The Smiley Smile Message Board

Does Mike Love realize that he is despised, loathed, or (in some cases) hated by millions of music fans? What is this guy's level of awareness that so many people dislike him?

Sometimes he may say something like "well some people may not like such and such thing I did, but cousin Brian was on drugs and I needed to... blah blah blah."

There seem to be some quick acknowledgments that people may not like a couple of isolated acts of his. But does this dude realize how widely despised he is by so many people?

To hear him say it:

"For those who believe that Brian walks on water, I will always be the Antichrist." - According to Mike Love's Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy

I think he knows. And that ^^ is a pretty condescending way of putting it, too, which kinda reinforces the idea of him being viewed as the 'bad guy'. lol I personally like him but he doesn't make it easy sometimes.

According to this article, He seems to realize that he's considered as villain: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/the-ballad-of-mike-love-20160217 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/the-ballad-of-mike-love-20160217)

I can understand his perspective in some ways. For decades he dealt with not getting credit for the songs that he wrote lyrics on. In the late 70s when all 3 Wilsons were doing drugs, he saw that it was destroying lives as well as the band. I think he would have traded his power of the band in a heartbeat if the Wilsons were all healthy and alive today. I have seen 2 interviews since the 90s when Mike is in tears talking about his relationship with Brian. When asked around 2006 or 07 if he missed Brian, he said "He is right here (touching his heart). The Brian I know is right here" Tearing up as he spoke. At the reunion when Brian was either unwilling or not allowed to sit in a room with him one on one, I'm sure that hurt him a lot. And perhaps a big reason he ended the reunion. I'm not saying Mike is perfect. But this man has feelings too. When he hears for a years that he is a talentless hack that was along for the ride, it is natural that he would be defensive about it.

This. Thank you, MTR.

'Millions' might be a stretch.

I do love his contributions to the early material and he did some amazing stuff on albums like Wild Honey and Holland. That, to me, is his artistic legacy when it comes to the BB in the studio. His voice I like too. As for all the other stuff he's well-known for, I'd say that Mike Love himself is highly responsible for the way he is being perceived.

First of all Mike got tons of credit back in the day.  Wilson - Love was almost as common as Lennon - McCartney from 63-65.  Yes Usher and Christian were there too but usually it was Mikey and I actually think he got [and still gets] MORE credit for that time-frame than is actually warranted.  But Brian had more in him that he had to get out much to snivelling Mike's chagrin.  It appears that Mike was left off some songs.  Murry's [assholishness] doing.  He also got inserted into and onto songs he really had ever so little to do with.  Over time I'd say it evened out rather nicely for a guy  who, as you so succinctly put it, "is a talentless hack that was along for the ride."

Once Brian matured the sound and direction and no longer really needed  [or wanted]  to "do it!!!  do it!!!  do it!!!' again and again AND...a g a i n... ... ...that so-called 'love' guy indeed became ALL of that.

But then one reads the details of the 2005 lawsuit and it’s completely understandable why Brian was either unwilling or not allowed to record music one-on-one with him. The C50 plans were made a little over 6 years after that lawsuit, and the things that are said about Brian in that suit are outright blatant lies.

That Brian was in a car with Mike and Jackie alone at one point during the C50 says a lot about Brian (in that I don’t think the lawsuit stuff effects him that much and he still doesn’t mind being around Mike) - at the same time Brian and Melinda’s financial advisors, and even his mental health doctors, probably recommend Brian stay away from this kind of stuff.

That 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about why fans dislike the guy, and that is just one drop in a very large and full bucket.

What he says isn't untrue. 

But, I do think that "despised by millions" is an exaggeration. 

And "despised by millions of fans" just looks weird! :lol

This has been proven to not, not, not be true though. People who would know said there was plenty of time for them to have gotten together in a room to write if Mike wanted, yet it seems it never happened. The guys were around each other a lot on that tour. Personally, I don't think Mike cares all that much about writing with Brian, I think it's just another straw man so he can have more excuses to tour as "The Beach Boys" without the actual Beach Boys there.

And I'm sure you don't mean to come off as belittling to Brian when you say "not allowed" but really when you say something like that, it really is pretty disrespectful, especially after the great input that awesome people like Ray Lawlor have given us around here.

I don't think Mike cares too much who "hates" him. I think he does value the life he's led, the music, travel, wealth, fame, fortune. I think he laughs all the way to the bank. Maybe when he was somewhat younger he may have cared , but as you get old, your perspective changes.

I think that's probably exactly right ... and that it's the healthiest perspective for him to have. There's plenty about Mike I'd change if it were up to me. But it's not. It's his life. It would be insane for him to focus on what "fans" hate rather than doing what he thinks is best for himself --even if he's mistaken in that course he's chosen. It shouldn't be his primary concern whether some listeners would be happier if he had followed some path they preferred him to follow.

While Brian confirmed in his autobiography that writing en masse alone in a room with Mike is not how he wants to write, it's somewhat incorrect to suggest Brian was "unwilling" or "not allowed" to sit in a room one on one with Mike during the reunion.

Several observers have pointed out that Mike saw Brian more on a day-to-day basis and spent more time *alone* with Brian in 2012 than he had since probably 1981 if not earlier. Melinda was not on much if not most of the tour (and I only even mention that in case there are those that actually think Melinda was trying to hide Brian from Mike during the tour or something, which isn't accurate, as she helped *facilitate* the tour happening in the first place), and many have pointed out that there was plenty of time on tour where there was a keyboard at hand during which Mike could have approached Brian to write, and there's zero evidence he even tried.

The idea that Brian not wanting to "write alone" with Mike is super hurtful to Mike is, I think, just kind of silly. I'm not saying hurt feelings (or bruised egos, etc.) wouldn't be a factor. But these guys have been at it for 50 years, and Mike has *many times* written without Brian. He did an *entire album* without Brian in 1992 called "Summer in Paradise."

And we know at the end of 2012 that Brian wanted to be a Beach Boy, and Mike left Brian and essentially quit the group. That's a much stronger, more potentially hurtful move in my opinion, than Brian saying (or by his actions showing) that he'd rather write stuff on his own or with another writer and then bring some things to Mike to have Mike add some lyrics.

