The Smiley Smile Message Board

Doing this on an iPad so can't copy URL but it's an interesting one. Here's a wee clip:

"ML: I learned that when you do the best job that you can do, some people will idolize you, others won't care and some will vilify you. I believe it is important to remain humble and thankful for the blessings in our lives, for the tremendous opportunities that are a result of our musical success."

Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/mike-love-origin-magazine_n_4124498.html

The original piece was in something called Origin Magazine back in September…  can't find a link to the interview though.

Thanks for the link and congrats to Andrew on the iPad.  City Year is a great group. I've worked in schools where they've been helpful as mentors to kids who need every support that they can get.  It is a very credible organization.   ;)

Mike's keyboard sound is not that great.

Hilarious statement by Mike. He is a lot of things but one thing  he is not is humble.

Got that right, his ego isn't humble enough to let BAD tour with him as the BBs.

Wow… the Brianistas seem to be having a field day in the comments section beneath the interview.

This bit from the interview caught my attention:

MP: What's been your greatest struggle?
ML: To coexist while watching the people I love choose less than life-supporting paths via drugs, alcohol or poor lifestyle decisions. There is so much to life; my heart breaks watching someone held captive by addiction.

His greatest struggle has been watching other people struggle with their addictions? I like Mike, but wow...

Well Dennis...

That had to be hard watching your cousin waste away a little bit more day by day.

Yeah, but they are basically right.

Yeah. Well. You know, I always just took Mike with a grain of salt until this year, but my opinion of him is becoming less charitable with every interview he does.

I'm certain that watching the Wilsons go down that road was difficult for everyone concerned. But, I think it's interesting that Mike turned a question that was about HIS problems and struggles into yet another version of "The Beach Boys hit hard times because the Wilsons did drugs and I didn't." Why does he need to hammer that home in every interview, even when it's not part of the question being asked? The world knows the Wilsons got involved in drugs. They know the toll it took on all of them, especially Dennis and Brian. It's almost like he's trying to make himself appear virtuous by reminding the world that his "genius cousin" is actually just a burned out ex-drug addict, and I don't find that in any way humble or grateful, no matter what he says.

And, of course, the reason he's vilified is because he does his best. Not because he does interviews like this one. And, I guess that "Your songs are like children, you want them to be appreciated" bit doesn't apply to crows uncovering cornfields.  ;D

Do you think he will finally put out his solo album?

When Al follows up "postcard to california"........ ;D

He should atleast put them up on iTunes. Cost him next to nothing. It be a win, win.

Yes, I've made that observation before. I remember some interview where he was quoted as saying something like, "I loved my cousin Dennis, but he had a problem with drugs." People aren't defined by their vices, and it's not fair to continuously rehash that information when Dennis wasn't just a drug taker/alcoholic who contributed nothing to this world. He left behind a musical legacy, and isn't here to defend himself. I'd really like to hear Mike just once say, "You know, Brian may have had struggles in the past, but look how far he's come. The fact that he's writing and performing again is really remarkable and shows how strong he is." He doesn't have to kiss Brian's butt, but he doesn't have to continuously bring up the past either. We all know the story. Could you imagine Ringo or Paul summing up Lennon's legacy by saying, "Yeah, I loved John, but let's face it. The guy was a real jerk sometimes and it was a struggle to deal with."

Well, the bottom line is this: due to their drug addictions and other issues, Dennis is dead and Brian is damaged. But there's more to it that just drugs, and the whole reason people do drugs is because it makes them feel better-temporarily.  I don't think Mike understands addiction well enough to comprehend just what led Denny and Brian and to a lesser extent, Carl, to abuse drugs as badly as they did. To be honest, with the childhoods those three had, it's amazing they did as well as they did and it's amazing that Brian isn't dead.

I don't think Milt was the kind of bastard Murry was. People say Mike Love got lucky being Brian Wilson's cousin, but he probably got a lot luckier being Milton Love's son.

I agree. And not only this, but there seems to be no real acknowledgement from Mike of the role that mental illness and self medication played in it all. Brian did drugs. Period. Not  "Brian had an abusive childhood, a mental illness, and because of that did drugs." If Mike really wants the public to "vilify" him less, he could show a bit more empathy.

Mike continues to lose the PR war.

Guess they are not going to forget he sued his cousin over nothing and all his
other @ssholey antics aren't going away.

Jeez.... Guy can't win!

He's just saying the biggest struggle of his life has been watching the cousins/bandmates who he loves suffering severe damage and premature death due to their rampant and out of control drug problems.... Think about it: other than Dennis and Carl dying and Brian's fun fun fun, Mike's life has been pretty good..... I've led a pretty good life too but am certainly haunted by friend's struggles and damage from drugs: and these were not people I was related to or in a band with for 50 years. So, basically: the MAIN thing in Mike's life that has caused and causes him grief is watching basically helpless while Dennis destroyed himself with drugs/alcohol and Brian tried his best to do the same ..... You guys really think this makes Mike a bad person???? .....

Seems like all I do anymore is defend ML.

 Imagine that you are a member of a pro football team and you have a hell of a chance to make it to the Superbowl. Halfway through the season, your star running back, Dennis Jones starts missing practice, showing up for games after being up all night. His performance begins to suffer. You and your teammates pick up the slack but now, your quarterback  Brian Smith, decides that he doesn't want to play any away games. Your second string quarterback takes up the role but now your wide receiver, Carl Adams,  decides that he should experiment a little more with mind altering stuff so that he can see the ball better.

After a while, you realize that what could have been just isn't going to happen. Time to take the reins  of your own destiny and get some good quality people who, although good, can't quite match the original players.  You keep playing football and do the best you can with what you have. Yeah, you would love to have your old teammates back on your team, but two have gotten out of football altogether and the last expects to come back to the team as though nothing has happened and expects you to change the team you have assembled to better suit him.

I'm pretty sure that Mike hated/hates Dennis.
Correct me if I'm wrong

You're "pretty sure" Mike hates/hated Dennis, just like that, like it's some hard fact?

No, Dennis and Mike were very very close in the early days of the band. They'd go fishing together and were roommates. But just like pretty much any two alpha males that I've know who hung around a lot together, they fought over girls and crap like that and were probably close enough still until Dennis' addictions and behavior got worse and worse, and as time went on, I think it was less two guys hating each other than there was just a "situation" that was ongoing where both guys judged each other for each guy's B.S and eccentricities, mixed with petty jealousies.. Then later, Dennis marries and has a kid with Mike's illegitimate daughter, and ....... you think about how you'd feel in that situation..... I don't think Mike has ever said he hated/hates Dennis. In fact, he's spoken highly of his talents while being generally disparaging of his lifestyle, by and large, but once again: put yourself in his shoes.... I think Mike was just largely exasperated by the guy for many a year just as everyone was.

Considering that Mike never believed that Shawn was actually his daughter, I doubt he cared.
From what I know for sure, Dennis and Mike didn't really get along in the late 70's and early 80's.

Sure. If he is sincere the comments are admirable. And I am not saying he isn't. I really dont know, or giveashit.  ;D

There are a lot of people who question Mike's motives. It does seem like since the breakup of the 50th Mike has been in damage control mode
and a lot of negative comments reflect that people don't trust the Mikester.

Jus' saying

I am not much of a "Mike Love defender" or whatever it's called but the user comments are brutal and unjustified. Of all the bad decisions Mike Love has made the worst was stealing nobody/ghost's bicycle when you look at it in the long run. People take these rock star people too seriously. Let's all hate somebody else instead. How about that Hitler guy? I bet we can all agree that he was a big jerk. And even big jerks like him can be stopped early if you just hug them enough (use tickling for desperate measure). We all just need to be hip to the hug and down with the snuggle. Word.

"What's been your greatest struggle?" That was the specific question that Mike was asked when he responded, "To coexist while watching the people I love choose less than life-supporting paths via drugs, alcohol, or poor lifestyle decisions. There is so much to life; my heart breaks watching someone held captive by addiction."

"Watching the people I love..." I question a lot of things that the Beach Boys say, more than most, but I don't find that phrase or word (love) insincere. Maybe I'm naive.

"My heart breaks watching someone held captive by addiction." We fans aren't even family or bandmates, and our hearts are broken by what happened to Dennis, Carl, and Brian. Well, mine is anyway. It is a human tragedy.

Brian Wilson has been asked that same question, or a very similar similar question, dozens of times. And, almost invariably, Brian has answered with "I wish I didn't take drugs..." Mike is merely echoing what Brian has said over and over. And, if Dennis would've survived and eventually recovered, I have a feeling he would've responded with a similar response.

Agreed. But I think it's mainly because of the RRHOF speech, his role in the cancellation of Smile, his hated of Pet Sounds and Smile, the lawsuits, Summer in Paradise, his terrible solo career, and finally, getting rid of Brian, Al and David at the end of the 50th Anniversary tour

Honestly, his continual dwelling on the drug stuff does get old. As one of the earlier posters pointed out, that would be like McCartney always harping on how Lennon was a woman beater, or just a plain shitty friend for a long time. But no, Paul don't do that (usually), because he actually behaves like a professional.

The most pathetic thing about this interview is that Mike is acting like he's gonna release solo music. Yeah right. I'll believe that when I see it. He's had the last, what...thirty years to put stuff out and he got ONE solo album out in '81 and a handful of albums where he re-records old Beach Boys and Jan & Dean tunes. If you're so inclined to put out stuff Mikey boy, fuckin' put it out! Until then shut yo face.

I don't think Mike's a bad person. But, his actions and interviews since C50 are wearing somewhat thin with me.

If the interviewer had asked, "What was the most difficult struggle you had to go through with the Beach Boys" his answer would have been perfectly acceptable. But, that wasn't the question. Origin is a yoga/meditation/earth consciousness type magazine. The focus of the interview is about spiritual awareness and self realization. The question was meant to elicit a self revelatory response about his own personal, internal struggles, not to get his reactions to his cousins problem.

I would expect a response to the question, "What has been YOUR greatest struggle?"  to be about how one struggles to set aside the ego, or greed, or temper or fear; and how meditation helps to let those things go so one can live in the present. That's what the question was aimed at. Instead, Mike made it about the Wilsons and their use of drugs, and how he had to learn to coexist with that.

I salute the fact that Mike found a way to manage life's trials without drugs. I really do. I also know that watching this happen to people you love would be painful. You would think this would give him all the more reason to rejoice that Brian is alive, functioning, and creative again. You would think this would impel him to reconciliation. Instead, he's been hammering this point about the Wilson's drug use since the C50. I just think if he demonstrated a little empathy and caring in his relationships with the others, people might be a bit more responsive.

A little love from Love would go a long way.

As the Dalai Lama said, "Be kind when it's possible. It's always possible."

Namaste

An even better example is that George never talked sh!t about Paul.  Paul is my favorite musician of all but as much as we all know John's flaws, and how subtle Paul was about mentioning them when John was alive, he's been almost "forced" to take the high road for more than thirty years because it's not nice to speak ill of the dead.  On the other hand, George could barely tolerate Paul since about 1968 and was always a class act when asked about him; being even more subtle than Paul when making a complaint about him in the press, and ALWAYS with a bit of a wink/sense of humor about it.  Even if Mike is speaking the absolute truth (or what he believes it to be), he could definitely use a little more finesse with the press.

As for his being vilified, he might not be (at least not as much) if he actually WAS doing his best but we know that he hasn't challenged himself, lyrically or musically since the mid '70's and barely seems to challenge himself professionally anymore.  :( 

He tells the "life suite" songs on TWGMTR make him want to kill himself!  ...Forrest for the tress, Mike.  ::)

His hatred of Pet Sounds?

I don't quite know where to start with that one, but if you're already assuming outright that Mike Love hates Pet Sounds, I'd suggest consulting the various sources out there to perhaps color that opinion.

I think the criticism might stand if THE BEACH BOYS weren't Mike's entire life basically. And he knows damn well all anyone wants to know about really when interviewing him is The Beach Boys, so he gives it up for them. And just maybe 50 years of having drug abuse and mental illness (to a certain extent brought upon by drug abuse) tugging at his life and sending his ship off course WAS his life's struggle. Fair enough, right? I mean, we weren't in The Beach Boys and we don't really know how it FELT to anyone. Maybe we should just let the guy have his opinions/feelings on the subject and not sit back and smugly assume we know better. That's a bit immature, isn't it? I mean, here we are making character judgments about a guy based upon him simply saying that watching his family members/friends.bandmates/those he loves enduring wretched struggle and death due to drugs and alcohol.... Are you guys going to stroll into some family intervention and tell some mom she's a piece of sh*t for saying her greatest struggle has been watching her child or spouse or family member destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol?..... Are you????

On the other side of teh coin, imagine if your star running back Mike started making a mockery of the team and was making it look more like an oldtimers group trading on wins of the past?

Excellent way to maneuver around and disregard those great points.

"That's what I've picked up from various Mike haters"

Yeah, that's all the explanation necessary.

I meant that gives the insight to the reasons why a lot of people hate Mike.
The most well-known anti-Mike page is this: http://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/
Some of the opinions I even think is outrageous, such as John Lennon apparently calling him a jerk, and the fact that Mike is still alive while Dennis and Carl are dead. But at the same time, it is understandable as to why so many people hate him.
Feel free to defend every accusation on that - even Stan Love admitted that Mike was a big disappointment personally on that site

Dude, how about trying to form your own opinion?

Sorry but that comparison is just barking. If John Lennon had killed/destroyed himself through drink or drugs then Paul McCartney would be asked to comment on a regular basis and he would doubtless talk about the futility of that. What a bastard Paul is...

I don't understand when celebrities use the word "humbling" in contexts like this. How can having adoring, appreciative fans be "humbling"?  

What ML probably ought to find humbling is the even greater applause and appreciation when Brian sang a lead instead of him at the C50 tour.

I think perhaps some folk ought to take Mike aside, explain to him why his opinions are unsatisfactory, and maybe prepare him a script containing the answers we're entitled to - the stuff we know he should say, instead of what he thinks he thinks.

Islamic fundamentalists
Young Earth creationists
Even they are shocked by
Mike Love apologists

:lol Even if it is a joke, I agree

My opinion is that Mike Love is a complete jerk and douchebag.
That being said, I do think some people go way too far with the Mike bashing

Agh...this post has been posted by so many posters. nuthin' new here

Though, I guess it's to be expected from a thread about how humble Mike says he is. Whether he is or not, the R&R hall of fame speech cannot be unseen  

I love how people who don't automatically rush to the conclusion that someone is a complete bastard based upon anything they might say is termed an "apologist"

I'll bet every single one of us have said far worse things about family members or friends who's gone to seed due to drugs n drink or whatever the hell else... Most of us can't even get along on a stupid message board yet here we are judging a 72 year old about his opinions regarding watching his cousins struggle and die due to substance abuse.

Grow up, seriously.

In the end, it's the music he's made that's important, and f***, Mike has a co writing credit on some of the best Beach Boys songs. The rest of what he has done is not as important as the music he helped create...though...C50...(please do it again?)

Are they shocked because, unlike them, Mike Love apologists see different sides and don't cling to their beliefs however irrational these beliefs are?

MP: What's been your greatest struggle?
ML: To coexist while watching the people I love choose less than life-supporting paths via drugs, alcohol or poor lifestyle decisions. There is so much to life; my heart breaks watching someone held captive by addiction.

Just an idea out of left field. Mike has had many marriages, a lot of children, his brothers and sisters no doubt have had families of their own. He has had over 50 years in the music business with all its casualties. He also has been involved in charities,  TM groups etc and has no doubt built up a wide circle of friends and colleagues from such, and their families. All of the above potentially may have delved in the drugs, alcohol and poor lifestyle decisions he mentions.

In short, his circle has included more than just The Beach Boys and he may not be talking only about the Wilsons.
 

Actually, there's no evidence he ever said any such thing. Several researchers have tried to track down the original source of that remark, and failed. There's growing evidence it was actually a Capitol suit when they first heard the album.

It seems that quite a few of Mike's "wrong doings" are just myth. Was the formula quote common knowledge before the R&R Hall Of Fame speech? That speech seems to have been the catalyst for hatred of the Mike.

Did people hate (and I mean really hate, like what you see in every youtube comment) him before the speech?

That's a big surprise! Considering that it's possibly his most famous quote, this is quite shocking

Well I wasn't born until around 10 years after he made that speech, so I can't really comment on that.

Next thing you know Mike will be jerking it up posting on fan message boards slagging off people he doesn't know based on disinformation and stuff he imagines.

Correction - it's the most famous quote attributed to him. Doesn't mean it's true. I recently discovered two of my favorite Churchill quotes are totally spurious.

Am I right in thinking that Van Dyke Parks has attributed this quote (or very similar) to Mike?

Yep, lets have ourselves a good old bit of Van Dyke Parks bashing instead.  :lol

Honestly, I have no real opinions either way, I am merely an observer and occasional sa-ti-ri-cal common-tater

I think playing at seaworld is what humbled Mike in these recent months.

You know, I never understood why people say bad things about Van Dyke Parks.
Judging on first impressions, he doesn't seem too bad to me.
Perhaps I don't know enough about him?

Stick around. You may be lucky enough to witness history as it is actually re-written.

According to Peter Ames Carlin in Catch a Wave, it was Tony Asher who reported this one.

I'd like to add, though, that it's not clear what "formula" he's talking about, even if the quote is true.  Most people seem to assume that it's about the subject matter of the songs on Pet Sounds, but it's worth remembering the absence of "fun-in-the-sun" style songs on The Beach Boys Today!, the majority of whose lyrics were written by Mike himself.  For that reason, I've always wondered if the "formula" wasn't something more along the lines of a "you write the music, I write the lyrics" formula.

My first impression of him was awful. He was rude and spat all over me during dinner.

Exactly, no one in the group was still stuck on surf etc., it was passé. It could have been about the song/lyric/author formula but that formula too had long been f**cked out of formula-ness too hadn't it.

I thought "formula" notion was attributed to Anderle. No?

Cripes I don't want to start a VDP bashing thread… love the guy and his own music (and that SMaLL project (sp?) he worked on back in the ’60s) to bits, and on the three occasions I've met him he's been a treasure.

But I was trying to recollect what it was he said in the American Band movie about Mike's reaction to his lyrics… been a while since I've rewatched it.

That it was Tony Asher who reportedly coined the phrase (merci, smilethebeachboysloveyou) should hopefully quickly pour water on any VDP bashing, please…

Lets stick to the Mike bashing.

The Van Dyke bashing goes up and down depending on how much Brian's ass kissing he's currently making in the press.

You vixen!
Don't get angry and or jealous of the talent. It's rays shine brightly on you.

Yeah, the glare from the 20 rings he wears can be blinding.

You are so firmly rooted in what is physical and in front of your face. You haven't felt the light of Love shine on you. I am not speaking of rings, but the feelings inside brought by the music.

I'll make you a mix tape to try and convey my feelings.


Also no, he humbles himself regardless of the venue he is spreading joy

You are first nominee in the "most likely to be Old Surfer Dude's new account" category

Stay clear of my rings and don't hurt my feelings, please…   :lol

Lovester is always fighting an uphill PR battle due to his "track record". Yes the record probably holds it share of fallaices and exagerations (sorry no spell check) but the facts are just too overwhelming. More often than not the impression he manages to convey is: Im A Big Fake.

Im afraid he will go to his grave with this monkey on his back. A total 180 in his actions might turn things around for him but pretty words are not going to do trick.

Yes, Sheriff - I think that is all true, what you wrote.  And, don't doubt that there is sincerity, there, should anyone choose to check out a video where the next gen of Cal Saga gathered to sing, with Mike.  Funny, those kids of the late Wilsons did not disagree, because what Mike said is fact.  Objective fact.   And spinmeisters can talk trash all they like.  

There are still an "impaired" Carl onstage - who, could sing GOK in his sleep, like an angel, but was impaired.  And, Dennis losing his spot in the band as a direct result of his "impairment."  He was carried off the stage multiple times.  How much stress falls on those band members for their welfare and safety?  How long can you keep that up, with a band member high or drunk, having to keep a tour schedule, catch planes, and be a caregiver of sorts, sobering someone up, and continue working, with a back up drummer, and very disappointed fans?  Addiction treatment was not good at that time.  This is a 2013 lens applied to 1970's problems with substance abuse.  

Just about everyone on this planet is touched by one type of addiction, or behaviorial issue, in one's family.  Or extended family.  The entertainment industry has finally started to take responsibility for its decades of inaction with respect its' musicians, using drugs both to stay awake, fall asleep, jetlagged, exhausted from the road.  Too bad people didn't use natural stuff like melatonin back then. And, it is too late for those who are gone.  But, not for their kids.

Mike is facing it head-on, and, as usual, getting slammed.  

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

His pickled human foetus collection

I can't stand Mike, and I'd take BAD over Mike and Bruce any day, but this is the best analogy I've ever read.  I don't care how horrible a father Murry was-- I have no sympathy at all for the Wilson brothers for their drug use and its results.  Mike has every right to still be pissed about that.  

At the same time, if any of the Mike bashing bothers him (and I see no indication that it does), he has nobody to blame but himself.  Piss into the wind and you're going to get wet.

Remind me not to hire you to run my homeless shelter. A seriously harsh viewpoint there. Chronic addiction is an illness.

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Oh, Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, that is exactly what he did in the CalSaga clip on YouTube.  It was acknowledged and confronted.  
And, frankly, the CityYear program that the Touring Band supports, works with high risk kids from many homes where grandparents stepped up to raise their grandchildren, exactly for this reason.  Their parents are incapable because of addiction or are dead from it.  And, I taught in housing project areas where this was exactly the case, where CityYear was an ancillary part of the staff.  

So, Mike is giving support via the Touring Band to these kids who, if they are lucky, have a family member who gives a damn enough to raise them in a family setting and not let them slip into foster care.  He is doing something positive.

Very often the most creative people in society have issues, that predispose them to addiction or they had other reasons to self-medicate.  When you have people with quasi-medical credentials, such as Tim Leary espousing LSD, and it might have a valid place under controlled medical conditions, and where, it was used, unbridled, with permanent brain damage (and purported "mind expansion") and life long damage, there is a problem.  

His Harvard project was called the Harvard Psilocybin Project.  It was picked up by the "beat poets" (Allen Ginsberg) who began a campaign to introduce artists and other intellectuals to psychedelics.  This was no controlled setting which resulted.  That would be for individual study. It used prisoners as subjects.  

A black market for these drugs sprung up.  And the rest is history.  

So, Mike is doing something positive, in my opinion, helping the kind of kids that I taught and witnessed, raised by aunts and grandparents, just the "collateral damage" of their parents drug use.  

Just wanted to confirm that it was indeed in the Carlin book that Tony Asher recalled Brian telling him about the "don't f*** with the formula" discussion with Mike.

In fact, I'd recommend reading that entire "Pet Sounds" section of the Carlin book to get a perspective that's somewhat deeper than most accounts, related to the interpersonal conflicts around the "new" kind of music Brian was creating, a lot of the conflict centered around the themes of the lyrics.

