interesting article: "Mike Love states his case"

[Postcard From Jardine]

It is crazy with how many excuses Mike continues to bring up for the ending of the C50. All this stuff he keeps making up on the go is really uncovering the the real reason for why the reunion didn't work:
Mike Love

You should be a bit more thankful to Mike that he enabled you to go to your religious service with your personal god Brian without having to see and hear your devil on the same stage or music recording.

[ontor pertawst]

Well, at least this interview was good for something! Suitable for framing.

[CenturyDeprived]

It is crazy with how many excuses Mike continues to bring up for the ending of the C50. All this stuff he keeps making up on the go is really uncovering the the real reason for why the reunion didn't work:
Mike Love

You should be a bit more thankful to Mike that he enabled you to go to your religious service with your personal god Brian without having to see and hear your devil on the same stage or music recording.

 

[the professor]

Oh heavens. This is stunning. Who did this? You are a great artist. Surely this is more than just a delight for us board members; this must be a published piece of art, justly displayed, sold and reproduced.

It is crazy with how many excuses Mike continues to bring up for the ending of the C50. All this stuff he keeps making up on the go is really uncovering the the real reason for why the reunion didn't work:
Mike Love

You should be a bit more thankful to Mike that he enabled you to go to your religious service with your personal god Brian without having to see and hear your devil on the same stage or music recording.

[guitarfool2002]

And it comes around again to the original - brand new, mind you - topic of discussion getting diverted, re-directed, etc.

Look for the patterns, connect the dots. Like clockwork.

As for my own take on this, if I remove myself from being an obsessed/diehard fan and put myself in the place of anyone curious enough to read these articles, I feel like twice in one week I'm reading an article that seems to be wagging a finger at or even lecturing to fans who are and have been perfectly willing to consider a new Brian album on its own merits, as well as consider Mike's pursuits as a Beach Boy on their own merits as well.

Instead I feel like a large number of fans are stuck in the middle of all this, and in this specific case are being lectured by means of a preemptive PR strike of sorts against something that didn't exist or wasn't much of an issue to begin with.

I've made a few challenges on this board, in jest but sometimes with a serious undertone as well. Note: I still have the bottle of wine from the "spot the autotune" challenge last summer...actually, no, I uncorked and enjoyed that bottle already and even sacrificed a cup and a half on making a garlic and white wine mushroom sauce with chicken over angel hair pasta. But I can easily buy another bottle.  

I did, however, ask a serious question and if anyone can answer this, let me know - this thread is as good a place as any.

Someone find me an interview or public quote where Brian has said anything negative about Mike. Not implied, not perceived, but a simple negative quote.

Then we read comments like this Examiner article and the previous one from earlier this week, which are supposedly responding to fans' perceptions of events, a blogger's column or other online review of little consequence, and it feels like "setting the record straight" is more like playing defense before the offense has even taken the field.

Or in baseball terms, having your infielders charge home plate anticipating a bunt when the other team's cleanup hitter is at the plate in the second inning with no outs, 0-0 count, and no one on base. It's a foolish move in baseball terms.

So I guess it's an open forum, therefore open season on taking the opportunity to unload, distract, divert, etc. That's the deal with an open forum.

But also, for anyone interested in looking for them, go into this topic and see what adds up and what does not.

[the professor]

I agree, but to be less analytic and more emotional, many of us are just hurting because if the disharmony from the artists whom we associate so poignantly with all aspects of musical harmony. The BB are medically therapeutic; this proved, and this type of conflict is antithetical to that medicinal function.

[HeyJude]

Which gets us back to, what exactly did David Beard say or imply to Mike?

David states quite plainly what he said to Mike:

To clear up any misunderstandings, and to give Love an opportunity to tell us his side of the story, I asked him one question: ""Have you heard Brian's new song, 'The Right Time'?" It seemed, the best way to get the conversation rolling, would be to have Love comment on the new recording, which features three of his former colleagues.

How he knew Mike would go into full flow like that on the basis of such a seemingly innocuous question floors me. Very perceptive.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic (and I'm not saying  that to be sarcastic or snarky, I honestly can't tell!   )

But yeah, I would tend to doubt Beard asked a one-line question (with no pre-question discussion, no follow-up, etc.) about whether Mike had heard the new Brian song, and then Mike unprompted went into that diatribe.

