The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://bedfordandbowery.com/2015/06/mike-love-of-beach-boys-on-love-mercy-poor-brian-hes-had-a-rough-rough-time/ (http://bedfordandbowery.com/2015/06/mike-love-of-beach-boys-on-love-mercy-poor-brian-hes-had-a-rough-rough-time/)

 :tm

Same old drivel, dissing his cousin as nicely as he can.

While it's great that he keeps up the touring machine, best scenario would be for ML to be shut down and shut up. Permanently

What a bitter f*ckwit.

I find it pretty humorous that he thinks anyone would be interested in seeing a movie about him. And he sure has a lot of thoughts about LOVE & MERCY for someone who hasn't seen it yet.

Maybe I'm being unfair, I don't know. But he always seems so uptight. He just needs to hang on, but I think he might lose the fight.

Nice L&M scene reference! :lol

Nice of him to mention drugs again.... and to stick up for Evan Landy. The poor guy needs all the support he can get. Maybe he can bring Evan Landy into his band... after Jeff and Ike, that would really stick it to BriMel, wouldn't it? Evan could hold a tambourine or something and shake it out of time with the music. Oh wait, they already have somebody that does that.

It's really cute that he thinks there's something cinematic in a movie about his life, tho. Stamos has an uphill battle ahead of him making it a reality!

Mike has completely lost the plot if he supports the Landy family. Sounds like he was happier with BW not challenging his wretched version of the BBs in the 1980s.

The hell?! Has he forgotten crying on tv  and being hurt by how Landy was treating Brian?!

Those were Visine drops...  (just kidding, I think).

It apparently was an act.... ::)

I gotta admit...I'm very disappointed to read this.

Mike's quote is "certain drugs and stuff", and I wonder what the "stuff" part is referring to. I think the film drove home the point that in addition to drugs, there were people in Brian's life, however well-meaning, who perhaps may have exacerbated some of the hard times that Brian faced, for example with guilt trips and such. Mike was shown to be one of those people in the film at least to an extent, as far as my interpretation was of what I saw onscreen.

As anyone who has been on the receiving end of guilt trips by family members can attest, it can mess people up, some more than others. I can relate from first-hand experience, so I don't want to hear people refuting this as being impossible or hogwash; it's a "thing" that happens... and an intelligent person with the ability to self-reflect should be able to realize (and own up to the fact) that maybe it wasn't done in the best of ways, as opposed to saying "and stuff".

Anyway, I hope Mike does see the film, and hope he does feel it's a fair portrayal. If he addresses his thoughts on the film after having seen it, I think he'll have to choose his words carefully to be sensitive, and I think he is trying with this article, though not totally succeeding.  I hope for (yet don't whatsoever expect) a little bit of self-reflection and possible regret for past actions in his book, if he chooses to address other factors besides Murry, Landy, and drugs  (hint hint: a well-meaning, but sometimes overbearing and hurtful cousin!) that could have not been the best thing for a person with the onset of mental illness to have to deal with.

 :pirate

It is obvious Mike hates Brian (and has been hating him for quite some time). Anyone who actually believes ML is sincere with his "my cousin Brian is a genius"-talk must be a flat earther.

I am not, it's just yet another confirmation of something we've known for decades.

So I guess the 50th Anniversary of Pet Sounds is going to be conspicuously absent from the celebrations? And he's just gonna go straight to celebrating 50 years of Good Vibrations?

Mike co-wrote WIBN as well as IWFTD, so I don't know why he wouldn't want to celebrate such a masterpiece in the band's catalog with an anniversary celebration. Gonna be really weird if the band's best album is just jumped over.

Agreed CD, but it seems Mike is getting really nasty and slandering BW at this point. If he only watched it with an open mind, he could see that he wasn't demonized in the movie. Impatient and surly, yes. Without sympathy, no.

I love that he can't name favorite films, just films that use The Beach Boys on the soundtrack... and then wraps up by mentioning "Fun, Fun, Fun." Clearly this is the kind of guy you get to help judge your film festival. What a fascinating turn of events, I wonder how that happened?

The way that Mike could get the most possible amount of sympathy at this stage of the game? Say in an interview or his book something to the effect of recognizing that he may have gone a bit far with the guilt trip stuff, or that maybe his interactions with Brian weren't always handled the best in hindsight. Saying those things would not hurt. It would be a healing, selfless thing to say, and it would gain him a brownie point or two.

I was reading the article and thought Mike was making perfectly vaild points but then I got to the part where he's sort of sympathsizing with the Landys and I just thought WTF?

"The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy."

He is actually sympathetic to Landy, and only seems upset that he cost a lot of money. If anyone doubts that Mike Love is a scumbag, just show them this quote.

He may be a sentimental sap, but he's a bit more of a vicious, self-serving sap when it comes down to it. I look forward to the rousing defense of this awful gibberish. Fly, monkeys, fly!

Also, I can't wait to hear about the friendship he didn't have with Marlon Brando.

"Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably."

Jesus. How much does Mike Love have to hate Melinda Wilson to say something as f***ed up as that? Wow.

You know, I once met Leonard Nimoy, and have been to almost all fifty states in the US. Time to write MY book.

I have been very critical of Mike on many occasions, though I'm not sure he is being sympathetic to Gene Landy here, but that he agrees that he saved Brian's life at one point (as Brian himself agrees).

I'm not sure what Mike's getting at with the Evan Landy thing though. I agree that it's interesting to read another person's perspective (even if it's a warped one) just out of curiosity, but I'm uncertain as to why Mike is bringing up Evan's interview; is Mike implying there is a valid point/stance or two in Evan's interview? If so, what would that possibly be? It's bizarre for Mike to mention it, that's for sure.

Considering that I've read that 1980s Mike wanted to punch out Landy because he was so furious at what Landy was doing to Brian, I am baffled, unless he solely wants to point out here that Landy should be recognized for having saved Brian's life (a point of view I can understand to a point), but he seems to be going unusually soft on Landy otherwise in the article.

Ontor, same as the one he didn't have with George Harrison!

Same old same old from Mike.  As usual he wants to 'flog a dead horse'.  50 years of this and that because C50 worked. He doesn't know when to quit and move onto something original.  It's why he still wants to write Kokomo over and over.  Maybe he just doesn't like change and can't move with the times. But still thinks he's cool and hip.

Amazing that a man who practices Transcendental Meditation can so stunningly lack in self-awareness.

And if his opinions are this tone deaf having never seen the film, God help us all when he does.

I'm calling it: the only thing I feel Mike Love has ever given the world is the hook to "Good Vibrations"; I could even take Asher's lyrics, but then I remembered Love's chorus is wonderful.

Other than that--ye gods and little fishes, the man's just not worth the aggravation.

I guess so. I just like to try to hope for the best in people, but...yeah. There are no words.

Mike was openly against Landy back in thr day, it's hard to think he changed his mind now, after living through it. I don't think he's sympathetic towards Landy. He says he saved Brian's life, which is what -to some degree- some people over here also think.

 :thumbsup :thumbsup YES!! and he's also OUR favorite shitweasel, too, or uh, BOTH! Yes, that's the ticket! And how about that pugnacious arrogance he displays, huh?

"However, in the meantime I’m hoping to come up with a documentary that really shows my point of view."

Between the above statement and his comments on Landy, I don't even know where to begin. It's almost as if he's throwing this sh!t out there just to see this board react and sitting back watching the pages grow.

Truer words never spoken.

"However, in the meantime I’m hoping to come up with a documentary that really shows my point of view."

I believe you have, Mr. Love, about 15 years ago.  It was called "The Beach Boys - An American Family."

It seems that it was the cost of Landy that most upsets him.

It is hard to read this and have any other interpretation other than he doesn't think Landy was so bad. The whole Evan Landy thing is Mike saying that there is another perspective, one in which Landy was a doctor who just overreached a little, but helped Brian. Mike is basically trashing the entire POV of Love and Mercy--even though he hasn't seen it--by balancing what he knows is the anti-Landy view of the film with Evan Landy's opposite perspective.  

Is this some kind of drug post?  :police:

Boy this thread would've been real dull if he just said "No, I haven't seen it yet but I'm looking forward to it... it might dredge up some painful memories, but I'm proud of my cousin and what he's managed to achieve despite all the challenges he's had to face." and then just moved on. It wouldn't be Mike Love then, tho.... would it. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!

I have to say, that despite the admittedly crass and dumbass comment about the cost, I don't think that this is the case.

PLEASE let this happen. Since we obviously didn't get enough of Mike's point of view from his Wink Martindale interview I truly think a Ken Burns style series on the trials and tribulations of Mike Love would really help close up some loose ends...such as his biggest regret in his life - still waiting on an answer for that one.

Mike said he wanted to kill Landy!! Everyone knows that Landy saved Brian's life but everyone also knows what he did afterwards as well. For Mike to say that Landy 'probably' went beyond the bounds of his therapy is, as you say, a very soft stance for him to take. Maybe he's simply not interested in seeing a dark part of Brian's life made into a movie?

Mike doesn't care when it comes to past actions that could have hurt people or BW having hard times with mental illness. Mike is a self obsessed assclown at this point.

Holy mackerel. Mike seldom disappoints these days, does he?

I'm just going by his comments in the article. The cost thing got the most passionate response--"hell, yeah."

It's also possible that Mike "liked" Brian more in the 1980s than he does now, and because of the deterioration in their relationship over the past thirty years, feels less anger towards Landy. That would help explain the increasingly negative and out of touch comments he has made about Brian in the past few years. Mike is probably hurt that they don't have the relationship they once did. He even says they were childhood buddies in the article, implying that they are not buddies now. Unfortunately, he blames Brian's "people" for their estrangement, and takes no personal responsibility himself for it.

Clearly, they confused him with some other Mike Love. I mean, the Lower East Side? Film festival? Mike Love?

One would almost tend to believe this is true. Though I think he knows it deep inside, but can't bring himself to admit it.

I think the denial of his role in that part of the equation is so deeply engrained, that it's the only thing that holds him together. Only a film like this where the overbearing guilt-trip stuff is shown very clearly for the world to see (in what will eventually be a fairly widely seen film) might possibly lead to a crack or two in the denial at some point. I think at some point, he has to fess up to the fact that he may have gone too far with being overbearing. The drug use angle won't work forever, and some interviewer will at some point ask for further explanation of what Mike terms as "stuff".

Even Brian gave "the devil (Landy) his due." At a point he may have saved his life, as he padded his payroll. It appears that even Brian has forgiven this scoundrel, only testimony to his amazing capacity to forgive (not forget) Landy.  

Maybe Mike should first, get a chance to see AND digest the film.  I saw it three days ago, and it STILL seems pretty overwhelming, and I didn't live (on tour) as the band did.   A court gave Landy control.  Melinda had to get "the goods" on Landy, to get it reversed.

The group is just coming back from a tour and they didn't have the release of the film in the UK yet. Mike said that the comments (dissertation) was "interesting." As well as saying it is "a whole different story that came out in Love and Mercy."

So we get the automatic snark response.  Re-read his answer.

But, what do we expect the son of Landy to say?  Of course he will try to defend his old man...

Truth.

Honestly, it could be Mike's way of subtly discrediting that aspect of the movie. There is no doubt Mike still knows what a jackass Landy was.

"Was he overreaching? Probably."
"Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably."

Overmedicating to the point of near death (btw, didn't Mike just bitch about Brian's current use of prescription drugs? We're going with a "probably" with Landy but when Brian takes them now he is "controlled" JEESH MIKE), taking total control of finances, personal life, business life, blocking phonecalls, the list goes ON AND ON. But Eugene only "probably" went beyond the bounds of therapy? And then Mike uses Evan's Daily Mail trash perspective as a means to support this ridiculous viewpoint. Unbelievable.

Very good point, and that bothers me.

All very good points, and the wording he uses in the article just bugs me more the futher I think about it. I think Mike is probably batshit crazy insane, and probably the most mentally ill member of the band, past or present. Sorry, but there... I said it. I think a form of mental illness can be reflected in how a person is emotionally crippled to a point where they cannot make parts of their brain work that cause them to feel things or have any realization of their own actions. I quantify that as a form of mental illness.

Isn't Mike supposed to be the master of using relatable words?). It is really unbelievable the more one thinks about it.

I really, honestly can't tell whether Mike is being sarcastic when he refers to Brian's "rough, rough time." I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and deciding that he feels bad for Brian.

However, once again Mike is indicating that he believes that "drugs and stuff" are entirely to blame for Brian's problems. There is no acknowledgement of mental illness-- no awareness or attempt to understand Brian's illness at all, at least not in public. The suggestion that drugs are the sole reason for Brian's decline puts the blame on Brian for making the decision to take drugs, as opposed to putting some of the blame of chemical imbalances in Brian's brain (in which case, you would think Mike would be a lot more sympathetic). Maybe it's a generational thing, but he just doesn't seem to want to deal with the idea that Brian's problems went beyond drugs. It's almost like, if Brian was in a wheelchair and Mike said, "The guy just doesn't want to walk. It's too bad, isn't it?"

I don't understand why he said that about Landy. I was sure I read an interview with him where he indicated that he hated Landy for what he did to Brian. Talk about "drugs and stuff"! Maybe Landy saved Brian's life, but then he nearly killed him after that-- or at least nearly fried his brain!

Agreed CD. Mike is really out there these days from his jealousy of BW.

Jealousy can eat people alive. It's a sick, sick thing that some people have, while others (such as Denny) didn't seem to ever have. I think jealousy has done a number on Mike.

And you have a license to practice medicine?

Is this is your internet diagnosis?

Based on his prescription drug comments, it seems that Mike really doesn't think Brian has any mental issues at all, and that it was the drugs that caused all his problems--then and now. It's like in his memory, Brian was a normal child/teen, his "childhood buddy" and then, in the mid-60s, he became a drug addict and destroyed himself. End of story. Has Mike ever acknowledged that Brian has problems that are not somehow related to drugs?

Maybe he wants to find subtle ways to discredit any part of the film that he can (regardless of how much of a strawgrab it is), in the hopes that the film isn't going to be taken as seriously as it surely will (and hoping that would in term possibly cast doubt on any negative thoughts about Mike that they could garner from the film). I can't seem to make any other sense of the Evan Landy indirect "praise".

What??  :o  When was this? If Brian took drugs to control of physical ailment, would Mike still have problems with it?

He has said it many times, in different interviews, that he basically thinks Brian's use of prescription drugs today is the same as his use of illicit drugs in the past.

It's my opinion. I think that people who can't seem to make emotional parts of their brain work, and in particular people who consistently fail to take responsibility for their own actions as the actions could pertain to hurting other people, are suffering from a form of mental illness, where a part of their emotional brain isn't working properly; they have subconsciously closed off part of themselves in an attempt at self-preservation.  

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html (http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html)

Interviewer: "Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
Mike: "No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Yet another interview full of tact from Mr. Positivity.

Thanks for proving CD's point.

Does Mike just not believe in the use of ANY medication? Or does he not believe in the existence of mental illness? Of course there is such a thing as abusing prescription drugs, but that is not what's happening here. But apparently Mike doesn't realize that there's a legitimate way to take prescription drugs?

I think he does with his personal use of Viagra to bang groupies. ;)

It could be that with nearly 30 years after the dust has settled, Mike just doesn't get as worked up about the Landy situation as he once did. He does seem to have emotionally detached himself from the whole thing somewhat, going by his comments in the interview.

That's a good question. Heaven forbid if one of his own children should be medically diagnosed with treatable-by-prescription-drugs mental illness; would he object to their use of drugs? Would they then be "controlled"? Almost seems like an anti-vaxxer argument he is implying.

Next time i buy a pipe I'm naming it Michael lol

Those terms "crazy insane...most mentally ill member...mental illness...emotional cripple...And, "I quantify that as a form of mental illness." That sure doesn't look like an "opinion."  Seriously?

You're "quantifying?" Sure looks like an armchair "internet diagnosis."

And that would be my "opinion."

When a poster uses the term Kokomaoist, there is an inherent bias. 

True, and I'm willing to give him some of the benefit of the doubt on that one... but the fact that he does state "probably" multiple times in response to a topic which should in no uncertain terms be answered as "absofrigginlutely!" is really baffling. "Probably" implies that this is likely the case, but that there is also a possibility, however remote, that Landy did NOT go too far. Right?

As I mentioned before, Mike relishes reminding the world about what a wordsmith he is in using words that the world can understand and relate to.

For a guy like that to carelessly speak with light words such as "probably" which could be taken inflammatory about such a very sensitive topic (Landy nearly drugging Brian to DEATH and causing long-term irreversible damage), it's just crazy, crazy, crazy. Batshit so. Do you not see the irony in such word usage from Mr. Wordsmith Positivity Positively Positive Beach Boys Person?

filled-

Or, he could be referring to ONLY those who are biased towards Mike, not specifically referring to anyone who defends Mike (as I have in the past). Or is the inherent bias your internet diagnosis?

name it " the real beach boy"

Ok, well let's pretend I took out that part of the post. In fact, I just edited my post so that the Kokomaoist term is not present any longer. I still stand by my feelings that people who seemingly for decades emotionally stonewall and refuse to fess up to when they may have gone too far and hurt others are suffering from a form of mental illness.  I'm not sure if that is an opinion you find objectionable (or if it was just the Kokomaoist term that grated on you), but I wholeheartedly stand behind that opinion. I honestly feel sorry for him because I feel he is damaged. And not sure why there should be some big outrage or defensiveness to that opinion, unless you think mental illness is something icky and shameful.

Beg your pardon, but the making of such sweeping and idiotic statements is my job, thanks very much.  ;D

Since Mike and Brian don't have, it seems, any relationship these days, he probably doesn't care that much anymore about stuff that happened to Brian thirty years ago. Also, he still thinks Brian is controlled and medicated, so he probably thinks what Melinda is doing to Brian today is not much different than what Landy did. In his mind, they are all controlling Brian with drugs.

Billy - the most difficult part of posting on this forum, is that posters are expected to "pick a side."

You absolutely have looked with an open mind. I agree.  Within CD's post is the "K" word, with foregone conclusions.  It is aggressive.