The diplomatic way to put things would be that by the end of 2012, Brian and Mike's respective ideas for what constituted being a Beach Boy were vastly different. The problem is, Brian's "idea" (e.g. writing with outside writers, bringing in-progress songs and recordings to the band to work on rather than doing everything from scratch with Mike) of how to do the band was and is *much closer* to how the band actually has operated for the majority of its career. On the other hand, when was the last time an entire album was Brian/Mike "from scratch" compositions? Arguably never, and they haven't had a "hit" writing together in 40-50 years depending on how you measure it.

Brian was, arguably, only saying to Mike "I don't want to exclusively write with you from scratch; I'm simply working in a slightly different fashion to how I did in 1963." Mike, on the other hand, was saying to Brian by his actions "I don't want to work with you anymore. The factors involved and the effort I have to make in order for us to work together is just not worth it."

I also believe Brian not wanting to be "in the room alone to write" with Mike had little to do with Mike quitting the band at the end of C50. I think Brian writing with Joe Thomas and/or using old Joe Thomas tracks rather than writing from scratch with Mike was a symptom of what Mike didn't like on the whole about that whole situation rather than a major cause.

That Rolling Stone piece was excellent, and the writer for once challenged Mike on some of these basic, fundamental personality issues.

What we saw in that piece was Mike being, by leaps and bounds, as self-aware as he possibly can be. And even then, it's clear he doesn't really "get it" in terms of why he's seen as a villain. He acknowledges it's the case, but he seems to think the reputation is based mostly on incorrect information, and/or not getting his sense of humor or personality, etc.

So basically, Mike acknowledges how people feel about him. But he doesn't seem to believe it's a particularly valid opinion.

One of the problems is that I think Mike thinks people don't like him because he's "not Brian Wilson", rather than actually looking at what he does and how he does it and what he says and how he says it. As I mentioned, he's a bit aware that he can come across as kind of a d**k, but he dismisses that often as just having a sense of humor that some people don't get.

The stuff I don't think Mike seems to grasp is how poorly he comes across in interviews rattling the same saber about the same things, namely the songwriting lawsuit (which he won over 20 years ago) and harping on the drug use of the Wilsons (another thing that is over 20 years in the past, and concerning two people that are dead). I don't think he notices how many times he's been asked questions about *him* in interviews and he *immediately* moves to pointing out that Dennis was an alcoholic 35-40 years ago. He seems to define himself more by what he's *not*, and who he's not like, rather than by what he is or what he does.

Interesting question here.

I know many on this board have strong opinions about Mike Love.

At this late point in the game, is there anything that Mike could do that would change how he's perceived? 

Or, for those posters with strong opinions of Mike, is there anything that he could do that would make you change your opinion? 

I think this is a very key phrase. "The Brian I know." We've seen numerous examples of the fact that Mike, in part, seem to form a sort of idealized, fictionalized version of Brian in his mind.

Does he really *know* Brian anymore?

Wouldn't most of us find it kind of silly for someone to still assume someone in 2012 should be like the version they remember from 50 years earlier?

Mike doesn't seem to want to admit that Brian doesn't do the things Mike wants him to do (namely write with Mike) maybe because Brian just doesn't want to. Brian has changed over 50 years, and not only because of Landy or Melinda. He has changed because most people change in some key ways over the course of half a century.

It's a pretty common, classic sort of train of thought, to think that someone doesn't like you not because of you, but because of some other external force. In this case, it isn't even as if Brian "doesn't like" Mike. Rather, he just relates to him differently, especially on professional/musical level. And Mike, in my opinion, seems to want to believe that "That's Why God Made the Radio" didn't have 12 Wilson/Love co-writes because of Melinda rather than Brian not wanting to write everything with Mike (and/or maybe he thinks Mike's writing isn't that great these days, and/or they were being a little lazy and using a lot of late 90s Joe Thomas outtakes, and so on).

C50. C50 was a huge game-changer not just for the band, but specifically for Mike. As Howie Edelson pointed out some time back, Mike in some ways was *THE HERO* of that tour and reunion.

And the quality of that reunion proved how easily a *half century* of bad PR could be wiped away. Some of the most cynical fans ever warmed up to Mike. The BS of the past was forgotten. Mike was on stage and in the studio with Brian, and Al. He was singing along with Dennis on stage. Again borrowing Howie's phraseology, Mike went from "Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger overnight." And I feel that way both as an objective industry observer and as a fan.

THAT is how Mike could have fixed almost all of his bad image/PR issues with fans (and the music press as well, and critics, etc.). To be on the *right side* of the art and the PR. To be *with* Brian rather than talking sh*t about him. To stop reminding us what he needs to take credit for, to stop reminding us that Carl smoked and he didn't and that Dennis was an alcoholic and he wasn't, or that Al had a bad attitude and he doesn't, and instead *work with* the band, create NEW music and put on AMAZING live shows. To be HUMBLE. Tell everyone about a cool song Dave or Al wrote or something *instead* of reminding everyone he knows John Stamos and that "Kokomo" was a #1 single.

Mike accomplished ALL of that in mere weeks if not months in 2012, and then not only undid ALL of that with the poor ending to the reunion, but actually *regressed* to 1988 R&R HOF speech levels in terms of PR and image.

I agree that keeping the reunited band together would've done Mike a lot of favors in the long run.

But, I'm talking about now. 

What could Mike do on August 7, 2017 that would do his image a lot of favors?   Even if somehow Brian and Al were allowed back into the band, would it be too little too late?

Yeah, I think getting back to where they were in September 2012 would be the best he could do.

In terms of PR and critics and the music press, it might be too late, especially in the US. They might have trouble with the major booking agents with the big cash who would invest a lot into the project.

But yeah, a C50-type situation to *end* the band's career would be what Mike would have to do. I think the damage he did to the renewed brand in 2012 might be irreparable (think of how skeptical some were back in 2012; that skepticism would be ramped up a thousand times if they did another similar reunion project), but maybe they could pull it off if with good management and PR and *lots of planning* and a true promise to end the saga together, with a clear statement that every Beach Boys song and live show from that point on would include all surviving members. So they could still end it pretty much at *any time* they wanted to, but they'd be *ending* the saga if they stopped instead of taking a weird left turn where Mike continues using the name so that the *appearance* is that he's fired other guys, etc.

Millions?  :lol  I don't think so....

We know this isn't gonna happen, but:

Giving an interview where he sincerely publicly apologizes for many, many instances of sh*tty behavior, acknowledges acting in a super toxic way for decades, and having massive ego problems, and how he is trying to get help for these things... this would help his image in the eyes of a number of people. It wouldn't change everything overnight, but it would help. 