It would make no sense. If the goal is to get Mike to tell "his side of the story", and you plan on asking one simple question, why on earth would you ask if Mike has heard the new Brian song? Wouldn't you *lead* with something like "Brian's press release, in my opinion, implies you kept the album from being a Beach Boys album. Your thoughts?"

No, there was a clear indicator (I would say in fact a warning) in the previous odd "review" of Brian's song that a future article would address this Mike/No Pier Pressure issue (which is, at the end of the day, NOT an issue, although Beard appears to have made it one at this point). This Mike "interview" is that article, and it was clearly a venue for a soap box diatribe that, I truly feel for Mike's sake, was severely egged on by the interviewer. If Mike had that all pent up and ready to blow and Beard contacted him out of the blue with a one-line email asking if he had heard the new track, then, well, I'm not sure what the means....

[bossaroo]

coming to a theme park near you

[rab2591]

Mike says a bunch of passive aggressive horseshit and when we point it out we get the usual defensive tactics from the Club Kokomo peanut gallery. Mike is bitching about autotune (Okay, Mike - can't wait to hear your 2017 album where I'm sure NO vocal processing will be done ), whining about how "bitter" Brian's press release was (What press release did you read? You want bitter? read your own interview here Mike), "Joe's fear of flying" CRUCIAL DETAIL HERE THANKS MIKE.

THIS is why people can't stand Mike Love....he is contradictory, seemingly irritated for no fucking reaon here, takes cheap shots at people. I could care less that he's greedy, or plays Seaworld and the parking lot of Lucky Strike Lanes and Lounge, or that he feels the need to call a lawyer anytime Brian shifts position in his Laz-y-boy recliner. It's the fact that he's said some pretty godawful things in interviews (both directly and passive aggressively) and yet he's supposedly a huge proponent of a religion devoted to inner and outer peace....way to carry the torch.

[Cam Mott]

Well, we are just going by 3 interviews but "talk" and "predictions" don't  equal "discussion in the group", no.  It could mean discussion but it still doesn't say it was "in the group" and it was in the context of promoters and Capitol talking but not having anything "set in stone" and group plans being made at some later date. And then Mike later claim is there were no "discussions in the group" and plans were never presented in writing and nothing was "concrete". So there is all of that.

No I don't see the interview as a disaster. A guy was asked some questions and he gave some answers along with some compliments.

Yeah, to me, that’s a HUGE stretch. “Talk” and “predictions” don’t amount to “discussion?” Maybe that’s how you define those words, but I’m not inclined to assume Mike defines those words that way. His interview reads like nobody mentioned *word one* about doing another album. I don’t think anyone would come away from that interview assuming “well, maybe smaller groups of band members talked about it, but the five never sat down and had a hardcore planning session for the next album.” A typical person, I believe, would come away thinking nobody ever said *anything* to each other about the possibility of another album.

Further, to the degree Brian (and/or his album press release) discusses the topic, it has never been anything more than suggesting Brian was planning or hoping for another album. Brian has never said there was a concrete contract to do another album.

The issue at hand is, why does Mike take issue with what the NPP press release says? It simply says Brian wanted/planned for another BB album, but it was “not to be.” It doesn’t say Mike promised to do another album and then went back on his word. Even in a scenario where nobody said word one about a new album, and Brian just dreamed it all up in his mind, even then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the NPP press release.

Which gets us back to, what exactly did David Beard say or imply to Mike?

OK, you find it a stretch, I don't.

The "discussion in the group" is in the context of talk about nebulous offers and pronouncements instead of "concrete" offers in writing etc.. The same context as in 2012 where there is "talk" by someone but nothing set in "stone" and in the future, after the end of C50, "we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." So to my mind there is no conflict between the interviews.

[HeyJude]

See, the thing is, on the whole, Brian isn't that more diverse. His last show was a TV Special, so that of course will be different. If he tours NPP, then yes, he will play a few new tunes. Even when he toured with Al, Dave & Blondie, they did very few extra deep cut tracks. I just don't see enough difference in the setlists to agree with your point. But, I do agree that Brian's shows are more satisfying having Al, Dave & Blondie on stage with him.

