History of Mike's reputation

[urbanite]

I heard Mike being interviewed many times during the period Brian was an addict.  I don't remember Mike saying that Brian was an addict or a coke head or anything like that, even though it would have been true.  I'm sure there were many periods when Mike was bitter at Brian for not being a contributing member to the band and for attempting to sabotage shows when he was on stage during the 70's.  So I don't get the anger towards Mike and at the same time the willingness to overlook or ignore the atrocious things Brian did. 

[Custom Machine]

As early as The Beach Boys' Concert, Mike was making jokes ABOUT HIMSELF with comments about attending "hair school".

Again, this kind of thing boils down to perception. My friends and I always thought Mike was making fun of Dennis with that hair school crack, because at that point Dennis was the only one in the band with Beatles style hair...and the only one who didn't graduate from high school. I took it as Mike teasing that some people pay more attention to their hair than their normal education...which was probably true about Dennis.

Back when I first heard The BBs Concert album, I assumed Mike's "hair school" crack (to quote Jon, but I guess the pun is also intended) referred to getting into female pubic hair while in high school.  Yes, seriously!  Of course, with modern grooming, such a comment being made today would be far less likely to lend itself to my interpretation back in the mid-sixties.  It would be interesting to know exactly what Mike was referring to. 

[Chris Brown]

AND just one more thing. The last law suit Mike had against Brian did a lot to damage his reception with me.

I agree with you and Clay...my opinions on Mike have certainly mellowed over the years (which I suppose is the case with many of us, as we delve deeper into the ever-so-complex world of the Beach Boys), but that lawsuit is evidence to me that Mike really does have a petty side.  It seemed quite clear that Mike was envious of the success that Brian was having with Smile, all on his own, and somehow felt the need to disrupt that.  It was completely uncalled for, and was certainly a much more personal type of attack on Brian than the 1993 lawsuit (which I have no problem with at all). 

The fact that Mike could actually file a lawsuit like that makes me question his overall character and feelings towards Brian.  It reeks of jealousy and bitterness.  Brian is indeed no saint, and has probably caused Mike's hairline to recede a bit faster than it should have, but there comes a point where criticism borne of valid concern for your cousin crosses a line and just becomes spiteful. 

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Wow! I got a lot more then I bargained for. I was mainly aiming at learning when the Mike bashing took off, which some have stated. I wasn't trying to start an argument between the two sides, but it has been a fun read!

Anyways, this is my understanding.

1. By 1965, many BB fans thought Mike came off kind of corny as a front man.
2. Mikes voicing his issues with Pet Sounds and Smile.
 3. 1968-74 he came off as a phony hippy
4. Books by David Leaf and Dominique Priore in the 1970s.
5. Adult contemparary cheese.
6. Hall of fame speach.
7. Lawsuits. Especially against BWPS, even toward Al.

My guess is that this really took off in the mid 70s? Would it be accurate to say that the interest in BBs were bigger celbraties as individuals in the mid 70s then in their golden years?

Let me also say, that I don't take anyones side. I think there are things to like and dislike about all the BBs. Plus I have never met any of them. I gained a lot of respect for Mike in a recent interview (by Jon Stebbons?) when asked if he missed Brian, he began to show tears of emotion and stated that the Brian he knows is in his heart. He had a similar reaction in 1991 when Brian was seperated from him by Dr Landy. I think that Mike feels the way most BB fans feel. The real Brian may have dissappeared in the early 70s. Every once in a while we get a glimpse of him.

[Nicko]

Late joining this thread but I agree a lot with what SJS says.

With regards to the Pet Sounds period, I think Mike's feelings were completely understandable. Brian already had a history of dropping collaborators when they had served their purpose but the difference with Mike was that he was obviously very much a part of the band and so couldn't be omitted in the same way. In Mike's position I certainly would have felt hurt that I'd been cut out of things like that after so much success. I think it was fair enough as well that Mike was concerned not to lose the BBs fanbase and the fact that Pet Sounds and the other experimental stuff that Brian was releasing wasn't selling very well showed his fears were justified.

Again, if I'd been Mike then there's no way that I would have backed Smile. Firstly because it went even further down the experimental route which hadn't proved particularly popular, but more importantly due to Brian's drug use and mental problems. The music was obviously massively influenced by Brian's problems at the time and him asking the group to get stoned can't have helped matters.

Fastforwarding on to the 70s and 80s, obviously as a diehard fan it's regrettable that the band resorted to playing greatest hits shows and releasing inferior albums. I don't see any reason to hate Mike for that though. By playing the hits, Mike was giving the audience members what they wanted and it obviously proved hugely successful. The recording of nostalgic retreads obviously scored with the public too with Do It Again, It's OK and Almost Summer doing well. So again, it was completely understandable that Mike continued to follow that path of trying to please the public even if the quality wasn't always there.