Depending on when he decides to do it, I could see a big farewell tour with all the living members. 

In a word, nothing. Too much water under the bridge and too many blown opportunities. It's far too late for someone like the lovester to change course this late in life. He is who he is and time has taken it's toll and I would also say that to keep wishing that there be some sort of reconciliation at this late date is something of a pipe dream that just isn't going to happen nor should it. I'm happy the way thing are with Brian doing his own thing without constantly being nudged here and there by his ungrateful cousin who's only in it for the buckaroos and label credit. We all know that he's certainly not the Beach Boys by any stretch of the imagination but the sad, pitiful truth of it is that he's convinced himself that he IS. Personally, I just hope the man never gets to be on stage with or write with Brian Wilson ever again.

I am sure that Mike feels that whatever mistakes he has made, they pale in comparison to all the horrible behavior and bad decisions made by Brian Wilson over the years.

A more interesting question : why is Mike Love so despised for being a run-of-the-mill jerk, when many truly horrible rock stars are given a pass? Lou Reed? Brian Jones? Arthur Lee? Jimmy Page? Chuck Berry? Etc.

Because he had so little talent compared to them... :hat

I'm largely unfamiliar with the details of those other stars you mentioned, but I'll just say that if any of those folks you mentioned above had an extremely, monumentally talented and incredibly sensitive bandmate (and relative) who they may have inadvertently impacted in a negative way, both on artistic as well as personal levels, and that impacted person had a *particularly* sympathetic well-known survival story with a comeback ending... there'd probably be more of a parallel.

This is a really unique case, compounded by decades of adding insult to injury with interview after interview. Literally every move that Mike has made over decades that could have undone damage and helped his reputation has eventually been squandered. Every single one. It sucks.

You nailed it SB!! Post of the Summer Award, hands down, dude!!  :rock :h5 :pirate :thewilsons :happydance :bow :thumbsup :hug :drunks :grouphug and 100 woots.

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot Thanks OSD!

Good point on both counts.

I think he is probably despised by a million fans, not millions, if that's any consolation to him.

Good point!  ;D

Yeah, but come on. People can say what they want, but I'll form my own opinion about how much say Brian Wilson has over his own career. I see the tours, listen to the interviews, and listen to the solo CDs, and that gives me an impression that is pretty hard to shake...

>>>
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
<<<

You're in good company with that kind of thinking.

Gee, is this what we want from our ROCK STARS now? "I'm so sorry for my "toxic" behavior, but I'm taking sensitivity classes now, and I'll be donating the proceeds of my next tour to Brian Wilson's favorite charity". I don't want such whimpering from anyone. They're all millionaires, they're all grown men, they're all people who have lived long lives where not everything they did was incredibly nice. Brian Wilson included.

We don't know any of those guys personally, and the reason BW comes off better in interviews is because he answers in monosyllables so we don't know what he's like in real life. Mike Love, as the lead singer and main lyricist of the Beach Boys, has given me and all of us here 50 years of entertainment, and I'm going to stand in moral judgement of him?

I say: Long live Mike Love! Long live Brian Wilson! Long live the Beach Boys!

You left out "It's all about the music!".

Happy Wednesday!  :beer

Is a rock star repeatedly, over and over again, whining publicly about not being liked enough what you (or I) want from our rock stars? We have that in spades from Mike. Of the two options, I'd prefer to see said rock star have some self-realization and come to terms with why they have the reputation they have, and attempt to reflect inwards to correct it.  Even if it means getting a bit mushy in an honest, sincere interview, and dispensing with the idea of the word "but". Saying that he f***ed up, pure and simple, and that he didn't mean to cause pain to anyone. With no motherf*cking "buts", period.

That's the problem with alpha male BS; making the very idea of a guy being sensitive, self-reflecting, and actually apologetic for literally a single thing actually some sort of awful thing (akin to "whimpering") to be feared. Your comment is perpetuating that toxicity, in my humble opinion, I'm sorry to say. Yes, "toxic" behavior is a thing.

It's the fact that there's such a stigma from some faction of society that feeds into and enables Mike's unfortunate behavior which has led to Mike having his unfortunate reputation.

In general it isn't viewed as a positive trait to get what you want, what you were fighting for or even asking for, then continue complaining about it and rehashing the whole saga over and over in an attempt to win...what...more sympathy? Empathy? Ticket sales?

Well then Brian Wilson can pick up the phone and call Mike Love and let him have it about his "toxicity" (such a silly word, "toxic": are we talking about people or nuclear waste?).

Both men perform to adoring crowds regularly so I think that Mike Love feels that, all things considered, he's a pretty popular guy.

Are people in those adoring crowds coming to adore The Beach Boys and the songs, or Mike Love himself?

I think you inadvertently hit on one of the core issues at play. Do you think Mike feels the people are coming to see and adore him when they buy Beach Boys tickets in 2017? It's been suggested that is indeed the situation, choose to believe it or not. But it also begs the question then why doesn't Mike tour under his own name and unload the burden of having to pay BRI for a license?

I mean, if people are coming to cheer and adore Mike, wouldn't they come to a show billed under Mike's name for the same reason?

I doubt millions know his name, but of those who do many hate him with a passion.

As I recall, back right after Carl passed away, and before he had any license, Mike toured under a non Beach Boys banner....I think it was something like America's Band featuring Mike Love, something like that. I remember he came to one of the casino shows in Atlantic City area, and from what I remember he was playing one of those small, Happy Hour type rooms, not the big show rooms we see nowadays. I think the turnout was pretty BLAH....many did not know who he was I assume. Clearly, paying for the license and using the name Beach Boys is more financially attractive o him than going by his own moniker. Night and day, as it's the name "Beach Boys' that draws the crowds. And frankly, he knows that, ego or not.

Isn’t untrue?

It’s a catchy quote meant to make headlines (which it did) but nothing more. Firstly, Brian walking on water? A lot of people think Brian Wilson is a genius and yet some of these people also seem to like Mike too (or at least haven’t publicly said a bad word about the guy). Here Mike lugs in everyone who thinks extremely highly of Brian Wilson...in Mike’s mind apparently you can’t think Brian is a genius/great man without also hating Mike...this is such a childish outlook - you honestly think the two have to go hand in hand?

