Why do you hate Mike Love?

[CenturyDeprived]

Or maybe Carl and Al (never the most prolific of songwriters) just had nada?

What about the long-gestating Don't Fight the Sea? I don't think banished Jardine had much of a chance getting that on SIP, do you? It would have improved any BB album around that time, however.

Plus, I recall Mike talking smack about how many songs not written by Mike were on Still Cruisin'. I'm not sure that he wanted anybody else's input on SIP but his own (and Terry's, plus a small touch of like-minded Bruce). Yet he got so upset about not getting to write songs the exact way of his choosing on TWGMTR, despite how SIP was controlled by him, with Al in the corner wearing the BB dunce cap. Sounds fair and not the slightest bit hypocritical to me  

If Don't Fight the Sea (which Al didn't bother to finish) didn't make it onto KTSA, BB85 or Still Crusin' I can't see him fighting for it to be on SIP.

Maybe Al (and especially Carl) had given up the fight. Don't Fight The Mike, Or You'll Be Adrift At Sea.

The other thing nobody talks about is why Mike brought in Terry Melcher instead of trying to write songs with other bandmates on SIP? I'm just guessing because he wanted to control the output of songs, the style and content... which of course he was miffed about in the '60s when Brian brought in outsiders to collaborate with for entire albums' worth of material. Wasn't Mike the guy giving Brian guilt trips in the '60s for not writing with his BB bandmates enough? Reminding Brian of how that made everyone *feel*?  

Yeah, I know Mike had some success with Melcher already, so it makes sense he'd want to write more with him... but still, you'd think he'd want to at least still do *some* collaborations or have his other bandmates (sans Bruce) contribute something to SIP. Unless of course it was all about control, or unless of course he forgot how it felt when he was excluded in the '60s and made no secret about it.

Do you think Mike of this era would *want* Al, for example, to write a hit song?  (Feel free to insert a line about Al being incapable of writing a hit BB song...but let's just say he had a fluke hit). And for that to lead to Al having any more leverage, or for Al to feel deserving of more? To keep dissenting voices at bay was of paramount importance for the endless Kokomo ego trip, and face it - that's what the song became for Mike. Sad.

Mike Love logic = get hurt (and verbalize it often) when feeling excluded by outside collaborators, in different eras... yet as soon as he gets the chance for near-full control of a BB album: exclude founding bandmembers and exclusively write with outside collaborators in order to ensure full Kokomozation of the band output.

Mike gets to have all the "attitude problems" during the 1960s that he wants, but thinks he nonetheless gets to be completely absolved of any responsibility for his 1960s attitude having any negative effect on those around him... Mike questioning the direction of the band, questioning the lyrics, and perhaps being snarky about it - directed a very sensitive bandmate - is expected by him to be considered A-OK by the fans... that he is misunderstood and not guilty of any criticism... and yet Al is the one who gets literally sidelined and then fired for having a Love-described "attitude problem" in the 1990s. That brand of hypocrisy is one example of why people have intense feelings regarding this man.

I can appreciate his positive contributions... but for people to not see the blatant hypocrisy is rather astounding.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Al was on the outs then anyway

[Jay]

I'd love to read the whole story of how and why Al fell out with the rest of the group in the early 1990's. Somebody once posted on here that everybody, including Carl, signed a document of some kind to dismiss Al from the group. I believe it was AGD. Has the full story of that issue ever been discussed openly?

[Please delete my account]

For the people complaining that there is a 20 page thread about hating Mike Love ... I wouldn't recommend reading it all but if you do you'll see there's not much actual Mike Love hate in it. More arguing about side issues such as whether newspaper articles are fact-checked and the significance of including a live version of Summer in Paradise on MiC.

[Cam Mott]

They all were the best choice and they all were in charge of each of the products.

Does that logic also apply to earlier years such as, say, 1967? If so, then was Mike also to blame for Smile not coming out that year?

No, CP's hypothetical began at "circa 1980".