Not to derail the original topic, but the "BAD" tour in 2013 (apart from the small hand full of pre-Beck shows they did) consisted of half-length shows. Severely truncated, around 15 or more songs *shorter* than a typical Brian show. Nevertheless, the following songs were aired during 2013 shows at one time or another:

Break Away
Girl Don’t Tell Me
Old Man River
Little Bird
Summertime Blues
Your Imagination
Goin’ Home
That’s Why God Made the Radio
Summer’s Gone
Let Him Run Wild
She Knows Me Too Well
Custom Machine
This Car of Mine
Monster Mash
Forever
Wild Honey

That's not even getting into the one or two gigs where they did the entire "Pet Sounds" album randomly. Brian has toured numerous full albums. Brian set the bar for "deep cuts" setlists back in 1999 and 2000. Al tried in 1999, but was hindered in terms of getting bookings.

More importantly, as anyone who has worked in a "touring" band or is familiar with the history of the various BB touring factions knows, when the band isn't *regularly* touring and does scattered one-off shows or short strings of shows, they have to rely more on the meat-and-potatoes numbers. They often rehearse on the day of the show. When you haven't played a gig in numerous months and you have one rehearsal prior to a one-off show, you don't start whipping out a bunch of rarities you've never done before. You do the stuff you're most familiar with. Ironically, even within this constraint, they did weird stuff like performing the entire "Pet Sounds" album for the first time in over six years, with perhaps a day or two of rehearsal.

[Cam Mott]

Talk by promoters and labels and unilateral predictions of future albums isn't "discussion in the group". In 2012, no mention of discussion in the group just talk by someone, nothing set in stone, group plans are in the future after C50. In 2015, nothing was ever in writing or concrete so no plans.  It still seems to me they were/are all open to plans but those talking to the group apparently never present anything in writing and there is no discussion in the group of plans. Anyway, like somebody said earlier the whole thing screams of no discussion within the group.

Wait... "Talk" and "predictions" don't amount to even mere "discussion" to you? C'mon.

As I've said, even if one is inclined to be extra sympathetic towards Mike, you have to admit this new interview is a disaster for the interviewer and interviewee.

Well, we are just going by 3 interviews but "talk" and "predictions" don't  equal "discussion in the group", no.  It could mean discussion but it still doesn't say it was "in the group" and it was in the context of promoters and Capitol talking but not having anything "set in stone" and group plans being made at some later date. And then Mike later claim is there were no "discussions in the group" and plans were never presented in writing and nothing was "concrete". So there is all of that.

No I don't see the interview as a disaster. A guy was asked some questions and he gave some answers along with some compliments.

Cam, is there any feasible way Mike could ever give an interview which you would qualify as a disaster? What what do you have to do, say he wishes for the earth to be blown up by aliens?

Not that I can think of, or for Brian, Al, etc.. and that's saying something.

People were wishing they would give something beyond their usual responses, so here we are.

[HeyJude]

OK, you find it a stretch, I don't.

The "discussion in the group" is in the context of talk about nebulous offers and pronouncements instead of "concrete" offers in writing etc.. The same context as in 2012 where there is "talk" by someone but nothing set in "stone" and in the future, after the end of C50, "we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." So to my mind there is no conflict between the interviews.

I think a few posters including Howie Edelson have printed pretty much the textbook definition of "conflicting interview comments." I don't know what else to say.

As for "nebulous" offers, I find that characterization rather dubious. Again I ask, what is the accusation or assertion as to those offers? That someone was offering fraudulent bookings for non-existent venues/shows? There's no follow-up in this new interview. In the interview it comes across as if when an iron-clad contract is not put in front of him, everything is "nebulous" or not even on the table.

When promoters are interested in booking the C50 lineup for HUGE venues, I would imagine it starts with "talk." I don't think they immediately shove a contract in front of you to sign.

[HeyJude]

Not that I can think of, or for Brian, Al, etc.. and that's saying something.