KDS, have you read the 2005 lawsuit? The quote(s) in there about Brian sitting around doing nothing but taking drugs and collecting royalty checks is why people hate Mike - and you don’t need to think Brian is a genius (or walks on water) to see how those lies in Mike’s own lawsuit make Mike an asshole. That antichrist quote from Mike is indeed untrue, it’s absolutely silly - it’s a line from a guy who has absolutely no grasp on the affect of his own actions and statements over the years. Brian did nothing from 1967 onward but take drugs and collect royalty checks? The amount of sh*t you Mike apologists ignore to prop up your man is staggering. Mike himself co-wrote beautiful songs with Brian post ‘67 yet he lied about this in his lawsuit that was dismissed just FIVE years prior to the C50.

To recap, firstly there are people out there who think insanely highly of Brian who don’t give a sh*t about Mike either way (so Mike’s statement is untrue). Secondly, this statement is geared toward people who either haven’t read or willfully ignore things like the 2005 lawsuit where Mike blatantly lies about Brian in a childish attempt to make a quick buck. Thirdly, you can hate Mike while not knowing or caring anything at all about Brian Wilson: anyone willing to lie about their own family member to make some cash is a sleaze...and it’s utterly mindblowing the depths people go to defend this shitty behavior.

Didn't Mike once say that Brian watered his legend every day? Well, Mike sure as hell waters his bad reputation. It isn't just something nasty he did once long ago. He continues to do and say things that reinforce the bad opinions some of us have about him.

I know about the lawsuit and the things Mike has done, but from what I've seen on social media and on various BB MBs, I do think there's truth in what Mike says. 

Thank you

It’s not true though. There are those who think incredibly highly of Brian’s talents and also like Mike - which contradicts his statement. Also, I highly recommend you read up on that 2005 lawsuit.

If you read Mike's book, he doesn't say all fans, but I do agree with his quote that in some fans' eyes, Brian walks on water, and Mike is the anti Christ. 

From strictly a musical standpoint, to some fans, Brian's music is immune to criticism, but not so much with Mike. 

I'm not telling you that you have to agree with it, but I do. 

Yet in the quote posted he does lug together all hardcore Brian fans.

If you chose to interpret it that way.  "For those who think Brian walks on water."  There are plenty of hardcore, dyed in the wool Brian Wilson fans who don't believe that Brian "walks on water" or is above any kind of criticism. 

Having misgivings about how much control *you* think Brian Wilson has over his career is not something that isn't worthy of potential discussion. But you'll have to do better than "but come on" if you want to tread into that territory.

We have numerous insiders on this board, with different "interests" and points of view, who have spoken to this issue. No, it isn't as simple as Brian being exactly like any other person and being a self-starter about everything. But we've also had plenty of insight that indicates the ignorant position that he's "medicated and controlled" is unfair and erroneous as well.

This is pretty silly. First of all, the sort of rebellious "rock star" image is not something *any* of the Beach Boys have ever put across. The only times they've ever gotten snarly or rebellious would be things like Mike's R&R HOF speech, where he wasn't really trying to "tell it like it is", but rather he was whining and in some sort of altered state of mind.

And please, nobody is asking Mike to take sensitivity classes.

If you want the "tell it like it is" "Rock Star" version, then it's simple. Mike would probably earn a lot of props for just saying in an interview "yeah, sometimes I've been a dick."

But he won't do it. He's the one who is "whimpering" about the songwriting lawsuit in interviews (the one he won; he's literally a "sore winner"). He's still stuck in "I'm sorry if *you* were offended and don't understand my wry sense of humor" mode.


True, but in your previous post you said "but come on" and insisted you could speak to some pretty personal issues regarding Brian based on watching and reading interviews, etc.

Wouldn't it just be more "toxic" to call someone up and "let them have it?"

It's not Brian Wilson's job to give Mike a "you're a dick" status update on the phone. And frankly it wouldn't matter if Brian did "let Mike have it" on the phone; Mike would just contend and believe that it's "not really how Brian feels" and that "people around him" are making him say that stuff.

Mike has lobbed some pretty nefarious allegations regarding Brian being controlled, going so far as to imply, in my opinion, in one interview that when Brian says something nice about Mike, it must be because he shook his "handlers" for a few minutes and was allowed to say how he *actually* feels.

Mike toured with Bruce and David Marks for part of 1998 under the "California Beach Band" (or something along those lines) moniker, which I think was one of his post-"Endless Summer Band" side-bands for corporate gigs, etc. But he apparently did some non-corporate, non-private shows under that name in 1998 when he wasn't cleared to use the BB name.

And yes indeed, it was and is pretty clear the "Beach Boys" name sells way more tickets. I think both the far more lucrative nature of using the name as well as Mike clearly feeling some level of "ownership" of the name (certainly as it pertains to touring) all dictated that Mike wanted that name back ASAP.

There's a difference between "this type of fan exists somewhere, technically" and "there is a widespread belief among many fans."

Of the countless fans I've met and spoken to over the years, every level of fan from casual to hardcore, from "barely knows the band's name" to "owns 57 pressings of MIU", I've almost never met anyone who is of the extreme of either believing "Brian walks on water" or that Mike "is the anti-Christ." That's all hyperbole.

Even the most hardcore of Brian fans have poked fun at some of his sub-par works. "Smart Girls", playing an entire song in the wrong key at that private gig in the 90s with Don Was, awful dance moves promoting "Night Time", phoning it in on major parts of GIOMH, and so on.

Sure, there are sometimes overly-defensive fans. But that's on both sides. Maybe a few fans were too defensive about NPP. But the same thing happens with Mike. A few people point out maybe it's a little tacky to have side guys singing like half the leads at a "Beach Boys" concert, and a few defensive fans jump in tell us how amazing the backing guys are.

Mike, based on his book and other interviews, doesn't seem to have any interest in truly delving into why some fans do seem to dislike him so much. It's much easier to *overstate* the level of dislike (e.g. "anti-Christ") and dismiss the whole ball of wax. It's a common tactic people use to deflect. If someone doesn't like you or disagrees with you, one method to try to neutralize the situation is to *exaggerate* their position and then dismiss the whole thing as an unfair, extremist viewpoint.

If Mike had exhibited *any* serious self-reflection and *true* humility and admitted mistakes specifically pertaining to the band and Brian and how he talks about him, it would go a long way.

