group for, say, 5-10 years or so. Now imagine if you've been a fan of the music for a 50+ span, there's no way to escape that drama which seeps into the music compliments of the internet which we did not have when we were quite young. And, if the music is done by a group with five different personalities and lifestyles, yes the drama can be sometimes as fascinating as the music itself. Does that make any sense?

That makes perfect sense to me.  I get it.

[Reynaldo]

Hey Renaldo! "I'm not fawning over Mike Love" He's the "glue" that kept the band together??? Obviously, you still believe in The Tooth Fairy. He fired Al Jardine twice (the best voice in the group to date) and after Carl passed away. How is that keeping the group together. He fired Brian Wilson!! And, on top of all that, he thinks he is the Beach Boys. Nice slap in the face at both the Wilson brothers and Al who all were infinitely more talented than he will ever be. Get a grip, man.  :

I cant argue with your opinion. But your comment in a way makes exactly my point. The BBs still exist, and the one guy who's kept them there in the public consciousness is for low these many decades is, in fact, Mike Love. You and the knowledgeable and learned people on this site know all the back story of the group, but you exist in knowlegdable rarified air. The reason the band is still alive and still exists to the rank and file out there on Planet Earth is the one and only "Mike Love."
Credit where credit is due.
When I came aboard this project I was one of the multitude. I knew none of what is common history to those of you here. But I knew of the Beach Boys.
They were still alive in the world's view of the music scene, as a group, playing that miraculous and wonderful material. It wasn't just music on the radio, THEY WERE STILL OUT THERE. THE BEACH BOYS STILL EXISTED, STILL PLAYED, STILL LIVED AS A BAND in the public consciousness, ignorant public consciousness perhaps, but they were and even are, STILL THERE.
I was in the music and entertainment business most of my life. That is a rare and laudable accomplishment no matter how it happened. Ask yourself who was the one common denominator the the whole friggin time?
You may not like the answer but there is only one answer.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey Renaldo! "I'm not fawning over Mike Love" He's the "glue" that kept the band together??? Obviously, you still believe in The Tooth Fairy. He fired Al Jardine twice (the best voice in the group to date) and after Carl passed away. How is that keeping the group together. He fired Brian Wilson!! And, on top of all that, he thinks he is the Beach Boys. Nice slap in the face at both the Wilson brothers and Al who all were infinitely more talented than he will ever be. Get a grip, man.  :

I cant argue with your opinion. But your comment in a way makes exactly my point. The BBs still exist, and the one guy who's kept them there in the public consciousness is for low these many decades is, in fact, Mike Love. You and the knowledgeable and learned people on this site know all the back story of the group, but you exist in knowlegdable rarified air. The reason the band is still alive and still exists to the rank and file out there on Planet Earth is the one and only "Mike Love."
Credit where credit is due.
When I came aboard this project I was one of the multitude. I knew none of what is common history to those of you here. But I knew of the Beach Boys.
They were still alive in the world's view of the music scene, as a group, playing that miraculous and wonderful material. It wasn't just music on the radio, THEY WERE STILL OUT THERE. THE BEACH BOYS STILL EXISTED, STILL PLAYED, STILL LIVED AS A BAND in the public consciousness, ignorant public consciousness perhaps, but they were and even are, STILL THERE.
I was in the music and entertainment business most of my life. That is a rare and laudable accomplishment no matter how it happened. Ask yourself who was the one common denominator the the whole friggin time?
You may not like the answer but there is only one answer.

Ok, but did the band's legacy which was forged years ago really need Mike Love to keep the legacy going? I mean look at The Beatles. Their place in history was set in granite. Did Ringo hire some random musicians and tour as The Beatles to keep the legacy alive? I don't think so. It would have ended up as an embarrassment to the name and that is what the lovester is doing with the BB name only far more destructive. Stamos anyone?

[guitarfool2002]

Hey Renaldo! "I'm not fawning over Mike Love" He's the "glue" that kept the band together??? Obviously, you still believe in The Tooth Fairy. He fired Al Jardine twice (the best voice in the group to date) and after Carl passed away. How is that keeping the group together. He fired Brian Wilson!! And, on top of all that, he thinks he is the Beach Boys. Nice slap in the face at both the Wilson brothers and Al who all were infinitely more talented than he will ever be. Get a grip, man.  :

