Trump fundraiser in Orange County featuring Mike and 'The Beach Boys'

[Tom]

I respect Mike as having once been a good lyricist and singer who made an important contribution to the group at a certain point in time. I don't buy into the idea that I must therefore respect him for the person he is today. Respect is earned, and Mike squanders any good faith relationship with the fans when he insists on acting the way he does. He has no regard for the band's reputation. He actively slanders the Wilsons (especially Dennis) for his own gain. He wrote environmentalist/conservationist lyrics in the 70's when it was of commercial benefit - now he aligns himself with the opposite side as suits his interests. When his buddy Trump Jr. made unpleasant remarks about Brian, with broader distasteful connotations about mental illness in general, Mike said nothing in support of his cousin. These actions are not worthy of respect, in my view.

Chuck Berry made a staggering contribution to western popular music, and I respect his body of work. Do I have to respect him as an individual? Of course not - he was a sex offender.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

100% agreed , Tom. I have (and will continue to do so) support his artistic contributions to the band over the years. I cannot and will not support his actions. I can easily separate the two.

[CenturyDeprived]

100% agreed , Tom. I have (and will continue to do so) support his artistic contributions to the band over the years. I cannot and will not support his actions. I can easily separate the two.

Agree completely.

There is a section of fans who hate Mike so much that they are not able to appreciate what he brought to the band and feel the need to diminish those contributions. That is frankly ridiculous. He'll get some respect although it's grudging respect because I detest the person that he is now.

I deeply hate what Mike does and the shell of a person that he has become, and I think he acts like an utter piece of garbage, but there's no way that his solid contributions to the early years can be denied. Nor should they be.

It's because I hold the work he did and the work the whole band did to such a high regard that I am so incredibly distressed by watching the reputation of the brand unravel by association with a racist Nazi-esque pig, having the band perform at an event held at the home of a white supremacist associate, and by doing things like trying to delete music by his cousin from the FF box because he is a pathetic, narcissistic, jealous little man.

I'm not going to sugarcoat those words simply because the guy wrote some solid lyrics in the early days and added some solid bass vocals. Nope. Nobody should. His actions should not be "excused". The argument that "the reputation is set in stone" is a crock. This Trump garbage will be a giant pockmark on their legacy to many. For all times. If heaven forbid Trump gets reelected, Mike would additionally have the distinction of being somebody who could be considered partly responsible for helping that reelection happen, so it could get even worse. This is how fragile the thin ice is that he walks on.

He absolutely does indefensible and abhorrent things, yet he also absolutely did some solid work in the early days. Those are not mutually exclusive, and there's no reason to imply such, or try to put those words in anybody's mouth.

Hipster sites will rag on Mike and laugh at him, and it will be the end without any further discussion, and they won't talk about this subject with the nuance that it deserves. You will find that nuance here. But screw censorship or ass-kissing.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

[mtaber]

I’ve seen no response, so I’ll ask again.  I thought “politics” was a taboo subject here?

[rab2591]

I’ve seen no response, so I’ll ask again.  I thought “politics” was a taboo subject here?

It definitely is taboo (in fact, I argued heavily against the Trump related sandbox threads that were polluting this forum in 2016). But the simple fact is that politics are a huge reason why this concert is controversial....so it is absolutely on-topic to talk about the reasons why aligning the band with a certain person in politics could be bad optics for the band (and just uncouth to the other band-members whose names are directly associated with The Beach Boys name who want nothing to do with this concert).

It's like the trophy hunting thread - I doubt the topic of trophy hunting every came up on this forum until this past February, but we still delved into the moral/ethical discussions of why or why not trophy hunting should exist...Which was somewhat crucial to the main point of whether or not Mike Love should be playing that gig. I actually learned a lot about trophy hunting during those discussions...and it helped mold my opinion about the main topic.

Thankfully, this forum usually stays away from anything Trump and politics in general (and it very much should stay this way - many of us don't like it when Mike Love mixes politics with the music, the same should go for this forum). The election is two weeks away, and after that this incident will be filed away into the endlessly-growing corporate-sized filing cabinet filled-to-the-brim with Mike Love f***-ups.

[rab2591]

That doesn't mean that I didn't for example find the post about the protests being racist deeply troubling (that said, though this is probably not the place for it, there is a legitimate and nuanced discussion to be had about *some* people's genuine fears, justified or not, that grew out of those protests...such a discussion may or may not soften such reactionary points of view, but one thing for sure is that the approach of the last few years sure isn't working. This discussion is starting to remind me of one I had on another forum about sports players taking 'The Knee', if anyone wants to waste their time, it is an interesting presentation of different viewpoints, which remained largely civil considering this is the internet http://www.onlybarnet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15256).

Agreed with all of this, and thanks for that link. I can't read all of it at the moment, but I read through the first two pages and it's nice to see a mostly civil discussion about such a controversial issue. Even if I agree or disagree with some points, when people calmly elaborate on why they believe what they believe it makes it so much easier to see their point of view - which makes it easier to find common ground.

[Unreconstructed Wilsonite]

Just coming from an outside perspective, and even putting aside political inclinations (like, I would regard Trump as by far the most incompetent and damaging American President since Andrew Johnson. But even if I regarded Trump in any positive light, given how deeply divisive he has been as a whole, it would have been best to steer clear entirely).... it just comes off as deeply irresponsible to agree to do any live gig - be it a political fundraiser or otherwise. Particularly in a country that has been hit harder than any other by the COVID pandemic. Definitely a wise move on Brian and Al's part to immediately distance themselves from Mike's decision to do the concert. Which surely would have to be yet another in a long series of decisions by Mike that will arguably damage the Beach Boys' credibility, particularly among younger generations.