One of the problems with seemingly "defending" Mike, even the sort of half-measure, walked-back defenses that veer more towards the "well, what Mike says is true to some degree, sometimes, in certain circumstances" sort, is that it's really just unavoidably a pretty limp position to take. Sure, there is a very small contingent of people who go too far in criticizing Mike, making it far too inflammatory or too personal. But the majority of criticisms are well thought-out, germane, and especially on this board are stated with a pretty impressive specificity. We look into line-by-line readings of Mike interviews here, so that sort of thing shouldn't be lumped in with some Facebook troll who makes fun of John Stamos and says Carl and Dennis should have kicked Mike out in 1967.

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/ (http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/)

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

And those interviews are supposed to be "puff" pieces, imagine what he says in private....

Granted, I've never once read or heard anyone say that Mike Love is the antichrist, I do believe for certain fans this is an exaggerated truth. 

Point in bold: They were dismissed but Mike and his legal team had the courts wrapped up in appeals filed for Mike against his defeat that went into late 2010 before it finally got closed by the court system.

So that was two years before C50 and Mike was still hammering away with this lawsuit and appeals surrounding it.

And not a peep about any of it appears in Mike's tell-all "set the record straight" book.

Didn't the court admonish Mike big time as well?

Yes, both directly, financially, and contained in the various rulings made by the courts. In the court system, it's generally not considered a positive to go before a judge with a lone witness supposed to provide evidence to support the plaintiff's case who the court found was not only stretching the facts of what happened to help bolster the grounds of filing the lawsuit itself, but was also personally associated with the plaintiff's lawyers. In this case it was Mike's witness who claimed the confusion over the giveaway CD, and it turned out the facts weren't adding up.

Oh yeah the guy who was "confused" was associated with the lawyer.... All of this legal bullshit to make BW miserable after BWPS. ::)

Exactly, it's *exaggerated*.

So Mike claims some fans feel that way about him, most fans I would think would say that there are few if any fans that *actually* feel that way about him, and you are acknowledging that you've never seen or heard a fan say this and that it's an "exaggerated truth." If it's exaggerated and not actually the case, what's the point of trying to back up Mike's statement? It's hyperbolic.

I can come up with an "exaggerated" version of all sort of stuff the guys have done and said over the years. Remember that time Mike said Al was a total douchebag? Of course not; he never said that. But it's an *exaggerated version* of what Mike maybe thought of Al at various points over the years.

Normally, I'd say Mike maybe meant it hyperbolically. But he seems to have a persecution complex to some degree, and a self-serving (as most, but not all, are) autobiography is certainly the place where a persecution complex can run amok without any checks.

If Mike would offer something more like "I've said some hurtful and inflammatory things and I understand why some people don't like my attitude and position. Unfortunately, sometimes the criticisms have become excessive and personal. I should own up to my mistakes, but overzealous critics attacking me personally should also own up to what they've done", then I think there would be a lot more sympathy for Mike.

As previously mentioned, the Rolling Stone piece from a year or two back (the one with Jackie and Mike role-playing a Brian-Mike conversation) was the closest we've come to Mike being self-reflective and owning up to something, but even then he couldn't really do it. Someone even finally pointed out directly to Mike that he espouses the virtues of meditation as a calming device, yet Mike seems severely angry in interview after interview and in various instances over the years. Mike's response? He'd be *worse* if he didn't meditate. I appreciate the relative honesty at least on that one. It doesn't reflect well on him, but it's one of the few instances in which he's at least passively admitting he can be angry and would be even more angry and vitriolic under alternate circumstances.

That's what happened. The court needed something more substantial from Mike's side to show the confusion, they produced this one witness who claimed confusion over the CD, and credit to some good ol' legal research and investigation, it was found the witness was associated with the plaintiff's lawyers and that this witness never got the actual CD as a giveaway with the Sunday Mail - the crux of Mike's case - but instead had ordered it on Ebay or something...after the fact. This confusion over the CD packaging and contents hinged on this witness in the US stating that he was confused by this whole thing, only the CD itself never was distributed publicly in the US.

More holes in that case than swiss cheese. So yeah, there were admonishments from the bench after it all unraveled.

But back to the filing itself, it felt like Mike was unloading a lot of bile and resentment on Brian and even more unbelievably, on Al Jardine, who had nothing to do with the CD giveaway - Yet Mike's lawsuit spends more time than usual hammering away at Al.

And at any point up to the final appeals court rulings in 2010...Mike could have pulled the plug, especially after the admonishments over the questionable witness. But he didn't.

Regarding the 2005 lawsuit and it's lack of mention in Mike's book, the reason it's a big deal is not just the obvious (ignoring something where Mike undoubtedly comes out looking bad), but also that Mike has at various points over the years taken various degrees of umbrage at the idea that he's litigious.

That particular lawsuit had the court using terms like "borderline frivolous", and a hallmark of someone who is known to be litigious is that they sometimes have their suits figuratively laughed out of court.

That 2005 lawsuit and it's lack of mention are also problematic because it seemed to be pursued with an unsettling amount of zeal. Trying multiple places of residences to justify the suit. Not to mention the court admonishing things like the legal team wonky witness/evidence (the "confused" guy that bought a CD on eBay), and so on.

I'd also argue that most damning thing against Mike (and his legal team) regarding that 2005 lawsuit is how it handled and characterized Al Jardine, who was not even a party to the suit. I found the language regarding Al in that lawsuit to be so inappropriate and out of line that I started to research whether someone can sue for libel based on information contained in a lawsuit. I was never able to determine a firm answer (it appeared to lean towards "no"), but if Al never spoke to Mike again based on what was put in that lawsuit, I'd understand Al's position. That Mike and his legal team wrote *that* about Al and then Al got on stage for C50 with Mike is frankly stunning.

Because truth can still be exaggerated.  
 
I'm not denying that Mike has had a hand in his poor reputation.  But, I don't think one can deny, especially on this board, the bias against Mike.  

That's what Mike's quote is referring to.  

Ahh, here we go again, KDS. The bias against Mike especially on this board? So as this exists as an open forum where fans can sound off on whatever they want to discuss, would you rather have posts that are negative against Mike or his actions censored in some way? Some people were campaigning for exactly that, behind the scenes. This sh*t was already old a year ago, now it's just ridiculous.

KDS - Why did Mike's people lock down the comments section on Mike's YouTube videos? Is it all the toxicity from this board infecting the rest of the internet?