It's enlightening to read how a scenario very, *very* similar to what would happen with Smile less than a year later played out with Pet Sounds. To sum up:

There was Brian working with a new collaborator pulled from his new circle of friends, specifically from those who knew and hung out with Loren. Tony Asher and Loren were friends from school, very close. Tony already had a few strikes against him, first that he was from the "Loren group" and an outsider brought in by Brian to write lyrics for the Beach Boys to sing, remember he was considered an "outsider" like Gary Usher had been earlier but unlike Roger Christian who was brought in by Murry, and who wrote hot-rod themed songs which fit Murry's plans for bringing him into the fold.

Call that point #1.

So the Boys leave on a tour outside the US, and Brian and Tony are hammering out a batch of new songs with no input from Murry or the Boys, as well as cutting a bunch of the backing tracks with session players as they're touring Asia and whatnot.

The Boys return, Brian brings them in to hear what they'll be singing over and what words they will be singing.

According to Carlin's accounts, it was Al, Mike, and *Dennis* who balked at some of the lyrical content. They said it wasn't them, it wasn't their bag, all of that if they weren't being outright hostile and calling some of it sh*t. This is "Pet Sounds", remember, one of the all-time greats.

Call that point #2.

Now a key point: Brian would come back at them with a challenge, actually a devastating right-hook in boxing terminology to counter all of the complaints. He'd appeal to their musician egos in a way by suggesting they couldn't sing it, or they weren't up for the job, or couldn't cut it...so Brian at that time had the balls for lack of a better term to hit them in the musical gut while they were criticizing if not mocking the lyrics and songs they were given to sing. There were compromises through changes like "Hang On To Your Ego", sure, but overall Brian held his ground as the three Boys out of four were raising a fuss.

The roots of this were Pet Sounds.

Now consider Smile - you could argue it was nearly the exact scenario playing out again. Brian working with someone from Loren's circle, whom the Boys or Murry didn't trust. An outsider, again, not "invited" by Murry but rather by Brian himself to create music for the group. The Boys leave the country to tour, Brian goes to the studio to start cutting backing tracks. Lyrics are being hammered out at Brian's piano, no input from the Boys. The Boys return from the tour, hear the music and the lyrics created with an outsider from Loren's circles...some of them again say "it's not us", "it's not our image", just like they did earlier that year returning from a tour to Asher's lyrics and Brian's studio tracks.

Consider it's nearly the exact same scenario as Asher faced only Van Dyke is the outsider musician this time versus Asher. Yet even the two of them were connected through Loren's social circles. And with Smile, despite riding high on the strength of a global #1 smash hit single that was also considered "fucking with the formula" by Murry who openly trashed the song.

Keep in mind the "fucking with the formula" notion went deeper than Mike pulling Van Dyke aside one night to question a Cabinessence lyric, and may have had roots in the family's mistrust of "outsiders" working with Brian and influencing his musical directions dating back to the Usher conflicts with Murry.

And keep in mind it was several more key players than just Mike alone doing the questioning and challenging.

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own!  ;D

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  :)

I get that the propensity for addiction is inborn, but I personally have a hard time considering drug addiction as an illness because it involves a choice on the part of the potentially afflicted.  I can live a healthy lifestyle and still get cancer or the flu.  I can be born with a debilitating disease.  But addiction is a condition brought on by choice.  

I would love it if I could be assured that if I avoided a certain set of foods, I would be guaranteed never get cancer.  But that isn't the case.  But with drug addiction, if I avoid drugs I'm guaranteed never to be afflicted with this illness.

Addiction to hanging with Groupies on the road.

Bingo! and that opens the possibilities that Mike DID come up with additional lyrics for the White Album!  ;)

You did mean to say Banging... didnt you?

This is nuts. Carlin is a serious, professional journalist, and his book is the best currently available about Brian (buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Catch-Wave-Redemption-Beach-Wilson/dp/1594867496). But it is a biography of Brian, and written from his perspective. It's not a history of the Beach Boys.

Peter obviously has some opinions of his own. But I wouldn't confuse those opinions, especially when delivered in an off-the-cuff way in an interview, with a book that was the product of years of research.

What does he say?

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

As for Mike : He has done more than enough to deserve his reputation. You don't have to resort to rumors or bad history to think ill of the man. You just have to read his on-the-record interviewers and study his actions in public.

I am not going to take what gets edited into a promotional video designed to sell box sets over the accounts of people who were actually there and relating what they saw, definitely not.

Tony Asher was not a bystander. Nor was Michael Vosse, Van Dyke Parks, etc. Yet we'll conveniently throw away what they have said they experienced, because of someone's opinion of the author whose book the stories appeared in?

Well, when the bystander is a professional journalist who has done interviews with those same folks and research on his own, then maybe! Especially if you're contrasting that work with a bunch of 70-year-olds spouting a PR line.

Excellent, well-written post, guitarfool2002.

Back to the McCartney/Lennon analogy and what Mike Love said in his answer regarding drugs/addiction....I find it to be apples and oranges, completely different circumstances to The Beatles. And, speaking of apples and oranges (pun intended), look at other rock bands with similar circumstances and what the survivors had to say.

For the last 25 years, while Syd Barrett was still alive, the surviving members of Pink Floyd repeatedly voiced their regret and pain at what happened to Syd. Certainly there were other areas where Roger, David, Nick, and Richard could've gone - death, divorce, inter-band hassles, etc. - but their biggest regret and what really seemed to linger with them was the tragedy that was Syd Barrett. And, they talked about it in numerous interviews.

There are numerous other examples. Not an interview went by where Ray, Robby, and John didn't "wish" that Jim Morrison could've worked out his demons. Do you think the biggest losses in Pete Townshend's life aren't Keith Moon and John Entwistle? Check out any Robbie Robertson interview over the last 25 years. The list goes on and on.

Yes, there have been times when Mike hasn't exactly been tactful in his interview answers, but I thought he handled this question appropriately. Sometimes the truth hurts. Mike could care less what people think of him. If criticism really bothered him, he would change his approach. But, he's true to himself. He has a loving family, a career that he truly loves, and he still has his health. That's what is really important.

Why?

My problem was less with his opinion and completely with his telling of the history.

They were in that they are not the Boys. I wouldn't disregard their claims about what they felt or thought because of something the Boys said about them either. I'm saying both should be taken into account.

I wasn't referring to Carlin as a bystander, he wasn't standing by in 1966/67.

And again, what do you dispute?

IMO...Mike is addicted (in a bad way) to *constantly* being on the road, and to fulfill a desperately needed amount of adulation while being in the spotlight. I am saying this honestly not in an attempt to "bash", but in an attempt to understand an individual (who I do not know personally), and to wrap my head around behavior that most people just brush off as him being simply "a jerk".  I think ML is emotionally ill.  People are who they are for certain reasons, and I believe "the road" is something that has long ago turned into an addiction/escape of sorts for him. When a person's priorities get as screwed up as I believe Mike's are (and I see parallels of priorities being screwed up for other addicts, like BW + DW back in the 70s/80s), the "important" things in life fall by the wayside.

I understand that at the end of C50, if Mike were to continue to reunion, he was put into a position of having to have made big changes to his comfortable way of life on the road (the M&B way) in order to acquiesce to “BW’s way” or to the needs of the then-current reunion lineup.  Nevertheless, I think that a person with their priorities set straight (my idealistic way of hoping that ML would’ve acted) would have realized that burying the hatchet, and compromising/being willing to lose some of your “battles” (like he surely did during C50), is truly worth it for the greater good of the band, and what it stands for. SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. This would be called an act of being selfless. I just wish he could’ve been that way.

Doesn’t the fact that ML knows how sensitive a person BW is (even with his current emotional support system) mean that he would think about how much stress/grief/hurt feelings he’d be putting a person through (with known mental issues) by making BW feel as though he was "fired"? Even if this "fired" speak was only a feeling, it's still putting someone through emotional anguish. Part of me wonders if ML actually thinks the mental illness that BW has is actually an act, because ML’s actions make me think these thoughts never went through his mind.

IMO, ML’s addictions to the road/his lifestyle, and what he’ll do to achieve what he wants (no matter how that hurts others), are just as destructive in their own, different way, as the addictions that the Wilson brothers suffered.

Now I await a bunch of people to tell me how off-base I am.

Soooooo, Mike wishes those close to him hadn't destroyed their lives through drugs? The Myke bashers are right - what a fucking bastard, hanging's too good for him, no wonder people are always comparing him to Hitler etc, etc...  ::)

Its not that, its just how he uses it for a catch-all for the BBs band member problems.

Like he seems in denial the that Brian is mentally ill and blames it on Brian being a "burn out"

A key factor to consider which I also tried to emphasize in the long post was the precedent that was already in place. Going back to Gary Usher in the earliest days, there seemed to be a reluctance if not outright hostility toward Brian writing with "outsiders" that were not either in the family or brought in by the family. The same kind of issues Murry hassled Brian with when he was writing with Usher were the same issues I feel were at the heart of the conflicts with Asher and Parks.

One of the few who escaped this scrutiny was Roger Christian, and I'd say that is because not only did Murry invite him in and encourage the collaboration, but also Christian had something valuable to offer the family enterprise. That was both a working knowledge of the hot-rod culture and lingo which Murry knew would sell records, and also the ability as a radio personality to give these records wider industry exposure...i.e. industry connections direct and indirect. It all translated to Christian being able to offer something beneficial to the band.

Usher was an outsider. Asher was one of Loren's friends. So was Parks. Murry didn't approve of it, how could it not rub off on the other band members?

What was the easiest way to disrupt this? Attack the music that was being created by the collaborations. They weren't fitting of the band's image, they were being given lyrics which were outside the group's fan base and history, the music surrounding those lyrics wasn't as easily diminished because the quality couldn't be questioned as easily but the effect on the fan base could...so the lyrics of Asher and Parks were used as a means of attack on the whole notion of Brian writing music for the Boys to sing with an "outsider" collaborating versus a family member or invited guest.

Those issues ran deep, again please consider how far back those issues went - well beyond "Hang On To Your Ego" or "Cabinessence". And consider too that the issues were still being deeply felt by the time of that TV movie bio when a key scene around the writing of Good Vibrations hinged on the notion "I just want to write songs with my cousin again", it's a constant theme touching on family loyalties and involvement in the process.

The "mess with the formula" concept and criticism may have just been a convenient entry point to scrape away at the surface level in order to get to the deeper issues running underneath it all, which still bubbled up in 2012 regarding songwriting.

I think you have a point in Mike being addicted to touring. Whether that's a bad thing in itself is debatable. There are a lot of possible reasons why Mike didn't want to continue C50 and that was only one of them. The others included the added expense of Brian's big band. Which does make a great sound, but Brian's addiction to having  a big band has even lost Brian some money at times, I'm sure. Mike is used to making money, not losing money, or breaking even, or making less money than he already was. There's also the Joe Thomas thing, and the Melinda Wilson thing, and the fact that Mike and Brian themselves may not see eye to eye anymore.

I would never blame Mike for causing poor mentally ill Brian additional anguish. If Brian is that fragile, his wife and support system should have shielded him from the reunion in the first place and never let it happen, because there was a chance it might not work out in the short term, let alone the long term. I would hate to think that Brian has to live in a glass cage and protected like an endangered species. If that's so, it's  not just Mike who's caused him anguish. How about the entire Joe Thomas debacle when Brian first worked with him, and his wife had to sue, and Joe sued her? Didn't that cause Brian emotional anguish? Yet here he is working with Joe Thomas all over again. I wouldn't worry too much about Mike making Brian crazy. He's used to it.

KittyKat - you make a good point, that there are certainly others like Joe Thomas whose actions at one point or another (litigious or otherwise) could have caused Brian anguish. And I can't pretend to "know" Brian and what makes him tick like his family and those around him. He is very strong. To me, it just comes down to ML's selfishness and ML sh*tting on everyone's parade (including the BB's legacy and the "big picture") to attain selfish needs. And ML's complete lack of self-awareness.  

Wouldn't the fact that Brian seemed to be perking up over the course of the tour, and really, truly enjoying himself (and wanting to be a BB again) make someone in a position such as Mike want to celebrate this? Doesn't BW (who has endured many wasted years of misery in his life for a myriad of reasons) deserve to have a bit of things "his way" at this point? It's called COMPROMISE. Again - if it meant some self-sacrifice on ML's part, we know what the answer is/was. So tragic, the history of these guys' relationships, that things went down like they did in the end.  It really seems like actions have hinged on resentment. I wonder if it's somehow subconcious "payback" for ML having been slighted (in a big, legit way) by the songwriting credits over the years.

And while there are people on this board who I've seen post things in the nature "Mike doesn't care what people say about him", it's very apparent to me that ML is very self conscious of and concerned with what others think about him. Why do you think he wears a hat 24/7? He's super self conscious about his image. When an obviously self-conscious/image-conscious person repeatedly does actions that are so obviously going to cause the vast majority of people to think HIGHLY negatively of him (in a very, very deep way, as evidenced by his standing on any YouTube video's comments, etc), it is all the more perplexing when they keep reinforcing the pattern (like the C50 ending debacle) and then wonder why everybody hates them. I call this emotional illness. Maybe as an outsider, I have zero right to say this. But it's my opinion.

Wow if hanging with Loren and his friends gave us all that great music just think what a loss if that bastard Murry had his way. Its a shame Brian went whole-hog on drugs and suffered such a personal loss. He was under a tremendous amount of pressure, I cant imagine what that was like.

Mike plays to full houses of adoring, or at least polite, audiences over 100 nights a year. It doesn't matter that at least some of the venues are county fairs or casinos or whatever some folks disapprove of. I don't think Mike cares that much that some people dislike him or put up nasty comments on YouTube. I'm sure he views those folks are either fringe or people entitled to their own opinion or welcome to attend a Brian Wilson concert instead of his. In some cases, I can see why he would not care what those folks think. Some of them threaten violence and have problems of their own.  I don't understand people like those YouTubers who let Mike affect their own mental or physical health (stress causes health problems, and if they react that way to Mike, I'd hate to see how they handle real stress in their real life).

Keep in mind, Mike has tons of grandkids and great grandkids who will likely read any interview he gives. Great grandp Mike's pimping the don't do drugs line again! Big deal.

Why don't we all go and discuss the intimate feelings and histories of people we actually know? Or are we simply not all experts on THOSE people. Oh yeah, and while we're at it let's continue to make endless excuses for our own behavior in life while crucifying some guy we don't even know.

How soon we forget: Mike did exactly that for the C50 tour. Brian got all his band, Mike got two of his... Mike compromised on the number of gigs originally scheduled by a factor of almost 50%... Mike ceded control to Thomas & BriMel. I'd say that in this regard, Brian had pretty much everything his way last year, touring and in the studio.

And I know what you're going to say here, so my pre-emptive response is, very, very few people know exactly what went on during the final weeks of the C50 tour: pretty much all we know here is what we want to assume, and that's based, as far as I can make out, on what people want us to believe.

I'm in total agreement that Mike certainly compromised to make the C50 work. Absolutely. And I applaud him for that.

It's the fact that he couldn't find it in himself to make the compromise continue, for the better good of the "band" (because the compromise was presumably too much to take, or at least this is how it seems to an outsider like myself) that makes so many people so bugged.

Of course, if other facts come to light eventually, mine (and public opinion on the matter) may shift somewhat. I want to like Mike. I really do. I don't hate him as a human being, and I appreciate his artistic contributions - I just think, IMHO, that he's a messed up dude in some major ways that affect those around him in a big way, which he seems oblivious to own up to.
 

On the third hand, Mike has said he was not jealous of contributors hasn't he? What are we basing that supposed jealousy on? Have Usher and Christian addressed what the Mike thought of them as collaborators?

To me Murry was a non-issue to Brian careerwise. Brian fired him, didn't seem to be cowed by him as far as the career, GV was released as planned, that 8 page letter makes it plain Murry felt he didn't have influence over Brian and his choices as I remember.

I seem to remember Asher told me that he was only around Mike, Al, Bruce at a couple of vocal sessions where he was ease dropping from the booth. I seem to remember he was not so sure at that time [20+ years ago] about the discussion he heard from the Boys. I seem to remember he allowed then they may have been pulling his leg or even complimenting him. The worst comment he remembered as I remember was something like "That Tony Asher sure writes some great lyrics". Maybe that wasn't said to me but was published, anybody seen anything like that?

Does Carlin quote Asher because I don't remember him mentioning "formula" to me. I'll see if I can find that to see how far off I am.

I'm sure Mike was as amused at the impotent splutterings of OSD as we were. That said, I can understand his stance to a degree, since that waste of sperm Morrissey provokes exactly the same emotions and response in me.  ;D

Page 84, "The lyricist still recalls hearing Brian complain about Mike instructing him, in no uncertain terms: 'Don't f*** with the formula.'"

That's Carlin quoting Asher quoting Brian quoting Mike, so I guess there is a risk of the "telephone" effect, but it's definitely in the book.

He very well may be. But I defy anyone to live and work - over 52 years - around the likes of Murry Wilson, Brian Wilson, Dennis Wilson, Al Jardine, Van Dyke Parks, Capitol Records, Jack Rieley, and Eugene Landy, - and not be jaded, scarred, and messed up! And, yes, that was a quick list; there are SEVERAL omissions :police: 

I'm sure Morrissey would be devastated to hear your impotently spluttered assessment of him.  :lol

Yep, I think that ML should just suck it up and invite BW, AJ, and DM to join his touring group. He can give any money that he makes to BAD and make sure that they are well taken care of. Who the hell does he think he is? he should sacrifice his life for TBB. How dare he keep the band alive for 50+ years, all the while providing a large source of revenue for BRI. The unmitigated gall of someone to say that he hated to see people destroy their lives, NOT TO MENTION A BAND, through addiction. It's that pisspoor attitude that many people resent him for and I can see that he must change.

In that light, I am switching my allegiance to BAD. I'm getting a tatoo of the cover of Postcard From California across my chest; I'm memorizing the lyrics to Smile, and I think I'm in love with DM. Now I'm feeling better and I am in tune with the world again. Maybe I'll even vote Democratic in the next  election. I'm so pleased with myself.

Well its so great Mike took control from the those druggie Wilsons and outsiders like VDP/Tony Asher to keep the fun,fun,fun alive.

The BBs were honestly a living corpse of a band under Mikes's control from 1980-1998.

Damn right. I was enjoying the copious body of work produced by BAD throughout that time frame and reveling in the memories.

Good point chum! Except it was not BAD that was around, but BAD Boy Mike. What he made in that time period was and is exceptional.

I don't think Mike is so much in denial of it as he just doesn't really realize it. I think that because his problems were nowhere near as extreme as the Wilsons' problems, once he got into TM it worked for him and he is just so dedicated to it and such a believer in it that when it didn't work for them and they continued to abuse drugs, he just dismissed them as fuckups.

I just don't think Mike is capable of getting it. Empathy is really not his thing.

How do you reckon something like that?
???

Be grateful Mike isn't like all these other preople he was associated with.

I got tired of Dennis walking up to the mic and introducing You Are So Beautiful by mentioning the hand he had in writing it. How about every time Good Vibrations is mentioned, Brian says how he came up with the track, or how he always mentioned he came up with the bridge in Little Bird. Everytime someone asked Carl about Pacific Ocean Blue, didn't he consantly mention the uncredited contributions he made? Heck, even Bill Jackson gets annoying with his constant yammering about how he co inspired Do It Again!!

Mike has said some nice things about Dennis over the years, but always seems to have to add a negative. If he praises teh music he has to mention the lack of lyrics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgepFKVVKVE

The only way I can see this as a criticism for Mike is that he ducked mentioning something that he personally regretted doing rather than bringing up the faults of others. But, hey this is Mike Love we're talking about here, the guy who could save a baby trapped inside a burning building and would somehow cop flack for doing so.

Pretty one-sided if you ask me.

Just how the Mike bashers like it

And this is why I feel justified in calling you an apologist. You are creating a line with the language you use. Most of us, including you, are intelligent enough to know it's not black and white. You've said this yourself. Yet by using words like Mike basher, or hater, or Brianista, it creates a "them and us" situation. I don't think anyone on here is saying he is evil incarnate, but based on comments and actions he has made in the past, its hard sometimes not to see everything he does as negative.

I do get a lot of your your points, but if you're going to claim you're walking a middle ground, then you should try to stop being confrontational.

Personally I'm happy enough with my view that Mike, from everything I have ever seen and read about him, is not the worlds most pleasant individual. I have grudging respect for him, mainly for the fact he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, rather than any talent he has. However, I'm pleased my family rows aren't played out in public, as I probably wouldn't come across much better than Mike.

If pressed I can find reasons and excuses for most of Mike's actions, but these sort of thoughts by myself and others are usually disregarded and drowned out by the shouting matches which  usually seem to be instigated by Mike's defenders

Possibly helping to name Pet Sounds. - That's great, Mike, but you didn't write Pet Sounds.

Helping with the lyrical direction of the bridge to Back In The U.S.S.R. - That's great, Mike, but it's hardly Penny Lane. It's Paul McCartney doing a pastiche of an early, formulaic Beach Boys sound that Mike could write in his sleep.

Kokomo was a #1 record!!! - Okay, Mike was a co-writer (responsible for the chorus only) and it was on the soundtrack of a fairly successful movie (which it was written for) that helped propel it to #1. It's a good pop song, but not exactly a high watermark of creativity for the Beach Boys that we look back on. 

Now, those three accomplishments are significantly more impressive than anything I've ever accomplished and I don't mean to take anything away from his life's work. But, he tends to share these three accomplishments in interviews and on-stage as if they somehow put him on equal creative footing with Brian. It sounds ridiculous to anyone that has even a modicum of knowledge about the Beach Boys creative output and more importantly, makes Mike appear to be overcompensating.

If all he talked about was his commitment to touring 100+ shows a year, being one of the most recognizable frontmen in rock and roll history, regularly making himself available to fans, his considerable amount of charitable work and the attention that he has brought to environmental causes, no one would have any problem with that (provided he does so with humble tone!). He should be very comfortable and proud of his life's work. He's the lead singer (and occasional lyricist) on music that helped define a time and a place in history. He's one of very few people that can say that in this world. Isn't that enough? But don't talk about writing the chorus to Kokomo as your big life achievement. Don't talk about possibly naming Pet Sounds as though it's a great artistic achievement that we should be stroking our chins to and saying, "Ah, that Mike Love, he's pretty clever with the words."

His obsession with those accomplishments in particular often overshadows all of the other very impressive and respectable things that he has done in his career which is a shame.

Now, the way he talks about the Wilson's addiction problems to the point of disparaging them, while glossing over the underlying causes (mental health problems and abusive parenting), is a different conversation altogether...

I defend Mike only when the view someone shows is totally one-sided and/or mindlessly negative. So I consider myself a Mike apologist. That doesn't make me a Kokomaoist! :-D

If someone criticizes Mike in a thoughtful way, and Mike DOES have many flaws, like everybody has, that's ok with me.