Also I haven't come across any comments by Donald Trump Jr. to do with Brian, but if he actually went ahead and insulted him as some users have suggested.... well, that kind of says it all about the Trump family, doesn't it?

[Don Malcolm]

For God's sake, Marty, the gloves come off "politics" here when a member of the band brings them out into the open like a bleeding wound.

Even "Mr. Suppressive Personality" over at "the nearest faraway place" is hanging his head in shame at Mike's latest antics.

There are times when the "taboo" on such a topic cannot help but be suspended, and this is clearly one of them. If you find that unacceptable, just recuse yourself from the thread.

And kindly note that this is the first and only time that your friendly "FREE FEEL FLOWS!" rabble rouser is posting in this thread.

[Awesoman]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

Why does he have to?  Why must we be selective in what viewpoints are acceptable?  You may not like or agree with what Nathan is saying but he has hardly violated any rules on this message forum and appears to be far more calm and civil in his delivery compared to at least some of his detractors here.  If you disagree with him, respectfully offer some healthy counterpoint. People are so hopelessly and narcissistically entitled to their own views these days that we have lost the ability to try and understand one another and have an exchange of ideas.  Instead, people would rather try to discredit, shout down, shame and vilify anyone who dares threaten our worldview.  This is 100% wrong and highly problematic.  It is ok to disagree with each other folks, even during crazy times like these.  

Keeping this on track though with Mike Love: he is who he is and has always been a polarizing figure in the band.  I certainly haven't liked or agreed with all the things he has done over the years but I accept that this is just the way he is and don't get bent out of shape over everything he does (although I certainly would be weary of him being responsible for road blocking the Feel Flows release if that is indeed the case).  He is not going to change especially at this point in his life.  That's why I roll my eyes at folks endlessly dooming and glooming that he is killing the band's legacy by doing concerts for Trump as well as that trophy hunting group earlier this year.  The band has endured constantly epic ups and downs over the years yet no one is disputing their place in music history.  Hell, folks still love Michael Jackson's music despite the brutally ugly accusations thrown at him.   People are so protective of the band's legacy despite the fact that it is ultimately going to be okay.  

[CenturyDeprived]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

Why does he have to?  Why must we be selective in what viewpoints are acceptable?  You may not like or agree with what Nathan is saying but he has hardly violated any rules on this message forum and appears to be far more calm and civil in his delivery compared to at least some of his detractors here.  If you disagree with him, respectfully offer some healthy counterpoint. People are so hopelessly and narcissistically entitled to their own views these days that we have lost the ability to try and understand one another and have an exchange of ideas.  Instead, people would rather try to discredit, shout down, shame and vilify anyone who dares threaten our worldview.  This is 100% wrong and highly problematic.  It is ok to disagree with each other folks, even during crazy times like these.  

Keeping this on track though with Mike Love: he is who he is and has always been a polarizing figure in the band.  I certainly haven't liked or agreed with all the things he has done over the years but I accept that this is just the way he is and don't get bent out of shape over everything he does (although I certainly would be weary of him being responsible for road blocking the Feel Flows release if that is indeed the case).  He is not going to change especially at this point in his life.  That's why I roll my eyes at folks endlessly dooming and glooming that he is killing the band's legacy by doing concerts for Trump as well as that trophy hunting group earlier this year.  The band has endured constantly epic ups and downs over the years yet no one is disputing their place in music history.  Hell, folks still love Michael Jackson's music despite the brutally ugly accusations thrown at him.   People are so protective of the band's legacy despite the fact that it is ultimately going to be okay.  

Yes, the music of Michael Jackson and Phil Spector has "weathered the storm" so to speak, but you can't tell me that their music by these artists isn't being understandably diminished due to all of the garbage they are associated with.

If Phil Spector wasn't such a narcissistic creep as a human being (i'm talking about even before the murder), there would probably be evenings at the Hollywood Bowl dedicated to celebrating his music, etc. etc., under the banner "celebrating the artistry and genius of Phil Spector", but that will never happen because of what he is associated with (again, even pre murder, lest anyone try to fake outrage at the comparing of Mike to Phil Spector as narcissist creeps).

You have to be a truly massive, massive level of a piece of crap as a person to fall as far as Phil Spector fell (once again, I'm talking about pre-murder, this was the case even back then). And the same goes for Mike. It's no accident that Mike is loathed as much as he is, but he just can't see why and has to blame people for thinking Brian is some sort of a saint. He has not one ounce of logic in his pathetic theory. Nobody woke up one day and randomly decided that they wanted to dislike Mike, it's nothing that people just decided they wanted to do, it just simply happens naturally because Mike acts like a piece of horse excrement.

The Phil Spector and Michael Jackson brands have been tainted for a very long time even if some people are still willing to listen to the music largely due to the fact that they don't want to screw over people like Ronnie Spector who would be unnecessarily screwed over if people were to simply boycott all Phil Spector music.  

Everybody must have a line that they draw where they say "enough is enough". If Mike were to straight up say "I support white supremacy and there is no systemic racism, and the KKK have many good people" as BBs stage banter, would that be enough for some people? Or would it take him starting to wear a swastika on his hat over the Beach Boys logo? Yes these are extreme examples but the point is at some point he would have gone too far even for the most understanding of fans (actually perhaps some of the uber Mike-defending nutjobs would be totally fine with that as well), but in my eyes he's already gone way too far and truly needs to be stopped. He should be stripped of the license.

Like I said earlier, heaven forbid Trump should win reelection. Then Mike would not just be known for "associating" with Trump or "supporting" him, but he would be considered somebody who *successfully helped* trump win a second term, and the vitriol he'd receive for that specific thing would be off the charts, far more than even now. It could still get much, much worse.