The use of that "B" word, I think, is also really disrespectul and by the same token, I don't expect that posters use the "K" word, without being ready to be on the attack. If posters expect respect, they might refrain from using both terms, as they are equally offensive.  

Yes, those terms are medical "terms of art." CD is not the arbiter of sanity or insanity without training.  

Well except for the fact that it is not Melinda who prescribes Brian's medication but rather is his team of doctors.  Real ones. So , if this were the case , that thought process would be convoluted, at best.

This. I still think Mike stews over the fact he has gigged the world for over 50 years and gets nothing but derision, while Brian stayed home and collects accolades.

At least I know what I won't be spending money or time on next year....

If its too TM or 'I met the Beatles' focused, Mike's book.
His documentary concept.
Any re-recording with other artists.
His 'stockpiled'  recordings.


Sorry Mike...It's a 'no' from this fan.

Hi Ray,

Mike has mentioned many times that it is Brian's "people" who keep him and Brian apart, which I always take as a veiled swipe at Melinda. While I am sure Mike knows that Melinda is not prescribing Brian his meds personally, he probably thinks it is Melinda's "control" that keeps Brian drugged up.  

I dunno, writing lyrics and saying the first thing that comes to your mind in an interview are two very different things.

What's perplexing is that it appears Mike isn't living in an insulated bubble or anything. He talks about reading stuff on the internet. He talks about reading THIS very board. Obviously, a person will filter information in countless different ways.

But does he realize he reinforces what those critical of him often say by doing an interview like this?

The whole thing with discussing Evan Landy is what is most telling, in my opinion. It totally reeks of having feelings of jealousy (or annoyance, or inadequacy, or whatever) about the "Love & Mercy" film (and whatever other deep-seeded stuff is going on with his feelings about Brian), then seeking out a dissenting voice about the film to present as an "alternate" viewpoint. I'm just astounded that the person he went with was Evan Landy. Is this really a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing? Even with Landy's son?

It reads very similar to the "assuming it doesn't have autotune, I'm sure it'll be great" comment about Al and Brian's "The Right Time" track. There's a standing grudge or whatever with Brian and Al, so the response is to *seek out* critical commentary and use that as a sort of passive aggressive weapon.

Seriously, Mike's interviews continue to give me bad feelings about his upcoming book. I strongly suggest Brian wait until *after* Mike's book comes out, because I sense there's going to be a need for some clarifications, rebuttals, etc.

Mike *still* is chalking up Brian's deal disproportionately to his drug use. And again, just my opinion, but his words no longer seem to feel like true sympathy or empathy for Brian. Rather, they read much more like a weird sort of selfish, patronizing pity towards Brian.

Hypothetically speaking (and I know you just *love* hypotheticals!), if there were several medical doctors who were to actually issue such a diagnosis, would you believe it, or would you continue to deny it? I would think that your logic would dictate that it need be only a diagnosis issued by a professional for it to be true.

Thanks Ray for explaining BW's support system. It has certainly worked with BWPS, TLOS, and NPP being released by BW.

I'm waiting for someone to mock up a "Movie Poster" for the film adaptation of Mike's book.  :3d

True. But Mike also prided himself on writing lyrics quickly and on the spot, first-thing-that-came-to-his-mind-style, so he should be a master wizard of quick and appropriate the English language by now, after five decades of on-the-spot wordsmithology. Mike is the guy who was SO opposed to the wrong words being used in songs that could possibly be taken the wrong way by the listener, and now he carelessly uses this kind of talk in such a sensitive conversation? I know it's just an interview, but gimme a break. It's ridic.  

Acid Alliteration? How about Dumbass Alliteration?

Maybe Mike needs someone else to come to him and bug him about his usage of interview words the way he bugged lyricists about their "inappropriate" word usage.

Isn't it Time for Mike to realize that using words like "probably" is going pretty soft on Landy, with the implication that perhaps, maybe just maybe, the awful things that Landy did were not in fact going too far? That's a sick thing for one's careless word usage to allow for interpretation; "probably" indicates a possible level of doubt and uncertainty that Landy went too far... right? Is that untrue to say, Mike's Beard?

I'd like to read what Evan has to say, and I think Mike sounds pretty sharp here. The Mike version of history is just as compelling to me as the Melinda version. Both valuable. both valid.

here ya go, knock yourself out:  http://tinyurl.com/nbclpnb

I can't believe Mike is siding with that Landy scumbag. Doesn't he love his cousin Brian???

Landy Ahoy.

"I've denied being overbearing to Brian for fifty years... any time soon, precious groupies should appear..."

As I said before, Mike is taking a rather soft stance on Landy in the interview. That he doesn't seem to view Landy with outright hate and scorn these days is rather puzzling.

Here are some quotes from Evan, about his perspective, a perspective Mike apparently thinks is worth reading about:

"I do believe that his [Landy's] intention was always to help Brian and that he had a true love for Brian."
"I don't think he [Landy] had a malicious intent against Brian, I don't think anyone could. Brian was such a sweet guy."

So the overmedicating, the change of beneficiary in Brian's will, the total control over who Brian got to see, the control over Brian's creative output, the blocked phone calls, etc etc was done out of true love for Brian? After all of that apparently Mike still thinks Evan's perspective is "interesting" because it's a whole other story than Love and Mercy. Yeah, Mike sounds really sharp here ::)

And I wish Mike throwing around a bunch of "probably"s made his version of history just as compelling as Melinda's perspective of events, because then I'd probably buy his future documentary out of the bargain bin at Wal-Mart.

The certainties that Mike knows: Landy "hell yeah" charged too much, and Landy "yes", not "probably" wanted to write songs with Brian. I know Mike loves Brian, I do not honestly doubt that, but such verbage (concurrent with using "probably" regarding Landy going too far) gives the impression that Mike's eyes perk up at shock and dismay when somebody other than Mike Love writes with Brian or spends Mike's (and the group's) money. Those two subjects relative to the other questions asked are to be prioritized as certainties, but not the almost drugging of Brian to death. Huh?

How he does not realize this interpretation could be garnered from his words boggles my mind to no end. Ugh. I don't know how anyone can sympathize with somebody who is infamous for complaining over word usage, who in turn uses words like these. I don't care if we are talking about lyrics vs. interview words; it's just batty.

As far as I know, Mike has never lived with or been married to Brian Wilson. Melinda has.

And the movie isn't about the Beach Boys.

Dennis wore a t-shirt during some of the BB's 1979 shows that read PITY ABOUT MIKE LOVE. Fairly apropos  at this point.

I wonder if Bruce is cool with all this as he has to work with the man? I think so.

Did he really? Photographic evidence would be awesome. Wonder if it was worn concurrently with Al's Keeping it Clean With Al Jardine shirt.

I think a few things reading Mike’s interview.

1) I think the BRI has no management (e.g. Yoko shows up for Meat Free Monday PR launches. McCartney walks the red carpet at Harrison docs. THAT brand is alive and well. Money flows. Happiness runs.)

2) Nothing in past and/or future dramatic portrayals of The BB’s will ever show a fairer presentation of Mike Love’s worries regarding the BRAND in 1966/67 than Love & Mercy. He was portrayed fairly.

3) For as much as he loves his cousin, Mike never seemed to get around to listen to BWPS, yet used every interviewer’s question regarding the set to expound on Brian’s past (at that point his 20-plus year-old in the past street drug abuse and off the rails unchecked mental health issues.) History is repeating itself. Let’s hope a spiteful unwarranted lawsuit doesn’t follow, as well. This thing is rounding third and he's on the wrong side of history. HIS "managers and handlers" are advising him (and by extension, his legacy) in a pitiful and needless manner. He will be remembered (if at all) by future generations as a HUN and he doesn't need to be.

4) (Somewhat unrelated, but then again, NOT) I see Jeff Foskett singing “I heard the word, wonderful thing, a children’s song” (from a song I believe Mike did NOT want included on C50) on YouTube with Mike & The Mechanics in Manchester and feel like I’ve been had. 

Howie, Scott Totten addressed this in the Mike & Bruce Tour 2015 thread (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19222.msg520057.html#msg520057)

Q: "Are there any new developments your fans would like to know about?"

A: "We have all kinds of plans: a new book, a tour titled “50 Years of Good Vibrations,” re-records of songs (hopefully with other artists) that we’re contemplating, and I’ve stockpiled a bunch of recordings myself that I hope to come out with probably next year. "

Brian's reaction to this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/G-K-n5op9nI?start=20&end=22&version=3

The narrative that Mike Love wanted for the BBs history was like this:

After 1960s excesses, BW was a shattered shell of himself that never regained his form. Instead from the 1980s on, Mike Love was the leader of the BBs with BW in semi-retirement with Dr. Landy. I think Mike wanted BW to slowly fade away with Dr. Landy as the BBs kept touring forever.

Instead, BW was freed from Landy and again challenging Mike to take the BBs band and legacy back in the 1990s. This culminated in his solo tours  and deep cuts showing how far M&B had fallen from the glory years of the 1960s. Mike is honestly pissed that BW is highly productive in the 21st century and challenging his hold on the band and legacy.

BW has taken back the music and legacy from Mike's touring band in the eyes of serious music fans. This fact has driven Mike crazy, hence the horrible interviews where Mike digs up dirt from 30 plus years ago.

Amen, Bro.   :woot :woot :woot

Opinions on the article Andrew?

Also, if you have Mike's ear at all (or his wife's), please tell him to rethink whatever it is he's doing lately. Starting with C50, it is so obvious to me that the man could have rehabilitated his image among Beach Boys fans and the world at large if he just used a little tact. If he had stuck with The Beach Boys in 2012 instead of breaking up the group, and even if he didn't, just being a bit more magnanimous in the time since, I think he would gain something closer to what he feels his place in history should be. Instead he seems to be giving Gene Landy the benefit of the doubt and basically trashing everything Brian or his team have done. It seems like you're a reasonable guy Andrew, and it seems like you have had some chances to speak with Mike. Why is he proceeding this way? Does he really think this is gonna get him what he wants? Or is he just sick and tired of the way history is being written?

Wow.

With every interview, Mike just sinks lower in my estimation. I love The Beach Boys. I appreciate Mike's contribution. I understand his side of the "Pet Sounds/Smile" debate, and I give props to his work ethic. But, seriously, every time he opens his mouth, I like him less and less. I don't want it to be this way. I don't like snark and ill feelings in the band and among fans. I would like Mike and Brian to be able to get along and be The Beach Boys again. But, unfortunately, Mike can't find any point of empathy for Brian's mental health problems. "No, it's not that. It's the drugs. They caused it all. Brian did this to himself and because of that, and my hard work,  I deserve the band."

That presents a problem for Mike, because Brian's been nothing but honest about the drug use. When Mike focuses on this in interviews, he isn't telling anyone anything that Brian hasn't already owned. And Brian's cachet is very high right now.  People who don't even know him are amazed at his story and how he survived, and have come to care. To continually hammer on Brian's drug problems like this in every interview is only going to hurt Mike. And to show more empathy toward Landy than he does his cousin, just comes across as hateful. And a bully is a bully, whether they use whips, drugs, or words.

The sad thing is, he did a lot during C50 to redeem himself with the public. I think people want to like him. He just won't let them. Unfortunately that ship has sailed for good.

Sail on, sailor.

I have a comment to make on this and its not worldly or ground-breaking, but it may upset some established and fresher participants on the board.

This may not be the reality, but it is certainly my perception of what is going on.
The perception I am getting from Mile Love is that he is a cold, calculated, vindictive human being. Who cannot see the damage he is doing to himself by highlighting the perceived failings of others. I respect the lyricist and the part he played in my favourite band, but that respect is fast evaporating and whilst I don't have the capacity to hate, I do have the capacity to switch of and stop listening to whatever it is positive or negative he has to say. Mike your destroying your legacy and tarnishing a brand that gained so much traction in 2012. That is my perception, it may be right, it may be wrong, who am I? I am nobody, just like the millions of other Beach Boys fans out there.

I'm not really 'big' on 'this..."To see him experience those challenges that were admittedly brought on by his experience with certain drugs and stuff, it’s just kind of saddening to me."

In a sense Mike's sticking to the 'script' but I an going to suggest that the mental illness factor was clearly already there and working on Brian's sense of self and his 'grounding' issues before the "drugs and stuff' entered into the picture and that those 'items' are being called into 'play' as the easy scapegoats by one who's both uninformed and who finds them easy to make help a point which serves an age-old agenda.

That said...there's nothing NEW here from Mike at all/at all.

Those who think he's the cat's ass will continue to post drivel to make that point more loudly and more clearly.  Those who think that Mike is more of a horses ass will do the same.  That, then, will merely tarnish the thread and make it completely unreadable.



What a surprise THAT would be.   :o   And how litterally yawn inspriring.  ;)

I'm a bit late to the game here, haven't read the thread all the way through, but my big takeaway is this:

Mike would do himself a huge favor by just not talking.

Pretty much.

Oh god.... I keep quoting my own posts instead of modifying them. ...shoot...

I'm a big Mike Love fan. I also enjoy his sense of humor and his bravado. I believe that he knows that no matter what, there's always someone willing to write him off as "the eternal asshole" (as a movie critic wrote). He knows that, and it won't change. Thusly, he'll say what comes to mind all the same. Nevertheless, it is puzzling that he won't speak more strongly against Landy. He was very vocal in interviews and TV specials back in the day. He even appeared in the Prime Time program that was crucial in the demise of Landy. There is no way, I think, that Mike can sympathize with Landy.

What an awful interview...there is truly nothing positive out of the thing except for the plug for his book which he didn't even seem positive on since he wasn't even positive as to what the title is!?!

It has to be frustrating to be in Mike's shoes...but sometimes I wonder if maybe he should buy a new pair...

Great buckets of bullshit! Mike Love could fart and you people would crucify him for that. Man o man if you despise the guy so much here's an idea.. Don't listen to the group he's in or see him in concert. There.. all better now we all can sleep tight now.

So you agree with Mike that Landy was only "probably" going too far? Landy's actions include nearly drugging Brian to death and all sorts of other abuses. "Probably" implies this is not a certainty.

What is uncertain about the Landy having gone too far (or not having gone too far) question?

The criticism comes from the unexplained softness for Landy/shoutout to Evan (which are bad enough in and of itself), coupled in the same sentence with an unflinching absolute hardline answer about if he charged too much money, and if he wanted to write songs with Brian. No "probablies" from Mike about those questions! It is that inexplicable and bizarre dichotomy which is what is being talked about. I do not understand and cannot make sense at all of that dichotomy whatsoever; can you? If you think criticizing the interview is out of line, I'm assuming you agree with Mike then?

I do get that people want to give Landy credit for saving Brian's life initially. That much I can understand the mindset of. It's just that it must also be said that he absolutely without doubt went too far and was a scumbag of unimaginable proportions, which both Mike and Evan Landy both seem to sidestep for some very odd reason. That is not a falsehood in any way, shape or form! If Mike said that Landy saved Brian's life, and that Mike's very glad that happened...but that Landy also absolutely then went too far, and was an epic creep, I for one would not find anything critical to say about that.

Dumbass alliteration, Dr. Love.

Not this time guys! Mike has f***ed up big time on this one and your not going paint the picture any differently.

True dat. Some of the usual suspects defending Mike are suspiciously quiet in this thread. Could it be that they know that Mike f***ed up big time on this one, but they don't want to admit it? Hmm. People who don't like to admit when the typically-defended subject/person is doubtlessly wrong, who just happen to be defending (or passively defending, via their silence) a man who seems to have an epically hard time admitting when he himself has screwed up. Is there a subset of super-defensive people who just love defending other super-defensive people? Maybe Landy himself might have known the medical way to term such a bizarre phenomenon.

I don't identify with either "camp" and it usually bites me in the ass, but here I go again.....what statements could possibly be defended in a positive light from the self-proclaimed "Mr. Positivity" this time?

I know. I'm waiting for the one sentence question from Cam that turns everything on it's head. Seems he's got nothing as of yet.

 :lol He is currently MIA, busy consulting with noted experts in defending defensive people, on how to craftily word a defense strategy for the term "probably". Might this be the moment where he finally admits Mike screwed up?  I'd Love Just Once to See Him Admit That Mike Screwed Up.

Brian did drugs? Tell us something we don't know Mike. Perhaps your shortfalls and demons such as your multiple wives and Shawn? Didn't you have a breakdown? Your fellow bandmates have more or less kept a dignified silence on those very personal details. Nice if it could be reciprocated.

 

Can you imagine if in every interview, another BB mentioned those sensitive things about Mike, under the guise of that BB member proclaiming their own personal view that family values are of primary importance, and thus, Mike's personal matters need to be drudged up in interview after interview so that the world can learn from Mike's mistakes, and know how important it is to be a good father and husband? Yeah, that would be icky and inappropriate for another band member to do... and bringing up the drug thing again and again and again and again has approached a similar icky level. Yep. This is like the infamous Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous Interview, Part II.

Poor, poor, Mike.  An alpha dog personality with a faulty brain/mouth filter living in the shadow of an immensely talented introvert.  That can't be a comfortable place to be.  Always missing out on the adoration an alpha dog personality thrives on.

I've defending Mike many many times here. Can't do it over this.

Where in the world did you come up with the slanderous notion that Melinda is giving Brian any drugs at all, much less controlling him via drugs?  Where does this non-sense originate?

EoL

For So long this has been going on. The fights are never going to go away. And everyone wants to pick sides. I really disliked Mike up until 5 years ago. Then I realized that it wasn't right for me to think that way because guess what, I don't know a damn thing about what went on. I don't know all the back stage machinations that thread throughout the Beach Boys story. I have just heard from both sides which are biased in their tellings. So many of my best friends wanted Mike gone. But I think that is wrong headed. I know alot of people who (when he was alive) thought Carl was a d**k and that Brian should have never had any further contact with him. And so it's been since I became a fan back in 1973. As I said elsewhere, the SMiLE crew around Brian was lauded for SO long that I am glad they are shown for who/what they truly are. So things change.

