Mike Love

[Jonas]

Jonas: I understand basic internet jargon. The addition of an IMO does not make Jason's statement any less presumptuous. He was simply restating his point, and I was restating mine. All posts on message boards are, by definition, IMOs anyway (I assume that the almighty does not make it a practice to post regularly).

If he's adding in his two cents, which are his opinion, how is he presumably speaking for you? Get off your high horse.

[Jason]

Jonas: I understand basic internet jargon. The addition of an IMO does not make Jason's statement any less presumptuous. He was simply restating his point, and I was restating mine. All posts on message boards are, by definition, IMOs anyway (I assume that the almighty does not make it a practice to post regularly).

It's just an opinion. It's just as credible as anyone else's. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. And the fact that you take my opinion as a personal attack is a bit unnerving because I was not out to attack anyone. You've given your two cents and I've given mine. I apologise for any mistaken impressions my posts in this thread may have given you. But I will not retract my opinion. I'm entitled to mine as you are to yours.

[Wirestone]

Edit

[Surfer Joe]

If I can jump in here-

Stating an opinion is always fine- no one has questioned anyone's right to do that.  But if you suggest the following-

Anyone who disagrees is kidding themselves.

You can pretty well expect to go on the defensive. Your rights have not been challenged, but your statement has.  When you add:

IMO, of course, it seems like these fans are speaking with the cloudiness of hindsight and one too many reads of a biased book ...

...you may be seen as suggesting that your opinions (which followed) are the result of clear thinking and balance, and others' are not, regardless of the IMO, which (as someone pointed out) is always implicit anyway.  That's going to offend someone in advance every time.  Just another friendly opinion on opinions...

[Surfer Joe]

And to the general topic, here's my opinion, which you can print out for ten percent off a leisure suit at your local Woolworth's:

(1)  I like Mike, and I have great respect  for his contributions.

(2)  I went from staunch Mike defender, to really irritated with him following a series of public comments, etc., to a balanced view.  He is who he is, and that includes some great personal qualities and some very frustrating ones.  I think the good stuff far outweighs the other stuff.

(3)  I have always liked "Kokomo"- to a point.

(4)  I have always believed that it was the melodies and arrangements and overall sound of the Beach Boys' records that first drew me to them when I was a kid.  Maybe I'm kidding myself.

[Jason]

Point understood and taken.

[Surfer Joe]

Very graciously said, and same to you- your points are taken as well.

Interestingly, my brother- who's a fan on a limited basis, through me- formed a great dislike of Mike from watching a couple of documentaries with me, but really likes Mike's voice from listening, without knowing whose voice it was.

I should have added above- though I came to be at peace with some of Mike's more abrasive public qualities, I've always thought that the bad rap he gets is something he absolutely brings on himself.  On the other hand, he could easily choose to say the right things, and he often doesn't, so call it integrity if you will.  And having seen them numerous times in the eighties- found a bunch of old ticket stubs yesterday, believe it or not- he is as good a front man on stage as there ever was.

[adamghost]

And I don't know if it's fair to claim that Mike doesn't get things like artistic quality, attitude and asthetic. If anything, he simply has his own ideas about what constitutes such things. You or I may not agree with his ideas, but to say he doesn't "get" such things is certainly approaching the parameters of "bashing"

Right back atcha, Erik...can't argue with the post above this one either.  But I do want to quibble with what you wrote here just a little bit.  You're right that Mike has his own ideas about artistic quality, attitude and aesthetic...and he's very committed to them; it's based on a commercial viewpoint, which is valid, although I'd argue he's cut himself off at the knees both in taking that road and also the WAY he's taken that road.  But I don't think it's bashing to say that he doesn't really get the opposite viewpoint.  I think it's true; he's just not a hipster kind of guy in any way; he's more of a businessman type of entertainer.  If that was all there was to the Beach Boys' appeal, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but taking that commercial approach has sabotaged the Beach Boys' artistic credibility AND limited their long-term commercial prospects in so doing.  And I would argue that Mike doesn't "get" that, partly because he can't see it from the other perspective.  It's just not who he is; I think the argument can be made (as it just was) that it's a form of integrity.  I also think, though, that there's a certain wilfullness in Mike's positions in the face of contrary facts involved too, and only seeing the parts of reality that reinforce what you already believe is not as cool to me.  I don't think, though, that's "bashing."

I also agree that Mike's done good work post 1966, but I would argue that it's been less frequent as the years have gone on.  Before '66 though, you couldn't have the Beach Boys without him.

[Surfer Joe]

I think there are two distinct ways to look at it, and it may not be all art vs. commerce.

Granted the premise that Mike is not all that high on the '66/'67 direction (which some of his enthusiasts do not grant, though Mike himself has made no real effort to dispute it): where was Mike's role in the band going at that time? 

