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

[CenturyDeprived]

Well, you know, in fairness, in the earlier parts of the speech about maybe 1/4 of the audience are cheering him on.

Well Mike probably had maybe 1/4 of a decent point he attempted to make, before he ruined it with his patented lack of tact and self-aggrandizing.

It's funny, I'll bet that if someone wanted to, they could listen carefully to that speech, transcribe it out, and rewrite it in a way that perhaps could get a tiny bit of his (probably well-intended for parts of it) point across, but the end result would be the most anti-Mike sounding speech ever if it were to be taken through the Tact & Decency Translator.

I feel like buried deep within Mike there are probably a handful of decent qualities and good intentions, but they are just completely overwhelmed and obscured by his compulsive tendencies at self-aggrandizing.

Imagine if there was a Landy character treating Mike's NPD, who instead of padlocking the fridge, gave Mike an electro shock every time he said something egotistical?  

[DonnyL]

His delivery was pretty all over the place, but the gist of the speech IMO was:

The Beach Boys are regular working class people, we still perform, we set aside our differences to be here, we’re for harmony in the world- whereas the rock n roll elite think they’re better than everyone else- and loosely equating the attitude of the rock elite with the greater attitude of the Western world.

Also (from Wikipedia): “Ali was known for being a humanitarian[219] and philanthropist.[220][221] He focused on practicing his Islamic duty of charity and good deeds, donating millions to charity organizations and disadvantaged people of all religious backgrounds. It is estimated that Ali helped to feed more than 22 million people afflicted by hunger across the world.“

[rab2591]

Again, the obvious hypocrisy is that Mike is supposedly claiming to “set aside differences” for the sake of harmony in his own band but yet he himself couldn’t set aside the differences he had with those attending and not attending the event. Harmony isn’t achieved by berating others for not being in harmony.

It reminds me of this video I saw of a pastor going ballistic on his own congregation for not being Christian/loving enough: he’s up in the pulpit saying hateful things to those in his congregation whom he feels morally superior to...it’s just blatantly hypocritical.

[DonnyL]

I mean, having a good point and making it in a controversial and bold way - however muddied the delivery may have been - are not mutually exclusive with also being kind of a dick or a hypocrite.

Mike Love is historically, in my view, a talented guy who played an important role in the Beach Boys ... and also something of a prick.

“Brian Wilson is a genius”. “Yeh but again, he also did drugs.”

“Phil Spector was a great producer.” “Yeh but he’s a convicted murderer.”

“Charles Manson made a fantastic record.” “Yeh but the CIA MKUltra’d his ass via their covert CHAOS program ...”

[CenturyDeprived]

I mean, having a good point and making it in a controversial and bold way - however muddied the delivery may have been - are not mutually exclusive with also being kind of a dick or a hypocrite.

Mike Love is historically, in my view, a talented guy who played an important role in the Beach Boys ... and also something of a prick.

“Brian Wilson is a genius”. “Yeh but again, he also did drugs.”
 

Brian Wilson having done drugs, says absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about the quality of his character. This only equates to acts self harm, self medication... it was not bile inflicted on others to preserve some sort of narcissistic, pathetic sense of self, like his shithead (and sometimes talented, when he wants to be) cousin.

Brian's a very decent man who OWNS UP to his failings and that's the big, big difference why I don't look at him and see any sort of "but".

The only "but" is the tragedy of how much more the man could have achieved if he had a better support system in place when he needed it, which sadly does include the tragedy of "what if" he hadn't done so much drugs. Again, nothing to with his character, unless you find an abused person's compulsive need to self-medicate some sort of "character flaw" (I don't).

Everyone else on that list is IMO objectively a bad person, to varying degrees. I mean, if you want to be really generous, you can find traces of "good person" traits (probably) in every single person you'd ever come across. Mike's the least bad of the other 2 baddies on that list, but I'd not on the whole call him a good person in my view.  