I do remember something I read by Don Was that has been repeated several times by others. He thought that Mike would be the most evil man in the world, but found him ok to deal with. And here is the part that so many others that have talked to Mike and the other Beach Boys have repeated. They were/are just tired of being referred to as Brian Wilson and the four assholes. I know I have heard that for far too long. Before you say well that's true, stop for a moment. That means Dennis is a no talent asshole. Carl is a no talent asshole. Mike is a no talent asshole. Jon Stebbins said it best. If you think Brian would have been as big as he was w/out the other guys, you are dreaming. Much as we would want to believe it, he needed them, just as they needed him.

Bob

Mike doesn't have to be labeled as an "asshole" to say that he gave some highly questionable, borderline repugnant answers in an interview, and that while he may be perfectly ok to deal with in some or even many circumstances, he is nonetheless digging a hole for himself by saying some pretty unconscionable stuff. It's been an ongoing problem. If anyone else in the BB universe gave an interview like this, they'd be just as swiftly crucified.

Nice story mate... = Mike love is still a complete fucking arsehole!! At least that is my perception of him based on everything that has emanated from his mouth in the last say 47 years.

If this is what Mike says about Brian in public, imagine what he says -- and does -- in private.

And then think about who Al ended up changing his plans to perform with.

And then think about where Jeff and Brian E. are now.

This is going to get far worse before it gets better.

But in this case, and many others, people aren't criticizing Mike for what went on.  They are criticizing him for what he says with his own mouth and then is published.

Regarding Don Was, it really isn't relevant.  Don is saying Mike was easy to work with professionally.  Who here is denying that?  

I don't understand why some people are so afraid to criticize something that Mike, or any other person, said and allowed to be published for public consumption.  The world is an ugly place, Mike says and does some ugly things.  Why should anyone pretend otherwise in either case?  I am unable to pretend just to keep alive an unrealistic view of my favorite band.

I agree. If anyone wants to hear what Brian's work might have been like 'without the four assholes', just listen to his outside productions from the 1960s. It's very good music but it lacks the outstanding charisma of his work with the BB, save for I Guess I'm Dumb.

No point, for reasons which are both obvious and not.


Like most people, I'm reasonable right up to the point where people around me start acting in an irrational manner. For the record, yes, I'm in contact with Mike & his wife (and other band members: not news) but I certainly don't "have his ear". They might ask my opinion on certain things, as happened over lunch in London recently, but as for acting on them... no-one's that stupid.  ;D

Like all the other principals - Brian, Alan, Bruce - Mike is well aware of what we say here (recent events and the article in question prove this, as if we didn't know) and what's said on other forums: they don't need the likes of me telling them. Is he sick and tired of being portrayed as "that asshole Mike Love" (his own description to me) ?  Wouldn't you be, when it's by people who, essentially, know nothing except what they see and read in the media (and sometimes less than that) ?  Does most of what folk post here amuse him ? Hell yes. Or should I say, "probably" ?

For every article and thread of this nature, there is a board historian post like above to match, some insulting, some apologetic, but all of them essentially repeats of similar comments made previously, just like the article in question. Mike Love has always made disparaging comments publicly about Brian:


and you have hit the nail on the head with this post. Why, if Mike Love is sick of being portrayed as "that asshole Mike Love" (his own description to AGD) does he side with the Landy's directly after the release of a movie centred around the misery Landy caused?

I love what the other four guys brought to the overall sound of The Beach Boys, and I've heard this argument repeated over and over again, but you have to know this is a ridiculous way to look at what Brian could have done without the other guys.  He clearly saved his best stuff for The Beach Boys, both by his own choice and by the insistence of Murray and the rest of the band.  I don't see any reason Brian could not have had wild success without the guys.  It wouldn't have been exactly the same, the precise magic would not have been there.  But there is no reason to think he couldn't have created other magic with different voices and collaborators IF HE WAS SAVING HIS BEST STUFF FOR THEM.  It's a question we can never answer for sure, perhaps there was some mystical reason he could only make great records with The Beach Boys, but to pretend the seemingly half-hearted attempts made by a guy with the weight of his family on his shoulders and being ridden by Murray to keep the good stuff in house is proof he couldn't have done it under different circumstances is not reasonable.  Maybe he could have been another Phil Spector, or maybe not...he wasn't given the chance and had constant pressure not to even try.  We will never know for sure, but reason seems to side with the guy having a lot of musical talent.   Why couldn't it have been channeled differently, under different circumstances?

Oh, look...a Beach Boy said something that rustled jimmies in the fan base. /sarcasm

I can't wrap my head around this interview. Either the interviewer caught Michael on a VERY bad day...or I dare not even imagine another possibility.

EoL, I think he was referring to how he felt *Mike* looked at it, not how he actually did.

Yeah, I'd be bummed that some people thought I was an jerk-off. But then I'd realize I was one of the two (arguably) most important members of one of most revered groups in the past century. And if some guy named on some online forum named "SMiLEBrian" or "ontor pertwast" or "sweetdudejim" is really hurting my feelings that much, well perhaps I should go to therapy and try to work these issues out. And no, I'm not being facetious. He's Mike fuckin' Love. If he doesn't wanna perceived as an asshole, here's some pointers...

First, how about not mentioning that Cousin Brian did drugs all the time? And maybe showing a bit more compassion to his emotional issues? And how about not saying passive aggressive stuff about how he'd suuuuure love Brian and Al's new song as long as there's "no autotune"? Anybody who knows anything about the current day Brian, Al and Mike know that this is petty mudslinging bullshit. Also, even bringing up Evan Landy (like his point-of-view matters) is very, very disconcerting. Or even the question about his favorite movies. How about we lay off the self promotion for two minutes Mike? Could ya do that pal?

And while we're at it, I'm kinda getting sick of him claiming he's gonna put any music out. It seems like he's full of sh*t. He's had over two decades since Summer In Paradise, but I'm pretty sure I could count on one hand any orginal Mike Love songs that have been released since then. He should either sh*t or get off the pot. And this is coming from somebody who would happily buy the CD (or download) if Mike finally released something new! It seems as though he's scared of being embarrassed by the likely poor showing of whatever he puts out.

And lastly, I know it's gotten kinda overlooked because of all the other vomit that came from that interview, but is Mike seriously considering "re-records of songs"? What does he mean by this? Are we indeed getting that cover of "Be True to Your School" with the DX7 keyboards like I was hoping for? I'm hoping he maybe just means re-recording some of the best of his unreleased stuff to make a coherent album, and not THE BEACH BOYS' Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Present Summertime Surfin' Classics: A Hobby Lobby Exclusive.

I've read the interview about ten times now and still can't quite wrap my head around it. You can't blame Mike for not putting much stock in a movie in which one of his character's biggest scenes is based on something that didn't happen (him being against Good Vibrations) so from a personal POV he's hardly going to go out of his way to praise it.

It doesn't really show him against "Good Vibrations" tho, whoever told him that is clearly wrong. It shows him helping Brian at the piano with the song in a quite nice little moment, actually. That if he wasn't such a weirdo, he'd have seen and appreciated. Oh, I guess he means his character's outburst about the strings doing their staccato thing for hours? A scene meant to show BW's perfectionism in his pursuit of what he wanted more than just paint Mike Love as an asshole? It showed Dennis Wilson bored and plunking away at a piano before being shushed, does that means Dennis was against it too?

 One line of frustration in the studio does not equal him being "against Good Vibrations."

There is one for his new book:

(http://s2.postimg.org/58pteqj4p/w_p_2.jpg)

Basing this opine on recent (numerous) interviews - my God, that autobiography is going to be a train wreck. Anyone in the scholarly Beach Boy journo-go-round who acquiesces to write a preface, should recall the old adage; if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Interviews such as this one reflects badly upon the poor working class strummers he's got touring with his bar band. I mean, yeah I get it...you gotta eat, I know. But are you aware of the brand? Are you aware of just what you're propping up? Night after night? County fair after county fair?

The Beach Boys are dead. Long live the Beach Boys.

Mike's only repeating what he's been told by others. I can't comment on the scene because us guys here in the UK still can't see the film.

You might be right, thanks for clarifying Billy.

These guys are old, and it will be tragically sad if defending Landy and downplaying mental illness is how Mike chooses ultimately to ride out both his own career, as well as his relationship with Brian. What would Carl think of his cousin now :(

Sure, Mike said some questionable things in interviews during Carl's lifetime, but I do not see a Mike-defending-the-Landys interview happening in 2015, concurrent with L&M's release, if Carl were alive. What could possibly be motivating the Landy defense with verbage like "probably", other than intentionally wanting flak?

Nice post, brother.  :afro

* delete upon correction.
that was meant to be a private message. I don't need my ego-stroking made public!!  :police:

I definitely agree with those who've said that it's sad to see Mike Love consistently throwing away any goodwill he builds up. In the past I've been very anti-Mike because of things I've read about him, but in the last few years I've mellowed towards him. Heck, I even own a copy of Looking Back With Love. I was excited to meet him at the Manchester VIP event and have a photo of him pointing at my Mike Love Not War t-shirt that is my profile pic on Facebook and Twitter. I loved the show and was impressed with his efforts to appeal to all elements of the audience, playing stuff that he himself probably isn't keen on.

HOWEVER, this interview is bullshit and plans for re-recording some Beach Boys songs with special guests is even more bullshit. Why not make something new Mike? Why not finally release another new solo album? You'd have Bruce and David to appear on it and some talented musicians to collaborate with. Why not reach out and get Brian and Al to appear on it? Why not use your legacy as founder and co-writer of the Beach Boys greatest hits to bring in the kind of young musicians who would write with you and make something that is exactly what you would want it to be, but, you know, GOOD?

After C50 and with Love & Mercy out there and on the back of a really well-received UK tour, there's so much more Mike could be doing than coasting on his legacy and sniping at Brian again.

Very well said.

Good points, that was probably a bit over the top. Anyway, as you said, "the precise magic would not have been there". I totally agree with that. A good example I think is Surf City (not a BW production as far as I know but still a song he wrote). Maybe Brian could have had more #1 hits such as Surf City outside the group if he hadn't saved his best stuff for the BB but even Surf City (as a BW song not performed by the BB/in the BB context) is a song I find only about half as interesting as Catch a Wave or Surfin' USA. Then again, songs like Caroline No or Busy Doin' Nothin' do have "the magic", so who knows.

I think this might be an important point.  He might have extremely strong opinions about it.  A different organisation, sure, but I vaguely recall seeing Tom Cruise banging on about psychiatry and/or use of pharmaceuticals to address psychological issues and he was right het up.  Mike might feel similarly, but coming from a TM angle.  It could be a strong factor behind all his quotes about his brothers' use of drugs over the years.  But unless he fully expounds on that, we're not really going to know.

In the end, history repeats itself:

1. Mike gives an interview. Gets asked about Brian. Responds with typical answers.

2. Gets destroyed over here because how dare him.

3. Repeat x 48484994 times


It is endless, and everybody's point is well know by now. Ten days ago he was destroyed over here by some people for including deep catalogue songs in the setlist (and at least one song suggestion made right here at Smileysmile). So basically, he could donate his entire fortune to the poor and be backslashed for it, nevermind mentioning Brian's drug-taking in an interview.

EXACTLY. Does Mike ever wonder why a minority of public perception of him is that he's an asshole? Does he think that some people woke up and randomly tried to find a villain in this band? Laughably, some here have accused those who dislike Mike of this very thing. Here's a thought: instead of reading the Smiley Smile board every morning during breakfast, Mike should go back and read his interviews from the past 3 years. He should really look at some of his answers and ask himself "Was this really the best way to answer this question?"

I became more neutral for a while once I realized that yeah I wasn't there during Pet Sounds or Smile so why would I be irritated at Mike? Hell, I even defended "the room". But then interview after interview came out where Mike was bashing the life suite, or he appeared to talk down about Brian's current prescription drug use, or there are constant reminders of Brian's past drug use when he isn't even prompted or asked about it, and most recently, as Sweetdudejim points out: the passive aggressive "autotune" crap that was ridiculously unnecessary, and now this Landy "probably" overstepped his bounds nonsense. Also he passive-aggressively went after Joe Thomas by pointlessly remarking about his fear of flying. And there was the interview a month or two ago where he took a swipe at Brian's current singing voice.

Is it any wonder that Brian doesn't want to work with Mike alone in a room? Is really any wonder why there is a growing perception of Mike being an asshole? Does most of what folk post here amuse him? Hell yes? If he's actually concerned about his public perception he really shouldn't be amused at all.

It is endless because Mike makes it endless. Imagine if Brian said this stuff...."Brian, have you seen Mike since the end of the tour?" "No, he is controlled and on prescription drugs." "Brian, have you heard Mike's most recent single?" "No, but if there's no autotune on it I'm sure it'll be great."

And we're supposed to be the bad guys for being irritated by these type of remarks? Mike could donate his entire fortune to the poor and if he continued to say stuff like this in interviews I'd still be flabbergasted and irritated by him.

   Mike is living up to his rep as one of the bigger jerks in Rock music. I think he gets a perverse pleasure from all this, but history will have the last chuckle. Looking forward to all the details of his 1970 nervous breakdown in his upcoming memoir.

Wow, I have a lot of respect for Mike but after reading that interview im starting to think he may have just lost his mind.

That was a very worrying read.

If a movie is made in which you are portrayed, and a reviewer calls you "the eternal asshole", and you are reportedly made seem as opposed to the artistic growth of your group, as an indirect cause of your cousin's mental collapse, and not entirely keen on said group's most famous album, you'd have a right to be concerned. The world will see Mike Love in the light of the movie, not in the light of an interview to a local newspaper, nor in the light of our comments about said interview; how could he not be concerned and have a human reaction about it?

Cheap moralizing about Mike's behavior, prescribing what could be best for him, guessing his intentions, preaching on virtues and condemning vice... those are superciliousness-born attitudes from monicker-named nerds on a message board. Passing judgement on people is also wrong.

Brian was probably suffering from Helsinki Syndrome. It isn't unusual for people held captive by someone to develop a kind of affection for them and though Brian wasn't literally a captive, it amounted to as much.

Mike hasn't even seen the movie yet he is apparently worried that it makes him out to be an asshole? I think a lot of people on this board mentioned how Mike's unease about Pet Sounds and the Smile music was portrayed in a way that made his perspective make sense. And he did have unease about some of the material on Pet Sounds which is why Hang On To Your Ego is not on the final album.

The movie never said Mike Love was against the album Pet Sounds. It's obvious to any casual fan that Mike had a hand in making it, and was obviously supportive of releasing it...even the movie doesn't dispute this. Perhaps before Mike starts to defend himself he should actually watch the movie in question.

Ang - this inserted quote ..."Perhaps Brian was suffering from Helsinki Syndrome. He'd been more of less held captive by Landy." Is not mine...Kindly remove it. Thanks!

Mike is a complete jerk.
I like that he is a Landy-sympathizer now.

As for the adverse comments about Mike Love, he is frequently the cause of them. We see a Mike Love interview and a number of hostile reactions ensue, sometimes even from people whom until then had  considered themselves fans, who express a change of heart by using words like 'disappointed'.
It is unfair and demonstrably false in some cases to blame other people for the bad opinions  some have of him. Unless  this particular article misquoted, it is quite clear that if Mike's popularity decreases, he has no-one to blame but himself. Even if he believed his comments were entirely fair it might have been sensible to omit some of them, especially those he has already repeated ad nauseam.

Filledeplage. Unintentional error. Now corrected. Sorry.

Thanks.

His comments are indefensible.

Let me translate that for him: I'm not picking up good vibrations and his constant harassment of Brian (and others) isn't fun, fun, fun.

I was just reconsidering whether or not to go to a Beach Boys show.. And had decided I really should go. Now, I just can't. I cannot support him.

If medical docs were to confer and agree on a diagnosis, it would be among the docs and the patient. It is not for me to believe or not believe it, as it does not relate to me, and absent the verified testing, and agreement of "second professional opinions" it would not be my business under US privacy laws.  My interest in BW/BB is the music and not their confidential doctor-patient relationship which is privacy-protected.

And, I don't agree.  First, he concedes that, "...Brian had rough, rough time."  The context of the article was as it relates to being a judge in a film festival.  

Second, he was previewing to "judge" the films in the festival.  The locality where he was touring, didn't have the "Love and Mercy" film released.  How could he have seen it? (And I hope he has a private screening, without an "audience" watching his reaction. ) I'm just a fan, and found a back corner of the theater to just be alone with my thoughts during the film, and headed for a glass of wine, post.  I found it intense.  No doubt will he.

Third, the interviewer had a series of queries.  He was asked specifically about the differences in performing, since the inception of the band.  I've read they dragged their own equipment around and set it up themselves.

Fourth, he was asked about his book, which would not to be made into a movie.

Fifth, he was asked about a film he hasn't seen, although he is depicted, alongside the band, but in a minor role in the context of the band. He conceded he knew the rough Wilson household.

And, "I'm waiting to weigh in myself until I'm able to see the movie."

How vague is that?  Waiting to weigh in.

He comments on Evan Landy... It is interesting to many, because it is a surprise.  Unless, perhaps, Evan was saving his "material" to maximize impact contemporaneous with the film's release.

I didn't mean that Melinda was giving Brian drugs personally, but that she is the person most responsible for his treatment, hence Mike probably believes she is the one responsible for Brian's presecription drug use, which he equates with street drugs.

I was expecting much worse.  Pretty tame stuff for Mike if you ask me. 

I think if I were Mike Love's publicist, I would instruct him not to answer any questions that relate to one Brian D. Wilson. 

Mr. PR: "Mike.  OK, stick to the current Beach Boys tour and your upcoming book."

ML: "Alright."

Mr. PR: "What do you say if you're asking about Brian Wilson?"

ML: "He's a great talent.  I love singing his songs every night.  Even the sad depressing ones where his ego got in the way and derailed the positivity train of surf and car songs, and had us singing about crows and cornfields, or some crap."

Mr. PR: "NO NO NO NO." 

As a bit of an aside, on the topic that was briefly mentioned concerning the idea that Mike knows he’s pegged as an a-hole and doesn’t care, and just tells it like it is, etc., I should say that he doesn’t even perform *that* function well. There are others, especially in the music industry, that are all old and grizzled and just bluntly say what’s on their mind. Non-PC, don’t care if they sound like an a-hole, etc. That can indeed be entertaining and even sometimes enlightening.