As for the lawsuits, I would agree with the verdicts. Mike was right to sue for writing credits and Brian's management should have ensured that it never went to court. Banning Al from using the name was also inevitable as Al wanted something for nothing. The BWPS lawsuit was frivolous and unneccessary and was rightly dismissed. I can understand it though as The BBs wanted to release Smile for a long time, I think I'm right in saying, but didn't or couldn't force Brian into it. So it must have been galling for Mike for Brian's management to have encouraged/pushed him into releasing it, especially with The BBs' image being used in the publicity. Mike has obviously always wanted success for the band and so (over)reacted.

[The Heartical Don]

Late joining this thread but I agree a lot with what SJS says.

With regards to the Pet Sounds period, I think Mike's feelings were completely understandable. Brian already had a history of dropping collaborators when they had served their purpose but the difference with Mike was that he was obviously very much a part of the band and so couldn't be omitted in the same way. In Mike's position I certainly would have felt hurt that I'd been cut out of things like that after so much success. I think it was fair enough as well that Mike was concerned not to lose the BBs fanbase and the fact that Pet Sounds and the other experimental stuff that Brian was releasing wasn't selling very well showed his fears were justified.

Again, if I'd been Mike then there's no way that I would have backed Smile. Firstly because it went even further down the experimental route which hadn't proved particularly popular, but more importantly due to Brian's drug use and mental problems. The music was obviously massively influenced by Brian's problems at the time and him asking the group to get stoned can't have helped matters.

Fastforwarding on to the 70s and 80s, obviously as a diehard fan it's regrettable that the band resorted to playing greatest hits shows and releasing inferior albums. I don't see any reason to hate Mike for that though. By playing the hits, Mike was giving the audience members what they wanted and it obviously proved hugely successful. The recording of nostalgic retreads obviously scored with the public too with Do It Again, It's OK and Almost Summer doing well. So again, it was completely understandable that Mike continued to follow that path of trying to please the public even if the quality wasn't always there.

As for the lawsuits, I would agree with the verdicts. Mike was right to sue for writing credits and Brian's management should have ensured that it never went to court. Banning Al from using the name was also inevitable as Al wanted something for nothing. The BWPS lawsuit was frivolous and unneccessary and was rightly dismissed. I can understand it though as The BBs wanted to release Smile for a long time, I think I'm right in saying, but didn't or couldn't force Brian into it. So it must have been galling for Mike for Brian's management to have encouraged/pushed him into releasing it, especially with The BBs' image being used in the publicity. Mike has obviously always wanted success for the band and so (over)reacted.

Good call, this. Led me to ponder: are there may acts at all that persevere in producing new and challenging material throughout a lengthy career, not even to mention a 50-year career? As many others, I regretted the career U-turn in the mid-70s, and the embracing of the oldies-act thing. But hey, the Beatles were history for 5 years or so then already, and the Stones had stopped being innovative for this listener. One can say: hmmm, what about U2, R.E.M., and so on? Well, I stopped listening to U2 a long time ago, for me their ideas had dried up and they'd become just another stadium act. It's almost the same with R.E.M.... they almost seem to vanish from center stage without anybody noticing it, in fact.

Exceptions? Zappa, Tom Waits, Robert Fripp, David Byrne... not many, not for me at any rate.

(sigh... I wish I were a Zappa fan... then I'd have a library of music to study intensely...)

[the captain]

(sigh... I wish I were a Zappa fan... then I'd have a library of music to study intensely...)

God, you don't wanna know...Zappa was my introduction to the wonderful world of credit card debt when I was in college. Others who still release somewhat interesting material after long careers are Lou Reed (something of a resurgence in the late 80s and I'd argue again in 2000 with Ecstasy), Bob Dylan (OK, not challenging material, but new and very strong material) and Elvis Costello (still all over the map, hitting and missing). But for the most part, forget it: pop careers are short ones, and Mike did a smart thing by capitalizing on the existing sure thing.

[Surfer Joe]

Stebbins pretty much covered my take on this, but I'll add a few stray opinions:

History gets streamlined and subjectively re-worked by all sides with a focus on the other guy's bias that knows no sense of irony. Here's my digital simulation, based on years of following this board, and you could reverse the sides just as easily:

Mr. New Poster: Did Mike undermine SMiLE and cause it to be shelved?