If I haven't said it enough already, consider there were efforts to try scrubbing this perceived negativity and bias off this board by individuals who will remain nameless, and when that failed time and time again, some even started sending and posting veiled threats of legal action, and then there was the still ongoing efforts to paint this forum as full of "Mike Bashing" and label it toxic.

News flash: If fans are allowed to talk and comment openly, and certain parties don't like what they're saying, maybe they should work on fixing and correcting what led to those fans feeling that way rather than trying to scuttle the outlets which fans have to voice their opinions without being censored...or in the case of Mike's YouTube channel and other social media, blocked entirely.

Yes, truth can be exaggerated. But that fact is evidence *against* Mike's statement, not evidence supporting it.

And the idea that there's a bias against Mike gets back to the core of where many of the debates arise. "Bias" seems to imply some sort of prejudice, as if people are pre-judging Mike without ample information.

I would argue that's not the case, that almost all criticisms of Mike are either a direct result of something he's actually done or said, or an indirect result (e.g. the question of whether Mike deserves any benefit of the doubt anymore). And then, there is a scant amount of truly vile, personal attack sort of stuff, which doesn't even pertain to much of anything on this board. And, internet trolls spewing hatred is something *all* of the band members and most every public figure unfortunately has to deal with.

But no, I don't think fans are blindly going into every situation assuming the worst of Mike. I'm sure many if not most fans worry about or are suspicious when each instance of Mike speaking or writing comes up. But I think most every time some Mike interview, for instance, has come up and people criticize him for coming across like a tool, they're doing so *in response* to what Mike has said or done.

As I've often said, the criticism of Mike is sometimes redundant, no question. It's inherently so given how the man behaves. But redundant isn't the same as incorrect or invalid or biased.

I'm pretty well able to step back and be objective and look at how defensible or indefensible a person or thing can be regardless of how I feel about it, and I have to say that, objectively, Mike Love is a pretty indefensible character when it comes to most of the common criticisms of him.

Yes, if someone says Mike had zero talent and never contributed anything of worth to the band, then that's easily defensible. Mike made major, game-changing contributions in numerous ways to the band. But few, especially among hardcore fans on BB message boards, are making outlandish claims like that.

Perhaps most interesting to me is the assumption from those who defend Mike regarding C50 that those who complain about Mike ending the reunion must hate Mike and/or not like anything about him. I find that funny because the "C50 should have continued" argument is predicated *very strongly* on *wanting* Mike there. If someone didn't want Mike there, then Brian solo (especially with other BBs on stage with him) would be preferable. Those who criticize Mike for ending C50 are, by and large, saying they want Mike there and that he *adds* to the whole.

And at some point, I guess back to some notion of the original topic, hasn't it become painfully obvious that the actions of some of Mike's most vocal supporters and fans have ended up harming whatever cause they were trying to support in terms of defending Mike's actions against all the toxic bashers?

When it devolved into direct quotes from Mike being defended and parsed by trying to say Mike was misquoted or the publication of the quote was full of typos...most people with even a shred of common sense would call bullshit. If the defense of a direct quote includes suggesting the writer misquoted the person or it was sloppy reporting full of typos, it does no favors to the person being defended by that kind of convoluted logic.

To answer a previous KDS question, maybe Mike needs a new street team.

If people want to bash Mike, that's one thing. 

But, what tiring is that, even when somebody tries to post something positive about Mike's contributions to The Beach Boys (ie. the thread Nate Ruvin started as a change of pace from the reaction, some of which was valid, to DIA '17), took less than a page to devolve into negativity. 

And, you know it goes both ways GF, you talk about an open forum all the time where people can discuss all things Beach Boys related, yet you make a point to shoot down or downplay any opinions where people, including myself, might actually try to defend Mike. 

I would also argue, believe it or not, that Mike perhaps has realized or been told that his negativity towards Brian in interviews over the last several years (and to some extent the other Wilsons) has been excessive and unbecoming, and I've noticed less of "that type of interview" this year. Perhaps there are just less interviews this year in general or less puff pieces for local shows, or I'm just noticing things less. But we don't seem to have had a ton of "Brian's controlled" type of interviews this year.

Of course, instead we got the Stamos/McGrath single. Which raises a weird existential sort of question: As a fan and a human being, which is worse? Mike attacking Brian in interviews, or making singles like "Do It Again?" I guess as a human being I'd rather not see Brian continually and unfairly attacked, so I'd have to reluctantly go with the DIA single if I had to take one over the other.  :lol

KDS - It's called a discussion. Open forums encourage fans to react and respond, and to disagree with each other. You seem to not be in favor of other fans, not just me but since you mentioned me specifically, offering a reply or debate to what you say.

Should those who don't agree with your points be censored if they post reasons why they disagree with your comments or take issue with something Mike says or does? That's what some people wanted in the name of positivity.

If you want that, you know where to go. This open forum isn't Mike's YouTube page or social media where comments are blocked in advance.

I think the DIA does far less harm.  Other than the fact that Mike's band is apparently using that arrangement at BB shows, per a review on the BW Board, the single has already been largely forgotten.  

I think a pointless remake does far less harm to the relationship between Mike and Brian.  Maybe, Mike released that the bottom of the hourglass is much more full than the top, and wants to repair his relationship with Brian on a personal level, and saying things like he did in interviews wouldn't help.  

While any and all on-topic threads are just fine, I'd argue that starting a "let's say something positive about Mike" thread is, sometimes, and perhaps unintentionally, a weird sort of deflection away from criticism, and also arguably and again unintentionally implies that the thread is in response to some sort of "let's say something randomly negative about Mike" thread.

I think it is important to look at how a group of fans can start to just get too negative about anything or everything (something like Star Wars fans going on and on about George Lucas, as a random example from several years back).

But let's be clear, recent threads about Mike haven't been random "Hey, so I think Mike is a prick" threads. Recent discussion has been a direct response to the only high-profile thing Mike has done in awhile (certainly since last year's book, and arguably the most high profile music thing he has done since the end of C50). No, I haven't agreed *precisely* with every negative comment about Mike's DIA single, or the zeal some of the criticism has had. I'm more of a "uggh, this is bad for the brand and legacy" sort, as opposed to the "Mike has zero talent these days and this proves it! Stamos sucks!" sort of mentality.

But whatever the precise criticisms, they've come in *response* to something Mike has *chosen* to put out there on the market.

As far as this board, nobody is removing pro-Mike posts. You can defend Mike however substantively or poorly as you choose. A couple of posters did this for YEARS before being removed for other issues.