Mike’s interviews don’t read like that. They read like they have an agenda; an often rather defensive, self-congratulatory, insecure agenda. A lot of the old music industry veterans that “tell it like it is” are refreshing because they’ll be the first to criticize *themselves.* Mike never does this.

As Howie has mentioned, Mike is being advised (or advising himself) poorly on these matters, especially if he cares how others view him (and he clearly does, since he often refers to being wrongly pegged as the bad guy). More importantly, his interviews and comments continue to reflect poorly on the *group’s* brand.

I’ve often been the first to agree that it would be ill-advised for numerous reasons for Brian (and Al) to even attempt to revisit the licensing arrangement concerning Mike touring with the name. It would indeed be kicking a hornet’s nest and would probably result in years of litigation. It is very unlikely to happen for that and many other reasons. But I think, even given all of that, maybe they should consider it, and not even because of anything particularly to do with using the name for touring. Rather, there’s a point at which you have to think about who is representing your brand and think about how that person is characterizing the shareholders of your corporation. It is indeed poor (or non) management that leads to this crap.

Does anyone think Paul and Yoko don’t still have a few lingering issues with each other? Of course they do, and there’s as much if not more potential for contentious issues within the Apple/Beatles world as compared to BRI/Beach Boys. But they’ve learned to let their refined, valued brand do all of the work. They play nice (and who knows, maybe they’ve even actually gotten over at least some of the BS between them), the number of fans and press who think they’re coming across as d***s diminishes, and, oh yeah, the money just rolls in.

The Beatles now even individually and collectively push each others’ solo stuff in addition to group stuff now. Meanwhile, Mike can’t even take three minutes to listen to “The Right Time.” He can apparently kick back at night and read the Smiley Smile board and post *detailed* Facebook postings with huge photo albums and setlists from one of his shows, but he can’t go click on YouTube and listen to “The Right Time” for free for three minutes. Broken band, broken brand. I can’t fault Brian for just doing his own thing, but I still hope that this horrible management and brand/image issue might be addressed, whether it’s by taking steps to not let Mike tarnish it, or by getting a manager to get the guys to play nice. 

I didn't actually consider going to the latest UK Beach Boys shows but my reason is the same.  Mike continually shows jealousy of Brian and I'd even go so far as to use the word spite.  I've been told how wonderful the shows were and how they benefit Brian. I don't really care. My attending would have been hypocritical. I don't dispute that Mike and Bruce have a band of accomplished musicians who can usually perform to a high standard.  I feel some sympathy for his band because the hostility that he generates with some of his less well thought out remarks and for that matter some of his behaviour must antagonise large numbers of fans and affect attendance.  For his band, it's a career choice. For me, it's somewhat simpler. If I want to hear Beach Boys songs whilst awaiting the next Brian Wilson tour, I'll turn on my CD player.

Edited just to compliment Hey Jude on his last post. Some very wise comments.

I don't get the anger over Mike Love's comments.  BW did have a rough, rough time, and Landy did save Brian's life, while providing him with the wrong medications and exploiting his fame and fortune.  What he said was basically true and said in response to a question about the movie that dealt with these issues.  I'm more interested in the accuracy of what he said about his involvement with Pet Sounds.   

Mike was asked to respond to a quoted characterization of an Associated Press review of the movie L&M.  So Mike is responding to that reviewer's characterization as not true. He has already explained he hasn't seen the movie yet but he is "anxious to see it to see what the whole story is".

Even though Mike has said he hasn't seen the movie the interviewer follows up with another claim about the movie's portrayal of Landy and asks him if Mike has a comment about the portrayal the interviewer read about in the movie Mike hasn't seen. So the interviewer is asking a question about stuff he read about the movie and Mike responds with something he read about the movie. He doesn't say Evan's "dissertation" is true or untrue or good or bad just an interesting read of "a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy".

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

It all comes down to brothers, real life blood brothers verses a cousin.  Loves family vs Wilson ,  Love family had it better than Wilson's , problem the Wilson boys ended up with the talent!   Mike has had a problem with this forever!  I will never forget the talk's with Dennis... several rides to see the home his Mother was born in.  Mike is / was a nice part to a family band, he could ruin a one car funeral.  Mike please take those Viagra"s with water to make sure they get down.

Nothing shocking about the opinion that Landy saved Brian's life.  That's 100% true.  The guy was a double edged sword.  He helped other musicians out of the muck, and helped Brian.  I think Landy also knew that Brian could be easily manipulated and latched on to him.  

You know, the usual suspects have been waiting for a couple of weeks for Mike to say something stupid about the movie. We all know there are a handful of people that get off on posting nasty comments about Mike here on a daily basis. OSD and Smile Brian come to mind. If or when people like me come to Mike's defense we are labeled the club kokomo crowd or some such nonsense. I try to be fair concerning all of the Beach Boys and those related to their careers. Now that that's clear...

For the love of God Mike, yes Mike Love, Mike can you please stop making stupid comments either intentionally or unintentionally concerning Brian Wilson. In particular the drug stuff. You have been in the rock and roll business your entire adult life correct? if you would like to send us a list of all the people in the business that you have encountered over the past 50 years that were not doing drugs at some point please do so. I'm not in the music business but the only people that I could guess were for sure drug free would be Donny and Marie. Drugs took a toll on Brian and no one denies that. But it was a hell of a lot more than that and even us outsider, non family, non band member, just fans have seen and known this for decades. Every time you mention Brian and drugs it sounds like you are trying to say everything was roses and Brian had no issues at all until the 60's drug culture took hold of him. The 60's drug culture took hold of many people in your business and the majority of them did not end up in Brian's condition and mental state. And these latest comments concerning Landy and his ilk. Do you actually believe Landy's drugs he gave Brian didn't cause some permanent damage?

Lastly, I don't put much stock in anything I read because printed interviews can be very misleading (often intentionally) but you are not helping your cause one iota by this kind of speech that has become a pattern.

 Passing judgement on people is also wrong.
[/quote]
LOL!!
Gee, that looks a lot like you are passing judgement on someone. Tell me again how using my rational / critical faculties to scan my environment for threats (or in the case, jerks) is wrong?
Passing judgement on people is how humans avoid emotional and physical predators, a useful and neccesary skill.
However, if you want to be consistant you might want to stop judging people for judging people.

On another note...
There is a great book about people who lack empathy called  The Science of Evil. Mike may not be evil, but  he clearly has a deficit of empathy, which almost always  comes from childhood trauma. According to the book, empathy is almost impossible to develop later in life

If we're getting into specifics his comments still make no sense because the AP quote the interviewer asked about said nothing about Mike being totally against the release of Pet Sounds. The AP quote only talks about "bickering" and some of the bickering actually happened. It is Mike who brings up these ridiculous claims that he was against the release of Pet Sounds which isn't even in the movie.


No one here said any differently.


Mike wasn't in the therapy so he answered "probably" about it? I wasn't around Idi Amin during his reign of terror in Uganda, so he was only "probably" an evil man? It's called factual evidence, Cam. For flips sake. Landy was proven to have been overmedicating Brian, proven to have been blocking phone calls, proven to have changed Brian's will....and he "probably" overstepped the bounds of therapy? Also, as KDS points out: the fact that Landy saved Brian's life is not shocking, no one here holds that opinion.

True. I don't see much in Mike's interview to make hay of. He does a 100 of these a year and says the same sort of stuff, this time with a bit of fuzzy focus on LaM, the movie. Leave him alone. . . .Likely someone told him that in the movie he gets impatient with BW recording 50 cello runs before he got what he liked, which, Mike will tell us, may not have happened that way. Easy to get impatient with BW on this issue I imagine. Mike was reacting to rumor and was as usual a bit defensive.

All mike should ever say, as I would have it, is that he can't wait to get back with Brian and Al and make more music as a family.

It is unfortunate that you don't see the touring band. You might find yourself changing your opinion.  There is no antagonism for the audience and the shows are very well attended, otherwise they would not be booked out a year in advance.  

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.

At least the good performances won't be wasted on them.

I don't think there's much if anything in the interview that is factually, demonstrably false, and I don't think most of the understandably "bleccch" reaction has to do with the factual content of the interview.

I have a tough time believing much of anybody truly doesn't even *understand* why many if not most feel that the interview requires a deep, cleansing shower after reading it.

It's true, one shouldn't really be surprised by seeing an interview like this. But similarly, one shouldn't be surprised when said interview is called out for being another trainwreck, full of patronizing comments about Brian and self-serving commentary as usual.

Wirestone made a really good point: If this is what is said in a published interview, then wtf is being said behind closed doors, either indirectly or directly?

All of these guys have legit grips against other band members and against any number of other people or events. So why is it that Brian is able to get through interviews, including interviews with loaded questions about Mike (and the reunion, etc.), without making a bunch of d***head comments about Mike?

I've seen Brian and I went to the 50th anniversary show. I had a great time at both. I know he praises Brian. Mike was great at the 50th show.. and then he went on to criticize the reunion publicly. At the show he was selling that new album.. really pumping it up. Later, he criticizes it.. because it didn't go to #1?! He takes a lot of cheap shots at Brian and others for just no good reason. So which Mike do you believe?

I enjoy not reading Mike's interviews and wish I hadn't read this one. It's like he has a script that he can't avoid repeating, although the "probably" about Landy should be removed from future performances.

On judging people: We all make positive and negative judgments about public figures, given the information we have. The best way for Mike to avoid being judged negatively is to stop talking or at least change his script. Otherwise, he'll keep getting bad reviews.

"I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life.  Shocking maybe but their opinion."

Camster, you are too much.  Why did Mike despise Landy so much at the time?  Was it for the therapy or the things for which Mike says "hell yeah" (he was expensive) and "yes" (he wanted to write/produce with Brian)?  If it was for for the therapy, then what new information has he gained that has downgraded his stance to probably?  Was he there for the therapy at the time and he's forgotten, or was the money and co-writing all he ever cared about?  You've actually made the same case as the rest of us and you don't even realize it.

Here are Mike's comments:

"The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life."

Cam, what are the unethical, immoral, illegal behaviors Mike was so upset about at the time?  Please list them.  If this doesn't include the therapy, over medicating, etc...then it's just the money, right?  If it includes the therapy, why the down grade in opinion?  How is Mike so uncertain about the therapy when most of it is pretty public knowledge?

EoL

You are wrong about this. I have seen the Beach Boys touring band. I saw them in 2004 because a friend asked my sister and me to accompany her. I booked to see them in 2011 but had to pass (having bought tickets) because of my mother's last illness. And again because of a friend, I saw them last year. The crowd enjoyed it. I thought it was quite lightweight, mainly with emphasis on material from the first 5 years of their career and a few songs that could be described as summer songs (Do It Again, Back to the Beach etc). I disliked the way the music was presented -  the beach balls, Mike's stage persona. Of course there was no antagonism as such - those with such strong feelings are not going to waste their money on tickets. I have heard Mike's praise of Brian. But I have also read - over and over again - the reminders that Brian did drugs. Refusing to see the band doesn't hurt me at all. Had I found the concert so enjoyable last year, of course I would have gone to see them again.

Regarding the “Mike praises Brian at concerts” thing, I have heard *multiple times* from multiple people who have taken non-fans or casual fans of the BB’s to shows where they literally come away with the impression based on Mike’s comments that Brian is dead and/or incapacitated or something to the point of not being able to perform anymore.

It used to often have the tone of “Brian’s great, wish he was here with us”, and that used to be true during certain periods of the band’s history where Brian *chose* to not be a part of it (although, certainly in the 80’s, some of that may been due more to Landy than Brian; read Gary Usher’s book to see how Landy was trying to get Brian *away* from the BB’s as much as possible except where he could use their name recognition and fame). Post-2012 though, that tone in Mike’s show comments is just weird, given Mike left Brian in 2012 while Brian wanted to be a Beach Boy.

The 2015 band is not the 2004 band.

Sorry about your mom.  

Usually the audience brings the beach balls...and I agree,  they can be a distraction and cause risk to the band members...

I can't imagine a more thankless job than the one held by BRI's Elliott Lott. Jesus.

Cam: do the words "Tardive Dyskinesia"mean anything to you?

Brian apparently sadly acquired this lifetime, chronic problem/disability directly due to being over-medicated by Landy. Landy nearly killed him, and then tried to change Brian's will. How can these actions be quantified anything short of absofrigginlutely going too far? How can you defend the "probably" verbage in Mike's verbage without thinking that Tardive Dyskinesia and changing a will is not necessarily going too far?

"Probably" means "without much doubt", meaning that there's still the possibility for a little bit of doubt that those actions were acceptable, and were not beyond the bounds of "going too far".

I can understand that Mike (and others) can feel that Landy initially saved Brian's life, and I would not fault anyone for thinking or saying such... BUT it must also be said that he subsequently went too far, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do you still defend the usage of the word "probably"? Just admit he had an off day and said an inappropriate word, man. C'mon.

Thanks, you're too much too EoL.

Where I come from "probably" means you believe it but you can't be certain. I presume Mike means it in this way since he wasn't eyewitness to the therapy but we know he believes it because he went up against Landy over it and other crimes back in the day.

Brian may take the high road but he's also kept a tight lip at times when bandmembers could have used a little public support. Has he ever publicly apologized for the outright bullshit he allowed Landy to write in his 'autobiography' slamming Mike and Carl? Ever gone out of his way to let it be known that they are not the people the book portrayed them to be? Sometimes sitting back and saying nothing can be just as harmful as criticizing.

No one is disputing that Landy's over medication did untold damage to Brian but it's unclear if Brian developed Tardive Dyskinesia as a result of it. A couple of posters in the medical profession have stated on the board in the past that Brian doesn't match the exact criteria to have this condition.

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but might it be a stretch to suggest Mike wasn’t privy in any way to the treatment aspect of Brian’s years with Landy? Obviously, he wasn’t intimately involved on a day-to-day basis, and there was plenty of estrangement. But I’ve read harrowing tales from folks who had far *less* contact with Brian and Landy than Mike would have had, who have reported troubling issues specifically concerning the treatment going on and Brian’s condition (as opposed to costs or writing credits). All of these people in the 80’s who have their one random weird eyewitness account of Brian being all f-ed up due to Landy, and Mike *never* saw something like that? He really only saw the bills and Landy trying to horn in on songwriting? Those stories of Brian taking a break during a Beach Boys business meeting and returning to the meeting a zombie, none of that stuff was ever witnessed by and/or filtered down to Mike?

There also appear to have been plenty of “stories” and “reports” filtering through the various organizations.

In my opinion, it appears Mike doesn’t want to directly and unequivocally endorse anything about the “Love & Mercy” film (due to whatever political, emotional, or ego, or whatever reasons), so he even has to slightly hedge on agreeing with a wholly negative portrayal of Eugene Landy himself. Again, as I mentioned before, this reeks of having a predisposition to not want to support the film, and then seeking out something (e.g. the Evan Landy piece) that might have an alternative point of view. How Mike doesn’t see that Evan Landy is *not* the credible guy you want to invoke when exploring an alternative viewpoint, I don’t know. And even if if you *didn’t* know anything about Evan Landy, his interview is far from a fair, level-headed, alternative viewpoint. He basically just ignored most of the accusations that have been made.

1. The interviewer uses a quote from a reviewer about the movie regarding bickering during PS, Mike has just said he hasn't seen the movie and can't comment on it so he comments on how untrue the reviewer's characterization (and others) is about how it was with him and Brian during PS.  Not ridiculous at all, on topic and in context.

2. I didn't say anyone here HAD said anything different, I didn't see where anyone mentioned it at all but I haven't read every post.

3. See my post to EoL, please.

Precisely.

Sorry, but Brian allegedly “not apologizing” for the 1991 autobiography is not the same as Mike actively saying negative things about Brian in numerous published interviews.

We don’t know for certain whether Brian ever offered any apologies for that. I think it was understood, certainly by fans in any event, that the book was a direct result of an abusive situation Brian was in the midst of. Whether that absolves Brian of any blame in the matter, that’s certainly up for debate.

Brian reportedly *did* admit (perhaps under oath?) that he had never even read the book. He certainly admitted the book was a sham.

If Brian, after the book lawsuits and after being extricated from Landy, then *continued* to contend in interviews that the book was still valid and he stood by the content, then perhaps that would be a more comparable situation to these Mike interviews.

I would imagine Brian has been far from blameless concerning the billion different business, financial, political, personal, and emotional issues that have come up within the band over the years. For a random example, he clearly didn’t actively support Al in the late 90s/early 2000’s during all of those legal issues. He passively and/or actively helped craft the licensing situation to where it is today.

Brian has in past years occasionally been a bit snippy about some of the other BB’s. I wasn’t a fan of his occasional references in the 2000’s to his touring band being better than the Beach Boys (when he wasn’t just talking about musicianship). But by and large, and certainly post-C50, he has wisely stayed away from saying much of anything about Mike at all, and certainly anything negative.

But Mike’s interviews show an active, willing motivation. He sometimes goes to places the interviewers don’t even seem to ask him to go. He’s the only guy in the BB’s organization, full of largely wealthy, successful, wanting-for-nothing individuals, who still comes across as hugely disenfranchised. He’s got the license to use the BB name, he runs his own band, does exactly what he wants, and he’s still disenfranchised because someone made a movie about Brian Wilson, or because someone mentioned in passing that Brian’s solo album theoretically could have been a Beach Boys album had Mike not chose to leave Brian. 

I disagree with this. I normally stay out of these threads, and don't feel the need to bash Mike endlessly.

However, it's the one completely NON-typical answer, the sympathy for Landy, that's the one that most people are harping on and rightly so.

Exactly. It's such a blatant straw-grab to try and find a way to plant a tiny seed of doubt about the facts being portrayed in the film (as a whole). Hoping against hope that promoting Evan Landy's point of view helps the public perhaps take the film 0.01% less as gospel than they would otherwise. Mike's a real alternative kind of guy.

If Landy's blatant ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR only strikes a "probably" on the Mike Standards For Abuse Meter®,  what type of abuses to Brian do you think Landy would have had to do to get a "hell yes" from Mike?