People were wishing they would give something beyond their usual responses, so here we are.

The interview surely does offer us more insight into Mike's thoughts than the typical interviews.

The problem, in one sense, is less Mike's comments and more that a small group of fans seems to be completely incredulous in terms of how some people who read the interview might come away with a negative impression of Mike, and/or objectively can say that it's a bad move in terms of PR, or that objectively the interview *completely* contradicts comments made in previous interviews, etc.

[Wirestone]

A point to bear in mind. When you're dealing with Brian Wilson, you're dealing with someone who is a master at passive aggressive manipulation. No, he has seldom said a word against Mike. Yes, he's always floated about the fray in matters like this.

But consider.

Brian is putting out an album featuring three other current and former Beach Boys. Including Brian, that makes two more on NPP than you would see at most of Mike's shows. Brian toured with Al and David, and is currently doing most of his shows with Al, putting him at least on par with Mike's shows.

For much of his solo career, Brian has been content to write songs with outside collaborators and record with his touring band. But now he's managed to -- totally innocently, of course   -- hit Mike where it hurts. Why isn't NPP a Beach Boys album? It has four Beach Boys on it! Why aren't BW's shows BB shows? They have two Beach Boys in them! Brian has essentially put Mike in an impossible place, one where Mike most likely feels threatened and used.

I think it's too easy, too simple, to say that Mike is just acting like a jerk. I mean, yes, he is acting like a jerk, but that's nothing new. Brian has had decades of experience in figuring out what buttons to press to make his cousin go bananas. And if you think he's not doing that now -- just a little bit -- well, let's refer back to BWPS and the subsequent litigation. I think Brian was genuinely disappointed when C50 ended the way it did, and he has a healthy enough ego these days to try to send a message.

The only surprise is that Mike -- kind of like Wile E. Coyote -- keeps falling for this Road Runner's traps. Meep meep, as the saying goes.

[Cam Mott]

And it comes around again to the original - brand new, mind you - topic of discussion getting diverted, re-directed, etc.

Look for the patterns, connect the dots. Like clockwork.

As for my own take on this, if I remove myself from being an obsessed/diehard fan and put myself in the place of anyone curious enough to read these articles, I feel like twice in one week I'm reading an article that seems to be wagging a finger at or even lecturing to fans who are and have been perfectly willing to consider a new Brian album on its own merits, as well as consider Mike's pursuits as a Beach Boy on their own merits as well.

Instead I feel like a large number of fans are stuck in the middle of all this, and in this specific case are being lectured by means of a preemptive PR strike of sorts against something that didn't exist or wasn't much of an issue to begin with.

I've made a few challenges on this board, in jest but sometimes with a serious undertone as well. Note: I still have the bottle of wine from the "spot the autotune" challenge last summer...actually, no, I uncorked and enjoyed that bottle already and even sacrificed a cup and a half on making a garlic and white wine mushroom sauce with chicken over angel hair pasta. But I can easily buy another bottle.  

I did, however, ask a serious question and if anyone can answer this, let me know - this thread is as good a place as any.

Someone find me an interview or public quote where Brian has said anything negative about Mike. Not implied, not perceived, but a simple negative quote.

Then we read comments like this Examiner article and the previous one from earlier this week, which are supposedly responding to fans' perceptions of events, a blogger's column or other online review of little consequence, and it feels like "setting the record straight" is more like playing defense before the offense has even taken the field.

Or in baseball terms, having your infielders charge home plate anticipating a bunt when the other team's cleanup hitter is at the plate in the second inning with no outs, 0-0 count, and no one on base. It's a foolish move in baseball terms.

So I guess it's an open forum, therefore open season on taking the opportunity to unload, distract, divert, etc. That's the deal with an open forum.

But also, for anyone interested in looking for them, go into this topic and see what adds up and what does not.

You mean something negative like this?

"Listen, I wish my cousin in all of his professional endeavors the best...however, I had nothing to do with his album or the circumstances of his album. I have known my cousin since childhood, besides being musically gifted, my Cousin is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body. The tone of this press release seems bitter of which is not consistent with the Brian Wilson vibe…so I know this did not come from Brian. When Brian is ready...I'm ready!"