I think Mike feels bad that Brian was so messed up by drugs, and I think he blames a lot of his and Dennis' falling out and Denny's death on them, but he never seems to mention or recognize the other factors that led them to abuse drugs so heavily. And the reason, I think, that he doesn't mention those factors is he just doesn't think about them. To Mike it was just all the drugs. He can't put himself in their shoes and see why they turned to such a self-destructive lifestyle because they grew up dominated by such a bad person as their father.

I don't think that makes Mike a bad guy, just a guy with different experiences than his cousins.

Mike has talked about Murry's affect on the Wilson brothers, but I can't remember which of the many DVDs it's on.  He says that Murry's abuse affected Brian in one way, Dennis in another, and Carl in yet another.  Anyone remember this quote (or something like it) and where it comes from?

Hypothetically...
If one didnt trust Michael's motives one might think he keeps bring the "drug thang" up with his cousins
to drive a certain narrative.

Kinda like the mainstream media does. Repetition of the same subject might lead one to think its a subtle way to keep reminding Brians fanbase he a mental case. If so its a stupid manuever -- most likely to just generate more sympathy towards the Wilsons.

 But no one but him knows his true motives.

Maybe Mike should hire a publicist and keep his pie hole shut; but then we wouldnt have these entertaining discussions would we?

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

If someone has a running tally of how many times I've repeated this point, it might help discourage me from restating it again... :)

It's the drug issue again. Putting it bluntly, if you were a musician at a certain time or place, and remember the drugs of choice varied by era as to which were the preferred choices among musicians, you were more often consumed and surrounded by a drug culture in your business and your peer group.

It gets ridiculous to have the "drug thing" brought up ad nauseum in so many of these interviews, discussions, written histories, and all of that, especially surrounding the Beach Boys.

Do we need to list...I mean do we *really* need to list all of the examples of drug excess in the music community in the 60's and 70's?

Remember the character Roth in Godfather 2 telling Michael "This is the life we've chosen". This was the music business, not even mentioning the jazz scene since the 20's and 30's which was consumed by heroin and marijuana: It was the LA scene in 1966, it was the New York scene in 1967, it was most of music in the 70's which calmed down after Belushi died, it was Seattle in the 90's that has now filtered down to high schools in 2013, it's kids raving throughout the 90's and beyond all E'ed up wearing Glo-Stix and sucking pacifiers, it's freakin' Miles Cyrus name-dropping a trendy club drug like it's cool to f*** one's self up on stupid sh*t for no reason.

How many people have sung along with Cab Calloway when he did Minnie The Moocher...which was a song about someone who got the name trying to mooch smack from everyone? Oh, but that's a fun singalong, it's Cab Calloway, c'mon, it's a legend! Yes, about drugs.

Enough examples?

How about the record company meetings in the 70's where the boardroom table would have a tray in the middle with a heaping pile of coke for everyone to help themselves? How about the "custom" mixing boards in the disco era and culture where they'd have a mirror installed directly on the mixer for convenience during a long session?

How about several Beach Boys including Mike paying visits to and partying with the Manson "family", whose daily existence was in part fueled by acid trips?

Now some might say "Oh, bringing all that up, that's condoning drug use!", but I'm doing nothing of the sort. In fact it gets to a level where even mentioning the name "Loren" or trying to tie the drug use into the creative process in the history of the Beach Boys - which as hard as that may be to accept *is* part of the historical record necessary to tell the story - is akin to putting a stamp of approval over the behavior. Not quite - it's part of the story, part of the history, it needs to be told. Telling it is not endorsing it, condoning it, or waving a banner in favor of it.

But to look back and suggest the broad topic of "drugs" is to blame for many issues and problems which plagued this and many other bands is more akin to looking for a scapegoat or a punching bag than it is to really dissecting and searching for the specific answers and reasons.

I'm just suggesting if you were a musician in those eras, in places like LA or London or wherever, you were surrounded if not consumed by the drug culture. It was part of the musician lifestyle for so many of your peers and friends. It was destructive, it was silly, it was selfish, it was reckless and harmful, but all of the problems you might want to find an answer for the question "why did that happen?" cannot be narrowed down to the catch-all answer "drugs".

And I'd suggest by doing so, it might be missing some very valuable key points in the history, washed out of the history for the convenience of pinning all the blame on drugs.

Now if anyone would suggest I'm "condoning" drugs or drug use in this post, first you don't know me and second you're barking up the wrong tree. So let's just not even go down that road. :)

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

I think it's helpful to remember that for us Brian Wilson's drug addictions amount to a few pages in a book or a few interviews in a documentary mentioning it. For Mike it was watching a family member and bandmate self destruct for the best part of 20 years. For every horrific Brian story any of us has heard, Mike has probably seen much, much worse, up close and in person, unfolding in real time. Cut the guy some slack.

It's on Endless Harmony.

Not sure if you're criticising or agreeing with me  :lol

But I agree wholeheartedly with you. It's a pointless, tiring, circular argument. This is what I mean when I say the controversy doesn't come from nowhere. The huge arguments stem from the fact though that there is a contingent on here who don't seem to be able to accept the slightest criticism of Mike, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Conversely though, I think there are very few people on here who hate Mike. Frustrated by Mike, exasperated by Mike, embarrassed by Mike maybe.

I find it funny rather than stressful, however I will take your advice  KK, and bow out of this rather pointless discussion.

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

I've heard of other major artists who read messageboards and get royally pissed over internet sh*t-talkers, and sometimes personally even get into online pissing matches with random haters in cyberspace. I don't think ML would bother with getting involved himself, but I just wonder if he has ever slipped a few bucks, or leaned on people in a "favor" capacity to be his uber defenders.

And yes, I know that some people just respond with a knee-jerk reaction to defend him, to counter the oodles of ML misinformation that has permeated for years. And they have the right to do that, if they feel that his actions can be found to be legitimately defensible.

But that being said... I still ask my above question.

One or two of the more informed posters have said before that Mike honestly doesn't give a sh*t what people have to say about him.

People who REALLY give a sh*t love saying that, tho. I sure know I do!

No, I doubt it. Mike has fans. There are people who love the Beach Boys based on seeing them for decades, with and without Wilsons or Al Jardine, but Mike is always there. They enjoy the show he puts on.  The people on here who are the most consistent defenders of Mike have been posting on Beach Boys boards as long as I've been reading and lurking on them.  They don't seem to be "official" Mike Love publicity people and in fact one of them used to co-run a message board devoted to "Smile," believe it or not.

Brian and Denny both had addictive personalities. There are plenty of people who turn to drugs, OD on drugs, and die from drugs that have decent families and decent parents. Blaming an abusive father (and I'm not saying he wasn't) is an easy out that has always gotten way too much blame for Brian and Dennis having made really poor decisions.

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

Mike was paying me $5,000 a year to rabidly defend his every action on every Beach Boys website, and label anyone who didn't agree with everything he said "Mike bashers" and to point out that he wrote Kokomo without Brian and that any Beach Boys song without Mike lyrics was too melancholy and needed the upbeat emotional connection to the listener that only Mike's words could provide.  But I decided the money wasn't nearly enough to spread those lies and I broke the contract.  I'm now being sued by Mike for $100,000 for breach of contract and for using the name Beach Boys in a message board post without his permission.

Still, at least you get to keep his soiled hats.

It's amazing to me to how angry people get on this board. We're talking about the BEACH BOYS for God's sake. Why can't we all get along? But then I realize that's probably not fair to expect or ask since the Beach Boys have done anything but.  :)

Now if only Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and Dave (and Blondie!) could get their asses back into the studio....

A quote from Oldsurferdude:

wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.



                                                                            

It's true  :)
Glad you've come around

Yup! And now OSD is permanently banned for criticizing the luvster.

...TOGETHER.


 :thewilsons

However, first Brian and Mike need to get IN A ROOM together to write.

I'm not an insider but even I know that's not true.

Sure, but you like ripping him, so of course you don't want that to be true. Think of all the hours you would have wasted were it true and I'm not saying that it isn't. ;)

Oh yeah. That's it. Why should the Brianistas/Mikebashers make all the dough?

What people say against Mike, including me, is not unprovoked.

The man has an amazing ability to put his foot in mouth and just piss people off. He lives on Planet Mike and I consider it my job to talk some reality when somebody posts the next ridiculous Mike interview. Mike Love is quite simply insane, or else we're all insane and he's the only sane one.

"Give me my doooooooo's"

Honest response - I really, really doubt it. My rationale ? If there's folk going to do it for free, why pay anyone ? Also, can you possibly imagine the shitstorm that would descend if he did, and it was uncovered ?  ;D

People don't really care when news organizations do it, I doubt they'd get worked up if it transpires that some guy who plays SeaWorld paid a PR firm for online puffery. The folks who do it for free would probably just praise his business savvy and mastery of social media!

If he was paying, Jesus Christ -- they sure aren't doing a good job! Get those numbers up, people. Keep Kokomo on all our lips!

Think you'll find he was banned for a few other things, the main one very likely being his boring the ass off of 90% of this forum with his juvenile, repetitive posts. He had repeated warnings, as I recall but elected to persist in playing the mentally handicapped person. Just as he has all over YouTube, in case anyone thinks his drivel was reserved exclusively for here.

The Brianistas & Blooies would have a field day, and you know it !  ;D

I'd be a little sad! I imagine those fellas all looking like Mike Love behind the keyboard: baldness, baseball cap, and everything. It'd make me depressed to contemplate a cubicle drone punching the clock instead! Where's the fun in that, I ask you?

Incidentally, I'm eating cheeseburgers, snorting coke, and growing a massive beard while typing this. Tinted blue.

Throwing stones in glass houses AGD?  Many of your posts bore me. Many of mine, most, are utter bores. OSD was always joking, trying to be funny. He was always entertaining in my book. Too bad many didn't get the joke.

One-trick ponies get very stale, very quickly, especially when that one trick is born out of true spite and anger. That he is no longer welcome here is the measure of exactly how "funny" he was.

The above post is EXACTLY why I am a Mike "apologist" ..... We can't have five minutes around here without someone stating, as though it's all being said for the very first time, stuff like above, and the silly carousel keeps on turning.

This is really the pot calling the kettle..... As I recall, you have been banned multiple times and all those rolled into '2 strikes'. And, you might admit, all stemming from your angry attacks on people. Hang onto your ego dude  ;D

He was a true fan who went to BBs shows for over 40 years, bought sunflower when it came out, and was always willing to tell BBs stories when asked.

There was no truer fan than oldsurferdude, the whole reason he didn't take a liking to Mike Love was he saw Mike's bad behavior and stage hogging in real time.

I think the main problem or question us Mike Lovers/apologists ect have with the Mike bashers is : OK, Mike's an asshole (according to your terms) ..... so then what? Now what? Why does it have to be stated over and over and over again and why do a few statements and hearsay from 40+ years ago deserve such hard scholarly labor? I hardly think Mike cares if anyone/everyone thinks he's an asshole, so why should you? In fact, not every Beach Boys fan gives a damn if he's an asshole or not. In fact, him being such an asshole is part of the fun.... It would be different if Brian's story hadn't had a pretty damn happy ending (as of now) .... I mean, the guy gets nothing but honors, platitudes, and applause. I mean, how many other rock stars can get adoring, teary eyed standing ovations for basically just sitting there and hardly singing?  I mean, remember Whitney Houston getting slammed left and right for actually giving it her damn best live but not being completely note perfect?? And she WAS SINGING! Not knocking Brian, but I'm simply pointing out that there is no damn reason at all to feel sorry for Brian Wilson here in 2013. And part of feeling sorry for Brian has created this cottage industry of hating on Mike Love! Hating on a person who had an awful lot to do with Brian being in a band that you ever heard of in the first place. Sure, you can argue over songwriting credits and belittle all you want, but the guy played a huge huge role in creating the space for Brian to become your adored and fawned over Buddha. You don't have to like the guy, but maybe just relax a bit with the vitriol.

In the end, Brian and Mike are family and friends, and have a special history together than you don't have with either of them. Bashing Mike is bashing Brian in a large part, as also it's bashing Dennis, Carl, Dave, and Al, Bruce as well.

Because it's funny. You said it right there: him being such an asshole is part of the fun!


Why stop there? Bashing Mike is like bashing America, freedom, the beach, oceans in general, kittens, Israelis AND Palestinians, your beloved grandma, Tesla cars, Tesla coils, and the band Tesla. It's a bit too late to de-asshole him, tho.  

(http://www.mbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/mikelove31.jpg)
 

Surely five minutes had passed between my posting and someone else posting the same things?

The "five minutes" part was rhetorical....... But give it a few.

What I don't get is why accentuating the negative is so enjoyed by a few Brian Wilson fans when the man is having the most productive year of his solo career, or possibly even his entire career. Three albums in the pipe, a megastar supergroup double bill show with most of the Beach Boys not named Love and Johnston, a major biographical movie, and an autobiography in the works. If the reunion tour had continued, many of those things would not be happening due to time spent doing that tour. Why dwell on interviews with Mike Love, or the fact that the reunion tour didn't continue? 

Exactly! And even when the reunion tour was in full swing, there were "fans" too concerned with noting how much more applause Brian got over Mike to truly enjoy the moment..... 

I want to clarify: making fun of Mike is one thing and is usually hilarious, but it's the trying to historically "prove" (for whatever vague reward) that Mike is an asshole is what gets me. Move on, man. It's been almost 50 years....... Brian's moved on.

I can't speak for anyone else but I wasn't trying to prove that Mike's an asshole. I was trying to prove that he has had an incredible life with unbelievable accomplishments, too often harping on the wrong things (IMO) when talking. Both he and Brian tend to be on auto-pilot when reflecting on their careers and accomplishments. It's a shame that we don't get more depth out of them. I'd be curious to read the rest of the interview that this was excerpted from to see what else he has to say.

Exactly again! I don't understand the Mike Love haters. They repeatedly say that Brian is better off WITHOUT Mike, yet they were/are devastated because the reunion didn't continue WITH BRIAN AND MIKE, TOGETHER IN THE SAME GROUP, SHARING A STAGE AND SHARING A STUDIO. What is the term for wanting it both ways? Contradictory? Hypocritical? Illogical? If Mike Love is such a no-talent, divisive asshole, why would you want Brian to continue being in the same band with him? 

Who exactly are you arguing with that has that position, tho? Then they could answer your questions.

I thought my post was pretty clear. Sorry. I'll try to make it clearer.

Since the end of the reunion, there have been endless posts and shots aimed at Mike for supposedly, prematurely ending the BB reunion. An overwhelming number of these posts were written by Mike haters/Brian lovers. An overwhelming number of those posters also opined that Brian Wilson is better off without Mike Love, both in concert and in the studio. If that is what they believe - and that is how I interpret their opinions - then they should be happy that the reunion is over - AND THANKING MIKE! Brian is now free from Mike Love! In my opinion, wanting the reunion to continue, with Brian and Mike in the same band, and at the same time wanting Brian Wilson far, far away from Mike Love, is hypocritical.

I think many people, even if they have major issues with the Lovester, still think that his place in the band (and Bruce, who by default is also MIA when ML is MIA from the full BBs) gives the project a deeper, emotional meaning, and adds something positive of value to the project (or at least has the potential to be positive). I think that some people are disappointed that ML isn't working with BW in a capacity that lets BW call most of the shots around here. I don't believe the BBs are meant to be a full democracy. Few bands are.

BW missed the way he used to call the shots, and, in my estimation, he started getting back into a position with C50, just to get the itch where maybe he felt (despite opposition, like ML's gunshot-to-the-head analogy to the 3 best songs on the album) that he would be able to be the "boss" of the BBs again. Not in a negative way, but in a way that lets the guy who is the monster artist of the group be the leader. But a new BB "boss" was/is in town. The rules had changed. I suppose they'd really first changed way back when BW withdrew back in the late 60s.

Yes, it's a complex and contradictory situation especially with the BRI voting clause. But still, in a nutshell, that's how I see why some people (BW lovers) want ML + Bruce to be back with BW, as long as it's BW's way to a large extent. And why is this a bad thing? After all, BW getting his way only gave us the best music of his career, like PS.

 After all, BW getting his way only gave us the best music of his career, like PS.



Damn right. The great BW should be given free reign to compose and direct TBB. His brilliance and strong leadership skills will enable TBB to get back on top recording new material that hits number one on all charts. The evil that is ML will be relegated to being a backup bit player forever screeching in interviews, fallacies and falsehoods concerning the real God in the band.

To me, "BW getting his way" doesn't mean that ML is shut out of the creative process. Unfortunately there are massive egos involved. And much, much history.
Nor does  "BW getting his way" mean that ML = evil. It's not a black and white situation, never has been.

But that isn't what they expressed in their posts. There is a direct relationship between the posters who are most negative about Mike Love, yet want(ed) Brian to continue to be associated with him in the reunited Beach Boys.

I keep using the term overwhelming but I can't think of a more accurate word. An overwhelming number of posters said that they DIDN'T want any more of Mike's "Beaches In Mind" and "Spring Vacation" lyrics with Brian's music. An overwhelming number of posters said that they prefer a BAD setlist as opposed to the surf & turf "hits" that Mike prefers. An overwhelming number of posters wanted no part of a Mike Love composition like "Daybreak Over The Ocean" on a Beach Boys' album. An overwhelming number of posters are looking forward to Brian's new solo album because it will be (and I'm paraphrasing posters) more artistic with possible suites - the kind that Mike wasn't isn't in favor of.

In this thread alone posters are calling Mike arrogant, divisive, and mentally ill. Posters are claiming that Mike is insensitive, mistreats a mentally ill individual, and doesn't love certain family members. They are criticizing his answers in BB-related interviews and even criticizing his wearing of hats.

And yet, those are the posters who wanted Brian Wilson to continue in a band with Mike Love? To continue to tour with Mike and record another album with Mike? For, as you stated, a deeper emotional meaning and something positive? It doesn't sound positive to me. Hey, I'm repeating myself and beating a dead horse. And, this is all I really wanted to say on the matter anyway. Thanks for reading. Seriously.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I was really happy to see ML + BW working together again, and it seemed (likely due to glossy interviews which made things look more harmonious than was really happening) that their personalities could somehow mesh again. I would have liked to have believed that a corner was turned in their artistic/personal relationship. Maybe a corner was turned, to a degree. But it went sour anyhow soon enough.

I think people just wanted Mike to change in some way, to turn over a new leaf.  To be able to compromise (for longer than a few months) and be a team player. They want to see BW work again with that guy. But ain't gonna happen with that 72 year old feller, if he has (and ML does have) an out to the situation that makes him happier, damn the consequences. Hence the frustration. And the endless, admittedly circular discussions.

These guys are too different to be able to work together anymore. </stating the obvious>
 

Too bad you never got to know Rob McCabe. You'd love him, I assure you. Our big "Lovely Conspiracy" kicked both out of this board. You may be next, behave.

Nobody knows what went on behind the scenes for the reunion. People saying that Brian should be in full control of the Beach Boys neglect to notice that Brian now says that he no longer sits down to create at a piano unless Joe Thomas is there. I'm glad that Brian has three albums in the pipeline, but part of me is wondering how much is Brian and how much is Joe Thomas. Nobody knows what Joe Thomas brings to the table because it's a little secretive what he does and what Brian does. We do know that autotune has increased since Joe Thomas has been around. I sort of wish the reunion had taken place without the use of Joe Thomas. Even if Brian needs a collaborator and he doesn't particularly want to write songs with Mike again, he has a band full of people he could collaborate with, and has in the past, including Scott and Darian. But I guess that's sort of off-topic. Then again, who knows how much dealing with Joe lead to pressures in the reunion that wouldn't have been there had he not been there. 

In any case, you can't force Mike to want to work in a situation that he doesn't like, and BRI is to blame for giving him an out and the ability to work as he has for years, and Brian voted for Mike to be able to do that a long time ago, so it's going in a circle again.  Mike isn't getting any younger, either, and stress is bad for him, too. Stress is bad for Brian, but he's happy being solo and working with Joe Thomas. Maybe Brian wanted to sabotage the reunion in his heart, if not in his mind or publicly. Al is the one with the biggest beef, and I do feel bad for him. In fact, I feel worse for Al than for Brian in that regard and wish that Mike would take him back in the touring band even if Brian does not tour with the BB anymore.

Ok, let me look at it from a different angle.

>>> Brian never really grew up. He doesn't take reaponsability for his actions, dumps new best friends and collaborator like used underwear, was a crappy father to say the least.

>>> Dennis never grew up, was a womanizer, often had an asshole side when not sober.

Those are facts. I don't think anyone will dispute them. How would it feel to have dozens of active threads about Dennis and Brian making those same damn ponts everyday since... internet was invented? I mean, instead of 'Mike said don't f*** with the formula"... change it for "Brian gave cocaine to his daughters" and "Dennis threw away his solo career because he was a screwup". Every thread. Every day. For decades.

Boring, isn't it? I thought so.

Yes, boring. Let's ban you too.  ;D

I'd open another Male Ego Meassage Board, it would great for everyone involved.  ;D

It's also hard nowadays to know who actually hates Mike and who's just trolling this board

I dont think anyone actually hates Mike. there's no reason for such negative rays amongst the sunshine

Thanks for that clarification. Word up, people - if you didn't buy Sunflower when it came out, or went to shows for over 40 years, you are not, I repeat NOT, a true fan. Form an orderly queue for the exit, please, you're not wanted here unless you're a TRUE FAN.  ;D

You cropped off the best bit.  ;D

I'm not one of the people you were bitching about, but I do get where they're coming from.

The best situation, in their book, would be for Mike to accept his rightful place as one of Brian's messengers, and let the Beach Boys be run the way Brian wants:  touring together as much as Brian wants, making the records Brian wants.

But if they can't get a subservient Fantasy Mike?  Screw 'im.  Brian's better off without Actual Mike.

Me, I think it's *way* more complex than that -- but I can at least see their thinking there.  Why thank Mike for making Brian settle for the second-best thing?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Ah. I see someone changed the definition of "compromise" when my back was turned.  :)

We don't ban people here for being critical, whether it's being critical on ML, or BJ, of BW, or Capitol, or whatever one can be critical about. And OSD - not really a Mike Lover - wasn't banned for being critical on ML. It was the constant and repetitive character of his input that eventually got him banned permanently, despite several warning (and apart from the hooker-remark incident). Same happened with- for example - Phil Cohen with constantly questioning and critisizing the BB, BRI, management, and/or Capitol on - at the time not yet - BB releases (like MIC and the SMiLE sessions box). Criticism is fine, a messageboard can't exist without it. But when we notice that someone succeeds in – purposely – derailing a thread in a way that topics go out of control, we act on it.

As you all know – as we announced this earlier this year – the moderators have decided to be more strict on the rules (see welcome section). That doesn’t mean that by definition we take the right decision. But please do know that we don’t take decisions on banning light light-heartedly. And if you want to question on of our decisions, feel free to do so.