[Cam Mott]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

[filledeplage]

It's a sad day ( most every day lately) when the thread at the top of the page has hate for ANY of the members of the BBs a a title. This is just wrong.

Amen to that!

Agreed! And maybe should have been relegated to The Sandbox (or locked) once it was discovered that it's prime reason, was bait for an article.  It was not started in good faith.

[Moon Dawg]

Al is still a Beach Boy.

  Sure he is. No thanks to Mike Love circa 1991.

[filledeplage]

Again, NOTHING The Beach Boys were doing during this time was out of the ordinary. I was a die-hard Beatles fanatic and I had to put up with seeing stuff like this when I was 20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik3Kzv_d6Fk

Was Mike behind this? Isn't this the SIP version of "Surfin''" for Beatles fanatics? I think you're starting from the position that Mike was the sole cheese guy during that era and that all the other Beach Boys would've NEVER allowed such a thing to happen to if they were running the show, but that's overlooking a lot...I mean, a LOT. I'm very skeptical of that line of thinking because I remember all the horrible cheese everybody else was doing at that time. And look at the crowd at that McCartney show eating it up! By the way, none of them thought it was cheese at the time. When Brian was stalking the stage in leather pants and singing "Nightime", people actually thought that was cool. I swear to God. I'm sure that when the Rolling Stones released "Rock and A Hard Place" (arguably the worst song they ever recorded and it makes some of the stuff on SIP look like genius work) they weren't thinking they were doing anything that would make them look bad in 2015. Same with Roger Waters and his appalling staging of The Wall in Berlin that even managed to make Van Morrison look like the biggest tool on the planet.

Take this discussion into a more recent period, like say the past 10 years, when the Beach Boys reputation is now carved in stone and all of Mike's 60's peers carry themselves a little better...or at least a little more age appropriate and then you might have an argument.  

That period from 1988 to the mid-90's was bad for a LOT of those guys in hindsight. I was in my 20's then. I was there. I know. It sucked.

Wow! I never saw that video. In Paul's defense he was probably trying to "stay in the game."

Don't know how anyone could complain bout HCTN disco after seeing this.  HCTN was a couple of years behind.  Still better than this, "whatever" with Paul. (But still a cutie!) 

[clack]

Other than Mike, the only other realistic contender for creative leadership was Carl.

I like Carl's BB '85 songs. But after that : nothing. Not one released song until the Like a Brother lp, 3 years after his death. A record is made up of songs. You can't have creative control unless you contribute songs.

Again, Mike was not the right guy to take over creative control. But there was no right guy. It was Mike, or no one. And maybe, in retrospect, "no one" would have been the proper choice. Just stop making records and hope that Brian will someday return with his songwriting/arranging chops still intact.

But there was that fool's gold of a 'Kokomo' follow-up to chase.

[Cam Mott]

Al is still a Beach Boy.

  Sure he is. No thanks to Mike Love circa 1991.

Just Mike? Mike could no more throw Al out of the band than Al could throw Mike out of the band.

What about Al?  Takes two to four to tango goes the old saying.

[wilsonart1]

Not really hate! It's just that he feels he has bigger trouser oranges than the rest of us.

[Summertime Blooz]

In all fairness to Mike, he was already going bald by the time he was like, 10 years old or something. A thing like that has to affect a guy. I mean, Lex Luther wanted to kill Superman for causing him to lose his hair.

[Cam Mott]

In all fairness to Mike, he was already going bald by the time he was like, 10 years old or something. A thing like that has to affect a guy. I mean, Lex Luther wanted to kill Superman for causing him to lose his hair.

(giggle)

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

In all fairness to Mike, he was already going bald by the time he was like, 10 years old or something. A thing like that has to affect a guy. I mean, Lex Luther wanted to kill Superman for causing him to lose his hair.

  But really, just think of all the extra attention myKe could command by donning hats with plumes, turbans, turbans with sequins, and 5000 different baseball caps. 