Mike could become the John Stamos to Donald Trump. An idiot who doesn't belong in those circles, stuck like glue to the bigger fish, and always popping up to show his support. If Trump were to win a second term and feel indebted to Mike a little bit, Mike will probably start associating with Trump even more than he is now. I truly think we've only scratched the surface of how repulsively intertwined Mike and Trump and the Beach Boys brand name could become, depending on the results of the election. I want to puke having just typed that last sentence, but I don't think it's at all offbase of a fear.

Mike is truly an unhinged lunatic who is so deeply irresponsible with the brand name and deeply irresponsible to the legacy, and he should be ashamed for what he has done, but he never will be. His hypocritical worldview is despicable.

[SMiLE Brian]

Warning, CD. An “interested party” is going to add you to the “list” with OSD and I....

[Awesoman]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

Why does he have to?  Why must we be selective in what viewpoints are acceptable?  You may not like or agree with what Nathan is saying but he has hardly violated any rules on this message forum and appears to be far more calm and civil in his delivery compared to at least some of his detractors here.  If you disagree with him, respectfully offer some healthy counterpoint. People are so hopelessly and narcissistically entitled to their own views these days that we have lost the ability to try and understand one another and have an exchange of ideas.  Instead, people would rather try to discredit, shout down, shame and vilify anyone who dares threaten our worldview.  This is 100% wrong and highly problematic.  It is ok to disagree with each other folks, even during crazy times like these.  

Keeping this on track though with Mike Love: he is who he is and has always been a polarizing figure in the band.  I certainly haven't liked or agreed with all the things he has done over the years but I accept that this is just the way he is and don't get bent out of shape over everything he does (although I certainly would be weary of him being responsible for road blocking the Feel Flows release if that is indeed the case).  He is not going to change especially at this point in his life.  That's why I roll my eyes at folks endlessly dooming and glooming that he is killing the band's legacy by doing concerts for Trump as well as that trophy hunting group earlier this year.  The band has endured constantly epic ups and downs over the years yet no one is disputing their place in music history.  Hell, folks still love Michael Jackson's music despite the brutally ugly accusations thrown at him.   People are so protective of the band's legacy despite the fact that it is ultimately going to be okay.  

Yes, the music of Michael Jackson and Phil Spector has "weathered the storm" so to speak, but you can't tell me that their music by these artists isn't being understandably diminished due to all of the garbage they are associated with.

I'll give you that both Spector and Jackson's legacies took a hit over their respective controversies but let's be perfectly objective here: murder and child molestation are far, far more serious charges than anything Mike Love has done.  You may find it unethical for him to perform shows for a sitting President you despise or an organization that is understandably frowned upon and you have every right to feel that way.  But Love is not committing any heinous crimes in doing so.  Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time (compare that to Sgt. Pepper's dramatic drop in popularity).  The band's less commercially successful material from the late 60's throughout the 70's has only increased in popularity and respect over the years.  Again, the legacy is doing just fine.   And no matter how strongly you feel about Trump, not everyone sees it your way and there is certainly more than one reasonable viewpoint out there.  I don't dispute that both Love and Trump have certainly earned a lot of criticisms thrown at that them but because we have become so emotionally inebriated in our society, we've lost the ability to look at anything rationally or objectively.  This has to change if you want any real progress or unity to be achieved.  

[CenturyDeprived]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

Why does he have to?  Why must we be selective in what viewpoints are acceptable?  You may not like or agree with what Nathan is saying but he has hardly violated any rules on this message forum and appears to be far more calm and civil in his delivery compared to at least some of his detractors here.  If you disagree with him, respectfully offer some healthy counterpoint. People are so hopelessly and narcissistically entitled to their own views these days that we have lost the ability to try and understand one another and have an exchange of ideas.  Instead, people would rather try to discredit, shout down, shame and vilify anyone who dares threaten our worldview.  This is 100% wrong and highly problematic.  It is ok to disagree with each other folks, even during crazy times like these.  

Keeping this on track though with Mike Love: he is who he is and has always been a polarizing figure in the band.  I certainly haven't liked or agreed with all the things he has done over the years but I accept that this is just the way he is and don't get bent out of shape over everything he does (although I certainly would be weary of him being responsible for road blocking the Feel Flows release if that is indeed the case).  He is not going to change especially at this point in his life.  That's why I roll my eyes at folks endlessly dooming and glooming that he is killing the band's legacy by doing concerts for Trump as well as that trophy hunting group earlier this year.  The band has endured constantly epic ups and downs over the years yet no one is disputing their place in music history.  Hell, folks still love Michael Jackson's music despite the brutally ugly accusations thrown at him.   People are so protective of the band's legacy despite the fact that it is ultimately going to be okay.  

Yes, the music of Michael Jackson and Phil Spector has "weathered the storm" so to speak, but you can't tell me that their music by these artists isn't being understandably diminished due to all of the garbage they are associated with.

I'll give you that both Spector and Jackson's legacies took a hit over their respective controversies but let's be perfectly objective here: murder and child molestation are far, far more serious charges than anything Mike Love has done.  You may find it unethical for him to perform shows for a sitting President you despise or an organization that is understandably frowned upon and you have every right to feel that way.  But Love is not committing any heinous crimes in doing so.  Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time (compare that to Sgt. Pepper's dramatic drop in popularity).  The band's less commercially successful material from the late 60's throughout the 70's has only increased in popularity and respect over the years.  Again, the legacy is doing just fine.   And no matter how strongly you feel about Trump, not everyone sees it your way and there is certainly more than one reasonable viewpoint out there.  I don't dispute that both Love and Trump have certainly earned a lot of criticisms thrown at that them but because we have become so emotionally inebriated in our society, we've lost the ability to look at anything rationally or objectively.  This has to change if you want any real progress or unity to be achieved.  

