Questions you'd like to see addressed in Mike's book

[Cam Mott]

OK, they are even.

[CenturyDeprived]

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech.

This definitely needs to be addressed. Has Mike spoken about it in any interviews since? It was a horrible moment. Funny that a well timed joke by Bob Dylan was what saved the day, but for Mike that incident did a hell of a lot of damage.

His odd style choices over the years I would like to see discussed at least in passing. I've been watching the Old Grey Whistle Test clip of Mess Of Help a lot recently and you can't look at him there and not think, "Ok Mike, please explain."

I want to hear his vision of The Beach Boys through the years. What he thinks the band should have been compared to what it was at various stages. His relationship with Dennis....

As long as he's honest it can't fail to be an interesting book. I'm not expecting 'the definitive truth about The Beach Boys', just the definitive Mike Love version of events.

It's a shame that so much of this thread reads like a shitty Comedy Central roast of Mike. One where the only roaster is Kathy f***ing Griffin.

A huge part of the craft of a frontman is presentation -- how to command the stage, how to costume yourself. Mike has struggled with this, especially in the 70's. How do you transition from sole lead singer to just one of 5 or 6 leads, while maintaining your role as frontman? The other guys have instruments. What does Mike do while Carl sings lead -- dance the Watusi? Bang the tambourine?

And Mike was in such a weird position. Initially, he's lead singer, and a pretty good one. Then it turns out that 2 of the guys singing backup -- Brian and Carl -- quickly develop into great singers, indeed 2 of the best that pop has ever produced. Where does this leave Mike's role in the band? Does he begin to feel superfluous, especially when he's no longer chief lyricist?

These are the types of topics I'd be interested in reading about from Mike's unique perspective. Anecdotes about meeting celebrities, not so much.

That's a very good point, and I feel bad for Mike, when watching him in late 60s/early 70s footage (like Never Learn Not to Love live on a tv show, I cannot recall the name of the program), where he looks a bit sad without much to do but stand and sing a bit. I'm sure he missed being the frontman, and had no real instrument to fall back on. Sax wasn't something he was super versatile with, so it was just the odd tambourine or theramin here and there.

I wonder if Mike ever had the inclination to learn another instrument that could be used in the BB live show? Other than seeing a few odd pics of him with a guitar, I don't know that he ever showed the urge to bring any instrumental contributions to the table at the time his frontman role was at its most marginalized. Maybe if Endless Summer hadn't happened, and the band continued on the Jack Rieley progressive road, perhaps Mike would have found other ways to be more a part of the show (other than just singing).

[Autotune]

Interestingly, I don't think his role as a frontman was ever challenged. Even as the other guys got more leads. Partly because he had a major vocal role on so many recognizable hits. And partly because none of the other guys, including Dennis, were up to doing it. But this whole issue is one that would be nice to see analyzed in the book.

[harrisonjon]

Scott Wilson's book claims that Mike hit him on one occasion for messing around in his kitchen. Does Mike believe physical chastisement is OK and, if so, how does that square with belief in TM?

Does Mike regret how he treated Shawn?

[Kurosawa]

I don't expect to ever get anything from Mike but the usual stuff. It's the narrative he's lived by for years, nothing he says or does will change people's perceptions of him for the better, and there's nothing to be gained by going away from it.

One thing I don't get is why he was bothered so much by Brian writing with other lyricists. You can't do songs without lyrics, and Mike was on the road. It's not like they could skype in 1966.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

I don't expect to ever get anything from Mike but the usual stuff. It's the narrative he's lived by for years, nothing he says or does will change people's perceptions of him for the better, and there's nothing to be gained by going away from it.

One thing I don't get is why he was bothered so much by Brian writing with other lyricists. You can't do songs without lyrics, and Mike was on the road. It's not like they could skype in 1966.

I, and at least several others, have communicated that we would think much more highly of him if he just stopped putting others down, using the same talking points, and admit his own faults/regrets. I'm sure many casuals who don't post here would feel the same way. Indeed, I'd argue all the "f*** Mike Love" comments on YouTube videos and wherever stem from not just his faults but his lack of remorse and seeming lack of empathy. If he were to admit he was drunk at RRHoF and said some dumb things, I think a decent number of us could give him a pass as we all make mistakes. But you ask him what he regrets most and he WILL say something more to the effect of "well, I regret how Brian did lots of drugs--Dennis too. He would be drunk during concerts a lot in the Seventies" and its that combination coupled with his lack of humbleness and self-awareness that makes people who might otherwise give him the benefit of the doubt start to hate him. Rightfully so, in my opinion.

Nothing to gain? Well...his legacy I'd say. One interview where he admits mistakes won't do much at this point, but his book could do a lot. Maybe not to the many who are set in their opinion, but the few left who genuinely want to give him a chance, as well as future generations stumbling upon the band. They might notice the older fans hating Mike and want to hear the man's own words. If it's a heartfelt, warts and all, setting the record straight book, they might come away thinking this Mike Love guy is seriously misunderstood. But a self-serving puff piece that rehashed the talking points, puts the Wilson's down unnecessarily and treats Kokomo as the grandest achievement in rock history would rub those people (anyone really) the wrong way. Unlike some of these interviews we link to, this book isn't going to be forgotten. It will stand forever more as *his* worldview. If he comes off as as big a megalomaniac as he does in those interviews that'll be how he goes down in history. This is probably his last chance to paint himself in a good light with people. I hope for his sake he doesn't blow it.