As for the “pot calling the kettle” remark (Oregon > AGD). Yes, AGD has a history as well, and since we started following the rules more strictly, there were 2 sanctions already. And we all know what a 3rd would mean. And I really hope that doesn’t happen, as I really also hoped it wouldn’t happen to OSD, or might happen to PhilC or any other member that already got a 1st or 2nd warning. We don't give warning-bans to people because we want to get rid of them, but because we want to make them aware that they should be aware of how they act on this board. And if you don't want to take those warnings seriously, then you have to question (as we do) if you have a future here as a member of this board.

I appreciate your response and applaud the new efforts of rule enforcement.

As to OSD derailing a thread, I think his crazy emoticon filled posts more often than not defused heated debates with his tongue in cheek humor. Personally, what I read from him seemed harmless, yet I admit I am not aware of his history and full antics in the board.

Hey Andrew - you finally learned how to twist the words in people's mouths! ;D I can't imagine though you're not a true fan by that definition...

Man, I tell you, I really suffered from OSD's postings, poor me. Glad he's gone.

I agree with Smile Brian. While he may have bothered people with his excessive Mike slandering, he was a real, passionate fan. The Beach Boys are his favorite band in the world, and he cares more than most about what happens to them.


The fact he bought Sunflower 40 years ago just shows he's been a fan for a very long time, not that everyone who didn't buy the album at that time is not.
If you were serious in making that argument, I don't see why. Context was clearly given, and you chose to ignore it. The only case I would do something like that if I were trying to wind someone up.

Another day, another attempt by AGD to wind people he doesn't agree with up....

OSD's amount of posts that didn't concern how much of a scumbag mike love is / mispelling names / praising mike bashing couldn't fill a page.

Whoever misses him can copy and paste his two main kinds of posts to their sig. It was almost a copy and paste exercise for him anyway... Then his spirit will live on.  :-D

Thank you. And he was not banned for his views expressed concerning Mike Love, either, like some seem to think. He'd been suspended twice previously before his banning.

I don't even know why I even bother continuing explaining as this keeps coming up.

Mike talks to an interviewer. He says stuff. People talk about the things he says, and talk about Mike himself. Opinions vary. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work on a discussion board?  Because of his history and bad PR, Mike is a polarizing figure. That's not going to change any time soon.

Maybe Mike just needs to stop giving interviews. Then there will be world peace.


And no. I'm not serious.

OSD is not a bigger fan than most and his posts here were nothing but trolling. The fact that Smile Brian is defending him should tell you something, because I have noticed that every time there is a thread about Mike Love, Smile Brian is right there with an unfavorable comment about Mike. There have been some great points raised in this thread, and as usual, those that don't like Mike never respond to said great points. They just continue to try to make the case that Mike sucks ignoring a lot of facts.

I brought Endless Summer when it came out and saw nearly 20 BB's concerts between 1975 and up until Carl died. And since Carl died 5 Brian shows and the BB's 50th. So what does that make me.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! Excellent point, and no response from those that want to gripe about Mike Love.

I hadn't heard this before - how did Joe Thomas go from persona non grata after Imagination to indispensable?  He can't sit down at a piano without  Joe, or is that hyperbole?  I suspect Joe's presence and influence in the album and the tour, and not just his songwriting partnership with Brian, may be behind Mike's bad feelings about the reunion tour and album, or at least his frustration.  But with Brian's history, Joe could be gone again tomorrow and never heard from again in the Beach Boys world.  However it's difficult to criticize his work with Brian on the final suite songs on TWGMTR, some of Brian's best work in years - or is it Joe's work?

 and everytime Mike is getting bashed Cam Mott Nicko Pinder show up to defend him.  ;)

So... life goes on.

EDIT: And sometimes SIP Mike or Juice Bronston. sorry to leave you out.  :p

Must.....not......respond........Must.....let .....this......condsending......whiney.........post.........speak......for.....itself.

He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are to your own. I've seen you run off out of here when people disagree with your point of view on something. It's really hard to respond to different points of view in here, because everyone either gets in a snit over it or the dissenting point of view posters always act like smartasses in their replies. This "everyone has to be a comedian" thing is what causes most argumemnts. Here is a novel thought; how about we respect each others point of views and give well-thought out replies when we disagree on a point?

You are welcome.

I miss OSD.

I feel left out.  :'(

:wink

 ;D ;D ;D

It will, for the ages. The lack of responses speak for itself, too. But I'd rather have my posts labeled as condescending than whiney, thank you sir.  ;D

PS: I notice that maybe Newcombe's response was about Paul J's post, not mine. In this case I feel left out, too.  :-D

Yes, it was directed at Paul JB's.  In response to this continuous, dismissive "them and us" idiocy, (which is what actually what  creates the most arguments drbeachboy. I'm all for different points of view and am consistent in this matter)

To answer your point though Dancing Bear, I personally don't think the Wilson's are above criticism and your point does have some truth to it. However I can postulise  several reasons why there are multiple threads criticising Mike and hardly any on Dennis and Brian. These are not necessarily my opinions.

1) To most people Dennis and Brian (and Carl) were the main creative forces in the Beach Boys, and were very humble with it. Mike, to some, is the polar opposite.

2) Dennis and Brian lived rock n' roll lifestyles which,  rightly or wrongly is still seen as "cool". Mike is more like a conservative businessman.

3) Dennis and Brian come across as sensitive, artistic people. Mike comes across as arrogant and dismissive. He doesn't exactly make people want to nurture and protect him.

I could go on (and on and on), but I'm so fed up of this argument now.

Maybe, as someone else has said, all of that is because he was actively robbed of his due and money for his art and creativity for decades but held his tongue.

Believe it or not, I can see both sides.

Can you?

Can there be a general acceptance of the FACT that Mike is a controversial figure, without a single mention of haters, bashers or Brianistas. Maybe then we can have a proper discussion about this, to add to the other 299 discussions  :lol

I honestly think this is roughly 80% of the reason people love to rag on Mike. That and the whole bald thing. To many Mike is the polar opposite of what a cool rock star should be. Mike, Al and Bruce were never 'cool'. They couldn't be if they tried. I can understand some teen fan finding that a problem but once you get past a certain age I think stuff like that should cease to be important. I know it did for me.

I just did.

Conservative businessmen can be successful in the music biz, no question about that.

But the innovators are the ones who dare to take risks and  because of this will be remembered much more so than those who play it safe. Think of a businessman who doesn't dare to dream big in their field as opposed to someone like Steve Jobs who went for broke and watched his gamble pay off in astronomical ways.

Mike is a smart guy, but his innate unwillingness to take risks when they counted is one of many reasons why. I can't get aboard the Love Train.

You did?

Come on, who wants a hug?

Yes, I see how you are right about the other Boys and wrong about Mike.

But....I'm not wrong about Mike. You are.

Your turn.  :)

The Beach Boys had a good mix within the band to be both conservative in business decisions, as well as innovators in music. Having a good mix of both keeps both sides in check. You also had Carl in the mix, as well. A middleman who could weigh in on both sides and help in the decision making and help steer the band. Even with all that in place, they still made many questionable decisions throughout their career.

I don't remember if this is the right thread or not but here is what I found so far regarding Tony Asher. This was 1998, so first I was wrong on the date.

Me: Did you and Brian continue to work together into March and April when the "Boys" were doing most of the vocals? Did you have any input in the mixing?

Tony: I had gone back to work by then.  So, I was invited to a lot of sessions that I couldn't make it to.  I went to some, mostly in the evenings.  I also wasn't terribly well received at those sessions by "the boys".  I mean, there were often comments about the lyrics from the studio when they didn't know I was in the booth.  I didn't feel I particularly wanted to sit and listen to that crap.  I remember being at a couple of sessions with Danny Hutton and some other people in the booth.  Input?  Not really.  I suppose when I was there, Brian might have asked what I thought.  But I don't recall any particular input.

Me: Can you recall the titles done at some of those sessions and was one Boy bitching more than the others?

Tony: Not really.

I still remember Tony telling me or someone he wasn't really sure if the Boys were critiquing his lyrics or goofing around and also quoting some of the Boys' comments. Anybody remember seeing anything like that? I guess I'll dig through the old paper copy files.

I'm not either. Your turn.

I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that some of the hatred of Mike is so extreme. As some other posters conform to the, 'Mike Love is worse than Hitler' viewpoint then it means that anyone who disagrees with that comes across as a 'Mike defender'.

Now if there were people saying, 'Mike is 100% wonderful' then, like many others, I would be listing his numerous faults including the crappy retro lyrics, the second lawsuit, the terrible clothes, nasal vocals etc.

The interview being discussed in this thread is innocuous and the fact it has 9 pages of replies sums up how extreme some of the anti-Mike feeling is...

Yeah, the interview is pretty benign (except for the humble remark). Just another chance  for a rumble of the two sides. All that's missing is the crazy, tension breaking, hilarious insanity of an OSD emoticon explosion.

...More like "tension building".  This round's still grouchy, but way less snotty, and I'm preferring it that way.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

If his insane comedy posts gave you tension Jon you are taking it all way too seriously. Too bad you couldn't get the joke. It's only less snotty cause people don't wanna get banned, not because OSD is missing. In his last month, he posted like 10 times. Cheers indeed!

Mike's personality as it comes across in interviews isn't a good advertisement for TM. He seems to lack self-awareness -- all self-congratulatory ego, little in the way of authentic humility. That said, I don't know him -- maybe his interviews give us an incomplete picture of his true character. I like the 60's lyrics that he co-wrote with Brian, and I even like some of the songs he wrote with Terry Melcher. There has to be some depth to the guy, right?

Everyone has depth, it just varies. Me ? Deep down, I'm shallow.

Carl and Dennis didn't help write any hits, nor were they screwed over credit/money-wise for their contributions. Being treated fairly does wonders for one's humbleness.... Mike contributed greatly to the bands biggest commercial successes yet has been largely written off by a very persistent contingent of "fans" as being a no talent leech/asshole...... Pretty simple math to me. I know everyone is perfectly capable of a little empathy here or putting yourself in his shoes, yet so many refuse to do so simply because it's Mike Love...... Very strange.

Pinder, this is an endless circular argument which is going nowhere, and will never be resolved.

I fully accept and respect the fact you admire Mike, and think he made a major contribution to the group. I can understand that you think he is justifiably angry at being screwed over.

I don't particularly like Mike though, based on his actions throughout the years. I find it hard to empathise with his position, and as I'm not really a "lyrics" person, don't rate his contributions too highly. Nothing you say is going to change my mind.

Is this something you could possibly accept?

I could accept it if Velvet Underground fans or Rolling Stones fans, or Big Star fans, or Who fans and on and on and on endlessly harped over all the awful things members of those bands did and said to each other and others. And I mean the really really bad things they did, and not just a couple heresay statements by 3rd or 4th parties 45 years ago, but they don't..... Does anyone ever sit there and endlessly complain about Lou Reed or Alex Chilton, or Frank Zappa's lack of humility? No, they do not. In fact, the worse those guys are/were, the more rabidly people seem to love them..... All this very articulate and scholarly trashing of Mike Love strikes me as very unique and very cruel and intellectually dishonest since it seems to only exist in order to somehow further prove what a genius another person is. A person who certainly does not need such ugly steps taken in order to prop him up...... Other people seem to do it simply because it's an example of it being "ok" to be awful and just trash someone.... Heartwarming.

I can accept disliking Mike (still weird coming from supposed fans of the band he sang for, wrote for, and fronted live) but this intellectual dissection of his person in order to draw the worst conclusions possible is just brutal and immature...... Sorry.

I mean, I'm a Beach Boys fan and I like basically 99.9 % of what they've done. Mike is a big part of a whole lot of the ball of wax. I personally have a hard time even considering disliking the guy at all..... Just me. So, its not so much my admiration of Mike, but rather my lack of admiration for supposed fans who've made it their calling to diss the guy. I have a problem with that sort of behavior nearly anywhere I see it.


Not a lyrics guy? Odd statement being a rock fan, but I sort of understand. I can go both ways, but since rock/pop music is primarily an art form which features lyrics: you don't HAVE to be a lyrics-person for them to still do their part on you.

Kindergarten! :-D

Exactly the same with me, brother!

So it's the extremists you have a problem with? Fair enough. If you were to look over my posts though you'd see I often try to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is hard to do sometimes.

I've been a fan a long time.

Long before I had read anything by David Leaf I witnessed the Rock'n'roll Hall Of Fame speech.

Long before the blooboard I tried to reconcile Kokomo and Summer In Paradise with the BW led music I loved.

Long before any stupid, comparing Mike-to-Hitler youtube comments I read what he said about his bandmates and came to the conclusion this was a bitter, unpleasant individual.

Of course I know that any situation involving family is a complex, volatile thing. I also know it's not black and white and the Wilson aren't saints.

I've tried to like Mike, even came pretty cose during C50. Can't do it though.

In his praise though, and I've said this lots of times, Mike is a clever, sharp guy. He has a great sense of humour and also doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks of him. I'm extremely envious of that last one!

When you get to my age you know the sort of people you get on with, and the sort of people you don't. Mike's personality type (as it seems to me, not knowing him) is one I would find incongruous with mine. I don't hate him, and would disassociate myself from anyone who said they did.

Conversely though, anyone who criticises Mike in the slightest, is often lumped in with the extremists. Then with terms like bashers and apologists being thrown around, we are all cast in the role of extremist.

God, this is like when you've had a row with your missus, and you then sit there dissecting it.

"I was wrong"

"No, I was wrong"

Very well put, but I ask again: so, Mike is an asshole, so what? Why does it need to be repeated over and over and over and endlesssly with such passion? Is Lou Reed an asshole? From all accounts, hell yes! Yet, I can stil somehow derive endless pleasure from his music. It's not hard.

I guess it's just the different ways we all spin things in out own heads.

Some of us think the RRHOF speech was a hilarious and great punk rock moment and rightful mockery of all the unspoken awfulness of other behavior that night (John Fogery made the other Creedence guys sit there with their wives while he played Creedence songs with a bunch of hired hands: oh but he's a great guy) and the HOF in general.

Some of us find Kokomo perfectly great and SIP loveably cheesey.

Some of us don't consider the BW led glory days of the Beach Boys to be all of what they love that the band have given us.

I could go on and on, but I think you can see where I'm coming from, even if you can't fathom it.

:woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot
Post of the Week-enjoyed your :thumbsup :happydance :rock :woot :pirate :h5 award winning post!

In Memoriam OSD  -  2005 to 2013

I can fathom it Pinder. I have no problem with differing views, it's just the language and tactics used I find problematic. I concede this cuts both ways though.

And I'll answer your question with a great statement I read on here

"Mike is an arsehole, but he's our arsehole". (I can get behind that  :lol)

And yes, the RRHOF was a great punk moment.



Hi Oregon, I'll PM you soon re album, I've been hard at it.

I like food.

How could anything relating to Mike criticism be escaping me? That's quite a stretch. And none of it matters to mr personally. Only the music does. I simply happen to not consider a single shred of evidence toward disliking Mike and any of his work as being convincing. And he misread the marketplace no more than Brian or any other Beach Boy. 15 Big Ones: is that some huge example of Mike misreading the marketplace or Brian? Most of the good stuff on that album is Mike's. Love You: fantastic album but most certainly an example of someone misreading the marketplace. MIU: OK, Mike and Brian are the guilty parties here, then again, both of them provide some damn good moments. LA Light Album: someone was certainly misreading the marketplace, but their names were Bruce, Carl and Dennis mainly. Is Mike somehow more responsible for this via his one contribution to the album (and a damn good one at that). KTSA: again pretty equal blame all
all around but with Brian/Mike providing some gems. BBS 85: Mike provided the one classic on the album but it's him who misread the marketplace and not Brian, Carl, Al, Bruce or Steve Levine?? SIP: OK, Mike's to blame for something pretty much all himself FINALLY, but is this really indicative of some long going fuckerupishness? Is it?

Well no, I don't think that's true. I've mentioned earlier in this thread some criticisms of Mike including the lyrics, nasal vocals, 2nd lawsuit etc. and these are things I've talked about numerous times on the board. And yet I seem to have been placed firmly in the 'Mike apologist' camp. :) It seems to me that 99% of people have serious criticisms of Mike and that is only natural.

I think again it all depends on what position people are choosing to take. People who dislike Mike will read an innocuous interview like this and say that Mike talking about the struggles of watching band members deal with addiction is  equivalent to Paul McCartney continually berating John Lennon for being a wife-beater?!?

Whereas there have been explosive interviews in the past given by Al or Brian which have passed without comment.

I think this is the key here. Using the word evidence would suggest you see it as an objective thing. It's really not, it's subjective. Whether certain character traits /actions and behavoiur is seen as good / bad or excusable depends wholly on your personal moral compass

Where objectivity does come into play is recognising some of his actions MUST be questionable to SOME people, based on the simple fact he causes controversy. There is plenty of evidence for that.

Well again, and I touched on this above, what may seem innocuous to you, may not to me. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong. To me, Mike has made too many negative comments for me to trust the motives of anything he says. So I'm using my past experiences to process information. This is how the brain works. You, who have a different view on Mike, process the information with a different bias.

We seem to be in agreement here.

My personal experience is that the slightest criticism of Mike will lead toaccusations of being a hater or basher. This is because there is a thought police contingent on here who have taken what was a fair re-assessment of Mike and turned it into a rewriting of history. That's how it seems

It all comes back to accepting the  fact that some people don't think like you. For some people this is harder than for others. I don't mean to be patronsing, but its true

Now I hope I'm open minded enough to change my mind if necessary. I read and take on board all the explanations and positive views of Mike, as I have proved countless times.

With all due respect, I think you make a pretty good case here that the whole Mike criticism thing DOES escape you...that's a pretty incomplete list you've assembled there, with a lot of personal tastes asserted as fact.  

I think it's pretty clear that you don't "get" a lot of the Mike criticism simply because what bugs a lot of other people doesn't bug you.  Fair enough -- but just because you hold to a different opinion doesn't make such criticism automatically invalid or "bashing".  You yourself admitted -- your tastes and reactions to Beach Boy music are in outlier territory.  For it to be "bashing" it has to be unfair criticism.  I would agree that some of it is -- but you disagreeing with the criticism by itself doesn't render it unfair.  If you think "most of the good stuff on 15 BIG ONES is Mike's," for example -- you've definitely got some unique yardsticks for quality.  Wear it well, my friend.  But if someone points out weaknesses in that material, it doesn't make that criticism a bash just because you personally happen to like it.

I love the disco "Here Comes The Night" and can defend that love congently -- but I still understand completely why people hate on it.

Oh, I completely understand the criticisms of Mike and, I think, can differentiate what is valid and what is not, but my continuing question is: were does disliking Mike get us? If I made it a point to care if rock stars are just completely wonderful people or not, I'd probably have like 3 albums in my collection.... I dunno what else to say. I think at some point it will have to be acceptable fact to actually like Mike and his work and for this fact to not be taken as a threat against Brian....

And when did disagreeing with majority opinion become some universal truth escaping someone? Isn't that a little frightening a concept?

Sorry but I think comments about a, 'thought police contingent' are waaaay beyond the pail.

Do you understand the term "beyond the pale"?

Honest question.

Perhaps you meant to say the thought police comment was somewhat exaggerated?

Not really. Not when "hater / basher" terminology is routinely used to quash and silence certain opinions.

But calling people apologists is just fine?

This is getting rediculous! Maybe all the hugely justifiable reasons to really really really not like Mike really do escape me? And so what? Wouldn't this make me the lucky one? I like The Beach Boys yet I have to justify not endlessly nitpicking one member out of five? It's The Beach Boys!!! The big tall guy plays bass and sings and writes most of their stuff, the hot guy plays drums and sings, a couple other guys with beards play and sing, a real square guy sings too, and the weird guy with the cap sings lead a lot! They have some really amazing stuff and some amazingly cheesey stuff, but it all sounds like The Beach Boys! Good enough for me. Call me crazy.

Brian took advantage of his family and wrongly hogged all the creative credit of lots of songs and solely profited from that theft from his family.  Mike sat on his lip for thirty years without a word of ever taking credit for lots of his creativity in lots of songs while Brian was fucking him over and not only taking all of the credit for but also all of the money.  Who is the credit hog and over self promoter and selfish prick that is callous toward their family? 

I think some people are just wrong about how Mike is and how the group was and that's how interviews like this get cherry picked and made to mean something they don't. Free OSD!

In order to unravel this epic, one needs to go back to 1961, and look at what happened among the parties, who controlled the interests.  The likely scenario is that Murry (who did kick the door down for the band) made a deal to keep the royalties in the Wilson "household" - and no one knows exactly what happened, except when the court looked at the case, it seems that they found that Mike was defrauded.  

And it was a suit against an "entity" and that is the way I think of it.  For example if you really like your neighbor but their dog bites you, you sue their insurance company to recover for you injuries.  That is an entity. You can still like and talk to your neighbor.  

Back in those days a lot of actors and musicians were defrauded from profits that their parents took, and the companies they worked for, became partners with the parents, and as long as the children performed, everyone was happy, until the kid became an adult and realized they were defrauded.  

Suits just establish the "rights and obligations" of a party.   Can they get ugly?  Of course.  But, my guess is the old-style Hollywood and music business modus operandi took advantage of the then-existing, lack of business acumen, with musicians, of and other bands at the time.  

No, which is why I said this.
I first used the term apologist as a (humourous) reaction to 3 pages of basher / hater comments. This last page though I've been trying to find a middle ground. Obviously not cutting it with you guys though. I can only assume, judging by the majority of your posts, that you only come here to argue with people, and you are a genuinely confronational person. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes any concession on my part pointless.
Yep


I take you are joking here, to draw attention to how stupid some of the anti-Mike statements seem to you. I don't think you could seriously make the argument that the Beach Boys would even exist without Brian Wilson, unless you were a moron.

Again, I applaud your sense of humour here. If you were being serious, which I know your not, then this statement would make you the single biggest cretin I've ever spoken to on here.
 

That's because you lack the basic empathetic skills to accept that not everyone thinks like you.

Even if I agreed with you you'd find a reason to argue.

I would reiterate we agree to differ, as this is a pointless argument, but it would again fall on deaf ears. I will suggest any intelligent people leave this thread now, and Cam, Nicko, Pinder and co can convince themselves they've won the argument, when in reality, everyone else has got bored and buggered off.

Laters guys  :)

Whoa! Stephen is on a roll!!

best laugh Ive had today

I don't find it funny that Brian cheated his own cousin for decades. You do?

So this might make me the biggest cretin. Or moron. Cretin or no, Mike did stay silent while he was being cheated of credit and money by Brian for 3 decades. So which is the jerk in that deal?

My grievous lack of basic empathetic skills still allows me to accept that not everyone thinks like me while I also think they are wrong.

Laters intelligents, we unempathetic cretin morons may still be around.

I also took some of the comments as satire, but for anyone seriously entertaining the notion that Brian "f***ed over" his family and bandmates, consider what he did in the span of 6 years or so to enable them to live the millionaire's lifestyle and get paid to play music for people rather than working a regular job.

And not just that, but the body of work created during that time served many times as a cash cow which kept the money flowing and kept the demand for that music active.