Your statement "No one is disputing that Landy's over medication did untold damage to Brian" is not really true; Mike is ever so slightly disputing it by quantifying it as "probably", leaving a seed of doubt that the untold damage was not going too far. Let's just all agree (I know you do agree, Mike's Beard, and I am glad you have said so) that this was really unacceptable, icky verbage which should not be defended (but continues to be defended by approximately two people on this board, who cannot seem to find fault in that verbage).

Thanks CD.

There are some people whose speech pattern is such that they understate consistently, they hedge on everything. Some people say “probably” about something they firmly believe, but their personality or pattern of speech is such that they have to be overly-humble and hedge. You know, the sort who would say “I think it’s probably a bad idea to shop lift” or something.

However, someone who in the very same paragraph offers an emphatic “hell yes!” doesn’t fit this pattern.

This is the same sort of grudging partial agreement stuff we see quite often. Random example: The interview bit with Mike from “Endless Harmony” where he’s talking about Smile-era stuff and says that “some people” like that stuff. That is most assuredly not an untrue statement. But it sounds like a guy who has to grudgingly admit that some people like it, knowing that it’s not the type of musical vision *he* had for the band, and was written largely with a co-writer who was not him, and a writer that he had issues with to boot.

Thanks for your kind comments about my Mum.

Of course, the M&B Beach Boys have changed since 2004 - not a lot though since 2014, when I last saw them.

I'll say it again: Mike battled Landy publically back in the day when it needed to be done. That his opinions in an interview 25 years after the fact don't match our wording or our concept doesn't mean he has to be written off as a jerk. And may I remind you the crap that he, along with Brian's family including his mother had to endure back then.

A book that appeared under Brian's name treated Carl as an alcoholic and blamed him for Dennis' death (i.e. delaying treatment with Dr. Landy); it went as far as removing praising of Carl in the segments it plagiarized from other writings; and Mike is portrayed as a giant-turd-shitting bully. Those people had to endure some utter crap themselves, and while Brian was the real victim of the situation, those things are hard to overlook, specially under the light of Brian's tight-lipped silence the last couple of decades as a previous poster mentions.

A 1991 People mag article may illustrate some of the points here.

Lovely thoughts from Brian to his mother:
"The fact that my mother is involved against me in this conservatorship suit really scrambles my brain... I hate to say this, but I don't think she loves me." And does he love her? "Somewhat," he replies.


Mike's take on Landy, which is not that differet from his statements in the 2015 interview:
Mike Love agrees—to a point. "Gene might have saved his life," he says, "but he went from psychologist to life manager, and that's way beyond the bounds of standard ethical procedures." Particularly rankling to Love are the facts that Landy has become involved in guiding Brian's musical career and that Brian will not write or record with the Beach Boys. "Gene doesn't want us around Brian, because were he to record with us again and be successful with the Beach Boys, it would prove that he doesn't need Landy anymore," says Love. "Brian has been with him since 1983 and hasn't had any success, while we've enjoyed one of our biggest records [the vapid 1988 hit "Kokomo"] since then." Love, who very much wants to collaborate with Brian again for a much-needed Beach Boy renaissance, adds, "The thing about Landy is that he has all the ambition of a rock musician but none of the talent."


And Landy's opinion on Mike. I'm sure many here will sympathize with the lyricist of Smart Girls:
"Mike wants commercialism, and Brian wants art," says Landy. "Mike would write a song about the Vietcong if he thought it would sell. Mike still wants sand, surf, sun and screwing in his songs. Brian grew out of that phase in 1966 with Pet Sounds."

Regarding various contrarian views about the movie:
Doesn't the movie in fact dedicate screen time to the "pro-Landy" viewpoint? We get (1) a scene in which Paul G., as Landy, says something to the effect of "Brian was 300 pounds, and I saved his life." They may not have used the term, "saved," but that's the viewpoint. (2) A scene at the restaurant in which Cusack-Brian says something like, "I made a mess of my life, drinking and drugging, and I was a bad father." Brian's character doesn't say "Mike made a mess of my life," or "my dad made a mess of my life." He puts the blame on himself.

Perhaps people like Landy's son and his sympathizers wanted scenes in which we see Brian in the foul state he was in. It was the filmmakers' choice (with the assent or encouragement of "BriMel") not to include this stuff. Hypothetically, a Brian Wilson movie could have been made that bludgeons the audience with human misery, but that wasn't going to work either artistically or commercially. This is a PG-13 movie; a lot of grim stuff couldn't therefore be presented, including anything even approaching accuracy in the depiction of Brian's childhood.   

I think it would help your case to avoid using continual references to the 1991 book and other things that occured while under the care of Landy.

The fact that one of the *few* things that almost everybody here can agree on is that the Landy situation was horrendous and abusive and coercive and criminal kind of undercuts the continual use of Brian's "actions" while under the eye of Landy as examples of Brian being as much of a d**k as Mike comes across in some interviews.

That Mike quote above also isn't, in my opinion, the best quote to use if one is trying to contend that Mike was most concerned about what was happening to Brian medically/mentally. Granted, it's the author of the article's characterization and emphasis, but it implies that Mike is more concerned with Landy stealing Brian away from the Beach Boys than he is concerned with how f-ed up Brian is due to Landy's abuse.

Landy and Mike are cut from the same cloth in regards to using BW for their own ends.

Every viewpoint doesn't always deserve or warrant equal time and consideration. It's a false equivalency. Even if they were making a documentary rather than a drama, it doesn't mean they'd have to give a huge amount of time over to the one good thing Landy did. The "Endless Harmony" documentary, while brief, handled this situation as diplomatically and fairly as such a documentary possibly could. Brian got better initially, and then everything else was a nightmare. When you do factor in that L&M is a film and is the vision of the director more than anybody else, then it makes even less sense to dwell on something that will disproportinately make the antagonist more sympathetic.

I disagree, Mike is showing that not only was Landy an unethical "psychologist" and "life manager" but he was also a crap creative/business partner deceiving Brian.

Still defending the usage of "probably", Cam? You're ok with the implication that there's still the possibility for a little bit of doubt that Landy's abusive actions were quantifiable as "going too far"?

That maybe, just maybe, Landy didn't go too far? Is that what you are saying?
 

Of course. Nobody said otherwise. It’s right there in the interview excerpt (not sure where that older interview comes from). What the author of that interview/article implies through emphasis (“particularly rankling”) is that Mike is most troubled by the business stuff and Brian being kept away from the group, rather than being most troubled by what Landy was doing to Brian medically/mentally. As I said, it’s only that author’s emphasis, and I specifically only mentioned that this was not a good example to use if one is trying to advocate that Mike’s main or only concern in terms of Landy was Brian rather than how Landy impacted Mike’s relationship with Brian.

It unquestionably was all bad. That Brian was kept away from the BB’s was certainly a piece of evidence in the picture. But I also think Mike may have always had trouble ever admitting, certainly in the last 30-35 years, that Brian at any point has not *wanted* to work with Mike or the BB’s.

As I’ve previously mentioned, it was a good three or so years *after* Landy was gone before Brian did anything approaching substantial work with the Beach Boys.

I think we'll all agree that Mike isn't exactly the best cousin or business associate.  But to my knowledge, Mike has never done anything as malicious as Landy that caused physical harm to Brian.  

True, I meant that both wanted to use BW for their own ends of being a equal songwriter partner.

(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-10/12/8/enhanced/webdr07/anigif_enhanced-32026-1413116603-9.gif)

I have to say, Cameron Mott is probably the worst poster in the history of this forum.

What if Brian responded to further reunion questions this way: "Reunite? Maybe. I want to. Mike's a great guy and I miss writing and singing with him. But he's not really into commitment, you know? He's been married five times."

And not even just once.. what if there was a variation of this theme throughout every interview for years. I'm guessing it'd get old to a LOT of people.

Gotcha. 

I wonder how it is Mike even read Evan Landy's comments and knew them well enough to discuss them? They're only a week old, in a UK publication and they don't seem like the kind of thing you'd randomly stumble upon.

It would be just as untimely and out of place as mentioning Brian's actions that led to his divorce in every thread that deals with love, mercy, healing and such.

We know that Mike sometimes looks at this board.  Perhaps he even frequents it.

Which is why when we post about him we shouldn't say anything we wouldn't say to his face.  Well maybe that's a little extreme.  But still, expressions of "he just doesn't get it" should be tempered with gratitude and an attitude of peace.

That's it!  The world needs Mike Love Not War!   :)

Is it not sad Mike Love shows more affection to Wrinkles than to Brian, his own relative who made Mike the millionaire he is today?

I get the sense that some of the stuff Mike says about Brian in interviews is different from what he would say to Brian's face.

That isn't to say many if not most people aren't like that.

But if Mike truly went back and read and weighed the opinions of fans on this board over the years, he’d see that most of the “negative” stuff about him went away during 2012. There’s a reason for that. A bit of humility, compromise, “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” thing, all of that, melted away a lot of the grudges and negativity (both warranted and unwarranted) from some of the most cynical, crusty fans imaginable.

That’s an interesting question. I think it potentially speaks to what Mike is reading, and/or what is being sent to him, and/or what type of information he seeks out and cites.

It’s not some big conspiracy theory that Mike read an interview/article online. But citing that particular article smells to me like the same sort of scenario that led to him referring to “autotune” in that Beard “interview” several months back. I think that sort of stuff, stuff that reflects negatively on Brian, is either being sought out or being referred to Mike by someone.

I fully agree. If people laugh at your posts you are doing something wrong and you might wanna rethink your strategy a bit. You know in advance what the posts will say because they are always the same:

- Where you there?
- Do you have a source?
- Someone else did something similar at some point
- It's someone else's fault (like the interviewer's)
- Mike actually meant something else

99.5 % of the posters here are taking aback by Mike's Landy comments. About 4 posters aren't and guess what - no one's surprised about that.

*koff*nobody*koff*

He was the best

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.
[/quote]

I think he mentions Brian to add legitimacy to the show, not out of any great love or gratitude to Brian.  The same as he likes to mention his 'friend' George Harrison.  He thinks it makes him 'cooler' in the eyes of others.  Just like he name dropped Brando in the latest interview.  Insecurity for some reason, feeling the need to wear a hat with 'The Beach Boys' on it so that people know who he is. Look at the recent GMTV appearance in the UK.  Would a casual fan know who the Beach Boys were unless the 3 of them had matching hats on?  

How come he doesn't mention the Beatles doing drugs in interviews.  Why does he constantly mention it when talking about Brian.  Brian did nothing that loads of other musicians at the time did, yet he won't let it lie.

Mike just doesn't 'get it'.  He's just not famous enough or cool enough unless he's wearing a hat or mentioning Brian or name dropping the Beatles and the breakfast table in India. Blah, blah, blah.  I reckon most people on here would like to have a reason to like Mike but he makes it tough!

His recent comments also reek of McCartney calling Lennon's death, "a drag"!

Mike's numerous divorces never had an impact on the band creatively or commercially. It would be irrelevant for them to be brought up constantly. Like it or not, Brian's drug and mental health problems are a big part of the Beach Boys story and while there are times when it's not necessary for Mike to bring them up, there are other times when it's unavoidable not to touch upon them.

Now I would stop right here.  You have misinterpreted a flimsy newspaper article...  The man himself said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lopW9DJ-sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lopW9DJ-sc)

I'm just not up to getting into this discussion except to note my private theory that Mike's guardian angel, or guardian something, each month allots him a certain amount of intelligence and sensitivity that he can use just as he wants - but once it's used up, for the rest of the month he's going to be doing his utomost to prove that everything OSD says is correct.  This past month, the quota of intelligence and sensitivity went into singing AIWD (and presumably giving Ambha pep talks during end of semester finals) and after that....well, this interview.

http://www.lesfilmfestival.com/2015-judges-1/

But since the interview arose from Mike being a judge of a film festival....the above link shows the other judges.  Parker Posey. Laverne Cox, the trans lady from Orange Is The New Black. You just have to wonder what Mike's conversations with them are gonna be like.

What did I misinterpret?  He said it on TV.  It wasn't a journalist misquoting or without hearing the way he said it.  Do I think he cared about it and was in shock.  Off course, but it was still one of those crass moments that Mike is prone to.  Another reason why Beatles fans have it in for McCartney but love Lennon, even though he could offend people too.

Nevermind.  I understand now.

Defending it? It has a meaning * adverb - very likely ; almost certainly * which Mike used to explain his understanding. Did you forget that Mike defended Brian against Landy's villainy back in the day?

That's the whole point of the outrage...Mike is upset with Brian for whatever reason, and thus is now defending the man he was once so vehemently against!

McCartney's "It's a drag" comment was said in anger at the scum-of-the-earth reporters who ambushed him as he was walking to his car and shoved cameras in his face. Like "What do you a**holes expect me to do? Break down and cry for you on camera?".

"Beatles fans have it for McCartney but love Lennon"...No, nearly every Beatles fan knows it was a flippant comment aimed at scumbag journalists. Anyone can watch the clip, and see McCartney is pissed off and doesn't want to talk.

That may be the case but I always see the 'Brian did drugs' as a dig. It had a 'set start and a set finish' for me. Its ancient history.

Another comment. If Mike feels Brian is so effected by drugs both illegal, prescribed by Landy and his ongoing regime today, how would he feel if Brians decisions of say, the last 30 years, being looked at? Shall we start with the licencing agreement of 1998?

I'm honestly going to defend Mike here.  I think we are taking this interview way out of proportion.  Remember this video: (go to 2:44) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56ecdZ1-As (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56ecdZ1-As)?  It clearly shows Mike's disdain for Landy and his psycho roadies.  

This new interview did show that Mike was hiding a lot of emotion with his words (except the "hell yeah" because clearly that bothered him a lot).  I believe by saying "probably" he is becoming a bystander.  Mike brought up Evan Landy because clearly he knew more about Brian and Landy's relationship more than Mike himself did.  It's a rather weak attempt to dodge a question that is difficult to answer.

These observations present the following questions:
What of Brian and Landy has Evan seen?
Is there anything his father has kept secret (probably, absolutely if you count the illegal prescribing of pills)?

However, THIS quote, "But, guess what? He also saved his life." bothers me.  To try and remain fair to Mike, I assumed that Mike was present with Brian throughout all his stages of addiction in the '70s and '80s, and at this point wanted Brian to get simply healthy and fit to perform.  Mike is also presenting a reliable truth that cannot be questioned: Dr. Landy forced Brian to lose weight and quit drugs.  These actions, no matter how forced they are, saved his life and stopped him from collapsing from all the drugs and food.  I believe simply Mike is trying to justify Landy's hurtful actions to the family and Brian.

All I can conclude from this is... thinking hurts and this whole situation is mind-boggling.

True. He was better prepared when Harrison passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9jKLiVjok4

I plead guilty to occasionally getting visceral about Mike's antics. I'll still say it - anyone who agrees to write the preface for his autobiography is going to get pulled down in the mud with Mike. If you don't care, so be it...but don't say we didn't warn ya, because sure as Christmas, he's going to sharpen the axe and fling some mighty BS when it comes time for the book. Guaranteed.

Some said we should temper our remarks in case Mike is reading this thread. I won't. I kind of wish a journalist on one of his numerous "Dinky Town Gazette" interviews would go Mike Wallace on his ass and ask some tough questions. And follow up for god sakes...don't accept the spin. The revisionist history from this two faced egomaniac.

My self righteousness has to be tempered somewhat, because hey...'he's already lost the fight'. Back in the halcyon days of Kokomo as well as the 90's, Brian was treated as almost a spirit - he's out there, but he's not with us tonight. Another poster mentioned this some posts back; he's very much  with us these days, and has been since Imagination. Common perception is that both bands encouraged each other to go further, to push the envelope in a matter that was never the case in the 80's/90's (with the exception of the acoustic set in '93). C50 saw Brian get a well deserved spotlight from the audience, and he responded...which must have killed his selfish, self absorbed cousin. Since BWPS, TLOS, and now NPP and L&M, he continues to occupy front-and-center in the public consciousness. Is he fully engaged all the time and capable of embracing this scrutiny? No...he's not McCartney. But he does just fine, thank you, with the support of his loving wife and extended musical family.

Meanwhile, we've got this snarling jackal pining for the 'old day's' and fun, fun, fun. No one takes you seriously, Mike Love. No one, except a small, battered fan club, officiated by Cam.

All kidding aside to Cam, the Hollywood/music business system doesn't take Mike seriously. They DON'T. The Ella award was nice, but it's like participation award in the greater scheme of things. No one cares Mike. Develop some perspective. Develop some humilty, and maybe they will.

Seriously doubt it though.

True, and he had just spent time with Harrison. It wasn't like George's death came totally out of the blue like Lennon's did. 

McCartney is not a guy who reacts well to surprises, and that's going all the way back to childhood if you know your Beatles history.

I did not forget that Mike defended Brian against Landy's villainy back in the day; in fact, I brought that up in another earlier thread, in saying that if Mike had his way, he might have wanted a scene of that in L&M. So I am well aware of it, and I think that's a good stance that he took then.

What I am perplexed by is why the current interview's question of did Landy go too far over the line could possibly be answered as "very likely/almost certainly" (to use those synonyms of "probably" which you mentioned), instead of "absolutely" or "certainly". As I mentioned a moment ago, that leaves the window open for the possibility that maybe there is a slight chance that Landy in fact did not go too far. THAT is what I am getting at; THAT is what people are completely perplexed by, and even typically staunch defenders of Mike in this thread have seemed flabergasted at such a term that leaves the window open for thinking that maybe Landy did not go too far.

Do you feel that for Mike in this current interview (regardless of older Landy-bashing interviews) to use a light term like "probably" is perfectly acceptable and NOT worthy of criticism/questioning?  Because it seems you are not criticizing or questioning the usage of that "probably" word whatsoever.

Again - I am talking about the word choice in THIS interview, NOT an old interview.

It's not hard to just say "yeah, maybe that was too light a term that Mike used; maybe a poor choice of words". Is it really that hard to say that?

Just to play devil's advocate...there is a possibility Mike was being facetious when he said 'probably'.

Not saying he was, just throwing that out there in interest of fairness.

If that's the case... man, what a ridiculous move to be facetious about such a sensitive topic.