Edit: He was bothered by the other lyricists because he saw it as a threat to his position. He undeniably has a big ego (I think even the defenders would concede as much) and wanted to be the star. How could he be, if someone else is getting all the credit and glory? I'll say that I do feel sorry for him in this regard. Again, I know firsthand how bad it hurts when you think you're close to someone and find out you're not really part of their inner circle. And then to have *that* album, out of all of them, be their defining work, the only one that's even talked about amongst the casuals...that's really rough.

[Niko]

After you sober up...

FYI, I've been sober for about thirty years, which is why your infantile comment is both insulting and pretty much what I'd expect from the likes of you.

Here is a comment you made just last March, directed at OSD

Post that again when you've sobered up and it might make sense.

How infantile and insulting, to be insulted by a comment you yourself have made!

[Bicyclerider]

I want to hear Mike discuss in depth how his being follicularly challenged has impacted his mindset, philosophy and career.  Did he ever consider a toupe?  Did he realize how ridiculous the turbans looked?  Did his dislike of Brian's other lyricist collaborators stem from the fact they all had full heads of hair?  Was "She's Goin' Bald" his emotional cry out to find a woman with the same problem as him so he could finally relate to a girl on a deep emotional level?  Did the fact he was getting cut out of song royalties for songs he wrote with Brian prevent him from joining the Men's Hair Club and getting some kind of relief for his condition?  Was he attracted to TM because he thought the more he meditated the more hair he might grow?  The Guru Maharishe had LOTS of hair!

[Moon Dawg]

  Mike would be mercilessly lambasted if he ever sported a rug in public.  I liked his occasional hatless look around the 1970-71 period; what hair remained combed back instead of forward.

  The whole band had a certain hazy cool around 1971 - even Bruce ditched his lucky red sweater from the SUNFLOWER photo shoot.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Al Jardine has been sporting a nice hairpiece for a couple of years now...

[bossaroo]

huh?

[wilsonart1]

Mike Love book  ...how did you  bring out the best in Brian and the rest of the group?  Was make Love not war really all about you?  Were the Beatles songs like Love is all you need..really about you?   Mike, Mr. Love  I feel a connection with you somehow.. Is a pattern here, I'm (we're just not seeing it) .

[Autotune]

 Mike would be mercilessly lambasted if he ever sported a rug in public.  I liked his occasional hatless look around the 1970-71 period; what hair remained combed back instead of forward.

  The whole band had a certain hazy cool around 1971 - even Bruce ditched his lucky red sweater from the SUNFLOWER photo shoot.

In all fairness, he does look good without a hat to this day.



Edit: Can't post FB photo. But you'll find it here:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20122.0.html

[Moon Dawg]

Al Jardine has been sporting a nice hairpiece for a couple of years now...

 I believe you are correct. His hairline hasn't changed since 1976 - an unlikely event. Al looks pretty good, perhaps a bit thinner than he was in the 70s and 80s.

 Brian, Dennis, and Carl were all a bit luckier than the others in the hair gene pool. Brian sports a great head of hair for 70 plus. It is unlikely Carl or Dennis would have gone bald. Bruce has lost some on the crown but is doing OK in the front. Dave, not so much. Blondie is craggy but appears to have most of his hair. Haven't seen a pic of Ricky for some time. What's he up to?

[Wirestone]

Al Jardine has been sporting a nice hairpiece for a couple of years now...

This is a hairpiece?

[Moon Dawg]

 Yes, it's a subtle hairpiece for a guy whose hairline has been receding for many years. The part on the very top. You can see the "join" with his real hair on the sides.

[Wirestone]

Isn't it just as likely -- if not more so, given that it's less work -- that Al simply has a combover? Or comb-forward?

[startBBtoday]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's just combing that up from the back/sides.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Al Jardine has been sporting a nice hairpiece for a couple of years now...

This is a hairpiece?

Yes, it is. It is a partial, granted. It covers the bald spot on the top/back of the head. It doesn't provide bangs, though, a la the Frank Sinatra type.

[Empire Of Love]

OK, they are even.

Wait, so is it over the line or not?  Cause it sure seems you've changed your tune from your prior post.

[Lee Marshall]

Al Jardine has been sporting a nice hairpiece for a couple of years now...

Ya and Mike has too.  His hairpiece is called 'the baseball hat'.  I'd like to ask Mike to cover this in his book... Like why he thinks no one would have noticed that he's been increasingly follicle free for about 50 years.

If it's just a 'look'...it doesn't and almost never has worked.  That various headware?  Pretty much goofy.  And what's with Bruce sporting the same 'wig'?  Does this create a demand for 'wig' sales at the gigs?

Will they consider renaming the group The Bald Boys if they ever again 'unite'?  Answers to be pondered.

A suggestion too...to rename the book.  Call it...  'I Shaved My Back For This?' [and so did Bruce]

[Wirestone]

I've looked at far too many pictures of Al over the last couple of hours than I care to think about.

I really can't see direct evidence of a hairpiece. I admit it's a possibility, given that he does have hair, so there could always be something going on. But I'm also friends with him on Facebook, and unless he wears that piece religiously, his hair looks precisely the same onstage, offstage, hanging out with friends and family, and just goofing off.

I mean, the famous toupees of pop music -- Elton John, Robin Gibb -- there's no question about those. So why would such a lesser-known artist manage to find and wear a much more subtle and better-crafted hairpiece, which also happens to look just like a comb over-comb forward?

Seems like it's more likely he's just grown it long on the sides and back.

[Wirestone]

More combover evidence ...

[Mike's Beard]

It's clearly a combover/forward here.

[Wirestone]

But then there's something like this, and I wonder if SJS has a point. Or maybe it's just a good hairstylist ...