[DonnyL]

I mean, having a good point and making it in a controversial and bold way - however muddied the delivery may have been - are not mutually exclusive with also being kind of a dick or a hypocrite.

Mike Love is historically, in my view, a talented guy who played an important role in the Beach Boys ... and also something of a prick.

“Brian Wilson is a genius”. “Yeh but again, he also did drugs.”
 

Brian Wilson having done drugs, says absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about the quality of his character. This only equates to acts self harm, self medication... it was not bile inflicted on others to preserve some sort of narcissistic, pathetic sense of self, like his shithead (and sometimes talented, when he wants to be) cousin.

Brian's a very decent man who OWNS UP to his failings and that's the big, big difference why I don't look at him and see any sort of "but".

The only "but" is the tragedy of how much more the man could have achieved if he had a better support system in place when he needed it, which sadly does include the tragedy of "what if" he hadn't done so much drugs. Again, nothing to with his character, unless you find an abused person's compulsive need to self-medicate some sort of "character flaw" (I don't).

Everyone else on that list is IMO objectively a bad person, to varying degrees. I mean, if you want to be really generous, you can find traces of "good person" traits (probably) in every single person you'd ever come across. Mike's the least bad of the other 2 baddies on that list, but I'd not on the whole call him a good person in my view.  

I don’t think BW doing drugs is a negative trait personally. I’m saying being a genius is not mutually exclusive to doing drugs. Being a great producer is not mutually exclusive to being a murderer. And making a cool record is not mutually exclusive to being Charles Manson. To illustrate that Mike Love having a point and making what I consider to be a cool speech, is not mutually exclusive to also being a hypocrite and a jerk.

I’m using familiar “Yeh but ...” statements that are used to discredit a thing, like many posters are doing here w/ Mike’s speech. That is to say, “he’s a dick and a hypocrite” doesn’t mean the speech doesn’t have valid points.

But I don’t believe anyone is “objectively” a “good” or “bad” person (I think that idea is dangerous), so agree to disagree there.

[CenturyDeprived]

I mean, having a good point and making it in a controversial and bold way - however muddied the delivery may have been - are not mutually exclusive with also being kind of a dick or a hypocrite.

Mike Love is historically, in my view, a talented guy who played an important role in the Beach Boys ... and also something of a prick.

“Brian Wilson is a genius”. “Yeh but again, he also did drugs.”
 

Brian Wilson having done drugs, says absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about the quality of his character. This only equates to acts self harm, self medication... it was not bile inflicted on others to preserve some sort of narcissistic, pathetic sense of self, like his shithead (and sometimes talented, when he wants to be) cousin.

Brian's a very decent man who OWNS UP to his failings and that's the big, big difference why I don't look at him and see any sort of "but".

The only "but" is the tragedy of how much more the man could have achieved if he had a better support system in place when he needed it, which sadly does include the tragedy of "what if" he hadn't done so much drugs. Again, nothing to with his character, unless you find an abused person's compulsive need to self-medicate some sort of "character flaw" (I don't).

Everyone else on that list is IMO objectively a bad person, to varying degrees. I mean, if you want to be really generous, you can find traces of "good person" traits (probably) in every single person you'd ever come across. Mike's the least bad of the other 2 baddies on that list, but I'd not on the whole call him a good person in my view.  

I don’t think BW doing drugs is a negative trait personally. I’m saying being a genius is not mutually exclusive to doing drugs. Being a great producer is not mutually exclusive to being a murderer. And making a cool record is not mutually exclusive to being Charles Manson. To illustrate that Mike Love having a point and making what I consider to be a cool speech, is not mutually exclusive to also being a hypocrite and a jerk.

I’m using familiar “Yeh but ...” statements that are used to discredit a thing, like many posters are doing here w/ Mike’s speech. That is to say, “he’s a dick and a hypocrite” doesn’t mean the speech doesn’t have valid points.