I cant argue with your opinion. But your comment in a way makes exactly my point. The BBs still exist, and the one guy who's kept them there in the public consciousness is for low these many decades is, in fact, Mike Love. You and the knowledgeable and learned people on this site know all the back story of the group, but you exist in knowlegdable rarified air. The reason the band is still alive and still exists to the rank and file out there on Planet Earth is the one and only "Mike Love."
Credit where credit is due.
When I came aboard this project I was one of the multitude. I knew none of what is common history to those of you here. But I knew of the Beach Boys.
They were still alive in the world's view of the music scene, as a group, playing that miraculous and wonderful material. It wasn't just music on the radio, THEY WERE STILL OUT THERE. THE BEACH BOYS STILL EXISTED, STILL PLAYED, STILL LIVED AS A BAND in the public consciousness, ignorant public consciousness perhaps, but they were and even are, STILL THERE.
I was in the music and entertainment business most of my life. That is a rare and laudable accomplishment no matter how it happened. Ask yourself who was the one common denominator the the whole friggin time?
You may not like the answer but there is only one answer.

Ron - I'd to comment on something you wrote here earlier, especially the quote in bold:

The fact that the BB are still around, unlike the Beatles or Jimmy Hendricks, for instance, is a show business miracle in many ways. It's not just the music!
It took a masterful continuity of spirit to keep that Band current. They're still playing. There was no Berry Gordy or Motown machine buoying them up, changing band members, owning the group name with interchangeable parts.That is impressive. Take it from someone who knows and understands the territory.
I'm not fawning over Mike Love. I'm tipping my hat to the guy that was there, day in, day out for 50 years. Hey, Al Jardine. My hat's off to you as well.
Like I said, I have enormous respect for everyone in the book.

Specifically the lines "changing band members, owning the group name with interchangeable parts"

This is EXACTLY what happened with Mike Love after Carl Wilson's passing, starting around 1998 when the vote from BRI gave Mike the option to buy the naming license to tour and bill his tours as "The Beach Boys".

In the past 21 years, Mike has continued to tour under that naming license with changing band members, while owning the group name with interchangeable parts. His various "Beach Boys" bands have existed with numerous sidemen who have come and gone through these past decades, who have also been billed under different titles for Mike's corporate or private gigs (names like "Endless Summer Beach Band" or whatever), and who have run for the past 20 years with one truly original member (Mike) and one who joined in 1965 then came and went several times until signing on permanently with Mike (Bruce Johnston).

That's been what "The Beach Boys" are for 20 years. Mike did exactly what you said the Beach Boys avoided...bought the name, changed band members off and on, and in your own wording, Mike "owned the group name with interchangeable parts". It has only been Mike Love as the sole original member and Bruce Johnston who joined later as the two constants since 1998 when Mike purchased the license to use the brand name.

So how does that add up with what you said earlier?

Adding this: The one time since Carl's passing where there was what I think all fans would consider the real, true, 100% authentic "Beach Boys" on the market and making music live and in studio was 2012 when they did the 50th anniversary (C50) tour and album. This was all surviving members from the Hawthorne days in the Wilsons' music room, plus Bruce Johnston who became a valuable member in 1965, performing together as "The Beach Boys".

Special contracts, exemptions, and even a new LLC was formed in order to make this happen separate from the licenses and contracts which gave Mike sole rights to bill under the brand name.

Fans loved it. The venues became larger, the live touring industry came calling with offers for more, the band was "back" in every sense of the word.  They even scored a top-5 album of 100% new material and no hokey remakes or covers. It was one of the hottest tours of 2012, and it was for many an improbable success story and comeback.

Then, for reasons you'll have to sort out on your own terms, Mike Love decided he didn't want to do this anymore. He went back to playing his low-to-mid level shows with *his* band and Bruce. He left Brian, Al, and David Marks behind...and those three original members decided to tour together on their own. As Brian said in a now infamous interview "It felt like I'd been fired".

So that's the deal, and it's only giving a thumbnail sketch of all that played out.

But needless to say, it isn't the picture you painted in your comments above about how Mike Love kept the band rolling along without issues that plagued other name acts from the 60's era and beyond.

In fact, under Mike, The Beach Boys were and have been exactly the band with the same scenarios of interchangeable parts, changing band members and sidemen, and haggles over name ownership that you credit Mike for not turning the Beach Boys into that. Well, he did, and it did.


PS...If you're tipping the hat to Al Jardine, tip it also to Brian Wilson who has been touring for the past 20 years and just recently saw his "Pet Sounds" tour post better numbers than Mike's "Beach Boys" tour...and Al Jardine has been playing with Brian for the majority of those tours these past 20 years, now joined by former Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin as well.