[NHC]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

It's just tiresome, and I get turned off on these constant threads that seem to have no purpose other than to denigrate someone.

[HeyJude]

I'd love to read the whole story of how and why Al fell out with the rest of the group in the early 1990's. Somebody once posted on here that everybody, including Carl, signed a document of some kind to dismiss Al from the group. I believe it was AGD. Has the full story of that issue ever been discussed openly?

Dunno about that story of everyone signing a document to boot Al. If *everybody* had agreed to boot Al, then it would have actually been done. I don’t believe Carl ever actively supported dismissing Al in that late era. As far as I know.

The exact timeline and circumstances of Al and Mike being on the outs has never been clear. The Marks/Stebbins book goes into a bit of detail as far as the late 90s business arrangements. Long story short, business decisions were made regarding how to run the touring band; Al disagreed and Carl didn’t put up a fight, causing some measure of estrangement (but apparently not any serious ill will) between Al and Carl, and obviously a more serious rift between Al and Mike. Al apparently saw his demise coming, but couldn’t stop it.

But as Howie Edelson has characterized it, Al was essentially “s**tcanned and publically humiliated.” Doesn’t mean he was zero at fault; he certainly took part in the crafting of the BRI setup in the 70s and 80s, and I don’t doubt Mike’s early 90s Goldmine interview where he discusses how Al could be difficult and get stuck on things. But considering he was kind of s**tcanned circa 1998 and then kind of s**tcanned again in 2012 (to avoid the “nobody was legally fired!” argument, let’s just say “metaphorically or symbolically s**tcanned”), Al seems to be surprisingly relatively cool and easygoing about just enjoying touring with Brian now when he gets the chance.

One of the bummers in the Peter Ames Carlin book is that on two separate occasions he alludes to the Al/Mike rift but doesn’t pick up on any detail. He makes a one-off reference to an attempt to oust Al from the band (and/or BRI) in *1990*, and then when he gets to that same circa-1997 era where it all started falling apart, he kind of skates past going into any detail, making some reference to how the legal/business issues regarding the splintering of the band and use of the name are simply too complex to detail (I realize his book was a Brian bio, but a little more detail in these two cases would have helped A LOT).

[Mike's Beard]

Mike gets to have all the "attitude problems" during the 1960s that he wants, but thinks he nonetheless gets to be completely absolved of any responsibility for his 1960s attitude having any negative effect on those around him... Mike questioning the direction of the band, questioning the lyrics, and perhaps being snarky about it - directed a very sensitive bandmate - is expected by him to be considered A-OK by the fans... that he is misunderstood and not guilty of any criticism... and yet Al is the one who gets literally sidelined and then fired for having a Love-described "attitude problem" in the 1990s. That brand of hypocrisy is one example of why people have intense feelings regarding this man.

I can appreciate his positive contributions... but for people to not see the blatant hypocrisy is rather astounding.

Mike questioned some lyrics and wondered if Brian's new 'out there' music would connect with their fanbase. That is not an attitude problem. It's been mentioned before that by the early 90s Mike, Carl and I'm guessing Bruce aswell could not bear to be in the same room as Al for very long, so bad was his negative attitude towards everything. Without wanting to speculate too much I think Al may have been dealing with issues beyond his stalling music career.

[HeyJude]

As far as who is “still a Beach Boy”, I think the ambiguity in this is another sign of how f***ed up the band’s management and corporate setup is and has been for some time.

There is the “Corporate Beach Boy”, which essentially amounts to three guys and an estate (only one person from which actually tours using the name).

There is the “Official Beach Boy”, which is more simply a non-legal membership ascribed to members by the band itself and/or fans. This would be Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, Al, Bruce, David, Blondie, and Ricky. This gets murky, because Dave, Blondie, and Ricky left. Bruce left but then returned. But then you have two deceased members. Notwithstanding Brian’s absence from something like the SIP album and various members only being sporadically involved, the “studio” and “touring” band were more or less one and the same up until 1998. Then, they became two separate things, with one component essentially retired. So when Dave rejoined in 1998, he was kind of only rejoining the touring band. Were both David Mark and Al Jardine still “Beach Boys” in 1999, even though Dave was not a corporate member but in the touring band, while Al was a corporate member but not in the touring band?