But I don’t believe anyone is “objectively” a “good” or “bad” person (I think that idea is dangerous), so agree to disagree there.

I agree perhaps Mike might have had a tiny morsel of a point he was *trying* to make with the speech, but he biffed it to such a degree - and was super hypocritical while doing it - and embarrassed his bandmates by doing so - that I just can't get behind any defense of that speech at all.

Fair enough, yes there are always shades of grey, even with Mike (those shades are hard to see when he repulses me to such a degree). I agree very much about the mutually exclusive thing you're saying, which is why it always bugs me when people defending Mike's actions assume that those who rightfully rag on him have a black-and-white view about him. I mean, some people who don't like Mike do have such a view, but I think most people who are true, hardcore fans of the band, understand the nuance.

It's possible for him to have contributed some solid and at times great things to the band in the first several years of their existence, and for him to have done a bunch of terrible damage as the years went on, and for fans to think he sucks HARD as a dude. One can think he's generally a piece of crap, and also acknowledge the good contributions... though I'd be hard-pressed to find many selfless Mike actions, just like I'd be hard-pressed to find any selfless actions Trump did in his entire life as a person.

Because of the similarities in aspects of their personalities (obviously they are different people, but the narcissism gene and in particular the repeated history of mowing down others in their wake to varying degrees), Mike attaching the band to Trump is going to never go away, but it'll stick to Mike the most. I mean, other than convicted murderers like Manson, Trump has already become the single most notorious person in modern American history (like it or not Trump fans, that's going to be the view of history), just as Mike has become the most hated man in rock history. They of course are not hated to the same degree, but conflating those two guys again and again  (all solely thanks to Mike's repeated associations to Trump) only serves to amplify peoples' opinions of Mike - and on top of everything, the cherry on the sh*t pie - for Mike to essentially give what amounts to a public handjob to Trump RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME he is quashing the FF box set and Dennis' work in particular... that's some next level sh*t Mike will not ever live down.

There are other people in rock who have done plenty of terrible things, but Mike due to his longevity, and due to those things just getting worse with time, over decades and decades, is going to have a very poor reputation for all times. Salieri level.

Any truly objective book or movie about Mike will of course always have to acknowledge his undeniable contributions, and nothing legitimate should be played down, regardless of how one feels about the guy. That's why I even nudge folks like OSD to acknowledge that songs like Please Let Me Wonder are undeniably examples that Mike could bring it, sometimes, both lyrically and vocally. To dismiss that is silly, and it also undermines legit criticisms of Mike. But no credible historian can really talk about this band without deep diving into Mike's narcissism and all the damage it has done. That could be a whole book in and of itself, but it should most certainly be discussed (sadly, but necessarily) a whole lot in any scholarly discussion of the band.

Anytime that uncomfortable topic will be avoided, it will be an immediate obvious sign that the content is just a puff piece like ESQ, where brownosing in order to maintain access is the obvious priority.

[Awesoman]

Again, the obvious hypocrisy is that Mike is supposedly claiming to “set aside differences” for the sake of harmony in his own band but yet he himself couldn’t set aside the differences he had with those attending and not attending the event. Harmony isn’t achieved by berating others for not being in harmony.

It reminds me of this video I saw of a pastor going ballistic on his own congregation for not being Christian/loving enough: he’s up in the pulpit saying hateful things to those in his congregation whom he feels morally superior to...it’s just blatantly hypocritical.

Yeah.  Why is it that those who scream the loudest for love and tolerance and proclaim themselves champions against hatred always seem to be the most hateful of the bunch?  🤷‍♂️

[rab2591]

To illustrate that Mike Love having a point and making what I consider to be a cool speech, is not mutually exclusive to also being a hypocrite and a jerk.

I’m using familiar “Yeh but ...” statements that are used to discredit a thing, like many posters are doing here w/ Mike’s speech. That is to say, “he’s a dick and a hypocrite” doesn’t mean the speech doesn’t have valid points.