As I mentioned repeatedly in my post, although you may have chosen to overlook it, I am referring to Phil Spector's reputation and fall from grace even BEFORE the murders. So let's talk about Phil Spector circa 2001. He was not a murderer, he was just a massive narcissistic creep whose behavior over YEARS caused the industry to largely shun him, or at minimum he was omitted from any number of accolades such as Philharmonic shows in his honor, that he surely would have received had he not been such a massive dick. The ways in which Phil (again, even pre-murders) and Mike have squandered their own legacies are incalculable.

Yes it's still a bit of an apples and oranges situation as the reasons for Phil's pre-murder reputation and Mike's reputation are still different, but at the end of the day it's endless decades of massively narcissistic and terrible behavior, bad enough for the industry to take notice and say "ya know, despite how much this person may have contributed to music, we're gonna go ahead and not pat them on the head simply because they are such pieces of crap". I don't know how many more feathers Mike might have had in his cap had he acted like a decent person akin to Carl Wilson, but I'm sure he would be MUCH MUCH more of a respected figure, even if not respected anywhere near the level of the Wilson brothers who he remains so jealous of.

Love may not personally be committing any heinous crimes in a literal sense (I suppose neither was Salieri), but Mike's committing crimes against music history by messing with FF much in the way he successfully contributed to derailing SMiLE, crimes against the band's legacy as a whole, and also he's prostituting the band to support a criminally unethical orange piece of garbage, and that is all truly inexcusable. I honestly don't know how anyone can excuse that behavior or think it won't ding the legacy. I would not be surprised at all if Mike would try to quietly stop Dennis Wilson from being inducted to the rock hall of fame as a solo artist (there is a movement for that) purely out of jealousy.

Mike's already tainted the song Pacific Ocean Blue that he cowrote by proving how phony his pro-environmental lyrics are, and that itself is yet another level of tragedy. Almost as if he's trying pathologically to be as hated as Brian is loved. It's just so very sick.

Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time

With regards to this, we're going to see a large amount of articles (we're already seeing it) from major publications that will basically say in so many words that yes, the band was great, the material was great, but gee ain't it a shame what an unbelievable tool Mike is?  It's already becoming a cemented idea that the band was great in spite of Mike (yet I, like most objective historians, know that part of what made the band great, at times, was indeed Mike's contributions), but for sure he will be talked about in a negative way that almost cannot be ignored because the negative actions are so far, wide and longterm.

The Trump association is almost like the crowning achievement of terrible behavior that Mike has been building up inside of him for oh I don't know how long. Mike has climbed the Mount Everest of narcissistic, disgusting behavior, and it seems he may have finally reached the summit. But truly, who knows how much MORE damage Mike still has in him. I hate to say it, but I feel he's just getting started.

[Awesoman]

also, take your pro-Trump/anti-Obama garbage elsewhere. no one wants to hear that BS here

Okay, no problem.  Duly noted.   I rarely post, but since I saw a couple pages only showing mostly one opinion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  I'll shut up now.

But you didn’t!

Why does he have to?  Why must we be selective in what viewpoints are acceptable?  You may not like or agree with what Nathan is saying but he has hardly violated any rules on this message forum and appears to be far more calm and civil in his delivery compared to at least some of his detractors here.  If you disagree with him, respectfully offer some healthy counterpoint. People are so hopelessly and narcissistically entitled to their own views these days that we have lost the ability to try and understand one another and have an exchange of ideas.  Instead, people would rather try to discredit, shout down, shame and vilify anyone who dares threaten our worldview.  This is 100% wrong and highly problematic.  It is ok to disagree with each other folks, even during crazy times like these.  

Keeping this on track though with Mike Love: he is who he is and has always been a polarizing figure in the band.  I certainly haven't liked or agreed with all the things he has done over the years but I accept that this is just the way he is and don't get bent out of shape over everything he does (although I certainly would be weary of him being responsible for road blocking the Feel Flows release if that is indeed the case).  He is not going to change especially at this point in his life.  That's why I roll my eyes at folks endlessly dooming and glooming that he is killing the band's legacy by doing concerts for Trump as well as that trophy hunting group earlier this year.  The band has endured constantly epic ups and downs over the years yet no one is disputing their place in music history.  Hell, folks still love Michael Jackson's music despite the brutally ugly accusations thrown at him.   People are so protective of the band's legacy despite the fact that it is ultimately going to be okay.  

Yes, the music of Michael Jackson and Phil Spector has "weathered the storm" so to speak, but you can't tell me that their music by these artists isn't being understandably diminished due to all of the garbage they are associated with.

I'll give you that both Spector and Jackson's legacies took a hit over their respective controversies but let's be perfectly objective here: murder and child molestation are far, far more serious charges than anything Mike Love has done.  You may find it unethical for him to perform shows for a sitting President you despise or an organization that is understandably frowned upon and you have every right to feel that way.  But Love is not committing any heinous crimes in doing so.  Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time (compare that to Sgt. Pepper's dramatic drop in popularity).  The band's less commercially successful material from the late 60's throughout the 70's has only increased in popularity and respect over the years.  Again, the legacy is doing just fine.   And no matter how strongly you feel about Trump, not everyone sees it your way and there is certainly more than one reasonable viewpoint out there.  I don't dispute that both Love and Trump have certainly earned a lot of criticisms thrown at that them but because we have become so emotionally inebriated in our society, we've lost the ability to look at anything rationally or objectively.  This has to change if you want any real progress or unity to be achieved.  

As I mentioned repeatedly in my post, although you may have chosen to overlook it, I am referring to Phil Spector's reputation and fall from grace even BEFORE the murders. So let's talk about Phil Spector circa 2001. He was not a murderer, he was just a massive narcissistic creep whose behavior over YEARS caused the industry to largely shun him, or at minimum he was omitted from any number of accolades such as Philharmonic shows in his honor, that he surely would have received had he not been such a massive dick. The ways in which Phil (again, even pre-murders) and Mike have squandered their own legacies are incalculable.