Yes of course, I’m sure some fans are happy to say “they’re all Beach Boys!”, and I’m happy to agree. But when it comes time for the media (or fans) to frame their story in some sort of actual text, things get murky. Al and Brian are often referred to as “ex-Beach Boys”, while Bruce and Mike never are. But this designation really only pertains to the touring band, which really isn’t even a corporate-managed enterprise at this stage, and is instead simply a licensed separate organization.

In a sense, all of them are simultaneously ex-Beach Boys and still Beach Boys. If they had real management, this would at least be somewhat less murky.

[Mike's Beard]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

It's just tiresome, and I get turned off on these constant threads that seem to have no purpose other than to denigrate someone.

Agreed. And as someone who seems to be tagged as a 'Mike Love apologist' I can honestly say that
I think Mike has made a few misguided artistic decisions in his time,
Was a dick to force out any BB associates who weren't in to TM,
Made an ass of himself at the R&R Hall of Fame,
Made a bigger ass of himself by trying to make a lawsuit out of a newspaper using a BBs photo on a free Brian solo cd,
Should choose his words more carefully when commenting on his cousin's mental health.

That's no reason to HATE a guy you don't actually know. It's not like anyone here has had Mike
f*** their wive or significant other,
Break into their house in the middle of the night and devour their babies,
Back over their dog and drive away,
Steal their bike (remember that old chestnut?),
Swindle them out of their life's savings,
Kidnapp them, lock them in a room chained to a chair and forced them to listen to Country Love on a loop.

Get a grip people.

[rab2591]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

It's just tiresome, and I get turned off on these constant threads that seem to have no purpose other than to denigrate someone.

Agreed. And as someone who seems to be tagged as a 'Mike Love apologist' I can honestly say that
I think Mike has made a few misguided artistic decisions in his time,
Was a dick to force out any BB associates who weren't in to TM,
Made an ass of himself at the R&R Hall of Fame,
Made a bigger ass of himself by trying to make a lawsuit out of a newspaper using a BBs photo on a free Brian solo cd,
Should choose his words more carefully when commenting on his cousin's mental health.

Agreed. I also think it's good that most people with gripes here have stated that they don't hate Mike Love, including myself. And a lot of the gripes have been followed by reasons Mike Love has been an integral part of the band.

[Mike's Beard]

It took 20 pages but Rab and I agreed on something.  
Stay tuned as AGD and OSD find some common ground.

[elnombre]

Well, I'd say Mr Lee has his response. The consensus seems to be that we don't.

[SMiLE Brian]

It took 20 pages but Rab and I agreed on something.  
Stay tuned as AGD and OSD find some common ground.

let's have BBs fan peace summit at a bar!

[guitarfool2002]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

Capitol is excited about Kokomo and the prospect of the involvement of the talents of Brian, Mike, Melcher and "all of the Beach Boys" on its follow up.  Capitol's David Berman makes it clear in that article that Brian's involvement was extremely important to the Capitol-album-with-an-option deal.  

All of them were involved for Still Cruisin, so why didn't Capitol exercise it's option?

They passed on Summer In Paradise, and wouldn't agree to handle it which is why "Brother Entertainment" got it. The only threadbare connection to Capitol would be after the US releases bombed, EMI picked it up for European market distribution but only after it was given remixes and other changes to try to market it a certain way. That failed too. But that explains why you'll see "EMI" on certain releases, this was after the remixes and done for Europe.

So perhaps Capitol passed on it because they didn't think it would sell? And because, just perhaps, one of the biggest marketing strengths in selling a Beach Boys album that was mentioned in 1989 wasn't included on this album? Initials BW.