After "California Girls", there were several singles where Mike was not the lead or not the main lead.  Then on Pet Sounds, you get through side one and he's almost absent as a lead singer.  By my quick, sloppy count: he has the bridge on the first song (and for a short time in the late nineties, the standard radio version became the stereo release without him), one good lead on song three, and then he's not really heard from again until the second verse (only) of the last song, plus one more line.  Brian has clearly become the primary lead vocalist (lead or main lead on five of six vocal songs). On side two, we get a true Mike lead, a shared lead (first line of each verse Mike, balance plus chorus Brian), a lead from Carl, and two full leads from Brian. Is it any wonder this isn't his favorite album? Sounds more like the worst trip he'd ever been on.

He's prominent again on "Good Vibrations", of course, as a vocalist (chorus) and lyricist (verses).

Then look at SMiLE.  We know "Heroes and Villains" was once intended or considered as a Mike lead, but it didn't end up that way.  What Mike leads were intended for that album?  We know "Cabinessence" wasn't . Don't think "Worms" was.  "Wonderful" wasn't. "Great Shape" doesn't sound like it was headed his way- "Barnyard", "Old Master Painter", maybe (but no evidence).  "You Are My Sunshine", no.  "Elements", no. "Vegetables", no. "Child Is Father Of The Man"- doesn't sound like a Mike showcase. "Surf's Up", no. Mike's role as co-lead singer was being greatly reduced.

Add to that: Brian had taken on first one, and then another, permanent lyricist.  In fairness, I can't really expect Mike to be an enthusiastic supporter of that direction, no matter how wonderful it was.  And about seventy percent of the deathless Mike controversy relates to that period (1966/67).  Just a different way of looking at it.  (His alleged comments on "Til I Die" and any later stuff is another matter).

And- granting the premise again- the great chicken (dance) or the egg question is: which came first, Mike being marginalized or Mike being disgruntled? We know from Mike that he balked at singing "Hang On To Your Ego" in its original form.  Maybe his role was cut down each time there was a clash.  Or maybe he came in enthusiastic and fully gruntled, but then they gave him nothing much to do. Or maybe I'm completely off and he just didn't like the stuff, period, and wasn't inclined to be a good soldier.

But like I said, give him credit for not playing any politics with it or revising or denying.  He says what he thinks and has stuck to it.

[Jason]

But like I said, give him credit for not playing any politics with it or revising or denying.  He says what he thinks and has stuck to it.

POST OF THE YEAR.

[adamghost]

Then look at SMiLE.  We know "Heroes and Villains" was once intended or considered as a Mike lead, but it didn't end up that way.  What Mike leads were intended for that album?  We know "Cabinessence" wasn't . Don't think "Worms" was.  "Wonderful" wasn't. "Great Shape" doesn't sound like it was headed his way- "Barnyard", "Old Master Painter", maybe (but no evidence).  "You Are My Sunshine", no.  "Elements", no. "Vegetables", no. "Child Is Father Of The Man"- doesn't sound like a Mike showcase. "Surf's Up", no. Mike's role as co-lead singer was being greatly reduced.

Wow.  Great point; that had never occurred to me.

[KokoMoses]

And I don't know if it's fair to claim that Mike doesn't get things like artistic quality, attitude and asthetic. If anything, he simply has his own ideas about what constitutes such things. You or I may not agree with his ideas, but to say he doesn't "get" such things is certainly approaching the parameters of "bashing"

Right back atcha, Erik...can't argue with the post above this one either.  But I do want to quibble with what you wrote here just a little bit.  You're right that Mike has his own ideas about artistic quality, attitude and aesthetic...and he's very committed to them; it's based on a commercial viewpoint, which is valid, although I'd argue he's cut himself off at the knees both in taking that road and also the WAY he's taken that road.  But I don't think it's bashing to say that he doesn't really get the opposite viewpoint.  I think it's true; he's just not a hipster kind of guy in any way; he's more of a businessman type of entertainer.  If that was all there was to the Beach Boys' appeal, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but taking that commercial approach has sabotaged the Beach Boys' artistic credibility AND limited their long-term commercial prospects in so doing.  And I would argue that Mike doesn't "get" that, partly because he can't see it from the other perspective.  It's just not who he is; I think the argument can be made (as it just was) that it's a form of integrity.  I also think, though, that there's a certain wilfullness in Mike's positions in the face of contrary facts involved too, and only seeing the parts of reality that reinforce what you already believe is not as cool to me.  I don't think, though, that's "bashing."

I also agree that Mike's done good work post 1966, but I would argue that it's been less frequent as the years have gone on.  Before '66 though, you couldn't have the Beach Boys without him.

Point well taken......