[Cam Mott]

OK, you find it a stretch, I don't.

The "discussion in the group" is in the context of talk about nebulous offers and pronouncements instead of "concrete" offers in writing etc.. The same context as in 2012 where there is "talk" by someone but nothing set in "stone" and in the future, after the end of C50, "we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." So to my mind there is no conflict between the interviews.

I think a few posters including Howie Edelson have printed pretty much the textbook definition of "conflicting interview comments." I don't know what else to say.

As for "nebulous" offers, I find that characterization rather dubious. Again I ask, what is the accusation or assertion as to those offers? That someone was offering fraudulent bookings for non-existent venues/shows? There's no follow-up in this new interview. In the interview it comes across as if when an iron-clad contract is not put in front of him, everything is "nebulous" or not even on the table.

When promoters are interested in booking the C50 lineup for HUGE venues, I would imagine it starts with "talk." I don't think they immediately shove a contract in front of you to sign.

We aren't talking about how you mean it, we are talking about how Mike means it.

[ontor pertawst]

I have no idea how you manage to ascertain how Mike means anything, unless you're in close contact and have a special little hotline phone that flashes a different color according to the day of the week. You're just describing how Cam Mott means it. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

Does anyone else want to pretend Mike Love didn't completely contradict himself in these two interviews other than Cam Mott? The guy who cannot think of a single way that Mike Love could respond to make any hypothetical interview a total disaster. Genocide of the human race by aliens would be a-ok, so he could be jabbering about white power, insider trading, or abusing social studies teachers and Mott would probably back it up and parse words. How biased could you get?

Cam, is there any feasible way Mike could ever give an interview which you would qualify as a disaster? What what do you have to do, say he wishes for the earth to be blown up by aliens?

Not that I can think of, or for Brian, Al, etc.. and that's saying something.

He even has to bring in BW and AJ into it, heaven forbid someone ask him a direct question about Mike Love without a distraction...

[bossaroo]

When Brian is ready...I'm ready!

let's hope that Brian catches wind of Mike's email response to a fanzine.
how else will he know that Mike is finally ready???

[Lee Marshall]

Yes Cam...THAT is a negative.  It says my cousin is being controlled and manipulated...but not by ME.  I'm ready to assume that responsibility/opportunity asap.

[HeyJude]

We aren't talking about how you mean it, we are talking about how Mike means it.

Well, no. Largely because of the poor quality of the interview itself (can we really even call this an "interview"?), we don't know how Mike "meant" it. We have to deduce that. What we're talking about is what *you* think it means, or what *I* do, and/or what a typical/average person might take away from the interview.

The context of how the piece came about (apparent soap box to air a bunch of grievances, rather than an organic, casual Q&A session), coupled with the CLEAR inconsistencies between some of the comments in this interview as compared to past interviews, will inevitably lead some readers to take away nothing particularly positive from this piece.

The more this discussion goes on, the more I'm inclined, in a weird way, to cut Mike some slack and agree with Howie Edelson that a main problem is the interviewer/author and the context of the interview.

[HeyJude]

You mean something negative like this?

"Listen, I wish my cousin in all of his professional endeavors the best...however, I had nothing to do with his album or the circumstances of his album. I have known my cousin since childhood, besides being musically gifted, my Cousin is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body. The tone of this press release seems bitter of which is not consistent with the Brian Wilson vibe…so I know this did not come from Brian. When Brian is ready...I'm ready!"

The comment implies that Brian is being controlled/manipulated and/or someone is speaking FOR him but AGAINST his wishes/nature. Frankly, I'm sure many people would find that sort of rhetoric *MORE* offensive than just being called an a-hole or something.

When a list of "positive attributes" is seemingly ALWAYS followed by some sort of qualifier, then yeah, it rightfully falls into the "negative" category.

I mean, when Brian says in interviews that Mike wrote great lyrics, does he always follow it up with "but he kind of stopped writing good lyrics after about 1966"? When he says he likes Al's voice on "Then I Kissed Her", does he follow it up with "but he was kind of an asshat this other time."