The Beach Boys are regular working class people, we still perform, we set aside our differences to be here, we’re for harmony in the world- whereas the rock n roll elite think they’re better than everyone else- and loosely equating the attitude of the rock elite with the greater attitude of the Western world.

“Unfortunately, [our differences] haven’t been [settled], so I would feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with (Harrison and Starr) at a fake reunion.” - Paul McCartney about not attending the event.

Diana Ross, having had a baby not too long before, cited personal reasons for not going to the event. She also said that she was honored for being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Ross’ spokesperson said this about the speech, which I think sums it up perfectly: “If his speech was intended to be about harmony, it had totally the opposite effect. It was divisive, judgmental, misguided and at times venomous.”

Boasting about the amount of touring you do compared to other artists does nothing to prove a point about harmony.

Mike berating the Rock n Roll elite for not being in harmony? He merely called out some hard-working artists, some of whom chose not to be there for their own personal reasons. Calling a fellow artist “chickenshit”? That’s not cool, it’s just crass.

Perhaps Paul thought he was doing the world a favor by not showing up in a foul mood. Perhaps Diana really did want to stay home with her baby.

The biggest takeaway from Mike’s speech didn’t come from Mike, but from Bob Dylan’s critique of Mike’s speech: “Peace, love and harmony is important indeed, but so is forgiveness.”

Perhaps Mike did have a point about harmony buried beneath those layers of venom and divisive statements, but those statements did so much more harm than good for the harmony he was supposedly attempting to promote. And thus, I just don’t see how any of what he said was cool or rebellious (as others have previously argued) when in the end it just seemed to hurt rather than heal.

Again, the obvious hypocrisy is that Mike is supposedly claiming to “set aside differences” for the sake of harmony in his own band but yet he himself couldn’t set aside the differences he had with those attending and not attending the event. Harmony isn’t achieved by berating others for not being in harmony.

It reminds me of this video I saw of a pastor going ballistic on his own congregation for not being Christian/loving enough: he’s up in the pulpit saying hateful things to those in his congregation whom he feels morally superior to...it’s just blatantly hypocritical.

Yeah.  Why is it that those who scream the loudest for love and tolerance and proclaim themselves champions against hatred always seem to be the most hateful of the bunch?

Right??

[HeyJude]

I want to thank Mike Love for his continued uncanny ability to invent new and novel ways of making me embarrassed to be a Beach Boys  fan, well into the 21st Century!

I think Mike does these things just to get his name in the headlines. Remember his speech at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame? He's never shown any remorse for that; in his view, it was good publicity for the Beach Boys, who were going to be overshadowed by the Fab Four and Robert Zimmerman. "I'm gonna make sure all the headlines aren't about Ms. Ross and Macca not showing up".

I actually think Mike’s speech at the HOF was kinda cool.

Most didn't, both in the audience and in the public. It cemented his poor reputation, and the speech is even more ironic and hypocritical now in retrospect. Objectively, it did nothing good for the band or Mike.

There are ways to give a punk-attitude, tell-it-like-it-is, rebellious speech at the R&R HOF. Mike's speech was not that. He called out Mick Jagger for not being there even though Jagger was there. He patted himself on the back for doing more gigs per year than the deceased John Lennon. He called out McCartney and Diana Ross for being hung up on lawsuits, even though Mike did and does have a world-famous reputation for being litigious. Mike set up Bob Dylan and Elton John to give better speeches/one-liners in response to Mike's speech.

I don't recall Mike calling out Mick for not being there - he called him out for "being chicken$#it to share the stage with the Beach Boys".

He did both:

"I know Mick Jagger won't be here tonight -- he's gonna have to stay in England. But I'd like to see us in the Coliseum and he at Wembley Stadium because he's always been chickens--- to get onstage with the Beach Boys."