That is justifying a wrong with a previous right. So, Brian's original intention was to write songs, make everyone rich, then turn around and screw Mike out of co-writing royalties? Remember too, I doubt that any of those songs would have been hits had they been instrumentals, So, Brian's lyricists did help make these songs big hits. This was more likely a Murry thing than Brian, but it should've been righted out of court when Brian's peeps had the chance to do so.

You are bringing a point into the discussion (Brian's work created millions of dollars for the band, therefore, we/they shouldn't question the money trail) that is not being debated and, frankly, isn't related to character, personality, or likeability, which is the crux of this debate.

Cheating someone out of money, not standing up for what is right, not addressing the subject for decades, and not giving credit where due, those are aspects of character. And those are the issues that Cam was addressing. Being grateful or not being grateful to Brian for his work/talent isn't the issue.  

Was Brian there when Tony Asher had a meeting with Murry and was basically told "take it or leave it" when a contract was signed for the songs he co-wrote on Pet Sounds, and got a flat fee of $7500 and 25% royalty (rather than a more even split between lyrics and music) for the future of those songs? Was Brian involved in Murry's decision to sell Sea Of Tunes and all the songs (including those which Mike had co-written) for a fraction of what they would be worth a few years later?

I'm not taking all blame away, but the notion that Brian should be held more responsible for fucking Mike out of his money from the songs is absurd.

And for as much as Mike's 3 million lawsuit was justified, and recall it was filed after Brian sued for *his own* cut of the publishing money that he didn't receive through the years (which he eventually won to the tune of 10 million), there were also elements of it that were a stretch if not outright bizarre, such as claiming to have had a bigger hand in writing and "editing" certain Wilson-Asher Pet Sounds songs while he was in Asia touring and Brian and Tony were writing the songs in question. And how much, exactly, is an improvised "good night my baby" line on an outro worth, exactly? More than Tony's 25% cut of the future royalties? Hmmm.

And I went satirical too, in response to the satirical suggestion that Brian somehow not only f***ed Mike out of his money but also f***ed his band by not working hard for them. It's answering the absurd with the absurd, the heart of satire itself. So what, exactly, at any given time when either Mike or Carl was running the band, should Brian have done? Write more songs? Stage another Brian's Back campaign? Do things he hadn't done since 1965?

I don't get what was expected of Brian in order to not give the impression he was fucking the band out of their just dues.

With the lawsuit in general, Brian's 10 million win and Mike's subsequent 3 million win, it seems there are some misunderstandings about how all of that came about. Ask this: Why didn't Mike sue the same publishing entity that Brian sued for his back royalties and credits? It was only after Brian won *his* suit for back payments that Mike sued for his, and he sued on Brian's payment of 10 million rather than the larger corporate entity Brian sued and beat. Interesting.

Asher and Christian and Usher got credit and money [whether they thought it was enough or not is another issue].  Brian was the producer, the main composer, possibly a co-publisher and Brian personally signed all of those documents that didn't include Mike as a coauthor.  Brian admits it happened and that he knew it and knew it was wrong and he should make it right. As a coauthor Brian is the only one who profited from under reporting of authorship. I don't understand all of the un-necessary benefit of the doubt giving toward Brian and lack of sympathy toward Mike.

I though part of the stress for Brian during Pet Sounds and SMiLE was that his whole family depended on him to make money for the family.

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Mike's lyrical claims are bogus. He had one legitimate gripe -- not being credited for California Girls -- and spun that into a full-scale rewriting of history (Guitarfool's post is worth reading here, too: Money was the prime motivator). Most of Mike's additions to Brian's songs, if they're documented, fall into the camp of "arranging" rather than "co-writing," and as such would not traditionally be considered worthy of a credit. Yet another reason I find the man difficult to take.

Any explanation of Mike's present-day behavior starts and ends with one word: jealousy.

Finally, most of the posts from the Kokomaoists on this thread are simply too absurd (or outright dada) to respond to in any sensible way.

And we are the denialists? [shrug]

But remember, the lawsuits go back to the 60's and encapsulate several issues of monies due not being paid to those who were owed the money. Brian was owed as far back as the 60's something like one-and-a-half million dollars in producers credits and royalties which Capitol had not paid. These are the "points" that any producer negotiates for and signs a contract for to receive future profits from sales on a project. For decades many producers have negotiated "points" on an album project rather than accepting a payment, knowing what future sales could bring in versus getting a one-time check. And, Brian was indeed the "producer" of these records which sold into the millions. That was Capitol, who also stiffed the band in general out of money they were owed and which they eventually settled for.

Then Murry sells Sea Of Tunes to A&M in '69. One time payment, to the tune of 700,000, and which, yes, Brian signed the papers. The question is how did Murry gain control of Brian's share of Sea Of Tunes when it was a 50-50 split on ownership and control over the songs?

Fast forward. A&M through Irving-Almo now "owns" the Beach Boys song catalog and publishing rights. It comes out that Brian as the principal songwriter is owed back payments, which he eventually sues to collect. He wins that case, to the tune of 10 million in back payments owed him by A&M.

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million, NOT against Irving-Almo and A&M, having NOT gone after A&M for the same back payments to right the wrongs that were done to him when the credits were filed all those years ago with Sea Of Tunes. If it could be established that he had a legitimate claim to those credits and back payments, and the same case on which he sued Brian for 3 million and won could have been made at any time, why didn't he seek to collect in the decades before Brian won his case? Or did he?

Unless I'm missing something, throughout those three decades of Mike getting BMI needledrop checks and whatnot, did he never file anything related to these credits against anyone until Brian won his own suit against the then-owners of the song catalog? If he felt he wasn't properly credited - which the case found he was wronged by the way he was left off writing credits for 80 or so tunes - a lawsuit could have been filed in, say, 1979 against A&M and Irving-Almo who owned the songs to get his proper credits and back pay for the profits from those songs. Right?

Wirestone to the rescue! 8)

Leaving aside the financial aspect, if I had wrote the words for California Girls I'd want the whole world to know that I did. I agree with others that several of Mike's co-credits are a stretch but for the songs he did play a big part in writing he fully deserved both credit and money for doing so. If Murry was leaning on Brian to cut Mike out of his due, then Brian should have grown a pair and told Murry to get f***ed.

Are there any accounts of Mike trying to right this wrong with "California Girls" credits in the years from 1965 up to Brian winning a 10 million judgement in the early 90's?

I honestly have no idea but would be very interested to find out.

I think it was about the ten million dollars for Mike.

Keep in mind he went bankrupt in the early 1980s and didn't sue Brian then for credit.

I agree, other people and companies were awful. That still leaves Brian's awfulness on Brian's shoulders.

Are you sure the suit was against Brian or only against Brian? Because the only suit documentation I've seen has Irving et al as the defendant and then down the page some subsidiaries of Irving and some persons, including Brian, are listed as et als. Are there two suits?

I don't understand why the fact that Mike didn't go after Brian earlier seems to matter. Mike had to prove his case and Brian has admitted Mike deserved it. Mike explained that he had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it. So Mike put his faith in Brian apparently. Later Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving. As a result of that Mike found out he still had an actionable claim. So are we supposed to be upset because Mike waited for Brian, helped Brian sue, and offered a low ball settlement?

True but I think Brian was 'cash poor' around the time also.

I think it was 10 million to Brian and the jury awarded 3 million to Mike after Mike only asked for $750,000. Anybody know? AGD?

Upset, no but on the surface it's very easy to see Mike's help as self-serving.

Again, respectfully, I don't think you are addressing the issue of character and likeability which is the major crux of this debate. Nobody is debating that Murry was the driving force behind these deals, and with Mike being left off credits and receiving compensation. That's not the issue! The issue is what did Brian Wilson do about it when he found out (assuming he found out LATER; I don't quite buy that he wasn't informed from the start). How did Brian act, or NOT act, when the issues came to a head. That is where character comes into play. I find Brian's action, or non-action, indefensible. However, others are quick to absolve him of any wrongdoing, and want to make Mike the villain. There is absolutely no logic to that position.

Regarding the litigation, I have a question as to the chronology which might, in part, assist in understanding some items - and I ask this innocently without siding with either BB. Was Brian's action against Irving-Almo after his "treatment" by Landy was over? If Mike had sued, Brian would certainly have been deposed and be a witness and if the case was while Brian was "under the care" of Landy, that situation might have been used to discredit Brian had he testified in favor of Mike (didn't Brian testify somewhat in Mike's favor in their case?). Also, Mike likely had counsel review this whole issue at earlier points (that would be consistent with his oft-cited litigious nature) in which case one might surmise he was probably advised not to proceed at that time for whatever reasons.
It is difficult to speculate as to courses of litigation without knowing all the details, facts, strategies considered.

Yeesh, this thread has devolved into this yet again? Mike wrote more than the lyrics to "California Girls," he wrote parts of  most of the songs he claimed in the suit. Actually, I'd be inclined to think he wrote all of the things he claimed. Where there is a beef is that he was granted complete half or third credits for a few things where he contributed not even a full set of lyrics, for example, the "sleep tight" fade on "Wouldn't It Be Nice."  Also, Mike only asked for around $700,000 to settle out of court. That's not that much money so you can't say he's that greedy. That amount would be a small amount for "California Girls" alone. It was the jury that awarded him several million, after Brian's lawyers declined to settle out of court (and Brian Wilson's testimony was a key to the jury's decision, not just Mike's claims, along with depositions that Mike got from people who didn't even particularly like him as a person).

Mike's explanation and using it here as a basis of fact for our discussion would be thrown out of any court testimony as "heresay", actually it's a classic definition of that legal term. So we're basing this point on the fact that Mike had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it? None of that holds up in court, it's Mike "explaining" that Brian told him something but never delivered on his words. You can't base a case or even a point on what someone says they were told (heresay) when contracts are involved.

I think you're connecting too many dots that aren't there. Let me understand the point, though, to be sure: Brian told Mike he'd fix it but never did. That point is heresay. Mike apparently put his faith in Brian to fix it because Brian told him he'd do it. That's heresay. Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against A&M/Irving, was he subpoenaed as a witness for the party filing the claim or did he join forces to file the suit? Was Mike's case against Brian's collecting royalties Mike felt he was owed, or was it against A&M who owned the songs in question for not paying royalties he felt he was owed?

And how does Mike testifying in Brian's original case lead to the conclusion that from his involvement as a witness in Brian's case, Mike realizes that he too has a claim of his own to file? Against A&M/Irving for not paying, or against Brian for owing Mike based on faulty songwriting credits being filed decades ago? Is this a "chicken or the egg" scenario, where "first this, then that" needs to happen to move forward? Or did Mike decide to file his own challenge based on Brian's victory and collection of a 10 million settlement?

Or are we suggesting Mike and Brian were jointly filing the same case against A&M? Confused.

I share the same head-scratching question at this point: Which lawsuit is it?  :)  Was Mike's formal legal complaint against Brian for his failure to ensure the songs were properly credited, was the legal complaint against Irving/A&M for not paying his money owed from those songs, or was it a lawsuit putting all of those elements into one catch-all legal case?

If Mike's claim hinged on Brian's perceived failure to get Mike properly credited, and the claim sought to collect that back money owed Mike, the claim gets filed against Brian and his interests based on the 10 million awarded Brian for not getting *his* money owed by A&M/Almo. Right?

If Mike felt he was not properly credited as far back as 1965 for hits like "California Girls", and he was seeking what he hasn't been paid because of that improper credit all those years, whose financial burden does that fall on to pay him the back payments? The entity failing to pay out the royalties who was actually writing the checks, or the entity who in Mike's words failed to live up to a verbal agreement to make things right who was getting those checks for what Mike claimed he was entitled to a portion of?

So did Mike collect from Brian's 10 million award? Or did he collect from A&M?

Cases of asking for songwriting credits have been interpreted as pretty open ended. Look at the guy who got partial credit for "Whiter Shade of Pale" decades after the fact.  Mike actually cost himself millions of dollars by waiting for so long for songwriting credits, because royalties are not paid retroactively, only going forward from the time the suit is settled. That's part of why the jury gave him such high damages. It's still a lot less then he would have received in royalties for those songs had his name been on them all along. There are people who have retired on the revenue of just one song placed in a movie with a best-selling soundtrack. The Beach Boys sold millions and millions of records.

Nice response Newcombe. How about another try and actually respond?

What about you Smile Brian?

Wirestone....any comments or is Dancing Bears point too below you?

I'll fess up...I knew the details before asking all those questions. It was asking them for discussion purposes, to consider just how much was involved in this and how trying to boil it down too much can miss the bigger point.

Someone asked for a timeline? Here's one to start. These facts come from original reports of the case, if anyone disagrees I'll repost the original sources dating back 24 years and we'll harangue them about it.

1989 - Brian sues Irving Almo and A&M to overturn the sale of the song catalog and recoup the money he wasn't paid from the profits on those songs.

June 1992 - Brian wins that suit and in an out-of-court settlement collects 10 million dollars from Irving/A&M.

July 1992 - Mike files a 50 million dollar lawsuit against Brian and Irving/A&M, filing a complaint that there were 48 songs which he co-wrote and was entitled to receive payments from those songs, yet never received proper credit when those songs were officially filed. Part of the case also concerns Brian's failure to give 30 percent of his settlement to Mike based on the word he'd do so if Mike vouched for him in the case against Irving.

December 1994 - a jury decides Mike was entitled to a portion of the money from those songs, and was improperly credited for his work on them. The original claim in July 1992 of 48 songs in question was reduced to 35 songs. The victory is based on those 35 songs the jury decided Mike was entitled to collect profits from but was improperly left off the credits.

December 1994 - Brian agrees to a 5 million dollar settlement along with future credits on and profits from the songs in question.

Reminder: "Brian" and "Mike" is shorthand here which obviously includes their legal teams and representation.


So, there it is. Now tell me how Mike settled for less or took a "lowball amount" when Brian paid half of his payment  along with all future profits from the songs, when the original July 1992 suit was looking for 30 percent of 10 million, which would be a 3 million payment?

It took Brian years to pay Mike his settlement, if he ever did pay the full amount. If Brian was in the right, why not appeal Mike's settlement? It was possible for Brian to pursue an appeal. Just asking that, too.

It always devolves into this and name calling.

I think all of us and Mike need to go on Dr. Phil!

Pinder, can we have it be Mike and OSD? ;D

What it devolves into is that Mike was right, Brian knew Mike was right, Brian didn't do anything to resolve the situation, actually Brian fought it, Mike sues, Mike is the bad guy for suing, and oh whoa is Brian.

All these legal details do is detract from the issue which is Brian's character, or lack of, in handling the matter.

That's the legal system. I hope there isn't a perception that when the papers are signed a lump-sum check is just handed over and deposited that same day. From medical claims to home insurance claims to any other payouts through the legal system it can take years to see any of the money, even without appeals coming into the process.

Slant it any way, the numbers are listed above.

As far as Brian appealing, the news report from December 1994 was that Brian and Mike hugged and laughed after the jury came back with the verdict and the case was eventually settled. So I don't think there was any desire to keep it going, and it's a sentiment also revealed in the various reports of Don Was working with Brian and Mike when they got back together to write songs. Brian told Don while they were making Don's documentary to reach out to the Beach Boys, that he wanted to work with them, and they were receptive too - but the lawsuit which settled in Dec 1994 prevented that from happening. After it was settled, Brian and Mike started writing together within the next year.

http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/generalized_def.html

You're leaving out one crucial element. Brian in a legal ruling from December 1991 had his finances placed under the control of a conservator, it was instigated as part of the Landy debacles, and is a confusing chain of events and court battles which followed, from the Loves to his mother and his daughters to eventually Carl Wilson. But a judge did rule that Brian's affairs be placed in conservatorship.

And that essentially means Brian was not able under that ruling to make decisions on his financial or legal affairs without the conservator actually doing the decision-making.

And recall that something important happened in summer 1995, reported here:

More bad vibrations for Beach Boys founder Brian Wilson, 53. The singer-songwriter filed suit against lawyer Jerome Billet, his former court-appointed conservator, claiming negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, Sept. 19 in Los Angeles. Billet was assigned to represent Wilson's interests in all legally binding contracts from 1992 to 1995 because a court had deemed the singer ''mentally incompetent.'' Wilson, who contends Billet misrepresented him in a variety of business dealings resulting in the loss of millions, is asking Los Angeles Superior Court to award him unspecified damages of at least $10 million. David C. Nelson, a lawyer for Billet, says, ''We're confident that Mr. Billet acted in the utmost good faith. He intends to defend [himself] against these claims vigorously.''


So unfortunately for Mike and Brian and which events shaped our opinions of their actions, all of the above lawsuits came and went at the time Brian was deemed by a court ruling to be "mentally incompetent" and therefore all of the decisions relating to his financial and legal affairs went to the conservator. Whether Brian said "let's screw over Mike" or "let's settle this thing now", it simply wasn't his call under a court ruling to do so.

Now, would we still suggest Brian was malicious or showed a lack of character in his handling of these specific affairs when a court ordered that he could not legally make any decisions on his own in these affairs without his court-appointed legal counsel?

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

(sarcasm)-Big bad Brian Wilson has made Mike Love's life so hard being a genius songwriter and everything.

It's also easy to say that Brian should have "grown a pair" and stood up to Murry at the start. Well, certainly, in a healthy situation, he should have. But, insisting that this is a character failure doesn't take into account the fact that he was in a very dysfunctional relationship with an abusive father who was also their manager. Children of abusive parents tend to become either overly aggressive and violent or become shy and avoidant. Which one would you figure Brian for? Given that, and the fact that he was just barely an adult in the first place, I think it's not at all strange that he didn't confront Murry and demand Mike get his due. Besides, what was preventing Mike from doing the confronting for himself?

And, before anyone claims I'm a Brianista,  I feel that Mike was definitely due the money he was awarded. That particular legal settlement was justified.

Interesting point with Orange Crate Art. Keep in mind that was released in 1995, and being worked on I believe in 1994, which means any contracts or agreements that were signed or any royalty or payment/credit structures created were done at a time when Brian's legal and financial affairs were under the control of a conservator.

It may be a case of certain legalities and contract issues that were negotiated around that album under the control of the conservator are still wrapped up in the affairs of the conservator.

If the implication that "Brian's people" are holding it up for any reason, I'd suggest looking deeper into what was agreed in 1994-95 and who agreed to it, since by court order Brian was not allowed to make those decisions at that time under law. At least before opening the case up to a suggestion that there is an intent beyond what was originally signed.

And that gets to the point I hinted at earlier: How can Brian's decision-making or choices related to the lawsuits mentioned above be challenged when Brian himself was not allowed under court orders to make those decisions?

And is the Orange Crate Art issue one of Brian's people as a notion in the present day, or the legal terms of who was responsible for these contracts and decisions in 1994-5 when they were originally signed regarding the album? I'm seriously asking, I don't know the answer. The whole reissue thing may be caught up in legal papers from 18 years ago.

I believe this is incorrect. Until this message, I have never read nor heard of Van Dyke suing Brian over Sail on Sailor. I don't think his name has ever been off the song's credits, either.

What did happen was the VDP's name did disappear from the credits for Wonderful at a certain point, as well as some Smile tracks. He talked with Melinda about it before the BWPS project began in earnest, and she restored his name (and presumably, his percentage) to those songs.

As for OCA, it's not quite all Van Dyke's work. Brian arranged the vocals (uncredited), which is a considerable part of the album's charm.

Plus this great scene from the Don Was documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiykTknz51U

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

Me too. If Mike got shortchanged on credits he deserved, then of course he was due what was owed him. That's a pretty clear-cut issue. The jury agreed.

What sticks in my mind, though, is that the original July 1992 suit filed by Mike in this case named 48 songs where Mike claimed he wasn't credited. In the course of the trial, that number got reduced to 35, which was what the decision specifically counted. And the original filing was for 50 million, after Brian several weeks before had settled for 10 million from A&M. Where does the 40 million come in? And the eventual payment for Mike was settled at 5 million, plus future royalties and full credits, but what about the 45 million difference that changed from filing to settlement?

So what were the 13 songs that were eliminated during the proceedings, and why were they eliminated? Was it a case of Mike's lawyers filing claims on more songs and more income than what he was actually due, or was it a case where they couldn't prove he was owed credit and payment on all 48 songs but had enough proof to decide on 35 of them instead?

The 13 songs...the original 50 million filing...that's the question.

Right, but as I just wrote as you posted this (I agree, BTW), how does an original offer of $750,000 and future royalties/credits change to a lawsuit seeking 50 million along with the royalties and credits? And involving what the jury or judge (or court in general) determined were 13 less songs than Mike originally claimed in the lawsuit he was entitled to?

I've read in more than one place that Van Dyke's name disappeared from the song at some point over the years, then was restored. I also read that he had sued, but perhaps that wasn't quite accurate, since whoever wrote about that for Wikipedia wrote the same thing, and there isn't a citation for it. Van Dyke at least threatened to sue, perhaps it was settled before it got to that point. Van Dyke has brought it up more than once. He pretty much claims to have written most of the song, music and words. Ray Kennedy also claimed to have been "alone in a room" with Brian and written most of it, but Ray also says that Brian told him that the only people allowed to sing the song would be either Danny Hutton or Van Dyke Parks. Strange stuff.  There's more about it here in a discussion on the Steve Hoffman board:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ray-kennedys-account-of-writing-sail-on-sailor-w-brian-wilson.129497/

I believe it went the other way, big suit, offer of tiny settlement, smaller jury award. To those blaming Mike for the percentage credit, didn't involve Mike. He didn't ask for a level of credit, that was all set by the jury/judge.

I did

Reply #208

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.200.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.200.html)



Oh, and does calling me by my surname make you feel tough?

Are you the new internet tough guy?

Are you going to teach me a lesson?

 :o

What took Brian so long to sue Irving? What's the difference? He got the job done. Now we are suspicious of Mike for helping Brian in his suit against Irving. Man. Mike also tried to help Brian against Mike's own interest in Mike's suit against Brian/Irving. What a jerk.

What about the 13 songs in question which Mike claimed he deserved credit for in the lawsuit and were eliminated from the final decision? Was Mike claiming credit for songs he didn't write, or could he just not prove in court that he was entitled to credit for those 13 songs?

Plus, at least one news report specifically mentioned Mike seeking 30% of the 10 million judgement Brian had just received from A&M the month before (June), which still doesn't come close to the 50 million which was the figure Mike's lawsuit was asking (July). Was the lawsuit then asking for 40 million more for Mike's lyrics than even the amount Brian's lawsuit agreed to value for his lost payments?

It doesn't add up. On the surface one could argue there is a difference between asking to reclaim what was rightfully yours and asking for something beyond what you'd be entitled to receive.

My uncle says he saw Mike talking to a loan officer in Santa Barbara in the 70s... if only Brian remembered to put his name on California Girls... :/

My previous post: Suing for 50 million plus royalty/credit against a recent settlement of 10 million, naming 48 songs when it was more like 35 in question according to the court...on the surface would that look like someone trying to help?

"ML: I learned that when you do the best job that you can do, some people will idolize you, others won't care and some will vilify you. I believe it is important to remain humble and thankful for the blessings in our lives, for the tremendous opportunities that are a result of our musical success."