It is ironically Mike and his social media platforms that have a clear censorship issue going on. YouTube comments are locked. Often innocuous posts are removed from Facebook. That isn't happening on this board.

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

You have to admit that it's a little humorous that you say this in a thread titled "Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?" 

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

Apart from the surely fruitless task of trying to parse whether the group actually constitutes "millions", I think the question of how Mike perceives his reputation is a *hugely interesting* and on-topic issue. It's not a particularly easy topic to discuss, because it can quickly become somewhat "meta" and fans start talking about fandom itself, etc.

If the title of this thread was "I despise Mike Love", and the first post was simply tearing Mike a new one personally, then perhaps there would be some irony here. But in actuality, the topic poses a very germane question (whether you "despise" or otherwise think poorly of him or not) and the first post makes it clear that it's not about bashing Mike, but more about discussing his level of self-awareness.

There are MANY reasons why Mike's level of self-awareness and humility is an important and interesting topic. It's fascinating for numerous reasons.

Well, let's be fair. It's not just a random quote. It's a very good example and could serve as "Exhibit 1" for why Mike is so heavily criticized.

Further, if one finds such a quote "indefensible", then the issue of a back and forth with someone looking to, at times, defend Mike, is also closely related to such quotes.

I think we all appreciate even someone sympathetic to Mike acknowledging when a comment from Mike can't be defended (there were the two previous folks on this board who certainly *couldn't ever* do that).

I think this is just a case where you choose to not weigh as heavily those sorts of negative comments and actions. I again submit that, in some cases, even heavily knowledgeable fans who have attained all of that knowledge and fandom in a much shorter period of time (let's say 5 or 10 years versus 30 or 40 or 50) will also weight differently the abundance and recurrence (fans of 30-50 years may be more of the sort of "fool me once, shame on you...." mentality).

I don't weight on on those topics, you're right.  But, I've said time and time and time again, there are many things that Mike has done that I can't defend. 

Maybe GF is just making sure I'm not a "Kokomoist," which I'm not, nor am I a "Brianista."  It's just funny to me how he continually pokes at fans for saying "it's about the music" while allowing posters to derail threads with Mike bashing. 

When that article first appeared, you focused on the fact-checking and mistakes in the article, and found that aspect more offensive than what Mike actually said about Brian.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24270.msg586399.html#msg586399 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24270.msg586399.html#msg586399)


So it's deflecting what Mike actually said toward yet another example of "sloppy" work from various local news outlets who publish these promo pieces for Mike's shows.

"we've heard it before" - Yeah, and? Does that mean it's somehow less upsetting for people to read Mike speaking on the record this way and telling fans who are ostensibly being sold on buying tickets to see Mike and the Four Tops that weekend last August that Mike's cousin Brian is medicated and is in the same place as he was 25 years ago with Gene Landy?

It's a bullshit of a dodge as saying "oh that's just Mike being Mike, he does this all the time...". It doesn't make it right, and when you and others who posted in that original thread start deflecting the actual quote and griping about fact-checking and "move along, nothing to see here" kinds of duck-and-dodge BS, you expect fans who are upset to read what Mike just told thousands of people will not post something to counter it?

As to what's already been said, the defense of Mike should perhaps include finding out what causes so many fans to be upset or angry and post as such instead of challenging and questioning why they post all that "negativity". (the quotation marks are a deliberate form of sarcasm BTW...)

When Mike told fans Brian Wilson was drugged and is still in a Landy type of situation in 2016, the issue isn't the sloppy work of the person who wrote the article. It's an issue of why Mike is saying this on a platform set up to help him sell tickets to his concert with the 4 Tops.

It's an open forum KDS. We don't censor or delete posts, nor are discussions dictated over as to where they should go.

How many times does it have to be repeated, it's an open forum. If you want censorship, if you want self-appointed moderators controlling and policing the board members and ridding the places of trolls and other negative vibes they don't agree with, you know where to go. It is also a damn shame that for genuine Mike Love fans, his people saw fit to block comments when he does offer something new on YouTube or social media, so the fans who may have comments that could be constructive criticism are either blocked in advance or deleted as soon as they hit cyberspace.

Again, if you want that kind of whitewashing and rose-colored glasses kind of approach, like censorship without the stigma, you know where to find it. This is an open forum for fans to sound off and other fans to come back at things they don't agree with. If it's not as positive toward Mike Love as some including you KDS seem to wish it would be, don't blame the fans.

Yes, it's an open forum. 

And I feel I'm entitled to my opinions on the matter just as much as anyone else on here, and don't need to be told, for example, that I'm wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer. 

 :lol  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

That's 100% common sense and logic, Ang. You'd be surprised how many people have wanted or tried to change or amend that definition in the name of "positivity" and in some unusual kind of disparity, seeming to come only when Mike Love was being criticized by Beach Boys fans.

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

Keep deflecting KDS. I have that quote because I agree with it and wish I could sum up my opinions on that matter as concise and to the point as Wirestone was able to say it.

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Fair enough.  As somebody who was vocally not a fan of the Kacey Musgraves or Sebu tracks, as least I know where I stand. 

You're deflecting again, KDS. Consider not flouncing around with the facts so much and actually address the issues on the table. I don't know if anyone cares what you think of the tracks, I know I don't, but the points in that quote go back to when the tracklist and guest artists were first announced, and no one had even heard the music. So much for the old go-to dodge "it's all about the music" if people were tearing down the tracklist and the guest artists on name alone, right?

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

Even though I'm not a fan of many of the guest artists, I went into it with an open mind.  To my surprise, I actually liked, and still like, the Peter Hollins track. 

And so what if people complain because an artist they like is going to be on an album of an artist they love on an open forum?   I know I sure wasn't happy when I found out Kesha was going to be on the (at the time new) Alice Cooper Welcome 2 My Nightmare. 

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  :beer

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

You think there is valid criticism yet seem to be perplexed why there is a bias here. Wat.

Yeah, we get things like Nate’s thread, but why does that thread exist? Why isn’t there a “praise for Al Jardine” thread? Or a “praise David Marks” thread? Because they aren’t constant assholes that need a balancing force of “well he’s an asshole but let’s talk about the good they’ve done” - Al and David’s good contributions are implied everywhere on this forum because they consistently gave us fans positive contributions. But then there’s Mike who has made a persistent effort to be an asshole to his previous band mates yet we’re the toxic ones for continually bringing this up because people like you and others either play down the sh*t Mike does or try to make people who point out the sh*t Mike does look like toxic Mike bashers.