So, in your cosmos, it's acceptable to consider a 90 minute outdoor meat & spuds GH show as broadly equivalent to a three hours plus indoor show that delved deep into the catalog when considering whether or not to attend the latter . 33-odd songs as opposed to nearly twice that number. What a strange world yours is.

Defending? Mike said Landy was guilty on every count just as he did in the past.

Then, wouldn't that invalidate the 'probably ' part?

As for the Mike interview...meh. It's stuff he's said a million times over. He clearly doesn't want to go down in history as the one guy who hated "Pet Sounds". The reporter misrepresented his character in the film to him, Mike hasn't seen it, so it was a conversation about basically....nothing.

Obviously Mike mentioned that he read Evan Landy's interview and presumably softened his comments about Eugene Landy for a reason. Was it done out of sympathy for Evan? That's how it appears to me. Was it a great PR move at a time when Landy's cretinous behavior is now being discussed by people who wouldn't have known Gene Landy from Tom Landry before they saw the film? Clearly not.

Nah, he wants to go down in history as the guy who found fault with and questioned the acid alliteration lyric words for the album after Pet Sounds (which he proudly owns up to doing), and who has a couple steadfast followers who oddly can't bring themselves to follow in his footsteps to even remotely question words.

Shouldn't that be what Mike's fans do? Question words that are of questionable appropriateness? His fans (all both of them) should do what 1966 Mike would do. Be like 1966 Mike and question away! If you're a troo fan of Mike, you'll learn by example. Untroo fan alert if you don't.

(Tumbleweeds blow by)

*smile Brian sleeps*

When Mike visits the Lower East Side Film Festival, will he take the time to view and/or comment upon Love and Mercy?

Probably.  :smokin

Funny how such a busy, busy guy who is so engrossed in bringing fun, fun, fun to all the fans doesn't always have time to post online - although he does have time to read a rambling article on the Daily Mail. That he DOES make time for. Will he sense the blowback and attempt to clarify his stance in a future interview (and only succeeding in digging himself deeper into the mud)?

Probably.  :p

Just watch the damn movie and listen to NPP Mike! :p

i took a walk and sat down on the lawn...something something something sprinklers went on...

Oh come on now...that would take 5, maybe 7 minutes  of his time to hear some tracks. Time best devoted to a scintillating response from Evan Landy in the bloody Mail.

HEY KIDS! It's FUN! It's VIRAL! It's WHAT'S HAPPENING! Twitter goes BANANAS!

#probably

You'd have to ask a Mike fan. I'm a fan of The Beach Boys, meaning I've been exposed to dubious comments for the past 30 years from various members but...strangely enough...they never affect my enjoyment of the old albums. Mike's comments about VDP's lyrics never made me like those lyrics any less. Brian saying he hates his performance on "Let Him Run Wild" never stops me from thinking that it's possibly the very best singing he ever did. As I said, this interview was same old same old. The biggest takeaway I got it from this interview was this idea about doing remakes of old hits with guest artists, which I don't think can even happen legally. Why there aren't 10 pages devoted to discussion about that? That's a hell of a lot more interesting than people flying into hysterics and dissecting how and why Mike used the word "probably" in a sentence.

Good point, and I don't think it can.

Based on the UK shows Andrew? Both M&B and Brian raise the bar there. A bit early to tell but I have a feeling the setlists for the US tour this summer will be pretty close to those of last year.

I thought about the mention c/o the covers Album, and the first thing that came to mind was something along the lines of the NASCAR tribute release. Anything else would certainly be in violation of the license.

The other thing that got me at the end was the sheer enthusiasm about how 'we're gonna do THIS, and we're gonna do THAT...' He thinks it's 1992 all over again, and the world is waiting for the next Mike Love release. It's a little odd, to say the least.

Out of curiousity, when did Mike and Co. last perform a comparable set list in the states? I would love to see one of those wide ranging euro shows, but Mike seems not to do them over here.

Why don't they get some country stars to re-record those hits?

....oh. ;)

Check out the slate of US shows this summer for Mike and Bruce. Wonder which venue will be the lucky recipient of the UK setlist?  http://www.thebeachboys.com/#go_page_2607 (http://www.thebeachboys.com/#go_page_2607)

Hang on...August 2nd, Fort Wayne, Indiana. My sources tell me that they will perform SMILE in its' entirety.

There would be nothing prohibiting Mike from re-recording BB hits (or any other published song) by himself or with guest artists. He did that with the "Union 76" gas station album and the Adrian Baker car dealership CD.

What Mike can't do is call any such album a "Beach Boys" album, which I'm sure he knows.

Why Mike thinks this is a good idea, I haven't a clue. Maybe nobody showed him the sales figures and reviews for "Stars and Stripes."

Meanwhile, Al recently said he's working on "Runaway" back at his studio.  :-\

So you know what, maybe these guys need Brian and Joe Thomas to write them an album of songs! Worked relatively well in 2012.

Let's go doo dah! :lol

And I would assume some who are 50/50 on seeing Mike's shows have misgivings that go beyond the setlist. Mike's band is tight and professional. But some folks place more of an emphasis on seeing actual Beach Boys sing this stuff. I think, believe it or not, I'd rather see Al Jardine sing "Help Me Rhonda" for the millionth time than Jeff Foskett or Scott Totten sing "Surf's Up."

Darian and Scott Bennett are awesome, but I'd just as soon see Brian take their spots back and give them to Al or Blondie or himself.

This brings up something that probably deserves it's own thread. When was the last time the Beach Boys were a functioning rock and roll band on stage and made major instrumental contributions to the sound coming over the PA system (in other words, THEY were the band you were hearing, not an army of sidemen)?

Recipe for generating a thread with more than 10 pages:

(1) Find a public figure who said something like "The Americans probably landed on the moon", "Lionel Messi is probably better than anyone who plays for Scunthorpe United" or "Dr. Landy probably went beyond the bounds of therapy".  

(2) Keep defending or trying to explain away that use of "probably".

Nothing to it, except for step (1). Oh, wait.

I still love the old records. The high art all the way down to a good deal of the lard. I truly dig Kokomo. I still have affection, believe it or not, for about 50% of SIP tracks. I think the convo continues because it's baffling how some people want to defend the word "probably" when it's indefensible in context, and those defenders keep using roadblocks and diversions to avoid dealing with that truth.  Cam, for example, is backed into a corner of trying to explain why he agrees with the parameters of possibility (however remote) that Landy did not go too far (which "probably" implies) and remains silent to mine and Billy's last questions posed to him. He doesn't want to say that Landy maybe just maybe might not have gone too far, but he also doesn't want to disagree with Mike, hence the conundrum. 

#probably

Does it really have to be either / or? I mean, Al and Blondie are members of BW's group this summer.

By would anybody be surprised by this?  He never has any problem saying what is on his mind. It is just unfortunate that the Wilson drug consumption occupies a major portion of his thoughts.

Mike being such a devouted TM advocate, drugs are like mustard on ice cream.

Do you guys have money riding on this or something? (that's a joke!)

Well at least Mike and his entourage have achieved their objective. Like when NPP landed, smoke and mirrors people, take the focus of Love and Mercy.

Only here on this board. Mike's interview hasn't registered a blip in the real world.

MOST of the "real world" hasn't got a clue who he is. ???

But then...that's the problem.

1. He doesn't comment on the reviewers perspective because he never denies the bickering. He just goes into a tangent about how he thinks people think he didn't want Pet Sounds released...and where he got that idea is beyond me.

2. Then why even bring it up?

3. Your post to EoL still makes no sense. You didn't need to be at a Landy therapy session to understand that changing your patients will to make you the main beneficiary is overstepping the bounds. Not to mention that Brian was visibly PHYSICALLY and more MENTALLY damaged under Landy's care. Saying "probably" to overstepping the bounds is ridiculous when faced with the obvious.

But defend away, Cam. As usual I was not disappointed by your solid logic and hard hitting points.

Well let me return the compliment because nothing you have said makes sense to me.

You think Mike Love is never wrong- we get it Cam. ::)

Not in my dictionary.

Cam would have such a better experience in the "Vibe Room", doncha think? He could rub shoulders and set up shop with myKe luHv, br00th and all his loyal devotees there and no one would question anything he says. Go ahead, Cam, there's loads of room over there and like the others there you only have to post once every 2 or 3 months!   :tm :tm :tm

And, that, my friends, is why we're not getting anywhere. It's like describing a rainbow to Stevie Wonder...not going to happen no matter how hard we try. I don't know how else to spell it out aside from getting out the flash cards and sock puppets. My God, man...all the years I've known you on all the various BB boards. ...you used to be one of the most intelligent, well-spoken posters on any of the boards. Seriously...what the hell happened to you?  I'm seriously at a loss here.

And for the record, lest I be accused again of being anti-Mike, let me spell it out...I always give credit for credit is due. I'm on of the few people who *like* Looking back with Love, and I have an immense dislike of Imagination (although not as much as Orange Crate Art, which IMHO is the worst thing featuring vocals by a BB member apart from Going Pubic)

Going Public is a hidden gem. You can feel the mic stand in every song.

Different strokes for...whatever Sly said...

I think OCA is outstandingly brilliant and helped pave the way for an improving Brian.  Van Dyke to the rescue.

That other 'thing' makes my skin and teeth crawl.  And once I heard Celebration...I never ever celebrated again.  But I do like many of Mike's tunes with the Boys...including his spoken word 'Beaks of eagles' thingy.  Well done.

But the guy needs a PR person so badly that he's...like...murdering himself.  It's not suicide.  But it is.  He's a business guy.  He's written some good lyrics.  He worked out well for the Beach Boys in a variety of ways as a singer.  But as a deep thinker?  Not unlike many of us...ol' Mike needs some guidance.  And he needs it a LOT more than the average Joe.

Maybe he can't or won't take direction.  In that case...all bets are off.  Otherwise...his foot looks like a piece of Swiss Cheese [with toes] from all of the holes he's blasted into it..  Somebody take that poop-shootin' scatter-gun away from him.

The fact that Cam Mott is a real person is so awesome guys. I love that there is this guy somewhere in America who is obsessed with the bald, paunchy, nasal, insecure, occasional lead singer of The Beach Boys. I'm glad somebody like that exists. Admittedly there are many, many, many nutty Brian Wilson fans. A whole lot them probably, you know? Because Brian Wilson is a household name. He gets Hollywood movies made about him. He still gets signed to major label record deals. Writes near entire albums that are still going at least top 40, but one went top three! He's asked by many musicians, young or old to contribute to their music still.

Then you got Mike Love. Well....he fronts a band called The Beach Boys. That's neat. Hits on lots of women on tour as we've heard. I'm sure a few of 'em must say yes. Hears his group's songs in the movies he goes to see. So that must be enjoyable too. However, when he records new stuff these days, he can't get it released unless Cousin Brian is involved in a big way. Or unless Union 76 gas stations or your local Canadian Dodge dealer wanna put out some of his new masterpieces. He definitely doesn't get movies written about him, unless he can get Uncle Jessie Katsopolis (or is it Jessie Cochran? Why did this pretty average uncle in late '80s San Francisco change his last name between season one and two? Also, if he didn't why was his parents last name also Katsopolis later in the series? Did they all change their names? Or was Cochran a pseudonym? Seems ol' Uncle Jessie was confused) to make him a TV movie. But shoot, even that concentrated on Cousin Brian, even if it made him look like some type of idiot savant. Plus everybody is so mean to big bad Mike Love online. It's not fair. I mean, "ontor pertwast" and "CenturyDeprived" obviously are nationally known figures, and how dare they talk about Mike Love like they do! It's not fair!

So that's why we need Cam. He makes up for all the tough shakes Mike keeps getting. He will go to lengths that no rational, sane person would do. Probably.

Cam, did you have any reply to my above response to you?

Oh I get everything you guys are saying but it makes as little sense to me as you fellas so graciously claim I make to you.

Stay classy fellas, once again making it personal. (slow clap)

Probably. Which one because I wouldn't want to not reply to every one of your responses?

Did I say you make no sense to me? Read my post again.

What makes no sense to me, is that the Cam Mott I used to know wasn't like this. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but I remember reading your posts discussing Smile back in the day and being quite impressed. I was like 'this guy really knows his sh*t'. That Cam Mott wouldn't be posting some of the stuff I've had the misfortune to read lately.  I'm not even convinced this *is* the same person, and not somebody using the same screen name.  But assuming it is...

You are seriously the only person on the board for whom Mike can do no wrong. He could go out and shoot video of him eating kittens alive, post it up on YouTube, and you would still think he walks on water. Even the biggest Mike defenders here can at least admit that this wasn't his best moment, and that he made a mistake in his comments. Except you. I get it...we have a few people here who are completely anti-Mike, and he can do no right in their eyes. So, you're the polar opposite. I get that. What I don't get is why. What makes Mike (or anybody) so special to you that you have to blindly worship him to the point where you can't admit his faults?  Or, is it just to be contrary, because you enjoy the debate and back-and-forth, and love see people get annoyed? I honestly want to know.

So yeah, I posted what I did, because you'd be surprised how many people here would throw a party if you weren't here, because they think you're just trying to start sh*t. I posted what I did to basically say 'guys, it's not that, it's that he just doesn't get it '

I really hate to say this, because I hate to have any kind of compassion or sympathy for landy and his cronies, but at the end of the day...a son loves his father. Maybe Mike saw that in evan's comments, tried to empathize with it, but just worded his thoughts very, very poorly.

I can see that. I can see him trying to also state that we shouldn't take out our (justified) hatred of Landy out on his spawn, but doing a piss poor job of it. Those who were actually around, though, when Evan was in the picture, seem to disagree. The fact that he was made up to resemble Brian in that picture, though, gave me the creeps (although I have no way of knowing if that came from the Landy seed or from the rag that published the story)

I wonder if Mike had any actual interaction with the Landy-spawn?

Remember when Brian and landy had matching blonde hair? That photo of evan dressed as modern day Brian is like a creepy and twisted version of Groundhog Day.  ;D

Glad Alexandra Morgan didn't have the same dysfunction...I'd hate to see THOSE lookalike photos!

I didn't attend the latest Beach Boys shows because with every additional interview Mike does in which he yet again reminds us that Brian did drugs I feel less prepared to support him.  And  every time the band plays I'm told it's better than last time and I go and it still isn't to my taste.

I didn't know the set list in advance and even now I do,  most of those songs are from the first 5 years of the band's career or trying to emulate songs of that period (eg Getcha Back, Goin' to the Beach etc).  And it's the way in which it is presented too. Did they have the infernal beach balls? Mike's stage persona seems to have toned down a bit from what I've seen. Again I couldn't know this in advance but it wouldn't have changed my mind.

As you can see, I wrote that the M&B Beach Boys had not changed a lot -  the band, not the set list. Randell Kirsch has gone and Brian Eichenberger has been added.

Here's Brian's response to questions regarding Mike Love (from this interview: http://icondv.com/interviews/brian-wilson-06-2015.html):

Is it fair to say you’re done with the Beach Boys after that last tour, and with the way that Mike Love dismissed everyone, aren’t you glad to be rid of them?

Yeah, that’s true, we’re done with the Beach Boys for now. I mean we might make another album at some point, who knows, but for now we’re over.

Talking about the Boys, in the film Love & Mercy, Mike Love comes across as a controlling jerk. Did the director Bill Pohlad portray him accurately? Did actor Jake Abel?

I don’t think he’s a jerk. I do believe that he was portrayed very well in that movie.


He was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic.

He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

I love this bit:

"Talking about the Boys, in the film Love & Mercy, Mike Love comes across as a controlling jerk. Did the director Bill Pohlad portray him accurately? Did actor Jake Abel?"

"I don’t think he’s a jerk. I do believe that he was portrayed very well in that movie."

I don't doubt though that Brian still has affection for Mike. They're family and the relationship is a complex one. It is probably easier for Brian, who grew up with Mike, worked with him for years, knows him far better than most of us do, to forgive than for those of us who have no relationship with him to soften our feelings. Brian does seem to have an incredible capacity for forgiveness too. Look at the things he has said about Eugene Landy. Even if Brian was suffering from a Helsinki Syndrome kind of reaction, it's now years after the event and Brian still seems sad rather than really angry.

That peculiar moment when Cam Mott becomes the topic of dicussion...

What's peculiar about it? The board consensus is his posts are weird at best and no one ever agrees with him (except for the usual 2-3 posters - the self-proclaimed "obejctive fact-based moral minority").

I don't think it actually is an either/or situation; I don't sense anyone in Brian's band is counting how many leads each guy has. My idea was more of a theoretical. *If* it actually meant we'd get more leads from Brian, Al, or Blondie, I'd be okay with losing the leads from backing band members.

I feel like, with Brian's band, there's even less need to have other band members sing leads when there are two additional capable lead vocalists (Beach Boys to boot, and who are prominently advertised on promotional materials) in the form of Al and Blondie.

Some falsetto bits are a bit different I suppose, as various touring iterations of Beach Boy bands have been using surrogate falsetto vocalists since the early 80's.

I still sense we're not literally getting an unfiltered Mike though. This isn't like Brian crossing out the "Great" in "Thanks for the great music" and writing "Good" instead when signing Don Henley's CD. That's strikes me more as an unfiltered guy who has no agenda; that's just how he is. Whereas, Mike's interviews strike me as much more calculated in offering sometimes blunt points.

Isn't that true of about 99% of what's discussed here?

When was the last time Mike was a big media story? Hrrrmm. I'd guess in September 2012 when "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson" was a top "trending" and "tweeted" topic.

Holy s**t, those are not only lucid, thoughtful answers, but they’re dignified despite baiting from the interviewer to say something bad about Mike.

Again, Brian is being both more dignified *and* smarter PR-wise in taking the high road.

The Beach Boys/Brother collectively need a manager to get *all* of the guys to take the high road like that. A manager should be there so that a Mike Love interview reads like this:

Question: The “Love & Mercy” film has been getting a lot of attention lately. Have you seen the film, and what do you think of it?
Answer: I haven’t seen the film. But I wish Brian all the best with this film and with his upcoming tour.

Question: Drugs quite negatively impacted you and the band over the years, yes?
Answer: Drug and alcohol abuse hurt a lot of people and a lot of musical acts over the years. Thankfully, all of the Beach Boys are well past that stage these days, and we’re all healthy and active.