The Old Pros: Certainly not! It was a very complicated situation!  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah?...Capitol Records, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, drugs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!, blah, Dennis, blah, blah, blah-blah, blah!...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,  blah, (blah-blah-blah) blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Priore, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Beatles, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH-BLAH!, blah, blah, blah, blah, bluh-blobbity-blah-blah, blah,...

....[eighteen months, seventy five pages, four hundred thousand words, two suicides, three vows of revenge, twelve AGD citations of factual error, eleven Lords A-Leaping, and endless profanity, death threats, and bannings later]:

Mr. New Poster, minus his BB virginity: Wow. Not as simple as I 'd heard. So why does Mike get the blame?

Old Pros: Because of that bastard David Leaf!

The fact- no wait, my opinion-  is that no one is more responsible for who Mike is and how he's perceived than Mike. Mike is a pretty straight shooter and has apparently been pretty content with who he is for fifty years as a public figure. It's the fans who aren't o.k. with that and try to remake him in their own image, from both directions.

I think maybe the infamous "Bad Vibrations" "Dr. Love" interview in Goldmine or whatever it was made him a little uncomfortable for a while- for a few years after that it seemed he was a very reluctant and suspicious interview subject. But even that was a pretty honest portrait (again, in my opinion), like it or not. That's who he is.  No big conspiracy or frame-up.

It wasn't one simple thing- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech, the Leaf book, Pet Sounds or SMiLE resistance, "Kokomo", the politics, this or that lawsuit, this or that comment- it wasn't four or five things or even eight or nine things. It's all part of who he is, as far as we're able to know him, over the course of fifty years, along with (of course) the many, many positive contributions.  Some people like that guy, and some don't. Some people see him entirely one way, some people see him entirely another way. Big revelation here: neither group is right. Nor are they entirely wrong.

Sorry to use up all the italics, but ED5 didn't leave me any exclamation points! <---(except that one).

[Mr. Wilson]

well you all have stated all the pro"s + con"s about the lovester..The only thing i can add is..1st time he pissed me off was suing BW for songs..2nd time was kicking Al out of group + still calling it the BB. ..Beyond that if you look at  the 77 footage in maryland Dennis + Mike are at the microphones singin + Dennis leans back on electric piano ..Well piano starts to move + luckily Dennis catches himself..Good for Dennis cause you can see the lovester moving the other way not about to catch him if he falls..I respect Mikes contributions + he is a force in the group that is needed..No one can do what he does.. I love all the guys warts and all.

[urbanite]

Is Mike Love responsible for the decline of te Beach Boys?  No, aside from changing audience tastes, Brian Wilson is the major cause of the decline.  Did Mike Love somehow impair and impede Brian Wilson's development as a musical artist?  No.  Brian was free to pick a collaborator/song writer other than Mike and did on many occasions.   

[The Heartical Don]

Is Mike Love responsible for the decline of te Beach Boys?  No, aside from changing audience tastes, Brian Wilson is the major cause of the decline.  Did Mike Love somehow impair and impede Brian Wilson's development as a musical artist?  No.  Brian was free to pick a collaborator/song writer other than Mike and did on many occasions.   

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

[Amy B.]

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

[lance]

Most rock stars are jerks. Its part of the job description.
Its just that Mikes talent doesnt quite seem to live up to his jerkiness, that is all.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

Yes, this seems to be the train of thought when it comes to Brian: Damn Murry, damn Loren Schwarz, damn Capitol Records, damn Beatles for getting "there" first, damn radio DJ who didn't want to play "Heroes And Villains", damn Danny Hutton, damn Tandyn Almer, damn Eugene Landy, damn Joe Thomas, damn Mike Love, and damn God (or god?) for giving Brian an illness.

But poor Mike....he only missed a couple of days one time because he was having some problems. Nope, no excuses for you!

[mtaber]

Mike has always seemed like a pretty ill person himself, just not as talented as his cousins...

[Wirestone]

SJS -- Do you believe that Brian is not mentally ill?

Do you believe that mental illness exists?

[Sheriff John Stone]

SJS -- Do you believe that Brian is not mentally ill?

Do you believe that mental illness exists?

1. I believe Brian Wilson is mentally ill.

2. I work with mentally ill people.

3. Reversing the order of your questions would've made more sense.

[Mr. Wilson]

Actually Mike had left in early 90"s to play Japan  With Endless Summer Beach Band.. Wasnt Gerry Beckly brought in to replace Mike for a couple weeks.. Anyway i have the video for the TV show + BB were on tour in America.. I allways wondered how that took place..Poor planning,,??