That sort of speaking pattern happens with some people. One might ask "What did you think about Dennis as a songwriter", and the response might start with some positive comments but will often HAVE to veer into saying "but he had drug and alcohol problems." This is sort of like psychology exercise stuff. "Say something positive about the other person WITHOUT using qualifiers like "but"....)

[Cam Mott]

I have no idea how you manage to ascertain how Mike means anything, unless you're in close contact and have a special little hotline phone that flashes a different color according to the day of the week. You're just describing how Cam Mott means it. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

Does anyone else want to pretend Mike Love didn't completely contradict himself in these two interviews other than Cam Mott? The guy who cannot think of a single way that Mike Love could respond to make any hypothetical interview a total disaster. Genocide of the human race by aliens would be a-ok, so he could be jabbering about white power, insider trading, or abusing social studies teachers and Mott would probably back it up and parse words. How biased could you get?

Cam, is there any feasible way Mike could ever give an interview which you would qualify as a disaster? What what do you have to do, say he wishes for the earth to be blown up by aliens?

Not that I can think of, or for Brian, Al, etc.. and that's saying something.

He even has to bring in BW and AJ into it, heaven forbid someone ask him a direct question about Mike Love without a distraction...

You don't get it. I don't hold it against you.

I just answered CD's question directly. Did you not get that either?

[DonnyL]

... Am I the only one who didn't think it was out of line that Mike was actually responding to comments in the press regarding Brian's new album?

I've definitely seen some reviews that had little digs about Mike or the reunion fallout ... a quick Google search comes up with several examples on the first page:


"... This is the Beach Boys song that should have come next, before the latest in a series of mishaps involving Mike Love wrecked everything again after their celebrated reunion for 2012’s That’s Why God Made the Radio album and tour."

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2015/02/19/brian-wilson-the-right-time-review/

--

"... Wilson saw an opportunity to finally become hip with his kids and recruited some amazing young vocalists who have been inspired by his music.” (Ed. Note: It probably didn’t help that Wilson and Mike Love had a public fallout in 2013.)"

http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/01/brian-wilson-announces-no-pier-pressure-his-star-studded-new-solo-album/

--

"... The first meaning I readily see is that Brian Wilson’s album, No Pier Pressure means “No peer pressure” from his cousin Mike Love or Bruce Johnston."

http://musicofourheart.me/2015/02/21/no-pier-pressure-brian-wilson/

--

... even from Rolling Stone:

"... Wilson channeled his disappointment at bandmate Mike Love's decision to cancel a 2012 reunion tour into tracks like 'Last Song' ..."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/2015-preview-68-reasons-to-love-this-year-20150105/brian-wilson-no-pier-pressure-spring-20150105

[Cam Mott]

You mean something negative like this?

"Listen, I wish my cousin in all of his professional endeavors the best...however, I had nothing to do with his album or the circumstances of his album. I have known my cousin since childhood, besides being musically gifted, my Cousin is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body. The tone of this press release seems bitter of which is not consistent with the Brian Wilson vibe…so I know this did not come from Brian. When Brian is ready...I'm ready!"

The comment implies that Brian is being controlled/manipulated and/or someone is speaking FOR him but AGAINST his wishes/nature. Frankly, I'm sure many people would find that sort of rhetoric *MORE* offensive than just being called an a-hole or something.

When a list of "positive attributes" is seemingly ALWAYS followed by some sort of qualifier, then yeah, it rightfully falls into the "negative" category.

I mean, when Brian says in interviews that Mike wrote great lyrics, does he always follow it up with "but he kind of stopped writing good lyrics after about 1966"? When he says he likes Al's voice on "Then I Kissed Her", does he follow it up with "but he was kind of an asshat this other time."

That sort of speaking pattern happens with some people. One might ask "What did you think about Dennis as a songwriter", and the response might start with some positive comments but will often HAVE to veer into saying "but he had drug and alcohol problems." This is sort of like psychology exercise stuff. "Say something positive about the other person WITHOUT using qualifiers like "but"....)

My monitor must be on the fritz because people can read a lot more in these quotes then they say or I can see. He is "negative" about Brian's supposed PR writer at most in the quote I see. He is very complimentary towards Brian in what I read.