Unless Mike is repeatedly misquoted, he is either badly advised or he doesn't listen to it. A few answers like your suggested ones and Mike would see a change in people's perception of him.

Those would be the answers of a respectable man. As many times as Mike has been interviewed throughout his career, it should be such a simple thing by now.

C'mon guys. This role playing is the ultimate BB-nerd trait. Devoting time to writing toy-scripts for Mike Love is a little too much. He's 74. Nobody changes at that age; he'll keep being like he is. Take it or leave it. He's capable of graciousness kindness and warm-heartedness too, as proven so many times. He's a cool guy by accounts of the many fans that meet him. But he'll rub these Brian-related topics on people's noses forever.

I guess the PM function of the board is not working or something....?....

Ang - it is impossible to "script" someone else.  And the drug issue "poor outcomes" among the band was discussed and "agreed upon" by the BB kids during C50 during some performance with Cal Saga.  I think it is a "given" that the use negatively affected several band members.  One of the charities that the touring band supports is City Year.  These are young high school grads who take off a year and work as mentors in inner city schools, where a great deal of the kids are what I'd call "drug orphans."  Many of these kids are those whose parents OD'd and are living with grandparents or extended families, or are in foster care, in process of adoption.  

For example, if the kid doesn't show up to school, the mentor calls the home and encourages the child to come into school, late or not.  Then, they tutor them for tests or help them catch up to be on grade level.  Some of these kids have witnessed their late parents high, psychotic, or have woken up to find them dead.  That is the reality.  Having taught decades in this demographic, this program that Mike supports, for this fragile population of students, to give them a swing at future success, shows that it isn't just "lip service" about substance abuse.  These kids might otherwise be "throw away" kids, many of whom have been the "collateral damage" of drugs.  I'm not convinced that the position Mike appears to hold, is a bad one.  And I also think that, in seeing the potential of people evaporate, from drugs use, or other "self-medication" it is a real point of frustration. But Mike is showing financial commitment to a school program that I have seen firsthand, actually work, and not full of a bunch of fakers, and truly help some of the poorest kids I've ever seen.

In the ICON interview Brian calls Mike a "good guy."  He must know.  They share common ancestors.

What I think reading any of Cam Motts responses:

(http://wanna-joke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/funny-picture-dog-leash-bench-neck-resist.jpg)

I'll get back to you on this.

Meanwhile, I have my days. I'm not published but I've done original research. Not just Google research and bloviating as fact but the kind where you write to courts and businesses for records and documents and talk to the actual people involved on the phone and by snail mail and e-mail and meet them for lunch in person. I've done my homework.  I'll put my contributions on the various iterations of this board up against any of you who so publically hold such strong and dismissive opinions of me.

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist.  ::)

Um, yeah, I don’t think anyone is actually trying to roleplay or write scripts. But there are a small number of folks here who seem oddly incredulous about why most everyone else feels Mike comes across as a total tool in this recent interview (and many others). So, in a quick attempt to offer a vague idea of what *would* be a response that would theoretically be more agreeable, I offered the above.

And, the larger point was that if there was a MANAGER for the *entire* band, working to keep the band and brand in good standing, they’d ask or train Mike to give answers more like the above and less like the interviews he typically gives.

The thing is, I typically don’t enjoy answers that deflect and don’t answer anything. I’m actually *not* big on the “let’s just talk about positive stuff in the future” sort of responses. But Mike comes across so poorly in many interviews, I think such answers are the only way he could manage to not damage his own reputation to say nothing of damaging the band’s brand.  

I think it's more than just the "probably". It's that he entertains Evan Landy's viewpoint as being valid, is familiar with the article AND still hasn't seen L&M or heard NPP. It doesn't add up.

But the context is the guy asked two questions about the story/portrayal in L&M and Mike hasn't seen the movie (he was in England it has been pointed out) and Mike comes back with a story related to the story/portrayal he has seen. How do we get from that to he suddenly is supportive of Landy contrary to his public stance. I suggest he is not and it is not in his words.

Well, maybe he just shouldn't say anything at all then.

Ah yes, which one of us hasn’t longed for the inevitable “Cam Mott” thread! Cam Mott, an anagram of “Tom M. Cat.” Coincidence? I think not.

Cam, as many of you aware – I restate for the young folks – was born in Dodge City during its raucous Old West heyday. Bill Hickock called Cam – then known as Doc Halliday – as the deadliest pistolero in the country. Cam became disillusioned with his life in Dodge and moved with his mongrel pup Bosco to Hutchinson, Kansas, where he first became acquainted with Bill and Edith Wilson and was to learn everything he would need to know about parsnip.

During the great California migration, Cam lived for a time on the beach, making a modest living reading palms and Tarot cards. His prediction to a very young Murry Wilson that the youngster would “take a side-step in the music business before enjoying greater success as a one-eyed jack of a business manager” had a great impact on the young Wilson and was instrumental in the latter’s relocation to Hawthorne, a move dictated by numerology.

Cam was a restless man, though, and moved to San Francisco, where he became a much-praised haberdasher. His insistence that striped ties could work well with checked shirts at first drew him derision but later caused him to be celebrated throughout the San Francisco fashion scene.

Cam became acquainted with Jerry Garcia and invented a tie-dye process that was to become quite the rage. The Grateful Dead often called Cam “our fifth Beatle,” though Cam misunderstood and became enraged at being considered an insect.

But Cam’s contacts in the fashion and music businesses brought him to the attention of Mike Love, and he designed the Beach Boys singer’s first turban. Mike was quite impressed and invited him on a band tour where he lectured on the benefits of pure cotton as a warm-up “act” for the Boys. The tour was unsuccessful as the “hip crowd” was deeply into polyester and saw Cam as “square” and the Beach Boys as “out of it.” The Beatles’ “Polythene Pam” is widely seen as a caustic answer to Cam’s – and by extension, the Beach Boys’ – love of cotton. Al Jardine’s “Cottonfields” re-make was cited as evidence by the cognoscenti that the striped-shirt surfers and their fashionable guru were “no more with it than an accountant from Schenectady (see Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man.”)

Cam calmly invented the cooking spray “Pam,” subtly but devastatingly answering the Beatles and becoming a billionaire. This dagger is often cited as the true reason for the break-up of the Beatles, and Cam lived with Yoko for a time during Lennon’s affair with May Pang.

Brian Wilson loved Cam, who taught him how to tie a proper Windsor knot, and it was Cam who boxed Gene Landy during a charity event at the Hollywood Bowl, blacked his eye and caused Brian to tell friends, “This Cam is some fellow.”

Cam disappeared from the music scene for a time – some think he was in Tibet, gaining enlightenment, but there are credible reports of his having been spotted in Vegas with Maureen McCormack, the erstwhile Marcia Brady. We might never know, though his influence on the lyrics of “Brian is Back” are clear, so he wasn’t as absent from the Beach Boys scene as some have suggested.

At any rate, I find the Cam story fascinating, and I find his contributions to the message board immensely valuable. The idea that he is a Mike Love apologist is, of course, absurd. Courage is required to take an unpopular position, and every conversation benefits from balance and the ability to consider all sides. That we do not agree with a position does not force us to slough it off as being invalid.

An old man and incontinent, my viewpoints in recent years have moderated on many subjects, and I am far less likely to joke about the invaluable product “Depends.” I have the silly notion that the word “probably” is creating entirely too much angst. I am far more troubled by the seeming support of the younger Landy’s contentions.
 
The nuance of meaning of the tricky little adverb “probably” is worth recalling – a definition that encompasses the words “very likely.” I doubt that Mike Love has significantly changed his position regarding the elder Landy. I do, however, think that by pointing out the younger Landy’s interview Mike is making an attempt, perhaps unconsciously, to create some doubt about the accuracy of the film’s viewpoint. I find that understandable.

Mike Love is neither absolute saint nor absolute sinner. Ironically, his cousin Brian seems most to understand this. The Wilson brothers weren’t alone in being damaged by Murry Wilson.
Cam’s comments – whether we agree are disagree with them – add value to any discussion of the Beach Boys history. His is a great reservoir of knowledge and insight. If he is absent from the mainstream in his views, the value certainly increases. The mainstream would have demanded more songs such as “California Girls” and “Salt Lake City.” Cam finds himself in the “Heroes & Villains” camp, and I say bully for him.

The fact that Cam makes this time while also working for the CIA as an Arabic interpreter only adds to my admiration. Tom M. Cat indeed!

That is an option but maybe the problem is us.

Now I have to kill you Hank.

Would you perhaps consider instead sacrificing my fourth wife, Pearl? She has a particularly annoying hacking cough.

I guessssssss..... ::)

>TFW the last five posts of this thread have been more entertaining than the rest of the thread combined

Like Brian said;, Itch my ass Mike, It's been bothering me for years. Cam it's suddenly gone!

Mike gives interview in which he makes himself look bad.

Cam turns it into a symposium on the definition of a word.

The only way to win is not to play.

Cam Mott - the Baghdad Bob of the Beach Boys community.

I'm not seriously suggesting that we provide Mike with a script.  I just think that if he had worded his remarks in the way suggested he'd have irritated fewer people. Nor am I endorsing drugs. But it isn't necessary to mention what Brian did years ago in every interview. Brian doesn't go over Mike's failings on a regular basis and I am sure  there are many things Brian could say if he wished. In fact by coming across as jealous of his cousin, Mike arouses a lot of hostility towards himself. He might be able to raise even more money for charity if he had a more charitable attitude  towards his cousin. The  'he partly brought it upon himself' implication in that interview was IMO ill considered.

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads. He's respectful and well-informed. The frustration in the anti-Mike crowd because they cannot convice him that Mike is the devil is highly amusing. So are the self-praising introductions before spilling crap on Mike ("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).

Turning a thread about the greatness of a UK tour setlist into an anti-Mike raid was one thing; turning one a about an interview into a Cam Mott chase is way too much.

Ang, you recently derailed a thread about the UK tour with ill-informed comments. It's easier to expect greatness from other people, I know, but you didn't come out too good yourself either.

True. Challenge and debate Cam all you want but there's no need to attack him on a personal level. Speaking of which, Cam it's clear that Mike has always loathed Landy for what he did and I don't believe that he no longer does BUT if I'd never have heard of The Beach Boys or Landy or Mike Love before yesterday and I'd gone in cold and read that interview, I honestly would have thought that Mike was at least open to the possibility that Landy has been painted in too harsh a light.

Attacking the person making the argument is a logical fallacy. Prime fodder for the Brianistas.

Also no one seems willing to mention the elephant in the room so I might as well. Does anybody else think it might not be so much a case of Mike softening his stance on what Landy did and more a case of him unwilling to publicly give too much credit to Melinda, who from what I can gather is pretty much portrayed in the movie as the sole person responsible for ridding Brian of Landy?

That's another way to think about it. Gotta give Carl (especially Carl) his own due for trying to get the situation resolved. The other Beach Boys, of course. Audree as well.

She's not. The movie shows Carl and Audree involved and the closing text makes it clear the Wilson family intervened. Let's not pretend the film is something easier to knock down and attack, ok? Maybe Mike and some of you guys should watch it first before jumping to conclusions based on trailers and weird obsessions with Melinda Wilson.

This is the obvious point: Mike is expressing sympathy and understanding for the man was long-term plan was to kill Brian Wilson. No amount of parsing can make that go away.

It's not easy being Gene, y'dig.

I've only been on my Beach Boy kick for a bit over a year now, and that right there makes me very much a non-expert in pretty much everything Beach Boy related.  A year and a half ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you their names.  Once I decided to take advantage of the internet and learn as much as I could about the Beach Boys, I had what could be described as a Beach Boys Blitzkrieg.  It didn't take long to notice almost every Beach Boys video had "FU, ML!" in the comments.  I also noticed that whatever he was accused of, I could not find evidence to back up most of it.  And sometimes I'd find rather contradictory evidence.  Some of the accusations, yes, I did find was true.

Eventually I came to my own conclusion, that being he and I would probably never be the best of buddies, but he's definitely not the Antichrist.  At least to me, his most glaring fault is that the filter between his brain and his mouth is pretty darn near non-functional.  He thinks it, he says it.  He doesn't like something, he says it.  If he keeps his mouth shut, his body language says it.  Frequently that means he doesn't take the time to perfectly word his thoughts, as in this case.  He would have done much better to have taken a fraction of a moment to think of how to say what he was thinking, but that's not the way he functions.  He thinks it, he says it.  In certain ways, Mike's even more transparent than Brian is.

It's when his alpha-dog personality is thrown in where most of his self-induced trouble comes from.  In most bands, the alpha-dog personality would BE the band's leader.  A band leader with a faulty brain to mouth filter would be less noticeable because there have been plenty of THOSE in just the last thirty years.  But an alpha-dog personality forced to work under the very least likely personality to actually BE the leader?  Mike can't choose to have that personality any more than Brian could choose to listen to the world in mono.  Mike's need for control and recognition is a very real need for him.  He's not choosing to need this kind of stuff.  He needs it because his is the kind of personality that really needs it.  But fate dictated that Brian would be the walking song catalog looking for a studio to happen in.  This was the one band where Mike would have to suppress his own personality to exist in.  An alpha-dog personality just can't be suppressed for long.

Now, what Mike DOES have control over is how he reflects over things.  This is where he rubs me raw.  His faulty brain to mouth filter may preclude thinking about something for an extended period of time before saying it, but it doesn't stop him from continuing to think on something.  Deep thought isn't the sole province of the introspective.  Mike has had plenty of opportunity to examine things for the way they actually were and not just only what he personally saw.  His need for recognition does not preclude the ability to examine his own actions.  But because of years of "FU, ML!", he is simply refusing to acknowledge that he's been less than perfect and that anything he's ever said or done has ever been a negative to others.  In his 20s, he was just too inexperienced in life to try and understand personalities that were not his own.  In his 70s, he's being a stereotypical stubborn old man in refusing to see himself in anything other than a good light.

He reminds me of Broud from The Clan of the Cave Bear.  Everything Broud did, according to Broud, was perfect.  The very few cases where Broud was confronted with his less than perfect self, it simply didn't matter anyway (Broud showing off his less-than-stellar ability with the sling to Vorn) or it was someone else's fault (Brun preventing Broud from beating Ayla to death).  Oh, Mike's dislike of SMiLE doesn't matter anyway.  After all, he never said that he didn't like it.  He was just the singer, he didn't even have lyrical contribution.  It was Brian's baby, and Brian's the one who dropped it.  And it's not Mike's fault because what he actually did has been blown completely out of proportion, misinterpreted, or simply made up.  Mike, in actuality, has been absolutely perfect.  /sarcasm

He's so stuck up on his pride that he is just not allowing himself to look at reality.  And of course, whatever he thinks, he says.

I dunno.  This is just my own take on Mike Love.  I admit I could possibly be wrong.  As I said before, I've only been Beach Boying for a little over a year now.  Not enough time to be competent in anything Beach Boys.

tl;dr - Mike Love is not the Antichrist.  But he is too stubborn for my tastes.

Edit: Grammar.

Sure I can see the first part.

RE. "harsh": Everything could always be more something I suppose but he was critical and he still is critical is my point, he's not excusing Landy then or now imo.  

+1

Well, your view seems to be the minority one on this thread. It doesn't matter that you don't think so, most everybody else (even some long-suffering Mike defenders) come away with a bad taste in their mouth from this gibberish.

He's most definitely taking it easy on Landy and directing readers to his son's paid shilling for the THE WORST NEWSPAPER ON THE PLANET. Because a movie he hasn't seen is rubbing him the wrong way. Rubbing him raw enough to forget what a horrible thing the Landys did to his cousin.

 I'm sure it'll work out well for him and he'll build up a lot of goodwill this summer continuing that tact. I look forward to reading your increasingly surreal defenses of this twisted, jealous man.

PROBABLY.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, just thinkin' out loud which can't be any less constructive than debating the context of the word 'probably' endlessly or stating for the 'nth time what an asshole Mike Love is.

Thing is, you're wrong. Did you see the movie? Then don't say dumb sh*t like "from what I can gather is pretty much portrayed in the movie as the sole person responsible for ridding Brian of Landy."

That's just flat-out wrong. They indeed include Carl/Audree/Gloria and the ending text makes it clear what happened. Don't try to blur the lines and change facts to suit your argument.

I hereby declare that "probably" now can have any manner of definition. If you disagree, you're a definitionist.

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

Fact check: The only ones who could legally intervene in such a situation were family. After the issue of the changed will and estate of Brian Wilson was discovered as hard evidence, they did. And in that situation, again, they were the only ones who had a legal ability to take the matter to the courts.

Before one expands or tries to analyze how Melinda is portrayed in the movie, my advice would be to do two things: Read Ray Lawlor’s post outlining what Melinda did, how she was involved, etc. Then, actually *see* the movie.

As I’ve said elsewhere, way back when the movie was first being discussed, I wondered if it would be Hollywood-ized as far as Melinda’s role. But then I read Ray Lawlor’s post (and I can’t fault people, prior to Ray’s post, for *not* knowing the intricate role Melinda played; I don’t believe it had been outlined in nearly so much detail before then; not even in the books from Timothy White, Peter Ames Carlin, etc.).

Now cross-referencing the actual movie after seeing it with Ray’s post, I think one could argue her role is downplayed in the film due, if nothing else, to the time compression that has to take place. In the film, Melinda’s serves in part as the movie audience, or an outside person looking in on the crazy Landy situation. She has a relationship and interaction with Brian of course, and that’s the “personal” side of the story. But part of what happens is what any “outside” person would experience when exposed the insanity and horror. She doesn’t really have an overt “saintly” portrayal in the film. It comes across as what any concerned person would try to do; first they would try to simply talk Brian out of leaving Landy. Then they realize the mental, emotional, and legal roadblocks involved. Then they try to reach out to family (calls to Audree and Carl are depicted in the film), and try to use their role in Brian’s life to try to find enough evidence to get Brian extricated from Landy. The film also directly portrays that Melinda divorces herself from a personal relationship with Brian before/during/after the extrication occurs, and only later runs into him again.

Clearly I haven't seen the movie as it's not been released over in the UK yet. I have read that Carl is hardly in the thing and as he had a large part in removing Landy from the picture thought that maybe he might be glossed over somewhat.