Not only did he look like an idiot because Jagger was literally in the building that night, but he also looked like an idiot because, and I love the Beach Boys, their live show, certainly by 1988, was nowhere near of the caliber of a rock show as the Rolling Stones. I say that as someone that is a way bigger fan of the BBs than the Stones.

It would be like Jagger getting on stage and saying the Beach Boys have always been afraid to go to-to-toe singing harmonies compared to the Stones.

Maybe there was a time when the live BB stage show gave the Stones a run for their money, but that would have been pre-1976.

Nobody in the industry, or music press, or general rock fandom, was thinking the 1988 Beach Boys were a hotter live band than the Stones. Most post-1970-something reviews of BB live shows, the *good* reviews that is, usually pointed out the band's impressive *setlist*, as in string of hits, as opposed to singling out the *show* being like a sh*t-hot live rock show.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

[HeyJude]

His delivery was pretty all over the place, but the gist of the speech IMO was:

The Beach Boys are regular working class people, we still perform, we set aside our differences to be here, we’re for harmony in the world- whereas the rock n roll elite think they’re better than everyone else- and loosely equating the attitude of the rock elite with the greater attitude of the Western world.

And everybody, from the audience full of industry people, to fandom who had a chance to read/hear that speech, knew that such a sentiment was a crock of s**t. While it's debatable how "working class" the various members were pre-fame, certainly by 1988 their "working class" days had ended circa 1962 or so. And, the band was already known as not being "all about harmony." The Gaines book was out by then, and many elements of the band's and the individual members' reputations were already in place by then.

It was received as an ironic, hypocritical speech *back in 1988*, and in the intervening years has become only *more* ironic and hypocritical. In later years, the band usually *couldn't* set aside differences to do things together. Mike didn't turn up at the Hawthorne landmark dedication. When he did the Grammy luncheon thing in the early 2000s, he and Al stayed as far away from each other as possible. And then there are the numerous lawsuits.

Barring 2012, the reputation of the Beach Boys as a powerhouse rock act only got worse after 1988.

McCartney certainly learned more lessons than Mike did. Cut to decades later, and it's Mike who can't be in the same room with Melinda while Paul and Yoko are holding hands doing red carpet events, and all the group and solo Beatles stuff gets cross-promoted on all platforms. Meanwhile, Brian and Al have to call out Mike's own touring band multiple times in the same year, Mike says in interviews he can't even be bothered to listen to Brian's solo stuff let alone cross-promote anything, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying there's not a single germ of an interesting point buried in Mike's speech. But he didn't convey any of those points well, or succinctly, or efficiently, and he had zero credibility being the person to try to impart any of those points.

[DonnyL]

His delivery was pretty all over the place, but the gist of the speech IMO was:

The Beach Boys are regular working class people, we still perform, we set aside our differences to be here, we’re for harmony in the world- whereas the rock n roll elite think they’re better than everyone else- and loosely equating the attitude of the rock elite with the greater attitude of the Western world.

And everybody, from the audience full of industry people, to fandom who had a chance to read/hear that speech, knew that such a sentiment was a crock of s**t. While it's debatable how "working class" the various members were pre-fame, certainly by 1988 their "working class" days had ended circa 1962 or so. And, the band was already known as not being "all about harmony." The Gaines book was out by then, and many elements of the band's and the individual members' reputations were already in place by then.

It was received as an ironic, hypocritical speech *back in 1988*, and in the intervening years has become only *more* ironic and hypocritical. In later years, the band usually *couldn't* set aside differences to do things together. Mike didn't turn up at the Hawthorne landmark dedication. When he did the Grammy luncheon thing in the early 2000s, he and Al stayed as far away from each other as possible. And then there are the numerous lawsuits.

Barring 2012, the reputation of the Beach Boys as a powerhouse rock act only got worse after 1988.