Yes it's still a bit of an apples and oranges situation as the reasons for Phil's pre-murder reputation and Mike's reputation are still different, but at the end of the day it's endless decades of massively narcissistic and terrible behavior, bad enough for the industry to take notice and say "ya know, despite how much this person may have contributed to music, we're gonna go ahead and not pat them on the head simply because they are such pieces of crap". I don't know how many more feathers Mike might have had in his cap had he acted like a decent person akin to Carl Wilson, but I'm sure he would be MUCH MUCH more of a respected figure, even if not respected anywhere near the level of the Wilson brothers who he remains so jealous of.

Love may not personally be committing any heinous crimes in a literal sense (I suppose neither was Salieri), but Mike's committing crimes against music history by messing with FF much in the way he successfully contributed to derailing SMiLE, crimes against the band's legacy as a whole, and also he's prostituting the band to support a criminally unethical orange piece of garbage, and that is all truly inexcusable. I honestly don't know how anyone can excuse that behavior. I would not be surprised at all if Mike would try to quietly stop Dennis Wilson from being inducted to the rock hall of fame as a solo artist (there is a movement for that) purely out of jealousy. Mike's already tainted the song Pacific Ocean Blue that he cowrote by proving how phony his pro-environmental lyrics are, and that itself is yet another level of tragedy.

I'm not deliberately overlooking anything you've stated; I'm simply not looking at this solely from an emotional standpoint.  It's pretty well-known of Spector's poor reputation as a person (pre-murder charges) and maybe that screwed him out of winning an award or a tribute concert.  But is anyone disputing his overall contributions to popular music or music production?  No.  While I certainly don't condone anyone committing any true atrocities, I guess I just don't get too hung up over difficult personalities or egomaniacs as you can throw a rock and guarantee to hit someone like this in the entertainment industry.

And while I'll give you that Love certainly has steered the band in dodgy directions at time with some unquestionable misfires, overall he hasn't prevented the band from still being casted in a positive light, warts and all.  Perhaps if he had conducted himself differently over the years the band might have had an even stronger legacy, but I'm not going to play the coulda/woulda/shoulda game here.  The fact remains that the band is still well received and continues to have a very passionate, very protective fan base.  The good outweighs the bad.   

[HeyJude]

Again, the legacy is doing just fine.  

This isn't directed particularly at any one person, but I think very few people here (or any group of BB fans) are particularly qualified to make this assertion.

Not only do we all have varying definitions of what the "legacy" is, but even if we all decide on one definition, there aren't a ton of people who are both hardcore BB fans who are also familiar enough with the broader history of music and pop culture such that they can really gauge how the "legacy" is doing.

I think a lot of BB fans live in a pretty insular bubble. It's like "I listen to the music, people still go to shows, they still write articles about Pet Sounds; their legacy is fine." But a lot of things have eroded over the years. The Beach Boys have always had little to no presence on classic rock radio, and now very little even on oldies, where the BB playlist is down to a core short list of songs. And then of course how much is radio even a thing anymore? The BB fanbase still skews older, it has many fans who still haven't figured out how to download music let alone stream it (and/or refuse to do so even if they know how). There a ton of factors like this, outside of the BB fandom bubble, that many if not most BB fans aren't familiar enough with.

A few years ago I read an article about Elvis and how he's kind of being partially erased as time goes by as Elvis fans die off without being replaced. Yes, of course, Elvis will never not be noted as a key figure in the history of music, and the well-known hits will have some sort of life. But that article discussed how much, for instance, the Elvis memorabilia market has died off. That area of fandom isn't the be-all of how to gauge things, but it's an indicator of how the legacy is fading. Not disappearing completely, but fading.

The Beach Boys have NEVER properly embraced doing things to truly expand their legacy. Brian and his camp starting back in the mid-late 90s tapped into this, but the Beach Boys as a group never have. You see Mike Love for instance actively resisting it. In 2012, Mike did truly go from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger as Howie said back then. The band did have the *insane fortune* of turning an AARP brand into an arena act. And Mike walked. He'd rather be Frankie Valli or Lou Christie and be in charge of the show playing gigs at bowling allies than be an A-lister and be playing Madison Square Garden, getting more features in Rolling Stone, playing the Grammys with famous modern acts, etc. So in the moment, Mike gets what he wants. But not embracing things like pushing the early 70s material hard to truly redefine the band's story, that and many other things means their legacy is, at best, not where it could be.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm not deliberately overlooking anything you've stated; I'm simply not looking at this solely from an emotional standpoint.  It's pretty well-known of Spector's poor reputation as a person (pre-murder charges) and maybe that screwed him out of winning an award or a tribute concert.  But is anyone disputing his overall contributions to popular music or music production?  No.  While I certainly don't condone anyone committing any true atrocities, I guess I just don't get too hung up over difficult personalities or egomaniacs as you can throw a rock and guarantee to hit someone like this in the entertainment industry.

I just want to ask a hypothetical question here: what would it take (in your eyes) for someone like Mike to truly tarnish the reputation of this band? Would it take him murdering someone? Wearing a Nazi uniform onstage? Or could there be anything less than these extreme examples which could (in your eyes) still do damage? I would tend to think that every fan would draw the line *somewhere*, where do you draw it?

With Mike, it's more like slow, but continual diminishment of the band's reputation by a thousand cuts. The band will never be mentioned in any manner on social media, by major publications, etc. from now until the end of time, without readers (and by osmosis, writers too) saying to themselves or outloud in comments or the article itself, "yeah the music's great, but that one guy just had to constantly sh*t in the soup". EVERY SINGLE TIME the band is mentioned, there will be an element of that. It'll either be blatantly said, or bubbling under the surface. Mike's always going to be the "but" in the BBs equation. It took a hell of a lot of Mike's bad actions - which continue worsening to this day - for it get to this very unfortunate point.