Ok, one specific Mike comment that had be scratching my head and asking "WTF" was in some interview Mike was asked about Al. I think the interviewer complimented his voice. And Mike said something to the effect of "Yeah, but Al has another voice: a COMMERCIAL voice that he doesn't often use" blah blah. I was wondering if Mike's ever even heard Al sing. To my ears Al has one of the best, smoothest, most tonaly perfect voices I've ever heard. Dare I say he has the most spot on timbre of all the Beach Boys. Pretty commercial qualities for a singer to possess, I'd dare assume.

[MBE]

In the context of the interview Mike was describing the different styles of vocalizing each member did. It didn't seem like an insult to me. He had nice things to say about Matt in another interview so I assume Al's voice was not the problem with them.
Again I must stress Mike has praised Pet Sounds pretty frequently if not Smile. Though he did like the Heroes record according to his Endless Harmony interview. I think that's were he said that.

[Surfer Joe]

In the documentary, Mike says that "Heroes" was the last example of Brian's old "dynamism". Always an awkward word, but I know what he means.  Then there's the whole debate about the Wally Heider (I think) recording with Mike's voice-over.

I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that Mike had grown to appreciate Pet Sounds over time and had become proud of his role in it.  I think there's no doubt that that's the case. What will be debated forever is his attitude towards it at the time of production, with only little bits of hard evidence, such as the "Hang On To Your Ego" incident.  Did he really call it "ego music" or say "don't f___with the formula", as often reported?  I don't know, I don't keep up with the latest views on all that.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

GREAT thread... I need to point something out,though.

And let's not forget the guy did write the lyrics for I'm Waiting For The Day. He's has that credit on Pet Sounds and you and I don't.

Actually, most of the lyrics were actually Brian's, and the song was written (but not recorded) a couple of years previously.

[KokoMoses]

This is a subject that has always sort of bothered me.

Even if Mike said this and that about Smile or Pet Sounds or said "don't @&^$%&$ with the formula!".....

this is what HAPPENS in bands. People disagree all the time. Sometimes to the point of violence (Kinks/The Who/Mike/Dennis) If Mike had issues with Smile or anything else the band he co-founded was up to, it was perfectly within his right to speak them. I also think Mike had a more forcefull personality than the other guys in terms of stating his opinion and standing behind it. In addition, being closer in age and position to Brian, having written so many lyrics to hits ect, Mike was probably less enamored and intimidated and awestruck by Brian than the other guy and all the interlopers who were coming around at this time. And interlopers are always a problem when a band gets very succesful. Normally bands present a tighter more unified front and keep it at bay. But the Beach Boys had a unique division that must have hurt all the guys, but Mike especially.

So, I can understand how he might have been feeling. Him being a pretty straight edge guy didn't help either. Perhaps he overdid it or was insensitive, but I can understand and sympathize with his motivations.

[KokoMoses]

GREAT thread... I need to point something out,though.

And let's not forget the guy did write the lyrics for I'm Waiting For The Day. He's has that credit on Pet Sounds and you and I don't.

Actually, most of the lyrics were actually Brian's, and the song was written (but not recorded) a couple of years previously.

Ok, well than why was he even credited? And why even state this? Do you know exactly what words were Brian's/what were Mikes? Why is it necessary?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

He was credited because he did in fact help with the lyrics. No, I don't know which words were Mike's and which were Brian's... perhaps Andrew or c-man can chime in at this point. I've actually wondered myself because I've always thought they lyrics on the song were 100% Mike until a few years ago. Don't get offended... I was just pointing it out because a lot of people aren't aware of that. Hell, I'm one of Mike's biggest defenders!

[KokoMoses]

I know, it's just like.....

do people sit there and slam Paul because he only contributed a single line or couple of words to a John song but got half the credit?

...... Well, they probably actually do.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yeah, they do, which is completely anal and stupid.

  Maybe it's because I'm a songwriter myself, but to me writing (and recording!) a song is the most wonderful thing, next only to true love and parenthood.   The act of collaborating with someone musically to me is nirvana. So , I take it pretty seriously. I try not to criticize someone for only writing "one or two" lines, as those can make or break a song. When you try to break down who should get what as far as credit goes, though, that can cause some drama, 'cause artists  can get real hostile over their work. And you never can be 100% sure anyway, as only the writers/performers really know who did what, and even then it's not always certain! Stories change, memories change.

I've also learned that established history doesn't always equal truth. I'm waiting for the Day" is just one example. "Let the Wind Blow" is another. The Wilson/Love credit leads one to believe that Brian wrote the music, Mike the words. The song's actually mostly Mike. I  think Anna Lee the Healer is another one that's mostly Mike, despite the shared credit.

Another fascinating story is the genesis of "All This is that".

[KokoMoses]

"Another fascinating story is the genesis of "All This is that".


Please tell!!!!!