McCartney certainly learned more lessons than Mike did. Cut to decades later, and it's Mike who can't be in the same room with Melinda while Paul and Yoko are holding hands doing red carpet events, and all the group and solo Beatles stuff gets cross-promoted on all platforms. Meanwhile, Brian and Al have to call out Mike's own touring band multiple times in the same year, Mike says in interviews he can't even be bothered to listen to Brian's solo stuff let alone cross-promote anything, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying there's not a single germ of an interesting point buried in Mike's speech. But he didn't convey any of those points well, or succinctly, or efficiently, and he had zero credibility being the person to try to impart any of those points.

I don't disagree with anything here. I still think the speech was a good move in that context, and the point made was valid. Possibly just the subversive nature of it is appealing.

Johnny Rotten's was better for sure: http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/johnny-rotten-hall-of-fame.jpg

[HeyJude]

His delivery was pretty all over the place, but the gist of the speech IMO was:

The Beach Boys are regular working class people, we still perform, we set aside our differences to be here, we’re for harmony in the world- whereas the rock n roll elite think they’re better than everyone else- and loosely equating the attitude of the rock elite with the greater attitude of the Western world.

And everybody, from the audience full of industry people, to fandom who had a chance to read/hear that speech, knew that such a sentiment was a crock of s**t. While it's debatable how "working class" the various members were pre-fame, certainly by 1988 their "working class" days had ended circa 1962 or so. And, the band was already known as not being "all about harmony." The Gaines book was out by then, and many elements of the band's and the individual members' reputations were already in place by then.

It was received as an ironic, hypocritical speech *back in 1988*, and in the intervening years has become only *more* ironic and hypocritical. In later years, the band usually *couldn't* set aside differences to do things together. Mike didn't turn up at the Hawthorne landmark dedication. When he did the Grammy luncheon thing in the early 2000s, he and Al stayed as far away from each other as possible. And then there are the numerous lawsuits.

Barring 2012, the reputation of the Beach Boys as a powerhouse rock act only got worse after 1988.

McCartney certainly learned more lessons than Mike did. Cut to decades later, and it's Mike who can't be in the same room with Melinda while Paul and Yoko are holding hands doing red carpet events, and all the group and solo Beatles stuff gets cross-promoted on all platforms. Meanwhile, Brian and Al have to call out Mike's own touring band multiple times in the same year, Mike says in interviews he can't even be bothered to listen to Brian's solo stuff let alone cross-promote anything, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying there's not a single germ of an interesting point buried in Mike's speech. But he didn't convey any of those points well, or succinctly, or efficiently, and he had zero credibility being the person to try to impart any of those points.

I don't disagree with anything here. I still think the speech was a good move in that context, and the point made was valid. Possibly just the subversive nature of it is appealing.

Johnny Rotten's was better for sure: http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/johnny-rotten-hall-of-fame.jpg

Mike's speech was subversive in the same accidental way that barfing on stage or slipping and falling into the crowd would also be subversive.

Hypocrisy and irony from the speaker in question will undercut any possibly valid point. And I'm not even fully into stipulating that Mike's underlying point was valid. I think his point or points were muddled. He's calling out the institution and its members, yet then criticizing people for not partaking in the event, and patting himself on the back for showing up. Everything apart from not showing up that Mike was calling out in the speech was something he was partaking in himself. He was in a tux, participating, rubbing elbows, etc.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

  And another thing, amazing how everyone he called out in that tirade are leagues ahead of that crumb in the talent department. The same goes for when he talks smack about Brian who we all know is several solar systems ahead of that drip. I would have loved to see a couple of security guards haul him out of the building and into the dumpster. 

[rab2591]

Hypocrisy and irony from the speaker in question will undercut any possibly valid point. And I'm not even fully into stipulating that Mike's underlying point was valid. I think his point or points were muddled. He's calling out the institution and its members, yet then criticizing people for not partaking in the event, and patting himself on the back for showing up. Everything apart from not showing up that Mike was calling out in the speech was something he was partaking in himself. He was in a tux, participating, rubbing elbows, etc.