[Awesoman]

Again, the legacy is doing just fine.  

This isn't directed particularly at any one person, but I think very few people here (or any group of BB fans) are particularly qualified to make this assertion.

Not only do we all have varying definitions of what the "legacy" is, but even if we all decide on one definition, there aren't a ton of people who are both hardcore BB fans who are also familiar enough with the broader history of music and pop culture such that they can really gauge how the "legacy" is doing.

I think a lot of BB fans live in a pretty insular bubble. It's like "I listen to the music, people still go to shows, they still write articles about Pet Sounds; their legacy is fine." But a lot of things have eroded over the years. The Beach Boys have always had little to no presence on classic rock radio, and now very little even on oldies, where the BB playlist is down to a core short list of songs. And then of course how much is radio even a thing anymore? The BB fanbase still skews older, it has many fans who still haven't figured out how to download music let alone stream it (and/or refuse to do so even if they know how). There a ton of factors like this, outside of the BB fandom bubble, that many if not most BB fans aren't familiar enough with.

A few years ago I read an article about Elvis and how he's kind of being partially erased as time goes by as Elvis fans die off without being replaced. Yes, of course, Elvis will never not be noted as a key figure in the history of music, and the well-known hits will have some sort of life. But that article discussed how much, for instance, the Elvis memorabilia market has died off. That area of fandom isn't the be-all of how to gauge things, but it's an indicator of how the legacy is fading. Not disappearing completely, but fading.

The Beach Boys have NEVER properly embraced doing things to truly expand their legacy. Brian and his camp starting back in the mid-late 90s tapped into this, but the Beach Boys as a group never have. You see Mike Love for instance actively resisting it. In 2012, Mike did truly go from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger as Howie said back then. The band did have the *insane fortune* of turning an AARP brand into an arena act. And Mike walked. He'd rather be Frankie Valli or Lou Christie and be in charge of the show playing gigs at bowling allies than be an A-lister and be playing Madison Square Garden, getting more features in Rolling Stone, playing the Grammys with famous modern acts, etc. So in the moment, Mike gets what he wants. But not embracing things like pushing the early 70s material hard to truly redefine the band's story, that and many other things means their legacy is, at best, not where it could be.

All of your points are certainly noted but there are several things we should take into account here.  For starters, this band is nearly 60 years old.  They are simply not going to be looked at by younger folks the same way currently popular acts are as things have changed dramatically in the music scene.  That said, their music is still talked about, fans of all ages still go see them perform, and overall the "good stuff" the band has put out has remained generally in a positive light.  To put things in perspective, the music of classical artists such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and countless other composers are still listened to, studied and performed centuries after this music was created.  I don't think we have any reason to believe that the Beach Boys, as well as many of their contemporaries, are in critical danger of fading completely into oblivion in the next generation or two.  Regarding radio, that format has changed considerably over the years as there has been a rise in the move to streaming music services and satellite radio.  The band's music has been represented fairly well in both of these newer formats.  There will always be detractors of the group that callously dismisses them as a bubblegum act; that is to be expected and no matter how well received any artist can be, there will always be those that don't care for their music.  That said, it is still generally accepted by critics and fans alike over the Beach Boys' contribution to popular music.  

Compare all this with a band like Chicago.  They've been around nearly as long, had at least two decades of commercial successes, have even overtook the Beach Boys in terms of music sales, and have toured every single year and continue to be a solid concert draw.  Yet they have been unmercifully savaged by critics, are rarely credited as being influential and it took several decades after they were eligible to be inducted into the RRHoF.  They've never enjoyed the critical acclaim that the Beach Boys have but continue to have a healthy fan base.  And Chicago is hardly the only group or artist that were popular to have been critically slighted over the years.  Despite the fact that the Beach Boys have definitely put out some truly cringe-worthy material at times, they still enjoy praise and acclaim over their successes.  So yeah, I'm not overtly worried that their reputation is going to nosedive anytime soon.  

[Awesoman]

Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time

With regards to this, we're going to see a large amount of articles (we're already seeing it) from major publications that will basically say in so many words that yes, the band was great, the material was great, but gee ain't it a shame what an unbelievable tool Mike is?  It's already becoming a cemented idea that the band was great in spite of Mike (yet I, like most objective historians, know that part of what made the band great, at times, was indeed Mike's contributions), but for sure he will be talked about in a negative way that almost cannot be ignored because the negative actions are so far, wide and longterm.

In all honesty, who cares?  If the band overall is historically held in a positive light regardless of what Love has said and done, why does it even matter?  When was the last time you heard anyone state "Man, Pet Sounds would be such a good album if Mike wasn't such a dick"?  Let the good outweigh the bad.  And do you really think that Mike Love is the only a-hole in rock history?  You've also got Don Henley, Stephen Stills, David Crosby and countless others who have had questionable reputations as jerks.  Hell, even Chuck Berry was difficult to work with.  Yet they all are still held in a positive light over their contributions to music.  No one is disputing Mike Love's flaws; it's simply a matter of whether you choose to take this personally or not.  

I'm not deliberately overlooking anything you've stated; I'm simply not looking at this solely from an emotional standpoint.  It's pretty well-known of Spector's poor reputation as a person (pre-murder charges) and maybe that screwed him out of winning an award or a tribute concert.  But is anyone disputing his overall contributions to popular music or music production?  No.  While I certainly don't condone anyone committing any true atrocities, I guess I just don't get too hung up over difficult personalities or egomaniacs as you can throw a rock and guarantee to hit someone like this in the entertainment industry.