I LOVE ATIT

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think there's a post here somewhere on this site. I'll search for it and post the link here. Mainly it's just over who wrote what on it. It's fascinating to me because I dig this kind of thing.

edit

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,5818.0.html

All This Is That - Al had written another song (possibly with the same title) based on the Robert Frost poem "The Road Not Taken", then Mike and Carl got involved and turned it into another song; Mike wanted meditation lyrics and Carl liked a certain style of production, SO...words  & music by Al, additional lyrics by Mike, additional music by Carl

I wonder what the original song by Al would've sounded like. We'll never know.

[KokoMoses]

yeah. I wish they'd cut it so it would be floating around in boot-land

however, I think my favorite Mike vocals are on that song.

[adamghost]

I want to tell a little story from my own experiences that relates a little to the discussion of songwriting credits and the like.

When my old band first got signed, it was me and the bass player, and the drummer was sort of a junior partner.  My bass player saw the band as very much a partnership between me and him even though I wrote all the songs, managed the band, booked all the shows, promoted us, etc.  It's not that he didn't contribute, it's that he tended to contribute what he thought was needed without really having to look at the big picture.  He didn't help me running the band so much as pick out things he wanted to do and do them instead.  There was a bit of ego involved in that; he wanted to feel the band was just as much about him as it was me but he didn't want to have as much skin in the game as I did.

He was always complaining that I wrote all the songs, and that he wanted songwriting credits too.  So I would always tell him, great, let's sit down and come up with something, but he was always really reluctant to do that...it only happened maybe three times.  After a while it became obvious that what he REALLY wanted was for me to get the song 90% done, and then bring it in to the band, have him make a couple changes to it, and get his name on the credits.  He couldn't write a song by himself, and didn't have the patience to sit down with me and get it together, but he wanted to be able to take credit for the songwriting. 

Anybody that's ever written a song knows what a lot of work it is to come up with something good, so i wasn't really amused by that idea, and in fact a while after that I replaced him...he had just become too much of a prima donna.  He immediately tried to get me dropped from the label and threatened to sue me, but that's another story.

Point being, notwithstanding all of the actual work Mike as actually done (and he's written head to head with Brian and occasionally solo, so he's ahead of my old bass player), there's some evidence that a lot of Mike's songwriting credits came out of this kind of "revision" scenario.  I'll cite three separate sources:  (a) Al in a Goldmine interview in 1992; (b) Tony Asher discussing Mike's contribution to WIBM ("Ba Ba Ba Ba Bee Do Be"); (c) Brian Wilson's autobiography, which admittedly is suspect, refers to Mike demanding a rewrite of "Male Ego," and indeed that song is credited to Wilson-Love-Landy.  And we all know how highly Mike values his own changes to "Kokomo," which was a free-standing song prior to the Beach Boys' involvement (per John Phillips' biography which came out pre-1988).

Again, you have to understand I'm coming from the perspective of being the leader of a band and having had to deal with various different types of musician personalities in a band dynamic, so I probably look at the Mike Love psychology a little differently, and maybe read more into it, than an average listener would.  I'm not amused by Mike Love claiming or getting equal credit for WIBN on the basis of one line of nonsense syllables with Brian Wilson and Tony Asher, especially since they used Asher's first line in "Good Vibrations" -- a more key contribution -- but GV is credited to Wilson-Love.

[KokoMoses]

Totally agree Adam regarding songwriting. I'm both a drummer and a singer/songwriter, so I've seen it from pretty much all ends of the spectrum. And this is why I've always seen it as the person who writes the song does and should get the songwriting credit fair and square. If you write the lyrics and the chords, you wrote the song. Plain and simple.

.... However, I tend to feel that with most (or a lot/some) bands, a seperate "arrangments by" or songs "arranged" by credit: should be given to the band. Obviously not in all cases. But the arrangement of the insturments and the individual parts the players play and often come up with by themselves, deserve public credit, not just a prercentage on royalty statements. An obvious example would be Pink Floyd. Sure Waters wrote 95% of the lyrics and most of the basic chords, but a major selling point for the Floyd was most certainly Gilmour's guitar/voice and the atmosphere and feel of the band as a whole and the sonic adventures they would take the song on. There are endless examples of this. Roger rightly deserved the credit as "written by" but I just feel there should have been something else. I mean, people actually think he sat there and wrote Gilmour's parts and solos note for note. Same with Rick Wright.

An example of why I feel this way would be how say, Paul Mccartney can go out on tour and play old Beatles songs and the drummer will more than often play Ringo's drum parts lick for lick. Shouldn't this at least be considered intellectual property for Ringo, lol?

It's a slippery and touchy issue, I know. But when you look back at say, a lot of old-school pop, pre-Brill Building stuff, things were broken down. You had an arranger who would chart out the insturments, a songwriter, a producer, session musicians, lead singer, back-up singers, ect.

What this has to do with Mike?

Nothing really, but your last post just got me thinking.