From this we have devolved into 13 pages of he said this, he said that.

It's hilarious that this innocuous interview has sparked this debate again. With neither side listening to each other for a moment...

It's a lot easier just to consider all this stuff basically none of our business and to be a Beach Boys fan warts n all.

Is the 50 million figure from court documents or speculation in an interview? But let's say it's true. It would neither help nor hurt since a jury set the award I believe and it wouldn't change the fact that Mike did the things I said.

I said what it was a claim by Mike. You will have to look up Mike's interview for his explanation. I don't know why Brian waited so long but Mike has given an explanation for his timing. Has or has not Brian admitted that it happened and Mike deserved the money?

Can't lawyers look up at least a description of suits back to that period on LexisNexis so we can know how many suits and who were the plaintiffs and defendants?

All of Brian's "malicious" happened long before any conservatorship or the lawsuit in a time when Brian was super competent.  He was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. On the other hand Mike and his lawyer argued for Brian against Brian's lawyers in Mike's suit against Irving/Brian.

Classy.

Mistaken reporting, exaggeration, some didn't make the pre-trial cut, didn't meet the standard of proof? Mike had to prove his claims and the ones they awarded had the proof.

Hey, a quintuple! This is fun.

Would you accept the actual clippings of newspaper reports and wire service reports from the weeks in which these cases and suits were either filed or concluded?

Seriously, if you can't take my word for it as I can and will post the exact reports stating the exact numbers I've quoted, I'm sorry that it will have reached that point of suspending trust that I'm not making these things up and going from the exact reports of the details, but I'll do so.

Mike's claim of 48 songs in the initial lawsuit being pared down to 35, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's 50 million lawsuit filing coming weeks after Brian's court victory over A&M settled for 10 million, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's claim of 30% of 10 million from Brian's settlement with A&M based on a supposed agreement between legal teams, that's in the lawsuit.

That's all in the public record via wire reports and news accounts, again if you think I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air I'll copy-paste-post those exact articles.

Now there's this:

Can you back up the "malicious" charge with a date, or an account of that which shows Brian acted maliciously in these affairs? Is it something Mike said in an interview?

Now, here's the contradiction I see in your statement.

You state Brian was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. Yet, Mike Love, Stan Love, Carl Wilson, Audree Wilson, Wendy and Carnie Wilson...they themselves were the ones arguing that Brian was not fit to make decisions on his own, that such a condition under Landy's care prevented him from making choices like this, and therefore filed to have a conservator appointed for him to oversee his affairs. That was granted by a judge in late 1991, a conservator was appointed and was there at least until 1995.

The Irving suit was filed in 1989, settled in June 1992. Stan Love filed the conservator petition in May 1990.

So is this the same Mike and Stan Love who petitioned the courts to appoint a conservator for Brian because he was not competent enough to handle his own affairs as shown by the recent history of his affairs and mental state both with and without Landy, yet that same man was competent enough to sue successfully, according to your suggestion?

So Brian was competent enough to file a lawsuit in 1989 and win that lawsuit in 1992, yet according to Stan Love and eventually Mike, his mother, brother, and daughters, he wasn't capable of making his own daily financial and legal decisions and required a conservator?

Which is it?

I was just asking where it came from.

Maybe Mike got the 50 million figure from Brian's suit against Irving. According to the LA Times Brian sued Irving for 50 million royalties and 50 million punitive and filed a second suit in US District Court. Mike won what he won and still did offer a lowball settlement and advocated for Brian in his own trial in which Brian was at least an "et al" so what did not happen seems irrelevant.

Malicious was a word you used and I used it to describe the behavior in the past that Irving/Brian was convicted of in court in the 90s.

OK, Brian's conservator was competent to sue Irving. Perhaps Mike's lowball offer and his advocacy for Brian against Brian's lawyers in his trial explains it. It all happened so it explains itself I guess.

I keep trying to bite my tongue, go to another thread, turn off the computer, watch TV, but I can't. I can't help it.

guitarfool2002, you keep doing it. Your facts - and yes I consider them to be facts - are impressive. But they continue to be irrelevant to the debate, as stupid as the debate is I will grant you. Now you're onto the conservatorship. Totally irrelevant.

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT BRIAN IS INCOMPETENT. He cannot handle his finances. He cannot adhere to a healthful diet. He is an addict who needs his medication monitored. And on and on. But, Brian Wilson is not insane. I don't think he is insane. Do you? I believe Brian Wilson knows right from wrong on MANY issues. Do you?

Forget any and all of the lawsuit details. That are totally irrelevant. Correction - not totally irrelevant. The lawsuit was necessary to get Brian to act, because he had proven that he was not going to act voluntarily. For the sake of THIS thread, for THIS discussion, anything past 1990 is irrelevant. Focus on the period 1965-1990, a quarter of a century before any lawsuit was settled, Mike Love was cheated out of songwriting credits and songwriting royalties. And Brian Wilson knew it. No, I can't give you a specific date or article or interview that will state that, but I believe that Brian knew that Mike was NOT receiving proper credit. And, for the ensuing approximately 25 years, Brian Wilson did nothing about it. It took a lawsuit to get any results. If the lawsuit hadn't been filed, Brian STILL wouldn't do anything about it and Mike still wouldn't have gotten credit. And why did the lawsuit have to be filed anyway. Why couldn't Brian be a good and fair man and settle it on his own, with Mike, one on one.

It's very simple. it's not complicated at all. If you can, please, please, please try to focus on the 25 years, a quarter of a century, when Brian did nothing. BEFORE THE LAWSUITS. That is the debate. That is the point. The lawsuit is all after the fact, after the fact that Brian wasn't gonna do or say a damn thing to make things right. That's the issue - right from wrong. If you or anybody else can't admit that, then I think that is very sad.

I'm still amazed that I have to actually defend liking a member of my favorite band and liking what he's contributed. It seems insane to even think that my personal taste has to be taken so deeply into question because I think some of his contributions were highlights of some particular album or whatever. I can't see why it can't just be accepted that some fans really really dig the whole enchilada and not just Pet Sounds/Smile with all the rest up for heated debate..... And yet again, I ask: is Mike Love an asshole? Sure, maybe. But so what? I can still be a Beach Boys fan knowing this just as I can still enjoy Phil Spector tracks: and he likely SHOT A WOMAN IN THE FACE! ... This is rock n roll, not a courtroom and being a rock star is not tantamount to applying for Priesthood.

Now I'm supposed to have a conversation on issues within certain boundaries? Not gonna happen. Look, with all due respect, any opinion can be debated into becoming a fact if the parameters are restricted to what the person with the opinion says they should be. The lawsuit isn't relevant, the conservatorship isn't relevant, nothing after 1990 is relevant. That's a convenient way of shutting down anyone who disagrees with whatever the topic is or was, and if the facts that surrounded the lawsuit which was supposed to bring the "25 years" of wrongs to a fair legal conclusion aren't allowed to be mentioned...not quite.

About those 25 years before 1990: What kind of power are you assuming Brian Wilson had over the catalog of songs which would have made it possible to put Mike's name on them? He was 50% of Sea Of Tunes, Murry the other 50%, after 1969 when Murry sold the entire thing to A&M neither controlled anything! The rights to the songs went to Irving/A&M, simple as that.

Tell me what legal power Brian would have had in 1973, or 1981, or even 1986 to file such a suit based on the valuation of that song catalog? Future earnings? The band was in a black hole of popularity from 1969 to 1990 more often than when they were successful.

Why didn't Mike file something against the owners of the song catalog, A&M, in those 25 years when he had as much ownership of what used to be called "Sea Of Tunes" after 1969 as Brian had? Which was nil, nothing. If we're talking strictly about the case brought against Irving Almo and A&M, Brian controlled as much in that area as Al Jardine.

So he'd sue A&M in 1981, let's say, based on a valuation of a band in ruins with future earning potential far less than it would be less than a decade later.

It's a two-way street as everything usually is: If Mike felt he wasn't getting the credit he deserved, why wouldn't he go after those who actually owned the songs at anytime within those 25 years instead of waiting for Brian to act, or expecting Brian to act?

Mike won the case based on 35 songs written before 1969 that he could prove he deserved a credit and payments: He could have filed the case at any time against the owners if his case was that open-and-shut, so the songs could be properly credited.

Brian did not have the ownership or legal control over those songs to simply order that Mike be cut in after Murry sold all of them for 700,000. Everything went to A&M for that lump sum.

In fact, it was STEVE LOVE who delivered the papers to Brian and watched as Brian signed the papers in 1969. If it was an issue with Mike, and he was not only losing income but potentially losing all future interests in the songs as well, why didn't he fight it legally at that time? Did Mike even challenge Murry? Did he confront "Uncle Murry" about selling all the songs?

sh*t, did Mike do anything at all when Murry pocketed the full 700,000 lump sum payment for the songs and shared none of it, and his own brother working for Nick Grillo delivered those contracts to Brian personally?

Did everyone agree with Murry except Brian on this one, since no one seems to have fought him or his decision except Brian? Or something else?

So many facets to all of this, yet we want to set parameters and guidelines and all sorts of limitations on discussing it. That's not possible. There are no simple answers, surely not one that suggests Brian should shoulder the lionshare of the blame for fucking Mike out of the songs.

The lawsuits(s) should really be something of a non-issue for us fans. Bands gets screwed out of what they're due all the time. Don't the Kinks still get zero from all their pre-RCA stuff? Or something like that? Most bands we love have sued each other too many times for too many reasons to ever list and for much sillier things than rightful or even arguable credit owed (Roger Waters anyone?) .... In the end, it's a personal and business matter between professionals. Maybe we can try leaving it at that. I dunno.

Asked this in the thread for various questions, but it fell on deaf ears. So, since Mike brings up TM in this interview (like all interviews), I figured it was applicable to pose it in here too:

In the Gaines book, it says the Maharishi suggested the Beatles tithe 10-25% of their earnings into a Swiss bank account in his name. Does anyone know if Mike has been doing any of this since the late-60s? How heavily involved is Mike into TM? He seems to mention it in almost every single appearance, concert, interview, etc. And in this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-512747/Lennon-right-The-Giggling-Guru-shameless-old-fraud.html) it says Mike is a teacher of TM, so he must have some investment in the movement.

Is there any possibility that TM and Mike's involvement has more to do with some of the disagreements within the band than anyone may surmise from the surface? It's entirely possible I'm completely off base in this question, but I felt it was worth hearing what others had to say.

I'll go one further, if it's the lawsuits in question I'll place any blame for questionable actions or even the *appearance* of questionable actions on the legal teams involved in filing and arguing the cases rather than the guys named Mike and Brian. Clear enough?

What I won't let pass without debate is the notion that Brian Wilson should be shouldering most if not all of the blame for screwing Mike out of his due credits and money because he didn't do anything. I'd agree only if Brian Wilson or anyone involved was the only one who had direct legal authority over and enough control of the items in question to make such a change before 1992 when he won a settlement overturning the Sea Of Tunes sale to A&M.

And I'd agree too if there were any, I repeat *any* reports of Mike in any way challenging these wrongs against him with Murry leading up to the liquidation of all the songs in 1969. Nothing was said or done after California Girls or I Get Around started bringing in the cash?

Nothing? Or was Mike given the David Marks or Tony Asher ultimatum from Murry...play ball on these terms or hit the road. Brian's fault too, all of that?

It might help to point out that Mike used to have a meditation room set aside at whatever studio they were using and Dennis would make it a point to bang some girl in that room ahead of time to put his "stamp" on the place ;)

And Guitarfool: the same benefit of doubt I give Mike, I give to Brian first and foremost. He was under immense pressure and Mike, unlike other "contracted" collaborators, was in the band/family and was likely free to speak up at any time. But he was under pressure too, so it is what it is and could ultimately be resolved only with legal action.

guitarfool, do you think Brian Wilson ever felt sorry or bad or sad that Mike Love did not get the credit and royalties for the songs that Mike contributed to?

And that kiddies, is why Lawyers love rock stars.  ;)

And that's the preferred tactic of Kokomaoists near and far.

You have to understand what a great guy Mike is -- as long as you use this special, narrow perspective that excludes the nonstop parade of shittiness he's pelted Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson and Al Jardine with for the last 50 years.

Who's ever said Mike's a great guy?

No one other than maybe Bruce?

Mike is an asshole in a band full of assholes in a profession full of assholes. End of story. If you can't deal with that, Pet Sounds/Smile are there for you to focus on while I get 50 years of great stuff :(:):)

I'm a facts, figures, and useless bits of trivia kind of guy when it comes to the Beach Boys, or at least I'm trying to be. Without knowing Brian or Mike personally, and without the ability to pick up a phone and ask either one about it as an acquaintance, I'm not willing to offer an opinion on something like that in this case. When I've done so in the past I've regretted it.

I think everyone in the band and their acquaintances around the band have had moments of lousy judgement, selfish behavior that harmed others, and a general lack of compassion and understanding for people around them. But whatever I think of those missteps, I'm not going to assume or try to guess what they were thinking at the time or how they felt afterward.

If you take press accounts of what happened after the lawsuit was decided, Mike and Brian laughed and hugged one another. It sounds like they both perhaps were glad it was over.

Does anybody know which 13 songs Mike asked for credit for, but was denied?

Is it just me are just about all the Mike lovers/Kokomaoists from the UK?   Maybe having lived their lives in such gloomy weather, they have really bought into Mike's "Summer in Paradise" fantasy.  ;D

My big problem with Mike (and he is an asshole, I've met the guy off script and personal) is that he has cemented himself as a traveling nostalgia act when he could recording and touring still as the Beach Boys and still be relevent. That's my opinion.

Summer In Paradise fantasy?

I can tell you, as an LA native who grew up in Manhattan Beach: it's really not a fantasy!

Go bike riding down the strand on any 4th of July (past many spots name checked in their songs) and it's nothing but Beach Boys blasting from decks, the beach, cars!

Not a fantasy in the least and classic Beach Boys will never really be nostalgia. Never ever. And it will always be relevant.

Damm you Mira Costa High. There goes that theory. Ha.  Hey, I went to Redondo High Pinder. Small world.

K, you get a full pass on being any kind of Kokomaoists!

I'm not guitarfool, but I'll chime in on this too... I almost think that in the first few years of the band, and even in the years preceding the band's formation, BW + ML likely developed a dysfunctional relationship which was dictated by their personalities. ML being more dominant, and BW being more passive and wanting to avoid conflict. I think ML has a bully streak in him. That's an outside observation, and I say that having known bullies in my life... feel free to tell me how crazy I am for saying such a thing, but that's what it seems like to me.

So I'm guessing that BW already had some brewing longstanding resentment in the back of his mind against ML in some fashion, which only grew in the mid 60s when the two men's artistic differences (and views for what the direction of the band should be) grew apart more and more. But I speculate that the seeds of this were already in BW's head years earlier than '65/'66 when they really started butting heads. Maybe this even went back to their childhoods. I assume that in the late 1950s, BW + ML 's relationship pre BBs must have shared some similarities with how their relationship evolved/devolved to when the band + money + fame came into play.

We're talking personalities that clash, but they are family, and that just complicates the sh*t out of everything.  So I think that, based on a resentment for being psychologically bullied to some degree, however small, that 1960s BW probably didn't feel as sorry or bad as he would have otherwise (if ML's personality were different). 1960s BW probably knew it was a f*cked up situation that wasn't fair to ML (which it certainly wasn't), but again, in avoiding conflict as was BW's pattern, he just didn't want to touch the hairy situation with a 10-foot pole. And of course, that doesn't make it right.

I really, really doubt it was any kind of black-and-white evil concerted effort to screw someone over for years, but more something that included many factors, like BW thinking "this person has f*cked with my artistic vision and has given me emotional hardships to some degree, so why am I gonna make some kind of effort to fix this". I sincerely think this likely approximates some of the thoughts that BW had about ML at the time. I empathize with this resentment, though its very existence is simply my educated guess. ML defenders can say all they want about how this is untrue, but nobody except BW can know for sure. And sadly, even if BW categorically stated this is/was the case, there would be people saying he was being fed the answer. And the messed up thing is, since BW's latter-day answers (like on Beautiful Dreamer) are doubted by many people (for real, legit reasons of thinking he is being fed some answers), it enables history to be re-written by people with different agendas, and further complicates the wacky BBs story, which is almost like a SMiLE puzzle in and of itself.  

Murry's ethical shadiness on business dealings (despite his letters to BW stating how ethically sound a father he was) must've rubbed off on BW to a degree, but I think a big part of the equation was BW having some resentment against the person (ML) who was being legitimately wronged by being uncredited for years. And certainly, who knows how much of ML's "questionable" behavior over the years stems from his own resentment (which he apparently kept inside for 30 years) about the unfair songwriting credits situation? Those feelings don't just stay inside someone. They are gonna come out, TM or no TM. Basically, how much of everything on both sides is due to grudges?

So tragic how dysfunctional family behavior (from many sides) has been a huge thorn in the side of this wonderful band (duh, but I felt it needed to be said anyway).

Just an outsider's humble opinion.

If it helps, I was not particularly loyal to Mira Costa as most of my friends eithdr went to Redondo High, Hawthorne High or PV High :p

Cheers: fellow South Bay kid!

How bout your boardwalk on the 4th of July.  Now, that was quite the party.  Maybe still is.
I had friends everywhere, even Torrance High, Ha. Good basketball around there cept Morningside always kicked our butts.

In a Goldmine interview with Mike - forget the year, might be 1992 - the number of songs was 79, and one specific title mentioned that didn't make the cut was "Surfin' USA".


I've met Mike 'off screen' as well, and for more than 10 minutes, and my experience was entirely different: so, who is 'right' here ?

Relevant ? The Beach Boys in toto haven't been relevant since, oh, 1973. Brian isn't 'relevant'. Done some fine, outstanding work since 1999 but nothign's altered the course of music as it did back in 1963-66.

OK, that's my contribution for the day - I'm off to a village in Wiltshire to go see a 14th century tithe barn and a possibly 9th century, indisputably Saxon, church. Why ? Because I want to. I'm just a rock & roll animal, huh ?  ;D

Again I'll try reason.

To me, this is nothing to do with lawsuits and royalties. It is to do with this. I'm being told I'm wrong to have an opinion of someone. In no uncertain terms.
Whether you like someone or not is an entirely subjective thing based on your personal moral compass.

An example, which happens to be true.

My wife and I both know someone who never shuts up. You literally cannot get a word in edgeways.

I don't mind. I find this person interesting and to me its a harmless character flaw.

My wife cannot stand this person and finds her behavior the height of rudeness.

Now according to Cam Motts argument, someone needs to be wrong here. He has consistently said so.

No one side is going to convince the other of anything, or find common ground if it has boiled down to "I'm right and your wrong"

(Yes, I know I had that exact exchange with Cam. I was joking. I thought he was as well. Frighteningly it seems he was not)

The best we can hope to achieve is "Lets agree to differ"


And I also have a message for Pinder.

I've agreed what a lot of what you, and some others have said. In no way have I questioned your tastes or said you're wrong to think as you do. I think your basic premise of "Mike is an arsehole, so what" would be a great place to wrap this up.

I in no way associate your's, or Dancing Bear's, or any of the other people who have raised valid points with Cam Motts inane ramblings. Personally I would be highly embarrassed if he were the poster boy for my argument.

Well, what else Mike did showed himself not to be the man of spiritual integrety he likes to portray himself. Quite the opposite.

Quite a different situation than posing for photos in your formal gear. Gee, since BRIMEL nixed you AGD, your nose has turned a Love-ly shade of brown.  ;D

I have to admire the way that you guys continue to drag this out. Especially as the group members are not interesting people. They've led interesting lives but are not interesting people. Hard to think of many comments that any of them have made in interviews that have been intelligent, perceptive, groundbreaking etc. I reckon Mike would piss himself if he saw how much attention was being paid to a promotional interview he has probably already forgotten.

The music is all important...

But do you not see a double standard? Mike may have a asshole streak in him but what about the guy who f***ed his brother's and bandmate's wives, beat his women up, had a child with his underage cousin and became an alcoholic mess who would disrupt concerts with his drunken, abusive behaviour - why should this guy get a free pass while Mike's less than admirable qualities are put under the microscope every time the guy's name comes up?
Or how about the guy who had an affair with his wives sister while fantasizing about their other underage sister, tried to give hard drugs to his children, cut his children out of his life for years and didn't lift a finger to stop a bandmate being cut out of songwriting credits he deserved, back at a time when he still generally had his mental facilities intact - same deal?

This debate over credits has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone (BTW I'm fans of ALL the BBs), it's about right and wrong and Mike getting the shaft over songs he wrote lyrics to is wrong. Feel free to dislike Mike, that is not the issue here.


Nicely put; the only guy who seemed like an out and out nice guy all the time was Carl.

I don't think anyone's saying they should get a free ride.  I offered some reasons as to why they possibly do though about 5 pages ago.

Why don't you start a thread criticising Brain and Dennis and see how it pans out? Serious suggestion.

Because (a) I'm fans of both of them and couldn't possibly harbour the level of hatred Mike's detractors seem to have in spades needed to justify my time in doing so and
(b) the outcome would be all too predictable anyway as anyone labelled 'Wilson' seem to be placed on such a pedestal, that for many their actions seem to be above criticism. Read back on this thread for details.

No, you read back on the thread. Read all the posts where I've said I don't hate Mike. Read all the posts were I've tried to take the middle ground. Read all the posts were I've said "lets agree to differ"

Actually why bother when you can just keep rehashing the same arguments ad nauseum?

And for me the thread is very much about like and dislike and being told my subjective view is wrong. Me and Pinder both. We're the only two on here who seem interested in resolving this amicably.

 So is my subjective view wrong Stephen? Can I pull that card everytime someone disagrees with me? And the phrase "agree to disagree" becomes worthless when you then again jump into the discussion with gusto to state your views. You also seem to think I have you tagged as a 'Myke hater/basher', clearly you are not but they certainly exist and often without any foundation in reality . Not so much on this board, but within the internet they are legion.

I do struggle to understand why some people hate the guy so much. I tend to reserve my hate for people that have pissed me off in real life, not some old guy from a rock band, thousands of miles away. Can he be a douche? For sure. Do I roll my eyes whenever he mentions the word 'humble' in the same sentence when talking about himself? Absolutely. Do I think TM is a pile of sh*t and wish he'd shut up talking about it? Pretty much.
However in Mike I'm not looking for a best friend, a potential husband or life teacher, but as a guy who fronts my favourite band he pretty much fits the bill. To quote what Pinder has already said "Mike can be an asshole, so what?"

Of course your view isn't wrong, I take it that was rhetorical and I hope I haven't made anyone feel their view is wrong (unless they've tried to do so to me)

And yes, I keep being pulled back in despite telling myself not to.

I don't like the mindless youtube / bloo crowd either. A minority on here though will peg you as a Myke hater if you voice the slightest critism. I'm fully aware this cuts both ways though.


Absolutely. And as has been said, he's an arsehole, but he's our arsehole.