I just want to ask a hypothetical question here: what would it take (in your eyes) for someone like Mike to truly tarnish the reputation of this band? Would it take him murdering someone? Wearing a Nazi uniform onstage? Or could there be anything less than these extreme examples which could (in your eyes) still do damage? I would tend to think that every fan would draw the line *somewhere*, where do you draw it?

Well yeah, I suppose if Love did any of those things you mentioned it would legitimately hurt the band's image considerably.  But it's highly unrealistic that even he would subject himself to those things.  And personally, I'm not big on "cancel culture" and generally have had to separate the art from the artist on many occasions.  It would take a lot for me to want to distance myself from any artist I enjoy listening to and even then I don't know that I would ever stop enjoying their music completely.  

[CenturyDeprived]

Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time

With regards to this, we're going to see a large amount of articles (we're already seeing it) from major publications that will basically say in so many words that yes, the band was great, the material was great, but gee ain't it a shame what an unbelievable tool Mike is?  It's already becoming a cemented idea that the band was great in spite of Mike (yet I, like most objective historians, know that part of what made the band great, at times, was indeed Mike's contributions), but for sure he will be talked about in a negative way that almost cannot be ignored because the negative actions are so far, wide and longterm.

In all honesty, who cares?  If the band overall is historically held in a positive light regardless of what Love has said and done, why does it even matter?  When was the last time you heard anyone state "Man, Pet Sounds would be such a good album if Mike wasn't such a dick"?  

It's more like "the music would be so much easier to listen to and would be a more purely joyful/untainted listening experience if that guy wasn't such as dick".  And who cares? Lots of people care and are enormously bummed that there's this negative garbage associated with the band. It's always going to be there just lurking in the background. It's like the band has an incurable STD that keeps coming back. While people's ability to tune out the bad stuff and just enjoy the music may vary, it's getting harder all the time. Most especially for any tunes that Mike co-wrote which have any sort of environmentalist angle.

[Awesoman]

Regardless to all the stupid things Love has said and done over the years, Rolling Stone still cites Pet Sounds as the number 2 album of all time

With regards to this, we're going to see a large amount of articles (we're already seeing it) from major publications that will basically say in so many words that yes, the band was great, the material was great, but gee ain't it a shame what an unbelievable tool Mike is?  It's already becoming a cemented idea that the band was great in spite of Mike (yet I, like most objective historians, know that part of what made the band great, at times, was indeed Mike's contributions), but for sure he will be talked about in a negative way that almost cannot be ignored because the negative actions are so far, wide and longterm.

In all honesty, who cares?  If the band overall is historically held in a positive light regardless of what Love has said and done, why does it even matter?  When was the last time you heard anyone state "Man, Pet Sounds would be such a good album if Mike wasn't such a dick"?  

It's more like "the music would be so much easier to listen to and would be a more purely joyful/untainted listening experience if that guy wasn't such as dick".  And who cares? Lots of people care and are enormously bummed that there's this negative garbage associated with the band. While people's ability to tune out the bad stuff and just enjoy the music may vary, it's getting harder all the time.

I mean if Mike being a dick truly hinders your enjoyment of Pet Sounds or any of their other music, I might recommend withdrawing completely from all forms of entertainment.  Because again, Love is hardly the only polarizing figure in popular music.  Not to suggest that bad behavior should be tolerated from anyone, but this type of dysfunction is hardly exclusive to the Beach Boys.  Perhaps look at it from this perspective: two things can be true at the same time.  Mike Love can be a toxic, controversial member of the band and Pet Sounds can still be a fantastic, widely acclaimed album.  

Most especially for any tunes that Mike co-wrote which have any sort of environmentalist angle.

You may know something I don't here, but I'm not exactly sure why you view his environmentalist views as phony.  Fun anecdote: back in 2004 I worked backstage as a runner for an amphitheater here in Atlanta.  Mike's Beach Boys was one of the shows I worked and I spent a good chunk of the day driving their tour manager at the time around who proceeded to tell me things about the band I probably shouldn't know about  .  One of the things he did mention is that Mike Love is actually a bit more liberal than he gives off and that the environmental stuff was a big hot topic for him.  Turns out Bruce is more conservative than Love is.  Take that for what you will, but I am not aware of any reason why Love might be deliberately insincere in his views on this.  

[CenturyDeprived]

 

I mean if Mike being a dick truly hinders your enjoyment of Pet Sounds or any of their other music, I might recommend withdrawing completely from all forms of entertainment.  Because again, Love is hardly the only polarizing figure in popular music.  Not to suggest that bad behavior should be tolerated from anyone, but this type of dysfunction is hardly exclusive to the Beach Boys.  Perhaps look at it from this perspective: two things can be true at the same time.  Mike Love can be a toxic, controversial member of the band and Pet Sounds can still be a fantastic, widely acclaimed album.  
 

Nah, I'm still able to listen to pretty much all BBs music and still enjoy it, but there's still an element of repugnancy that floats in the back of my mind when I hear Mike's voice. I have to Jedi mindtrick myself to just deal with it, and also to realize that his gross qualities evolved and got far worse over time, and I don't think he was quite nearly as despicable a POS back in the 60s, compared to who has has become today.

The truly, full bloom abhorrently gross Mike of today only puts out utter drek these days, which is unlistenable anyway. It's fortunate that the only BBs music that I care to listen to coincides with having been recorded in a time period that Mike (relatively speaking) was not nearly as much of a piece of trash as he would eventually become. So it's a bit easier to disassociate Mega Narcissist Mike of 2020 with the Narcissist-in-training Mike who I'm hearing on 60s records.

One of the things he did mention is that Mike Love is actually a bit more liberal than he gives off and that the environmental stuff was a big hot topic for him.  Turns out Bruce is more conservative than Love is.  Take that for what you will, but I am not aware of any reason why Love might be deliberately insincere in his views on this.  