THIS. Also,

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

This is probably the most on-point simplistic explanation for that night. You could even take out “drunken” and that post would still explain much of Mike’s actions for the last 3 decades when dealing with Brian.

[CenturyDeprived]

Hypocrisy and irony from the speaker in question will undercut any possibly valid point. And I'm not even fully into stipulating that Mike's underlying point was valid. I think his point or points were muddled. He's calling out the institution and its members, yet then criticizing people for not partaking in the event, and patting himself on the back for showing up. Everything apart from not showing up that Mike was calling out in the speech was something he was partaking in himself. He was in a tux, participating, rubbing elbows, etc.

THIS. Also,

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

This is probably the most on-point simplistic explanation for that night. You could even take out “drunken” and that post would still explain much of Mike’s actions for the last 3 decades when dealing with Brian.

If Mike wasn't so incredibly smug, self-righteous, and defensive about the speech in hindsight, not to mention being that way about practically everything he's ever done with the band, people would probably dislike him a good degree less. I think many fans of this band, if not most, have forgiveness in their hearts, but it's awfully hard to forgive somebody who doesn't fess up to acting like an absolute asshat. Or to hurting others. And just keeps doing both, repeatedly, like it ain't no thing.

[rab2591]

Hypocrisy and irony from the speaker in question will undercut any possibly valid point. And I'm not even fully into stipulating that Mike's underlying point was valid. I think his point or points were muddled. He's calling out the institution and its members, yet then criticizing people for not partaking in the event, and patting himself on the back for showing up. Everything apart from not showing up that Mike was calling out in the speech was something he was partaking in himself. He was in a tux, participating, rubbing elbows, etc.

THIS. Also,

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

This is probably the most on-point simplistic explanation for that night. You could even take out “drunken” and that post would still explain much of Mike’s actions for the last 3 decades when dealing with Brian.

If Mike wasn't so incredibly smug, self-righteous, and defensive about the speech in hindsight, not to mention being that way about practically everything he's ever done with the band, people would probably dislike him a good degree less. I think many fans of this band, if not most, have forgiveness in their hearts, but it's awfully hard to forgive somebody who doesn't fess up to acting like an absolute asshat. Or to hurting others. And just keeps doing both, repeatedly, like it ain't no thing.

You’re absolutely right, and if Mike even showed one small morsel of remorse for his actions that night (and for future actions/statements) he would not be vilified as much (if at all). We are all human and we all screw up - but most of us have the ability to take responsibility for our screw ups - most of us can admit that we screw up (especially when our screw ups are placed out in the open).

And it’s not even that Mike is an evil person because he doesn’t admit this. It’s probably more that very few people can even relate to that mindset. In fact, most of us dislike that kind of behavior because most of us know people personally like that, and it’s irritating as hell to work or live around someone who can’t accept any blame for a problem that they caused.

It’s just such an odd juxtaposition: I’d fully expect this behavior from Axl Rose or some other crazy leader of an out-of-control rock band. But it instead comes from a member of the (mostly) wholesome band that brought us the most incredible love album of all time (Pet Sounds) during a speech that was supposedly about “harmony” that instead instantly morphed into conveying the opposite of harmony in only a way Mike Love himself could do. But then you realize that this is The Beach Boys and mostly everything this band does makes little sense in regards to anything logical.

[SMiLE Brian]

Get OSD on stage with him! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSAQX2uuUY

[CenturyDeprived]

Hypocrisy and irony from the speaker in question will undercut any possibly valid point. And I'm not even fully into stipulating that Mike's underlying point was valid. I think his point or points were muddled. He's calling out the institution and its members, yet then criticizing people for not partaking in the event, and patting himself on the back for showing up. Everything apart from not showing up that Mike was calling out in the speech was something he was partaking in himself. He was in a tux, participating, rubbing elbows, etc.