Mike's Beard, then don't say dumb stuff like "from what I can gather." You've read Ray and HeyJude's posts, right? They are pretty easy to understand. He isn't glossed over. Stop trying to turn the movie into something easier to attack without even seeing it. You're doing the same thing that guy you grow on is doing!

Why bother engaging Cam? We know the routine by now. Convoluted logic and then when you nail him on an obvious point that most people might say "hmm good point, fair enough," he just refuses to answer and makes a big stink about how he doesn't have to. He doesn't debate in good faith and never will give an inch. For all his talk about "research," it's incredibly dishonest stuff that would be laughed out of any serious debate. There's a reason he's not published, and it's not his winning charm and personality!

One thing he doesn't do is make Mike Love's actions remotely more comprehensible or sympathetic. It's just a useless distraction. Let him parse "discuss/talk" and go on at length about "probably" off in the corner. The only people he's convincing are those who had those opinions in the late 90s already. That's obvious.

It might be a logical fallacy if the person in question was actually making any arguments.

Where to find this post for lazy people who are me and shall remain nameless?  General location will do.

The person in question made an argument and people insulted him. That's a logical fallacy. Probably, anyway.

I'm not trying to attack the movie, that wasn't the point of my post at all. Put your boner for all things Melinda away for a second. My point WAS - and I'll try to word it better this time - could Mike's dislike of Melinda have reached the point where he's willing to somewhat downplay what Landy did to try stop Melinda being perceived as Brian's savior?

Hey Mike's Beard, give it a rest. You were wrong, ok? Factually flat out wrong. Maybe revisit your utter wrongness when you see the movie, ok?

As to your question: of course. He's meanspirited, vicious, and loves digging the boot in. Of course his hate of Melinda Wilson outweighs decades-old grudges against Landy for mainly money-related reasons. Why else would he be trumpeting the paid ravings of Evan Landy? But you're both wrong. She's not depicted as his savior.

Skip the boner talk, it's tedium squared and makes you look desperate.

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18166.msg474575.html#msg474575


http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18166.msg474575.html#msg474575

Maybe I should have used the word 'probably' in there somewhere?  ;)


This coming from the guy who has two forms of communication - sarcastic and very sarcastic.

My issue in all of this is a basic one. There have been several posts this past week about Evan Landy, with suggestions that his "perspective" should be considered equally alongside that of Brian's wife, or others who witnessed what went on. I'm kind of amazed to read that, and I might appeal to common sense at some point to look at the source.

On one hand, you cannot equate who was basically a paid employee tasked with keeping an eye on a doctor's patient with one's own spouse or family. No matter how close or personal some might suggest the employee (and doctor's staff in general) may have gotten to their patient (Brian Wilson, obviously), there is still a combination of medical, legal, and ethical guidelines in play as that doctor was paid to treat his patient. Anyone on that staff could have become as close to the patient as they might claim in a personal way, but they were still employees and bound to a certain set of ethical and legal codes of behavior that are strictly monitored and regulated by any number of overseers and legal authorities.

I've said before - the nuclear bomb of an issue that destroys each and every claim made by any Landy associates is the changing of that will. Under even the most forgiving standards, a doctor in this type of employ cannot change a patient's will as was attempted by Landy.

Consider Landy's son and this recent interview that mysteriously appears the very week the film has its premiere. And somewhat less mysteriously, the issue of the will was *never* mentioned in that interview and article. Instead, we get a defense of Dr. Gene Landy from his son. Spot the elephant in the room? It's sitting right there if you want to see it.

This man stood to become one of the benefactors of Brian's will and estate had Melinda Ledbetter and Gloria Ramos not intervened as they did. They needed proof, but did not have the legal authority to act on it - only the immediate family could take it further. And once they were contacted, they did through the legal system.

If anyone can show otherwise, put your cards on the table.

So to see even a mild suggestion that a man's "perspective" who stood to benefit from what most would consider an immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal action of changing a patient's will to write out his own family and replace them with his doctor and his family (and associates)...it absolutely boggles the mind, or at least my mind. It makes no sense.

And to further see that a man's word who was defending such actions in a tabloid interview that appeared out of nowhere and ignoring the key issue that prevented him and his family from taking another man's estate and life's work is being *referenced* as something to consider in even a slight way...

It's maddening. And the reactions of fans and observers and anyone who knows the story beyond a tabloid article would seem to be expected, and not unjustified. Unless there are those who would place on an equal footing the words of a paid employee who was witness to all kinds of abuses of power and authority versus a man's own wife of several decades.

And it may suggest an extreme form of scraping the bottom of the barrel to hold up something like last week's tabloid interview as worthy of consideration.

It's worthy of scorn and dismissal.

What is it that you claim as support for your opinion on Mike on Landy in this interview? 

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Repost as necessary to set everybody strait! 8)

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Oh, so now you want to take a shot at me? You're picking the wrong person, son.  I happen to NOT be anti-Mike. Despite you wanting to throw '("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).' back at me, it happens to be true. My frustration happens to not be 'I'm trying to convince Cam Mott that Mike is the devil', but rather his complete unwillingness to admit that Mike made a mistake...like, ever.  Same frustration I've posted when certain people always criticize Mike to the point of never giving him any credit. So don't try to turn that against me. You're just making yourself look foolish. I mean, for f***'s sake, even in this very thread, I posted that maybe the way many of us are reading Mike's statement is wrong. Before you take a shot at me, make sure you know what you're talking about first.


Why is it people have to be 100% pro- or anti- anybody here? God forbid anybody respect both Mike AND Brian. God forbid someone criticizes either one of them when they deserve it.

If one needs to resort to asshat logic to defend something is that something really worth defending?

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Mike's book is going to be pure gold. That thing will guarantee that this board doesn't run out of pissy, sniping threads for years to come.

Hope you guys have lots of Mountain Dew...the threads on here will go on far longer than a World of Warcraft raid.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

Cam.....seriously....Mike's comments were lame and seemed to be intentionally meant to discredit the movie. There is no logical reason to bring up anything by Evan Landy and reference it in a question about the movie. None. If he knew that clown had come out of the woodwork and made comments about Gene in a tabloid rag then he knows the vast majority of people that have seen the film have immense praise for it. So why then does Mike have to say something that will obviously be taken as antagonistic? Most of the time when people go off on Mike around here it's unwarranted. In this instance he deserves the flak.

Or the cassius vs. sonny thread here. ;)

I guess you haven't read my numerous "Wrinkles" posts.

Nope.

You've just officially outed yourself as a troll.

Absolutely amazing.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Mr. Hero, if that really is your name, refresh my memory please: what is your "logic" on the subject again?

Boy that really stings.  (yawn)

I'm going to call the cops.

See how it works? No cards to play, no hand to show, nothing to discuss the actual issues behind the discussion...so it reverts to filibustering and discussing/debating what amounts to nothing. Distraction. Jolly good show.

Paul, I understand your point of view, I just respectful don't agree for the reasons I've given.

I'm starting to think I need to spend my Friday night doing something else.

Billy Castillo! Born to opulence in a Philadelphia gone by, when the waltz was king and young ladies and gentlemen of substance attended grand balls, often disguised as karaoke enthusiasts, Billy spent his school days starring both on the lacrosse field and in theater, once in the lead role of “The Music Man.”

Life has for us, of course, it’s peculiar turns, and Billy, embittered after receiving a B- in advanced calculus – he felt, probably correctly, that he had earned a B – decided to leave his posh boarding school to make a living as a stonemason. Here he learned that “probably” doesn’t cut it.

“Have you correctly set the stone, William the Rock Man?” a weary foreman asked him. “Probably,” Billy said, and he was relieved of his duties so quickly he wasn’t able to enjoy the salami and blue cheese sandwich in his lunch bag. And it was on pumpernickel!

Billy joined the surf circuit where he taught a young Dennis Wilson to “shoot the curl” and to do it again and again – an event that no doubt informed Mike Love’s brilliant lyrics to the song “Do it Again.” Billy is thought to be the inspiration for the timeless “Denny’s Drums.” In fact, there is some evidence that a portion of the drum solo was played on Billy’s chest. But he has been cagey when asked about this.

Billy and my third wife, whose name escapes me, were an item for a time, though most likely only in my fevered imagination. Paranoia is a sad and difficult condition.

As Evan Landy recounted in the recent biography of his father – “Only His Hair Was Unfair” – Billy confronted the corrupt doctor in Brown Derby, demanding that he reinstate the weekly McDonald’s Quarter Pounder to Brian Wilson’s sparse diet – a bold move that Carl Wilson immortalized in “What More Can I Say?” the opener of the youngest Wilson’s second album.

But Carl’s solo ambitions worried Mike Love who blamed Billy, at least in part. Carl tried to exonerate Billy in the song “If I Could Talk to Love,” but these were pressurized, suspicious times, and Billy was fully forgiven only when Mike happened upon him just as he was selecting “Looking Back with Love” from a cutout bin in a now-closed Target.

Billy began managing Love’s career and was largely responsible for the cut “Cam Mott” on the still unreleased “Country Love” album. “A man who sells trousers/philosopher, carouser/he’s everything that you’re not/the legend, the winner, the part-time muleskinner/the outwardly inwardly thinker of thoughts/the prophet and poet Cam Mott.”

Billy’s dalliance with Kathy Gifford provided fodder for the tabloids and prompted Love to sever their professional relationship. Love felt the publicity could harm the band’s commercial prospects. Still it was Billy to whom Love confided, “Man I could really go for a cold Jax beer.”

One can imagine Billy’s surprise when he and Cam Mott showed up at the same Beach Boys message board. The two agreed to hide their past relationship as they felt that it would cause too many threads to be devoted to their fascinating stories.

Consider their shock when Hank Briarstem – the man they both dismissed as “no more important to the Beach Boys’ career than ‘Santa’s Goin’ to Kokomo’” – found his way through a haze of booze to this gathering! The jig, as they say, was up!

Now I must have a nap.

:lol

In every possible interview Mike mentions:
1. Brian's drug-taking
2. His own lyrical input
3. Time in India with Maharishi and the Bealtes

In every possible thread some posters mention:
1. Mike ending the C50
2. Mike's lack of support for Smile
3. Wrinkles, or Kokomo, or the RRHF speech


Obsessions and fixations do that to you.

Do people really still make fun of “Wrinkles” regularly on this board? Or “Kokomo”?

I also think people long ago stopped pegging Mike as the sole/main source of the demise of “Smile.”

The R&R HOF speech should rightly be criticized (though folks like me largely find it hugely amusing more than a critical point against Mike), but again, I don’t see it being brought up much.

The only one of those topics that still regularly gets batted around is C50, and again, it’s pretty legit complaint, and it’s still a relatively contemporary issue, and the most controversial and yet on-topic thing that has gone down with the band as a whole in eons.

I’d also say that what fans discuss should not be compared to what Mike says in interviews. We’re fans of his band, and this discussion board is for such discussions. We react to what the band and its members do and say.

The venue, motivation, and standard to which comments should be held are *entirely* different when we’re talking about Mike versus fans/posters.

Not trying to "sting". Why are you saying "nope" to a question? Because you know there's no way you can answer it and still have any semblance of a "point".

What reason can you spin for you not answering it? Oh, I know. Because it's not relevant what we are talking about, so you have decided you need not answer it, and that's that. You have no point, and EVERYONE knows it. At this point you are just messing with us, and that's the definition of a troll.

Why I oughta string you up by the Beer Nuts.  Gawd dang it Hank, we are trying to have serious Mike opinionating of extinction event level importance.   

I stopped listening when you called me a "troll".

Did someone offer Beer Nuts? Why yes, I think I shall.

Great point IMO; well said.
  

Not according to the guild I'm in.
Pug healer.  Healer doesn't even meet minimum for Highmaul Normal.  Healer quits after first boss.  Pug second healer.  Healer does even WORSE.  Healer quits after second boss.  Raid leader calls quits.

Your guild must lack the proper amount of neckbeard required to play WoW! :lol

I'm buying! (behind my hand: because they're free: wink)

I think I still owe you for that "Arms" Akimbo album, "Not With My Wife You Don't",  that you sent me by AirMail that Winter of '01.

I wondered where that thing got off to. Ah well, no great concern. I have been ensconced in the magnificent works of Slim Whitman and can hardly listen to anything else. Did I mention that I was the inspiration for Denny's Drums? It would be nice if the film had acknowledged that, but I am persona non grata since the falling out with Alan Boyd.

These Mike debates... ::) ...No one wins.  They're the same every time.  The points well made are lost in thr ooze of the minutia.  And next week we'll come up with a brand-spankin'-new way to do it all again.  AND we insult people we'd probably enjoy spending REAL time with just to reiterate the same meaningless points falling on the same deaf ears and tired eyes week in and week out.

Cam's a good guy and most everyone here knows it.  Mike needs guidance when it comes to PR.  Duh!!!  Brian doesn't have a mean bone in his body.  Surprise!!!  We have twice as many chances as might be the norm this summer to catch some great songs performed LIVE by people who know how to do it better than ANYONE ELSE in the world.

I'd say we're well off...although perhaps a little childish from time to time.  So it goes.

[Mike's a dink. ;)]

See what I mean?

[Well he is. :lol]

A very good possibility, given a full third of the raid shaves their legs instead of their faces.

Nah, I'm still going to go with stubborn old man with a malfunctioning brain to mouth filter.

So they're metrosexual neckbeards! :lol

Yeah, they're the same every time because when a point is made, the same people just stop responding to questions, instead of admitting that a point is made.

You will RARELY see that from the other side. And there's a reason for that. And if someone tried to pull that move on the supposed "anti-Mike" side, I myself would call that out as ridiculous. It's not about what "side" one is on. 

In any type of debate, it's the most ridiculous, ham-fisted maneuver to just say "nope" and refuse to answer a question, and to do this repeatedly. I can't imagine anyone winning an actual proper, moderated debate if they used this type of hollow tactic with any regularity. A politician trying this maneuver would be laughed out of town. It's truly the most chickensh*t move one can make in a debate.

Would anyone on this board, regardless of political stance on various Mike subjects, actually vote for or have any respect for a politician who repeatedly refused to answer questions in a debate?  You'd know clear as day that they were avoiding something.

Please keep these posts coming!

How'd you find out?  You must have mind gangsters!   :o   :lol

I never should have f***ed with the formula... :lol

I think a lot of you are missing the point.  I mean we kind of have an idea of how bad of a state Brian was before Landy initiated the 24/7 intensive program.  Obviously I don't think its up for debate about the methodology of Landy's "program", clearly it was unethical and dehumanizing to Brian.  Having experience with family members who have had mental issues stemming from questionable upbringings and addictive behaviors (somewhat similar to Brian's past) I would say some people with mental illness do need 24 hour care to get back on their feet.  What happened to Brian because of Landy, was inhuman and criminal, but I would argue that Landy does have a hand in the reason of why we all get to celebrate Brian and his music.  

The point I think mike was trying to make was, Brian needed help, Landy as terrible as he was, played a hand in helping to keep Brian alive to this day.
 

Except that is not the point at all.  In the 80s/90s, as Cam pointed out, Mike spoke definitively about Landy, saying, at least, that what he was doing was disgusting.  He has downgraded this definitive language to probability, which, though Cam refuses to admit, is, by definition, less than certainty.  Further, Mike makes all of his "hell yeah," "yes", and "probably" comments... And then says, "But guess what? He also saved his life".  No one is disagreeing with what comes after the "but", the fact the Landy saved his life, it's what went what before the but that is repulsive - leaving the door open for less than certainty in regards to what Landy did.  Probability, no matter how close it comes to certainty, is not in fact certainty, Cam Mott's stubborn insistence to the contrary not withstanding.  Mike has modified his stance for one reason or another and has also decided to lend credence to Evan Landy's opinion.  That is what is at issue, not whether or not Landy helped save Brian's life.

EoL

I could just turn these last points around and name check you as stubborn and contrary as the only thing like evidence in your post is the first part, which exonerates Mike, and the last part is just your opinion which does not square with your first point. So how about everybody stop getting so snooty and cut out the name checking and the snotty tone? Just make your point and back it up if you have anything.

They have been.

Probable:
1. likely to occur or prove true:
He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

Certain:
1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure:
I am certain he will come.
2. destined; sure to happen (usually followed by an infinitive):
He is certain to be there.

Mike used to speak with certainty, "it is disgusting", not probability, it *is* disgusting.  Now he speaks in terms that mean less than certainty, "probably".

EoL

Billie: "And, that, my friends, is why we're not getting anywhere. It's like describing a rainbow to Stevie Wonder...not going to happen no matter how hard we try. I don't know how else to spell it out aside from getting out the flash cards and sock puppets. My God, man...all the years I've known you on all the various BB boards. ...you used to be one of the most intelligent, well-spoken posters on any of the boards. Seriously...what the hell happened to you?  I'm seriously at a loss here."

I was going to get back to you.

I remember what you used to be like too. My opinions are no better or worse than yours or anyone else's on board. I don't agree with you and your opinions and ways sometimes either. I've also never called you or anyone out like that.

Yes, he still denounces Landy.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

Very shocking, when his other posts in so many words (or not) are just "Nope."

"Yes, he still denounces Landy."

Must be when you guys talk in private, cause he doesn't in that article.  Maybe ask him to publicly clarify the next time you guys chat...

No, I addressed it. The semantics are a distinction without a difference imo and we disagree and as I said the only thing like evidence so far is Mike's denouncement of Landy.

That is not all they have been as per my point.

Lolz.  My bad, I must have missed that part.  Lemme' go back and read what you wrote again...




Nope, still not seeing it.

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

SB, you have been spending too much time with Doe using that language.  ;)

Senator Cruz, let's throw all the probably sh*t away. Let's get down to the fact that he brought up Evan Landy. Why do you think he did that? Just cuz it was in his head, or maybe because he wanted to give more attention and credence to what Evan was saying? Do you think Mike gives some credence to what Evan was saying? Or does Mike think Evan's defense of his father is just as pathetic as what Evan's father did. Cuz it sure dono't seem like it.

Hey, he is rising above fuckwits,shitweasals, and trolls.... ;)