This only furthers my theory that Mike is that much more of a phony in so many ways, because his asskissing of Trump is at least partly (if not mostly) linked to trying to angle to get some sort of reward from being buddy-buddy with Trump. Look, Uncle Jesse hung around the Beach Boys for a number of years before he gradually got to not only start playing live with them, but he also got to record with them and sing lead vocal on one of their studio albums. The same theory surely holds true in Mike's mind regarding Trump. Mike's doing a series of maneuvering over a period of time to position himself to get a reward of SOME sort. You can bet on it.

Mike is that much more of a disingenuous sicko for gluing himself to Trump - when Mike probably doesn't even agree with a bunch of Trump's policies - because Mike's in the pro-Trump game for reasons that Mike prioritizes higher than ANYTHING else: Mike's dream of an Ego Oscar award, given to him by Trump, and all the attention Mike thinks he can get from his frothing MAGA fans. All of that stuff means far more to Mike than actually acknowledging any of the Nazi-esque traits that Trump and his ilk espouse.

If Mike's a faux conservative anyway, then he's shown where his priorities are. Same with Trump - Trump is completely faking being into religion, being anti abortion, etc etc, just faking all of this stuff so that the presidency can have the eventual effect of feeding his own ego with more power. It mirrors Mike's faux support of a faux conservative candidate who has been known to trade in barter with quasi celebrity pieces of trash in a way that NO president has ever done.  Trump just works with yes men and grants all sorts of wholly unqualified friends of his to positions of power and rewards because he loves people who don't at ALL talk back to him. And Mike understands that logic completely because it's just how Mike is too... so Mike's playing that game as the little fish in this equation.

These two gross guys (Trump and Love) are in this whole thing solely for themselves, because of their massively swollen egos, and their insatiable need for an IV drip of power.

[Reverberation]

A former coworker  of mine passed away this morning due to Covid...next person who claims Covid is a hoax is out of here . Take that sh*t elsewhere

I'm very sorry to hear that. Please be safe, everyone.

This year has been very crazy and depressing. Every now and then I will get a little burned out on the BB and take a little break, but I've come back to them and started listening more recent; it's very healing music. A lot of it is melancholy, but even those numbers relieve stress and sadness for me.

Music in general is healing, but I've never encountered music as spiritually moving and truly healing as the Beach Boys and Brian's music. The BB music is needed in trying times like this. Sorry again for your loss. I hope we are all able to overcome this soon. I am worried for my friends and loved ones as well.

[Awesoman]

One of the things he did mention is that Mike Love is actually a bit more liberal than he gives off and that the environmental stuff was a big hot topic for him.  Turns out Bruce is more conservative than Love is.  Take that for what you will, but I am not aware of any reason why Love might be deliberately insincere in his views on this.  

This only furthers my theory that Mike is that much more of a phony in so many ways, because his asskissing of Trump is at least partly (if not mostly) linked to trying to angle to get some sort of reward from being buddy-buddy with Trump. Look, Uncle Jesse hung around the Beach Boys for a number of years before he gradually got to not only start playing live with them, but he also got to record with them and sing lead vocal on one of their studio albums. The same theory surely holds true in Mike's mind regarding Trump.

Mike is that much more of a disingenuous sicko for gluing himself to Trump - when Mike probably doesn't even agree with a bunch of Trump's policies - because Mike's in the pro-Trump game for reasons that Mike prioritizes higher than ANYTHING else: Mike's dream of an Ego Oscar award, given to him by Trump, and all the attention Mike thinks he can get from his frothing MAGA fans.

But that is all wholly subjective and speculation.  You clearly have an agenda against both these guys (not attacking you with that assessment) which explains why you would feel this way.  However it is not impossible to consider that a person could lean politically one way but still harbor views from the opposite side.  Not everyone is a political monolith.  I believe Love has always identified as a Republican, albeit a more liberal one.  If he had no interest in environmentalism it is a bit baffling as to whom he was trying to appease by writing/recording these type of songs at all.  

[CenturyDeprived]

One of the things he did mention is that Mike Love is actually a bit more liberal than he gives off and that the environmental stuff was a big hot topic for him.  Turns out Bruce is more conservative than Love is.  Take that for what you will, but I am not aware of any reason why Love might be deliberately insincere in his views on this.  

This only furthers my theory that Mike is that much more of a phony in so many ways, because his asskissing of Trump is at least partly (if not mostly) linked to trying to angle to get some sort of reward from being buddy-buddy with Trump. Look, Uncle Jesse hung around the Beach Boys for a number of years before he gradually got to not only start playing live with them, but he also got to record with them and sing lead vocal on one of their studio albums. The same theory surely holds true in Mike's mind regarding Trump.

Mike is that much more of a disingenuous sicko for gluing himself to Trump - when Mike probably doesn't even agree with a bunch of Trump's policies - because Mike's in the pro-Trump game for reasons that Mike prioritizes higher than ANYTHING else: Mike's dream of an Ego Oscar award, given to him by Trump, and all the attention Mike thinks he can get from his frothing MAGA fans.

But that is all wholly subjective and speculation.  You clearly have an agenda against both these guys (not attacking you with that assessment) which explains why you would feel this way.  However it is not impossible to consider that a person could lean politically one way but still harbor views from the opposite side.  Not everyone is a political monolith.  I believe Love has always identified as a Republican, albeit a more liberal one.  If he had no interest in environmentalism it is a bit baffling as to whom he was trying to appease by writing/recording these type of songs at all.  

I never accused Mike of being a political monolith. Nor have I accused him of being some arch conservative (that's probably Bruce territory). I'm sure Mike has mixed views across the political spectrum (which I frankly don't even give two craps about). I simply believe that his priorities are grossly and repulsively out of whack, and that his support of Trump is just one massive example of that.