Even if we do limit ourselves to the rights and wrongs of the courtcase, this is still subjective. Legally he hd every right to sue Brian. I can think of a million legal rulings though which have been morally questionable. For me, I find it abhorrent that Mike could sue the person to whom he owes everything. There is no way I'd ever do anything like that. If folk disagree with that, that's fine. Just depends how you view things. It all comes back to this.....

Unless you've been in that position, I'm not sure how anyone could make that assertion with any certainty.

When Spandau Ballet started out I doubt the other members ever thought they would sue Gary Kemp but they did.

The same goes for The Smiths drummer taking Morrissey and Johnny Marr to court.

When people think they have been screwed in business then everything else goes out of the window...

Again, for me it wouldn't be about the money (and I say this as someone who is never going to have a fraction of the money Mike Love has) but just wanting people to know that I wrote the words for songs as great as California Girls. Maybe for some it was a stoop that Mike waited for Brian's legal team to do all the legwork of taking a huge publishing company to court and only staking a claim for what was his after a favourable ruling, but again, if Brian had done the right thing back in 1965 none of this would have been necessary.

Well, I'm talking about what I would or would not do in a given situation, so yes, I can make that assertion with certainty. My scruples would not allow me to sue the person to whom I owed my success.

Whether you believe me or not is an entirely different matter.

Anyways, some of us are starting to get personal so.....

Still don't see how the timing of the suits delegitimized the claims. Brian's claims were valid even though it had been decades and he had never previously filed a claim. What happened still happened regardless of the timing of the suit.  Mike's claims were still valid for the same reasons and just as Brian did he presented his evidence and a jury made an award. And again has not Brian admitted that Mike was wronged?  Brian was the guy working directly with Mike, Brian was also the co-publisher,
Brian signed the forms without Mike credited, and Brian says he knew Mike was not being properly credited but....we still have Murry. We'll always have Murry.  Here's lookin' at you kids.

I don't understand, at all, why anyone would think that Brian should never be sued by people who "owe him everything." He's not God. And actually, Brian owes the Beach Boys quite a lot for helping him make hit records (not just Mike, the entire group). Brian never had a hit without the Beach Boys, either by himself or producing other people. There must be something about the sound of their voices, because Brian used the same session musicians on his outside productions. Also, the Beach Boys toured while Brian stayed home. It's not just  a matter of them making money that they sent back to Brian, but the fact they kept the band in the public eye by doing that. Heck, they were doing TV appearances without Brian due to his not wanting to do them, and for those who don't get the connection between touring and record sales, they surely must understand why TV appearances are important. And yes, if I did perform work that would otherwise have helped me pay the bills had I received proper credit, I would sue.  I agree with the point that Mike shouldn't have waited so long to sue. I also think he shouldn't have needed to sue. But Brian and/or Murry didn't credit him.  If people like Ray Kennedy had that right to pursue a remedy get their name put on a Brian Wilson song, then so did Mike.

That must have been before the lawsuit was officially drawn up, because every news account I've seen, video and print, cites the "35 songs" as the ones Mike won the case on, and that number was shaved down from 48 in the initial claim. Maybe the 79 was the original number and the legal team decided they couldn't prove that many so they trimmed the list.

Or maybe Mike was either mistaken or exaggerating in that interview, as it's more than double what he eventually won in court.

Here's a December 14, 1994 AP report of the lawsuit with those details:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/mikebrianlawsuit_zpsb1b0e43f.jpg)

Well as you presumably haven't been in the situation, no you can't.

I'm sure many men before they get married say that their scruples would not allow them to be unfaithful. I'm sure they believe it just as you believe what you're saying. Doesn't make it true though...

Wore the penguin suit because that was the dress code for Henley. Totally not my choice. As for your amusing insistence that I'm in some/any way being shunned by BriMel, well that would be pretty hard for them to do seeing as there's never been any connection there anyway: quite the reverse, as anyone with any true grasp of the situation knows. But you keep on thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at.  :lol

Something about the original process of registering and crediting these songs still remains a mystery to me. I'm really curious to read some opinions after seeing these documents.

Disclaimer #1: I'm not trying to re-try the case. I wouldn't doubt some of these same questions if not the exact documents were part of the original court proceedings during the lawsuit. I'm just curious about what seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle.

Disclaimer #2: I know these photos and scans are terrible, you can barely read the details and they're very large images, but these are the only copies I have, and you can read the important stuff well enough to consider them. These came from a Beach Boys online auction from the 2000's.

I'm still reading some opinions about what Brian did or didn't do with these credits, still presenting an opinion that his lack of action was to blame. Cam also mentioned Murry Wilson. Crucial part of what's to follow.

These are the original copyright forms submitted for the songs. These came from Murry Wilson, who was in effect running the operations of Sea Of Tunes, and signs several of these as "publisher" and on another one "owner". You'll see Murry's signature as publisher, the principal songwriters, and the signature of a witness.

The process was as follows, it was almost exactly the same process up to the digital age.

The song would be written. You would need to have a "lead sheet" prepared showing the melody, chords, and lyrics so your creation could be registered officially as your own. These lead sheets were often done by either an in-house music copyist or by a music copying service, one of the more famous in LA in the 60's was Bob Ross (not the Joy Of Painting host...), who ran these services and would copy scores, parts, and lead sheets for LA's music community. A musician would either get a demo or acetate, or listen to the song live, and transcribe it into musical script. Brian Wilson did *not* do this, most pro musicians on Brian's or the Beatles' or whoever's level did not write these charts, but handed them off to a pro.

The lead sheet would be filed, along with the signed forms, and depending on what was being filed, an audio recording as well. The package would be sent off, registered and cataloged, and that process established ownership of that song.

As the person running day-to-day at Sea Of Tunes, listed as publisher, again this was Murry's job, or his secretary, whoever did the filing. But apart from signing the documents, the actual writers did not do this nuts-and-bolts kind of paperwork.

A song would be written, the lead sheet would be prepared, the documents would be filled out, the "Boys" and whoever else was a co-writer would then sign the forms, with Murry and the witness, and the package would be sent off.

My question is this:

Mike Love was a musician and songwriter by trade. His being called in to sign documents like this for original songs was part of the job, I'm guessing Murry would have the papers prepared and whoever wrote the songs would then sign whatever documents needed to be filed.

My question is this: If Mike wrote or contributed to a specific song, let's say "I Get Around" as it's mentioned in the news report, at what point did he not think something was wrong with how the song was registered? He'd obviously be signing a handful of forms for tunes he wrote with Brian, Murry would have the papers ready to go and probably be there co-signing them in most cases...did Mike ever question or challenge these credits as he was signing these papers?

He'd be there signing for other songs, he knew the process, it was the same one Murry seems to have used up to the 1969 sale. What happened in that process which led Mike to not challenge why he wasn't listed on certain songs which he knew he had contributed to?

Here's the scans of those original copyright filings. I deliberately included "I Get Around" as it was named in the lawsuit reports, as was "409". Notice "409" has Gary Usher's signature, and Brian's, and Murry's as publisher/owner, and the witness, but not Mike who apparently claimed and won credit. "Don't Worry Baby" similarly has Roger Christian's signature, so it's not like co-writers were being left off other tunes.

Then from the later years, "Do It Again", where both Mike and Brian signed with Murry for ownership. Murry was still the day-to-day administrator of these dealings at Sea Of Tunes, whether or not he was the hands-on manager, he was still running the publishing and administration end of the Boys' songs.

I ask again: Why didn't Mike challenge any of this as he was seeing song after song which he knew he had worked on go uncredited? He knew he wrote "I Get Around", wouldn't he at some point demand from Murry at least an explanation why he didn't receive that credit at the time the forms were being drawn up and signed?

Or did he? And perhaps Murry "steamrolled" his questions with one of his "play ball or else" kind of replies?

Guessing and wondering, that's all. Here's the forms, most is unreadable but the signatures are clear:
I Get Around
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/igetaround_zpsc2391b3c.jpg)

409
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/409_zpsc71d2610.jpg)

Do It Again
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/doitagain_zps4df5c7ed.jpg)

I love how the suit wasn't even mentioned in the interview, but people somehow brought it in. Mike won. His suit wasn't thrown out and a jury and judge found merits to his arguments. There is no statute of limitation on his rights to sue. You know damn well why Mike sued when he did, because there was a new pot of money due to the I/A suit filed at the behest of Brian and Landy.

Why do people think Mike should be eternally grateful to Brian to the point of negating his own needs when Mike was an original member of the group? Brian didn't even write that much original material when they started, they did a lot of cover versions. They were a garage band. In the early years, the guys were much more equal. He also grew up with Brian and they slept in each other's houses and used each other's bathrooms, etc. They're relatives. I don't put any of my relatives on a throne, either, even if they had grown up to be geniuses and started a company with me, but had most of the main ideas. Mike has sweat equity in the Beach Boys and that counts for something, too.

You may be a fickle minded, weak willed individual, but that doesn't mean you can judge others by your own standards.  :lol

I've been married 14 years and never have been or will be unfaithful. So not a good analogy in my case, sorry me old mate!

How do we know he didn't?

Unfortunately, Mike was dealing with Murry Wilson and Brian Wilson. I didn't know Murry Wilson, but in many articles I've read about him, he has been referred to as "a sick man".

I don't know Brian Wilson either, but somebody who does, Tony Asher, referred to the Brian Wilson of 1966 as "an amateur human being".

All depends on circumstances doesn't it... :)

Anyway, I think Jon Stebbins got it right when he mentioned in his book about Brian having lawyers to defend him (or not in this case as observers of the trial have them down as the true villains of the piece). The Beach Boys stopped being just about the music many decades ago and instead became a corporation with each individual member bringing his lawyer along to group meetings. That seems a laughable situation to me but one which was always likely to lead to periods in court whether it be at Mike's, Al's or whoever's behest.

So if one person says something bad about you, then there's truth in it?

And you're defending Mike?

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Well that's certainly come up before. The idea that without the scum sucking lawyers around these guys might have sorted it out long ago. I don't think that's far from the truth.

And there's NO circumstance I'd ever cheat on my wife. Seriously.

Oh, I remember the days when the Doester would brag about talking to Mr. Wilson backstage during his British gigs. I remember when the Doester stated, during a debate about the Fire House footage and the GV promo video, he would ask Brian himself about it (which never came to pass).

My sources tell me you are not well liked in Brian's circles anymore AG "Butch" Doe. And no wonder as you opening insult Mrs. Wilson on this board. And, as you like to say, "they are watching".

I'm sure everyone in Brian's camp now loses massive amounts of sleep to know your now a anit-Wilson, pro Mike Love Brownista. You don't have to think, Chuck, to see that your whole perspective has changed in recent years.  ;D

According to Mike he did take it up back in the day with his co-author and the alleged co-publisher, Brian Wilson.

My question would be if Brian is the Producer, and the co-author who is also a co-publisher, why did he have these contracts and packages prepared without Mike's credit [where else would the names of coauthors come from but Brian] and also sign so many contracts which very visibly did not list  Mike as a co-author? And then why did he continue to do it. And then decades later why get Mike to help him get back the songs, some of which he didn't credit Mike on, and then stiff Mike for his trouble.  Sure Murry is there, but come on, Brian is the only one with his hands in every part of it and the only one with a sort of triple responsibility to make sure it was right or fix it when it was wrong. Maybe I'm missing the point but are offenders less guilty if the victim doesn't complain in a timely fashion?  I don't think so.

My second question would be why are we still trying to blame the victim, Mike.

PS. If the publisher draws up the forms and you are left off and your co-author/co-publisher doesn't stand up you wouldn't be there to complain since you aren't asked to sign those contracts.

I never got the impression that Andrew was an "insider" any more than other folks who've gotten to talk to Brian or had backstage access. Many people get backstage due to Brian's nice band. It has nothing to do with Brian or his minions. In any case, saying hi or asking a question doesn't make anyone an insider and I'm sure AGD doesn't claim otherwise. In any case, if he were a former insider banned by BriMel, he could be eligible to join a nice club that includes David Leaf, Van Dyke Parks, Andy Paley, and even Al Jardine at times.

Sorry, but that is the silliest post I've read in a long time. That's like arguing the world is flat. How many times has he name dropped about talking to one of his contacts. Recently he claimed to have picked up the phone and called David Marks. Or he talked to Alan Boyd. Or Mike Love  told him, and no one else before or since, that Brian said "No More". He loves to say he knows A or B told him C but he can't divulge the info cause it would compromise his source. Just read his thread "Trying".

Your analogy of VDP/Paley (Brian collaborators), or former Brian mgt (Leaf) is poor. Think about it.

It is safe to say he, at one time, had special access to the band. Like 1985. Times have changed.

ADD ON: Lorde, he just bragged a page ago in this thread about hanging with Mike Love for more than 10 minutes, he knows Mike, yada., because why? Insinuating, as always, he has special inside access/aka: Insider.

I wasn't talking specifically about you.

But none of us can say with 100% certainty how we would behave in a situation that we have never experienced. Which is the only relevant thing in this discussion.

Anyway...this thread now appears to have degenerated further so no matter.  :)

AGD wrote a book about them, now out of print. He did research for the book so I'd imagine he met some of those folks, as did others who wrote books. I don't think he ever claimed to have spent that much time with them. David Marks is more accessible than most and I would imagine he's more willing to talk to people, it's just a matter of someone asking. Spending ten minutes with Mike isn't a lot. I've always had the impression AGD thinks the Beach Boys are a band instead of Brian Wilson (and some other guys). That's an area not everyone agrees on. I sort of lean towards the Beach Boys being a band and the members having something significant to contribute. I don't think Mike has suffered for the Brian-centric view, though, as much as Carl Wilson or Al Jardine has. Only Dennis seems to rate in the world of the most Brian-centric view of the Beach Boys.

It is no slight to AGD that he knows Boyd, Love, Bruce, lots of people. I understand he attended some of the BB 85 sessions. Nothing bad about having inside connections with the band. Compared to me, he is an insider.

For whatever reason, he is on the outs with BRIMEL. And that is quite evident from his comments about Mrs. Brian Wilson.  No blame attributed there to AGD. Hell, Brian was tight with Joe Thomas. Then they were estranged and sued each other. Now buds again. Which way is the wind blowing? AGD may be writing liner notes for the new BAD album as far as I know.

Hey guys,

Do you mind if I jump in here?  I just want to clear things up about the lawsuit.  I'm seeing some information that is correct and not correct and I'd like to clear it up for the record if I may.

When Brian was suing to get the rights back to his songs, he asked if Mike would testify on his behalf.  Mike did so under the promise that he would get his songwriting credit for "California Girls".  That's all he wanted.  He would continue to forgo the credits he didn't have just for that one song.  When Brian's case was over and Mike asked about "California Girls", Brian and his people went back on their word and said no to the credit. 

Mike, who was also told at this time that the statue of limitations had passed and there was no way he could ever get his credits for anything he wrote, was very discouraged.  Finally, through his family and friends, his resolve to right this wrong became very strong.  He found a lawyer who told him that it wasn't too late.

There was about 80 songs but Mike only named 35 in the suit.  When the verdict came down, it came in the form of a 25 page document stating multiple counts of fraud by Brian Wilson.  The jury's awarded Mike $55 million dollars. 

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.  Brian in his prior case received $10 million - Mike asked for $5 million. 

And, yes, Mike and Brian were, in fact, hugging each other when it was all over.

Thanks for the interesting post.

The interesting thing for me when discussing the lawsuit is that soooo many people don't seem to care about what Brian's lawyers did to him. The focus is all about 'Big Bad Mike Love' when witnesses of the trial have stated that Brian's lawyers were screwing him. It is also utterly absurd that they didn't settle out of court when Brian had already admitted that Mike had co-written California Girls.

These guys want to lose their lawyers then.

That's some interesting points there Patricia. Not quite sure who you are and what your connection is to this, but it all sounds plausible. How happy I am that my family disagreements aren't played out in public, with scum sucking lawyers involved!

To reiterate. I don't hate Mike. He is the sort of person I find quite unpleasant though, a fact I doubt he loses much sleep over.  Suing the person to whom I owe my success is still something I'd never do, but putting it in the context of a family argument which was played on by lawyers makes it more understandable for me. I refuse to blame a mentally ill man who has been taken advantage of and wronged far more than Mike ever has been.

Also.......

Cam Mott. I'm sorry I called you a moron, and accused you of inanely rambling. You weren't.  I did it because you told me I was wrong to have a subjective opinion, which pisses me off greatly. Name calling is not on though and I apologise.

Really my final word. I will not be dragged back in under any circumstance  :lol

Patricia is familiar to  long-standing fans as the president of Mike's official fan club.


http://mikelovefanclub.com

Nice to get an unbiased perspective on the lawsuit  ;D

Thankfully we already have one:

http://www.cabinessence.net/essays/lovevwilson1.html

Looks like a good read.

Not Brian's or Brian's lawyers/conservators shiniest moments.

We're cool. For the record I thought we were being ironic telling each other we were wrong.

I looked up the Beach Boys discography on Wikipedia, and it showed that most of the Beach Boys' major hits were co-authored by Mike, including the first one, "Surfin." Most of them were always credited to Mike, only a couple of them were shown to have credits added after the lawsuit, "California Girls" and "Be True to Your School." I tend to believe Mike wrote most or all of the words to "School," because it's not quite Brian's style, not to mention it's a topic that seems right up Mike's alley. In any case, I can understand why Mike doesn't think he owes all of his success to Brian. A great deal of it, yes, but maybe those songs wouldn't have been hits without Mike's lyrics to help make them more commercial. Or Mike's voice on certain tracks making them more commercial, because his sound and style fit in with those times, just like Brian's falsetto fit in with the radio back then, too.  I'm sure the rest of the Beach Boys were grateful to Brian, but also proud of the vocal harmony sound they gave those records, and the lead vocals the rest of them took that helped make those songs so successful.

Kitty Kat - agree 100% with that analysis.  Mike does have a sort of easy-breezy, capture with lyrics that sort of identifies a person, much like fingerprints.  And, being born into a somewhat musical family (his own, not Brian's) I think that it gave him a base for his later work. He probably didn't consider it work, because the lyrics sort of "wrote themselves" in a way that only someone who has a writing gift can churn out.   I like to think of Mike as "Brian's best translator" and that will earn me some criticism (bring it on!  :lol ) but, much of the great appeal of the music is that the words "fit" the melody like a glove.

And, I'd venture that the larger number of songs merited attribution.  It is not surprising that it took so long to get a resolution.  No one wants to sue a relative.  It is too messed up on a million levels.  No one can ever believe that a relative (Murry) would defraud a son or nephew.  But, Hollywood and Music industry people used their kids as chattel. 

No one dared challenge a parent's rights in those days.  Looking at everyone's position objectively, and separately, makes it easier to see the problems.  It was "entity" based and not personal.  It was the times that they started out in.  It must have been amazing to see the evidence presented. 

Some things don't add up.

On July 31, 1992 Mike filed the lawsuit for 50 million dollars and future royalties and credit. This was reported widely on the AP wire services and other news sources, I'll copy and paste the article(s) as proof. This was within a month of Brian winning 10 million dollars in his suit.

So I ask question #1: No matter what the jury awarded him, and if there is a date for when that award was decided I'd love to see it, the fact remains *Mike's lawsuit was filed for 50 million knowing Brian had settled for 10 million*. How does that add up to Mike being the benefactor here by only accepting 5 million from Brian?

The 5 million was a settlement, original reports ALSO say that Mike and the legal team were looking for 30% of Brian's settlement of 10 million, which would be 3 million, based on the verbal agreement they said was made for Mike's testimony.

Read the news account I pasted on the previous page of this thread: The AP reports, again the "official" news account of what happened as reported at the time, states that *48 songs* were in question as the case went to the courts, then got narrowed down to 35.

Question(s) #2: 80 songs: Does anyone have a list of them? How about the 48 songs that eventually did go into the court papers? Then what were the 13 songs that got thrown out of court? How does an initial claim of 80 songs suggest an attempt to only get what was due when even before the judgement there were about 30 songs removed and during the trial another 13 were thrown out of the suit?

Doesn't add up.

Either 80 songs was shooting for the moon in terms of trying to now over-claim credit, or else there was simply not enough in the way of proof that a judge and jury would believe enough to award the moneys and credits.

And if it's just an attempt to get things "correct", this loaded statement pretty much dismisses that intent in one fell swoop:

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.

That's not even plausible as a biased statement, which is what it is masking as a "correction".

Should we thank Mike for making it possible that Brian isn't "forced" to work the rest of his life?

Talk about one-sided.

In light of that, I'll continue to stand by the period news reports of these figures, and consider these attempts to "correct" the supposed misinformation as another attempt to sway the opinions of what happened. Facts are facts.

I'm sure Brian as he's on tour with Jeff Beck, Al, and David, and reading rave reviews everywhere from Rolling Stone to the LA Times and beyond about his shows, is thanking Mike's benevolence *each and every day* that he's not forced to work the rest of his life. And as he's collecting his residuals and producer's points from BMI and elsewhere, not to mention his Grammy award and other accolades, I'll bet he's thinking "Man, I'm so glad I don't need to work thanks to Mike taking a hit on that settlement when he could have bankrupted me."

I'll leave it up to the readership to pick out what is sarcasm in my post or what is the real thing.

Until then...corrections? Still waiting.  :)

Guitarfool2002- thanks for posting those photos.   Some I can't stretch on the ipad.  But, I was under the impression that post BRI incorporation, that Murry was out of the picture.  Did I get that wrong?  I looked at Do It Again and that was post Smiley-BRI which would have made the Boys more or less independent of Murry. 

Thanks.  ;)

Facts are facts when we choose to believe them yes. ;)

So the news reports from 1992 and 1994 are wrong? Well I'll be damned, who would have thought to believe Mike's fan club president's opinions over the press and wire reports from that time until today.  ;D

Believe whatever you want. Just don't call those opinions facts.

You're welcome! I could have also posted the documents from "Anna Lee The Healer", definitely BRI, and once again Murry's signature is there and he's listed as "publisher".

So the notion that Murry was out of the picture and out of day-to-day operations after a certain point in the 60's is pure crap. He was still signing contracts, filing forms, writing and cashing checks for the band. That's *fact*

Oops, sorry...don't believe that if you don't want to, Nicko and others. It's just a fact, after all.  :)

And I'd also recommend reading some recollections from Stephen Desper, who has told several stories of Murry showing up for sessions at the home studio - again, very much so post-Smily BRI - and having him "produce" the session as if he thought it was 1962, even barking commands at Desper as he was working. Then when Murry would leave, the band would usually feel as if it was a few lost hours thanks to Murry's crap, now let's start working.

Again, more "facts" about Murry and the band in 1968-69.

I could go all night.  ;D

Well I think there is more going on lawsuit-wise then we thought we knew. Brian apparently sued Irving both in CA Superior Court and US District Court. It's looking to me like Mike sued Irving with Brian as an et al [or at least filed a suit] and then possibly sued Brian out-right when Brian and his camp filched on a deal. I guess. I wish someone could sort out who sued what according to court records.