THIS. Also,

Mike was a drunken asshole that night....

This is probably the most on-point simplistic explanation for that night. You could even take out “drunken” and that post would still explain much of Mike’s actions for the last 3 decades when dealing with Brian.

If Mike wasn't so incredibly smug, self-righteous, and defensive about the speech in hindsight, not to mention being that way about practically everything he's ever done with the band, people would probably dislike him a good degree less. I think many fans of this band, if not most, have forgiveness in their hearts, but it's awfully hard to forgive somebody who doesn't fess up to acting like an absolute asshat. Or to hurting others. And just keeps doing both, repeatedly, like it ain't no thing.

You’re absolutely right, and if Mike even showed one small morsel of remorse for his actions that night (and for future actions/statements) he would not be vilified as much (if at all). We are all human and we all screw up - but most of us have the ability to take responsibility for our screw ups - most of us can admit that we screw up (especially when our screw ups are placed out in the open).

And it’s not even that Mike is an evil person because he doesn’t admit this. It’s probably more that very few people can even relate to that mindset. In fact, most of us dislike that kind of behavior because most of us know people personally like that, and it’s irritating as hell to work or live around someone who can’t accept any blame for a problem that they caused.

It’s just such an odd juxtaposition: I’d fully expect this behavior from Axl Rose or some other crazy leader of an out-of-control rock band. But it instead comes from a member of the (mostly) wholesome band that brought us the most incredible love album of all time (Pet Sounds) during a speech that was supposedly about “harmony” that instead instantly morphed into conveying the opposite of harmony in only a way Mike Love himself could do. But then you realize that this is The Beach Boys and mostly everything this band does makes little sense in regards to anything logical.

Actually, I stand corrected. Some kind YouTuber has painstakingly taken the time to edit together the known incidents of Mike apologizing and fessing up for bad behavior. Looks like I was wrong about the guy:

https://youtu.be/fx2Z5ZD_Rbo

[Pretty Funky]

Yes Mike...the Wilsons did drugs. But at no point while doing so did they disrespect some of the biggest acts in music to their face or in front of the cameras.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Get OSD on stage with him! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSAQX2uuUY

I'd go for that in a heartbeat but his inflated, outrageous, annoying, insidious ego would hog the entire stage. 

[joe_blow]

Kamala does her best Spinal Tap https://youtu.be/gjNOxrzU-As

Joe Biden is Joe Biden's husband  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6G9-UykIBw

Now that is a great combo to support!

[Lonely Summer]

Is it possible Donald Trump and Mike Love are the same person?

[The 4th Wilson Bro.]

Mike can do whatever he wants under his own name.  What he should in no circumstances do, however, is play a fundraiser two weeks ahead of the most politically charged election ever, and do it under the name of the Beach Boys, a name that is indelibly linked with other people that may not share the same views.  

Is he actually trying to go down as the most hated man in the history of rock and roll?  I'm being serious.  Do you think it's some kind of pathological need to keep the attention on himself?  To be the best at something, anything, even if it's being the best at being the worst?  

I felt like this after the trophy hunting show..I just absolutely DESPISE him for continually embarrassing his former bandmates and for letting his fans down over and over and over.  I live in a city that votes 85% Democrat.  In all seriousness, I wouldn't feel comfortable going out in a BB tshirt right now.  I can separate the band from that idiot, but most people can't.  

I don't know much about the licensing agreement, but knowing what he's like, I don't know why Brian and Al ever agreed to the arrangement that allowed him to have the name.  I'm not saying that they should have been able to look into the future and anticipate that Mike would use the name to try to re-elect a misogynist, morally bankrupt president, but they should have known that no good would come of letting him be "the Beach Boys".  They must really be questioning the decision now.  

If I lived in a city that votes 85 percent Democrat, I wouldn't feel comfortable going out in a t-shirt of any kind – or shirtless, for that matter.