Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[Wirestone]

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.

[Douchepool]

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

[Komera]

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.

[Cam Mott]

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.

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.

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.  

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.

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

+1

[ontor pertawst]

he's not excusing Landy then or now imo.  

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.

[Mike's Beard]

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?

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.

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.

[ontor pertawst]

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.

[Douchepool]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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?

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[HeyJude]

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?

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.

[Mike's Beard]

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.

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.

[ontor pertawst]

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.

[Wirestone]

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.

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

+1

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

[Komera]

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.

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

[Douchepool]

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

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

[Mike's Beard]

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!

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?

[ontor pertawst]

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.

[Cam Mott]

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?

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

[Robbie Mac]

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

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.

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

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

[Mike's Beard]

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?

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Cam Mott]

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.

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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?

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

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