The details still don't change that Mike is the victim.

And if anyone has a few minutes to spare, three to be exact, watch this video. A 1994 Newsmagazine piece on the end of the lawsuit with the interview where Mike breaks into tears and sobs singing "Brian's Back", and cites "Good Vibrations" as one where he wrote the hook even though that song's credit was always given to Wilson-Love. Just watch it for the history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnWvfJ1Q6E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnWvfJ1Q6E)

Now now, play nicely.

The wink symbol in my post did indicate that it wasn't to be taken seriously as is the custom.

As I've mentioned before, astonishing to me again that Brian's lawyers screwing him over is considered fine but essays are written about 'Big Bad Mike Love'. :)

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!  (the first part, not the second...) Seriously, that's what I said several pages ago, that we cannot simplify this saga into a few opinions and impressions and even worse *assumptions* about what happened. Like, for example, did Murry perhaps carry more of them blame or responsibility? Just maybe, Cam?  :)

Going back again a few pages, I'll bold this: Are the reports of Mike suing Brian for 30% of his 10 million settlement from A&M wrong? Because I didn't pull those out of thin air, either, it was reported that way.

I'll repeat, it is a multifaceted history that can't be carved down into a soundbite like "Brian f***ed over Mike" or "Mike acted like an ass by suing Brian" or whatever might be the sentiment-of-the-day around this.

And to see opinions and assumptions being stated not only as facts but as "corrections" now, implying that the hard numbers and figures (plus dates) are wrong when they can easily be found and reprinted here, is just making it more difficult to find that middle ground where we can understand exactly what happened...

...and not assume either Brian or Mike should shoulder the blame as the "villain" in the saga. Because that's not the case.

Good thing Brian doesn't have to work thanks to Mike, though, let's keep suggesting stuff like that to keep us further away from finding that middle ground I think most reasonable folks would like more than anything.

I think you need a rest...

Mike always claims he wrote ALL the lyrics to GV. But the fact is Asher wrote the original lyrics and the key lyrics, the words "Good Vibrations", Mike had nothing to do with (Brian wrote those). Jeez, seems like Tony Asher had a case for suing Mike.

Oh look, Nicko's pulling that "I think you need a rest" thing again. Was it all those pesky facts that were hard to refute?

Of course, the defenders of Endless Summer must NEVER rest -- not even for a moment. Quick, someone is sneering at his dress sense in aisle seven! To the Lovemobile!

Here's another fact, the article from the LA Times December 13, 1994 describing the conclusion of the lawsuit:

Company Town : Beach Boys' Mike Love Wins His Case, Stands to Collect Millions : Music: A federal jury sides with lead singer in a dispute over an award related to the sale of the group's song catalogue.
December 13, 1994|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love on Monday won songwriting credits and past and future royalties for 35 of the group's songs, a decision that could net him at least $2 million.

A federal jury unanimously found that band co-founder Brian Wilson and his lawyers failed to make good on a promise to give Love a 30% share of a $10-million settlement Wilson won in connection with the 1969 sale of the band's songs.

The upcoming damages phase of the trial will determine exactly how much money Love will receive, as well as punitive damages.

Jurors found that Wilson was not liable for punitive damages but that attorneys who represented him in the song-sale case are liable. Love sat quietly as the judge read the 25-page verdict form, which took 28 minutes to complete. Wilson was not in the courtroom.

Jurors reached their verdict after deliberating over an eight-day period after an eight-week trial. Love had argued that he deserved money and additional writing credits for his alleged contributions to 79 songs, from "California Girls" to "Good Vibrations."

Wilson's lawyers argued that Love is about 30 years too late in bringing up the matter, further alleging that he was seeking credit for songs he didn't write or hardly contributed to.

Love asked for a third of a $10-million out-of-court settlement Wilson received in 1992 after he alleged that the Beach Boys' "Sea of Tunes" song catalogue was fraudulently sold by his domineering father, the late Murry Wilson, for $700,000 to Irving Music.

The $700,000 paid for the catalogue is considered a huge bargain today. Some estimate it could be worth $40 million or more.

During the trial, both Love and Wilson took the stand to testify, along with other members of the group, including Bruce Johnston and Al Jardine.



I could use a rest, I get tired of busting myths and correcting them with facts, Nicko.  :)

Attorneys suing attorneys. Jury found Wilson was not liable but the attorneys representing him were. Keep that in mind.

Brian committed fraud? Silly. I highly doubt Brian was paying attention at the time as to who got credit for what. I guess Mike wasn't either. If I had written the lyrics for CGs, I woulda made sure I got credit.

Obviously Murry was a crook. Mike got jipped on Chug a Lug and CG + some more. Brian had idiot lawyers. Mike got his cash. Overpaid yup but such is the world of lawsuits.

Maybe you missed the fact that guitarfool2002 was advocating that neither Brian nor Mike should be seen as the villain. Don't let that get in the way of things though. :)

'I think you need a rest' is a quote from some band's CD...oh yeah, The Beach Boys...

Interview excerpts from Mike Love in Goldmine, September 1992, the full interview is online:

Why weren't you credited for "California Girls"?

You see, Brian Wilson, they just signed the day before yesterday a settlement of his claims against the publisher. [Wilson was awarded 10 million dollars.] It's my assumption, and it's only an assumption, that his legal advisors are interested in taking the money and running. Brian is a pathetic figure and one of the more pathetic things is that he did not give me credit for many, many songs which I wrote. I have a huge list of them. It's unbelievable.

Back to the lawsuit. What are some of the songs you co-wrote but didn't receive credit for?

Okay, "Little Saint Nick." Brian Wilson is credited with writing 100 percent of that. Well, guess who wrote the words? Mike Love, that's who wrote the words. "Don't Back Down." It's very well known that Brian Wilson did not surf. I wrote "Catch A Wave" and "Don't Back Down." He's credited 100 percent. He didn't give me any credit.

How did that happen?

Because he didn't put my name down. Murry Wilson was the publisher of Sea of Tunes and and put in for this stuff. The same thing with "The Man With All The Toys," "Santa's Beard," "Merry Christmas Baby." There's "Good To My Baby." Brian Wilson is listed as writing it completely, guess who wrote the words? Doctor Love, that's who. "When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)." I participated in that and didn't get a stitch of recognition. "Help Me Rhonda," I wrote, "Since you put me down I've been out doing in my head." That's my fucking line, thank you very much. Things like "Dance Dance Dance," I asked Carl if he wrote any lyrics for the song and he said no. He just came up with the guitar line.

It's a good guitar line.

It is a cool line. Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson split 50-50 on that. I was the one who wrote the Chuck Berry-styled alliteration lyrics. That's my scene.

Was this more Murry Wilson or Brian?

Either that or Brian didn't tell him because of his ego. It's a bloodbath. It's millions and millions of dollars' worth of damage. Other songs, he arbitrarily assigned me a percentage which was fairly nominal. Basically, when I wrote 100 percent of the words he'd give me like 30 percent of the tune, as opposed to a split.


Fair enough, some would say. Others would say Mike is pointing more at Brian than Murry, who he says filed these things ('put in for this stuff'). Consider what I cited on page 11. Tony Asher when he went to see Murry to sign over his payments and credits for his Pet Sounds lyrics got a 25% cut plus a $7,500 payment. Mike in the last quote says he got "like 30 percent of the tune" for his lyrics.

That would make the songs where that happened a case of under-crediting, yet Tony Asher seems to have received around the same deal when he saw Murry and signed his agreements.

Has Tony Asher ever sought to reclaim a larger percentage of the credit and profits from the songs, since his 25% plus cash payment seems very much the same as what Mike mentions in the Goldmine interview with his "like 30 percent" comment. It would seem he'd have a precedent coming after Mike's win to collect a lot more, if he hasn't already in the wake of the box set and all the reissues since 1994.

Maybe the issue of the 30% cut rather than a full 50-50 split on these contracts would get us closer to why no action was taken to correct these issues until 1992.

Was this just the standard split given to lyrical co-writers signing Sea Of Tunes documents through Murry?

As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say when he'd had an absinthe or two too many, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Been away fro a pleasant weekend and come back to find ORR still has a woody about me being "blackballed" by BriMel. So, although I really don't see why a by and large sensible thread about Mike & Brian's legal interactions should be sidetracked by such nonsense, one more time...


Didn't brag, just related a fact. Met Brian backstage, we exchanged some words. Just as you're bragging about meeting Mike backstage when he failed to come up to your expectations (or maybe he did). Also, as stated here many times, if you really thought I could just ask Brian about that - or anything - then you've got an even worse SOH that I suspect. It was a joke, just as my opening comment was.


I know "they" are watching. I told you so, years ago. As for your first comment... were that so, it would have been impossible for me to even try to arrange for Sharon Marie to meet up with Brian. Didn't quite happen, came close, and not Probyn's fault, he did everything possible but the stars didn't quite align. Next time, hopefully. The inference is that I have in some way been associated with BriMel: not so, ergo I really don't see how I can be shunned. I know some folk in said organization don't care for my researches too much, but that's been true of pretty much every serious BB/BW researcher at one time or another: as David Leaf once aptly put it, when you go rummaging in a cupboard, even if it's only for a broom, someone's going to panic about skeletons being found.

So, to badly misquote Chief Joseph, from where the sun now stands I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.

Excellent reverse spin, passive aggressive post as always AGD.

Dang, you do have either a short memory or just refuse to review what you post.  You were the one who quoted me first, argued with me first on this thread. Now you want to spin it like I am pinging on you. I will always respond. As usual, you love to dish it out but hate it when people stand up for themselves.

If you think relating a personal experience is bragging, you, um, have a distorted understanding of communication.

I know you have met Brian backstage. Multiple times I'm sure. What I was saying is that you know longer do and you won't admit it.

As I had the unique experience of meeting Al, David, Mike and Bruce backstage on the C50, as well as some other people in the band's inner circle, I have stories to tell. Al was cool and we talked about the MIC box and WIBNTLA.  Talked to David about his guitar sound. Talked to Bruce about England, where I was stationed (HMS Raleigh) for 2 1/2 years. Mike was a jerk. Talked to Stan Love about our old basketball days and met his family. Talked to someone in Brian's inner, inner circle and I couldn't help asking about you. Told me you are "Persona Non Grata" now and gave me 'a look'.

Really, you can't have it both ways. You openly insult Melinda and Brian's management on the board then insinuate you have connections into Brian's camp. Whatever Butch. As you say, they are watching.  So stop making like you are in with Brian's circle when you openly insult them. You must think we are all idiots on this board.

Why don't you just stick to what you know, which is the band's history. Update your book and get it back in print.I'll buy it.  Something??????
I am just a nobody on the board.  Just a fan who grew with the Beach Boys as my soundtrack.

And why I am at it, no more bashing people for their grammar and spelling please.  See you started your post by writing "Been away fro a pleasant weekend ....".

Lastly, as to "I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.", you never do.  I dare ya, right now.  I bet you can't!  Cheers Butch, I mean Chuck.  ;D ;D ;D

Two observations to some of the recent posts:

1. The highlighted text in the paper's summary said BW was found not liable for "punitive" damages. That is not the same as direct damages so one cannot conclude that BW was found not liable.
2. "Facts are facts". That is entirely correct and magazine and paper articles, summaries etc. are not always entirely correct in their reporting. I don't think we have (may never have) all the facts (for this issue, the C50 issues, so many other controversies) so the ongoing arguments that go one about these are likely not correct - from either perspective.

A lot of interesting  :o eye-popping information -- and contrary to placing blame on Brian...continues to paint the Lovester as Solider-of-Fortune, though a not very brave one -- he never took any action on his own until Cousin Brian ventured out into the morass of legal waters and won some money.

Then the next month SWOOOP like a vulture to the prey.

Can't the guy talk to Probyn Gregory without clearing it with Brian first? Or is BW's entire band under the leadership of his managers or Melinda Wilson? I think not, therefore it's not unbelievable AGD could have told Probyn about Sharon and tried to arrange the meeting. For all anyone knows, Sharon Marie was going to get on that stage and belt out a song until Brian's management found out that Andrew was the source, then they said, "Sca-reww Sharon Marie, we can't have AGD taking credit for a touching reunion!"

I've been under the impression it wasn't that hard, in the past, to get backstage at Brian's shows. A lot of people did, including total screwballs such as Bluebird. Brian's band is very friendly, for one thing. I'm not sure it was ever entirely down to Brian or his management that people were getting backstage. From what I've read for this most recent tour, I don't read of many people getting to go backstage. Perhaps over time it's been discouraged for the band to  invite people to the after show bit (I also suspect Brian now flees the building as soon as the show is over). As for AGD, who knows. I wouldn't even care to ask about him if I had the chance to go backstage at a show.

How do you define punitive damages? They're given mostly as a deterrent and to discourage those parties paying the damages from doing the same thing again, which also by definition suggests there was some type of malice or misconduct which led to the suit in the first place.

Can you understand how Brian wasn't held liable for the punitive damages yet his legal team was?

Can we all take off our pro-Mike or pro-Brian goggles for a second and realize that is exactly the point I've now made several times and am getting sick and tired of repeating? It was the maldito lawyers on both sides. Period.

Admit you've read more "facts" here in this thread about the lawsuit than perhaps anywhere else. Or if not, so be it. But there is a HUGE difference between someone coming on here with a bunch of false numbers, backgrounds, and biased opinions disguised as "corrections" suggesting "this is how it *really* was, Mike saved Brian from going broke and having to work".

Horseshit. The amount sued for versus amount won is clearly reported. So are the dates, and the details, and everything else.

But hey, since my take on "facts is facts" must not pass muster with some here, tell me how many lawsuits Brian's legal team filed? Who were the defendants and why? How much? Superior Court or Circuit Court? Who were the lead attorneys, in fact who were the attorneys Brian's legal team sued?

I'm sorry to get snippy, but for the sake of common sense take off the Mike or Brian rose-colored glasses and look for what really happened.

And again not to get snippy, but Brian's original lawsuit and subsequent ones are more complex and detailed than saying "he sued A&M for the Sea Of Tunes money". There were ate least three primary lawsuits filed around that case, including one for copyright infringement (Cam - that was the one in District Court, you had asked before), which eventually got joined and than another filed a year later on top of that accusing a law firm of wrongdoing.

But again, "facts is facts" and don't bother quoting the ones from the *actual reports*, rather see what the Mike Love Fan Club or the Brian Wilson dot com board have to say on this.

Ready to fucking give up. (everybody now: 'Yeaaaa! Finally!')  ;D

 

This is definitely not the case. At least the band members being discouraged bit. I know that firsthand.

As far as I know, Brian is basically never backstage after the shows anyway. At least not with the band members, which is why they're able to invite whomever they like back there.

Guitarfool, please don't stop. These are genuinely interesting and informational posts. I've certainly learned things.

Nicko can spin it however he wants, but he did the "you need a rest" thing to say "hey, chill out bro, you're taking it way too seriously!", while he himself was basically arguing just as much.

Of course it means 'chill out'. What else could it mean? The fact that I quoted one of The Beach Boys CDs  indicates I wasn't exactly

We will probably never get the whole truth about the lawsuit as another poster has said so no point in taking the 'facts are facts' thought processes too seriously.

The interview that this thread is about was all about the lawsuit though so of course people are going to spend 17 pages discussing it. :)

So Brian was strong and capable enough to be able to 'enter into the morass of legal waters'?

Or he was so weak and pathetic that he was the 'prey' to 'Big Bad Mike Love'?

Brian's lawyers won some money and then Brian's lawyers lost him a fortune by not settling out of court for $750K. This is despite the fact that California Girls on its own was worth a fortune. A ludicrous situation.

(https://fbcdn-photos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/534972_565594580086_1767738447_n.jpg)

OK, Brian was found liable and ordered to pay compensatory damages to Mike but only Brian's lawyers were ordered to pay punitive damages. How did that make Mike a jerk again?

Did we relieve Brian of any responsibility for properly crediting Mike in the first place yet?

Suing one's family is so counter-intuitive.  One expects one's parent to safeguard work done by the next generation, and not exploit it.  Could something have been done that was fairer? Ya, in my view. Murry could have made a lot of money working "for the band" instead of making himself an "owner." There are many forms that the corporation could have taken.  

In the end, a divisive mess was made.  And we only know what has been published.  The rest isn't our business.  That said, looking objectively at Murry, he did get them in the door.  And, he belonged to that old world model.  But, the record company was a villain here, too.  They knew, or should have known that Mike was a lyricist from the outset.  And, they became disloyal when the Fab 4 blew into the scene, although the two bands were more collaborators than adversaries.

It is always good for another entity to challenge your work product.  Look at them, now. They belonged to a "class of elite musicians and lyricists" who did change music, and for the better.

That said, it appears that the court found Brian's lawyers were not behaving ethically. And, assigned (as I've read in the public domain) punitive damages to "send a message." That is the point of those damages.  And, it would be interesting to know what stuff was already in the "common understanding of the jury" where an "expert witness" would have had a lesser role.  And, if an expert was used, and what was the scope of inquiry.  

You'd have to have lived under a rock, on a deserted island not to be able to identify a "Brian melody" with "Mike's lyrics." By the 1990's the music was used for commercials that were on TV all the time. 4-0-9, "cleaner" for one.  

Unfortunately, it was necessary for any equitable result to occur.  By that time, Murry was deceased.  It probably was not possible before then.  Had Murry been on "the payroll" instead of making himself an "owner" in what appears to have been somewhat underhanded, it might be a different story.  

But, without doubt, Mike's lyrics have a DNA that is his, not unlike Brian's melodies.  JMHO  ;)

Every writer usually has characteristics that we can focus in on. But in the case of either Brian's melodies or Mike's lyrics, those characteristics aren't so overpowering that one can listen to a song and know without doubt that one or both had a hand in writing them. The apparent musical or lyrical DNA in a song is not at all useful in hashing out a lawsuit.  

I don't get some of the debate on the songwriting lawsuit. The business motives and machinations behind the lawsuits are interesting and open to a lot of interpretation (I for one recall talking to one "insider" around 1999/2000 who claimed that some of the business-related politics as far as the license to the BB name were directly related to the songwriting lawsuit, but that's another story).

But there isn't much debate over who actually wrote what, at least as far as who wrote enough of a given song to warrant credit. Clearly, Mike's name should have been on a bunch of those songs. Not even as a 50/50 split, which I don't think is what he even got on some or most of those songs as a result of the lawsuit. But he wrote enough lyrics on many of those songs to warrant having his name put on them, and getting some percentage of royalties. It also seems that in a few isolated cases, such as "Wouldn't It Be Nice", his input in the eyes of some was not up to the standard of warranting a songwriting credit.

Mike sued when he did because he had the opening to. There was potential money more easily in reach, and he had a relatively soft target to sue (not villifying Mike in this case; it's simply true that Brian was a soft target due both to his condition and his representation at the time).

Has Mike ever sued McCartney or Sony/ATV (or whatever conglomerate owns those Beatles songs now) for writing credit on "Back in the USSR?" No, even though by the evidence at hand he probably contributed more to that song than he did to "Wouldn't It Be Nice." Why hasn't he sued? I don't know, but the fact that McCartney and the publisher have enough money and lawyers to send the entirety of BRI and every individual Beach Boy running away in tears probably is one potential reason.

It's funny. That Goldmine 1992 Mike interview is really interesting, an in some ways ironic. I think that's the same interview where he talks about Al being angry and getting hung up on the past, yet Mike seems the angry one in that interview (maybe with good reason, but who's to say others don't have good reason to be angry?). Just as Al felt liberated in the 2000's to be more to-the-point and blunt about other Beach Boys, in that era Mike was all full of piss and vinegar, so all of a sudden he's spouting off about how Brian's solo album sucks, Al's a d**k and needed group therapy with the rest of the band, and so on. It's funny.

I can't remember if it's that interview of another one around the same time where the interviewer asks Mike about the band's CD album reissues, the two-fers and whatnot, and Mike pleads ignorance about such releases, and then seems annoyed that the interviewer laughs about how Mike doesn't know or care about that stuff.  :lol

Mike sued when he did because he had the opening to. There was potential money more easily in reach, and he had a relatively soft target to sue (not villifying Mike in this case; it's simply true that Brian was a soft target due both to his condition and his representation at the time).

It takes Good Timin'  ;)

The Vulture knows easy money when he sees it:  SWWWoOOOP!

Aren't some of you forgetting that Mike sued when he did because he was promised but not delivered restitution by Brian in exchange for helping Brian in his suit.

We don't agree. Generally, people have an artistic style.  Monet, Picasso, Chopin, have styles that self-identify and almost self- authenticate.  You can just pick out who did what and that is what makes the lyric content and style identifiable to a certain artist.  Brian, has a unique talent to make the harmony "full-sounding" in a way that is unique to him.  Imitated, but not "replicated."

If Brian took the lead with the initial suit, and I think some new company was in the mix, at the time, that might have "opened the door." And, there is nothing wrong, with Mike going in to claim a percentage of the proceeds, and subtract out expenses.

If Mike's work product was involved, he had every right to stake a claim.  If there was fraud, (from the outset) he would have to meet whatever legal standards required and disgorge profits which should have gone to him.  

And Brian might have been under the "undue influence" of Murry in a coercive manner.  I haven't read the case line, so I don't know more than what everyone else has posted.  JMHO, as always!  ;)

Cam, consider that this sentiment is targeting "Brian" and "Mike" as the individuals rather than the entities involved in a legal case. As entities being sued and suing, the names "Brian" and "Mike" are more accurately applied to their legal teams and in some cases the individual lawyers representing them. In one case, (and this, Sheriff Stone, is where the conservator issue comes in), the person being sued over a judgement he had just won was placed under the control of a conservator who was making all of these decisions.

To assume Mike could call Brian and ask for a certain fee, and Brian could say "sure, I'll write a check and we'll meet tomorrow" was not a realistic possibility in Fall 1992 and for the years to follow as Brian (the person) had all of his affairs under the decision-making authority of the entity being represented by his legal team.

Same with Mike, as the one suing for his credits and payments, his legal team was more responsible for the actions at many points than Mike himself.

Lawyers always shoot high and wide for the biggest payment and reward they can muster. Acting "in the best interests of their client", they often pull legal and other moves that the client doesn't even know about as it's buried in hundreds of pages of legal filings and procedures. It gets dirty, it gets nasty, and the "client" is directly involved in a small portion of these dealings and disputes.

Can this be any more clear? Again, I keep repeating it because the inaccuracy and the perhaps false perceptions of what happened between Mike and Brian in these legal cases continues to be brought up...and it's brought up assuming "Mike" and "Brian" are the two human beings and cousins involved in the case who could have ended the whole thing over breakfast with a hug and a handshake, along with a check.

At what point does the simple notion that the legal teams take over from the individuals in nearly every major case like this start to sink in and broaden the understanding of these issues beyond Mike versus Brian, as individuals?

I don't understand it, seriously, because even part of the jury's decision makes note of Brian's legal team being "punished" through punitive damages where the actual defendant Brian carries no such responsibility in the judgement.