[Surfer Joe]

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

Yes, this seems to be the train of thought when it comes to Brian: Damn Murry, damn Loren Schwarz, damn Capitol Records, damn Beatles for getting "there" first, damn radio DJ who didn't want to play "Heroes And Villains", damn Danny Hutton, damn Tandyn Almer, damn Eugene Landy, damn Joe Thomas, damn Mike Love, and damn God (or god?) for giving Brian an illness.

But poor Mike....he only missed a couple of days one time because he was having some problems. Nope, no excuses for you!

Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true.

Question for those on either side: has the other guy- even though you disagree with him/her- ever made his/her points in such a well-reasoned fashion that you could respect the other side and find it reasonable? Or are those who view Mike differently than you always deluded fools?

SJS, not meaning to get on you personally- just making a point that could have just as easily been in response to many thousands of posts over the years. And of course I'm guilty of this kind of rhetoric all the time- everybody is.

Probably talking into the wind here...

[Sheriff John Stone]

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

Yes, this seems to be the train of thought when it comes to Brian: Damn Murry, damn Loren Schwarz, damn Capitol Records, damn Beatles for getting "there" first, damn radio DJ who didn't want to play "Heroes And Villains", damn Danny Hutton, damn Tandyn Almer, damn Eugene Landy, damn Joe Thomas, damn Mike Love, and damn God (or god?) for giving Brian an illness.

But poor Mike....he only missed a couple of days one time because he was having some problems. Nope, no excuses for you!

Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true.

Question for those on either side: has the other guy- even though you disagree with him/her- ever made his/her points in such a well-reasoned fashion that you could respect the other side and find it reasonable? Or are those who view Mike differently than you always deluded fools?

SJS, not meaning to get on you personally- just making a point that could have just as easily been in response to many thousands of posts over the years. And of course I'm guilty of this kind of rhetoric all the time- everybody is.

Probably talking into the wind here...

I'll make it a New Year's resolution to do a better job, to be less disrespectful, more reasonable, and less dilusional. Maybe I can work my way up to your standards.

[TdHabib]

Just a note that I really liked Surfer Joe's posts in this thread, very enjoyable and actually close to the truth. ONE THING that everyone must keep in mind is a there is a certain subjectivity involved, there's nothing wrong and nothing infactual about the statement "I believe Mike contributed to the downfall of the Beach Boys," you can argue it but it's just one opinion. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the statement "Mike contributed negatively to the Beach Boys and Brian," you can disagree with it but it's just an opinion. There are things to support and to argue those statements. Ff there are two people debating Mike's merits and not making statements that dispute facts, no one person is more right than the other. One man's poison is the other man's...well however that saying goes.

There's a statement Adam made quoting Black Francis that I believe should be engraved on the walls of every music fan: "Nobody owns the pleasure of tones."

BTW, just to add Mike missed shows in 1970 and 1990 and that was about it. Funny that Alan, Mike and Carl all missed shows in 1990.

[grillo]

BTW, just to add Mike missed shows in 1970 and 1990 and that was about it. Funny that Alan, Mike and Carl all missed shows in 1930.

1930!!! What are you trying to do,blow my mind?!! Also, isn't this thread about the history of Mike's reputation, generally, through the years? Seems like at one time, say 75-95 (or -05) it was agreed Mike was a dick. Now most fans agree Mike's no worse than any other guy, more or less. I mean, he's still a dick, but no more so than any of the Wilsons, or you or me, right?

[Surfer Joe]

I'll make it a New Year's resolution to do a better job, to be less disrespectful, more reasonable, and less dilusional. Maybe I can work my way up to your standards.

Not meant to be taken that way at all, SJS.  Apologies if I was too blunt.  Sarcasm aside, do you think I have a point at all? If not, fair enough.

[Nicko]

I do think that some of the comments regarding Mike's talent or lack of it are bizarre sometimes. Some seem to think that because Mike doesn't play an instrument on stage that he is less talented than all of the other members. I've yet to hear fans of The Smiths claim that Morrissey was less talented than Andy Rourke for the same reasons... In any other band if one of the members had co-written the likes of Fun, Fun, Fun, Good Vibrations, Warmth of the Sun and California Girls alone then I can't imagine them being disregarded in the same way. Obviously the quality slipped over time as it did for some of the other guys. How much good work did Carl do in the last 25 years of his life?

I've also read people say that being denied the credits for writing songs wasn't that big a deal. Try telling that to Matthew Fisher. Although he was only denied the credit for one song (A Whiter Shade of Pale) that was enough for him to suffer depression for many years.

[Cam Mott]

"Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true."

I believe this is true because the reverse has been in effect for several previous years [I've seen it get quite ugly, lots, this is a cotillion by comparison] but recently I think we all/most have crept to a more middling balance. Kudos to us.