Yeah, I don’t know why you waste your time either on this sh*t. Mike has done great things but it’s not some cosmic mystery out of reach of human understanding to realize why people here dislike Mike and mention it constantly. No ones doing this same sh*t to Al, no one is doing it to Dennis. And even though the mediocrely esteemed AGD claims fans here look for villain because we have to...err no, we see a villain because anyone who blatantly lies about their family member in a ridiculous lawsuit is a prick, no matter how many little lunches you have with the guy.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but as I recall, the Wirestone quote about those who had criticized Brian having guests on NPP had to do with contrasting that against people finding nothing objectionable or sub-par about Mike's DIA single with McGrath.

I would have to agree that it's a bit annoying if someone did plenty of teeth-gnashing when it came to what they felt were gimmicky guest stars on NPP, but then just kind of threw their hands up with a "meh, it's not hurting anyone" reaction to Mike's single.

No, KDS, you instead seem to call them like that bullshit quote from Dr. Beach Boy, where the actual truth doesn't get in the way of your opinion and never will. You know where to find those of a like mind at this point if you so choose.

As I said before, criticism of Mike is almost always prompted by (and/or references) something specific that he has done or said. You'd think Mike or those who tend to defend him would at least occasionally pause to actually *wonder* why so many people criticize him so severely. That doesn't mean every critical comment is valid. But sheesh, maybe there's a reason there is a lot of vitriol lobbed at Mike.

If you choose to not particularly heavily weigh not only the content of that 2005 lawsuit but also what it represents and indicates (in other words, what does the language in it tell us about the person behind it?), then that's of course your prerogative. But when we're talking not about Mike's legit musical contributions to the band, but rather his attitude and his cultivation of image and brand and reputation, etc., and people continually point you to extreme and vile things Mike has said, and you can't really defend those statements (nor particularly does there seem to be any *positive* things Mike says solely about others, beyond his same hand full of boilerplate talking points, that you can cite), then that's perhaps where the disconnect occurs.

Happy Tuesday!  :beer  Remember, it's all about the music.  ;D :ohyeah

So, you're telling me that my opinion is wrong again. 

Concerning politics, that's *never* going to be a do-able topic for a message board. But to the degree such discussion is applicable, the same thing that was mentioned above applies: You can say whatever you feel or believe, but that also means you have to face the reaction. Those people get to say what they feel or believe as well. And often, as most of us have faced at one time or another, you're not going to get (nor is anybody entitled to) a 50/50 response to your opinion or stance. You may face resounding and near-unanimous disagreement.

But really, I don't think anybody in this equation is having trouble with this concept. We all understand it. I think the disconnect is happening when looking at the end result/judgment/tone towards, in this case, Mike. You acknowledge the 2005 lawsuit verbiage can't be defended, you acknowledge (to some degree; I can't honestly remember precisely) the sub-par nature of Mike's new single, and so on. This is appreciated, and is farther than some of the staunch Mike defenders have done in the past. The difference is that you're not as heavily weighing those things and the *myriad* of similar instances.

For many fans, Mike is on some level out of benefits of doubt and empathy or sympathy. I think also that one of the reasons this has become inflammatory in recent years online is because the last five or so years has seen a *huge* jump up and then *huge* dip down in this regard. Mike did himself a ton of good by doing C50, but then blew all of that goodwill and then *a lot more* in the aftermath. So yes, for many fans, it has actually been in the last few years that Mike and his words have reached that tipping point.

I'm a little more analytical than that and can't write anybody in the Beach Boys off that much. I've been a fan for eons, and have plenty of cause to have the "I'm done with Mike" attitude, but I honestly don't. I'd actually buy *another* band reunion. I'll actually still read Mike interviews and hope against hope he may have turned a new leaf. I don't expect he will, but even someone as hardened as myself still has that glimmer.

Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you expect or want from this forum or the admins in terms of those examples you cited. You either accept that this is an open forum or you don't, but if some posters offended you by arguing your opinions about Trump or NPP or anything else on your list, the open forum format allows you to deal with it and reply to their comments. I don't know what you're looking for short of the kind of censorship and banning of those who criticize Mike Love that others have wanted in the past.

You can call em like you see em, but make sure the "em" that you're calling out is actually true.

I'm not looking for you to do anything. 

I just think when you read somebody talk about how the Smiley Smile Message Board is "toxic" or full of "Mike bashing," there's some validity to it.  I'm not expecting you, or anything else to admit it, but there is.   

Ah, thanks Rab for pointing out the BS this board is known for. 

I defended Mike, so I must have an agenda or have "little lunches" with him. 

And, like I've said before, there is valid criticism about Mike (and every member of The Beach Boys for that matter).  But, I think Nate started that thread to counteract some of the nonsensical stuff that gets said about Mike: talentless hack, only wrote car / beach lyrics, and how little things like a 29 year old appearance on a sitcom hurts the BB legacy). 

The problem is that by saying there's also valid criticism about every member of the band, you're implying there's a parity between Mike and the others in this regard. I don't think this is the case by any stretch. This is another common tactic used to deflect criticism. "Everybody has their faults." Nobody has said the other BBs are free from criticism. They just don't deserve anywhere near the criticism Mike does, *even* if one believes he's criticized too much. Adding to the irony is that one of the main criticisms of Mike is that *he* highlights the foibles and flaws of others and refused to admit regrets about himself.

"Talentless hack" is silly and untrue of course. "Only wrote car/beach" lyrics is an oversimplification, but if it's amended to "predominantly wrote car/beach lyrics and showed and continues to show a continued aversion to 'downer' lyrics", then that would be a fair encapsulated criticism.

And we've already gone over the "Full House" thing, but again I think it's a deflection to downplay it to just a "29 year old appearance on a sitcom." "Full House" defines the image of the band for many folks more than most anything else from that decade, and we've already debated at length what many feel is the downside to that *heavy* association.

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I think certain people want to excuse certain types of behavior more than others, and that's interestingly reflected in both rabid Mike defense as well as political views. I'll bet this coincidence is probably in sync about 90% of the time.

We don't have to talk politics in this thread anymore; it's just more about me dissecting why some people are prone to defend Mike, and there are some commonalities here that I think can't be ignored.

I hadn't really thought about it to be honest. 

And no worries, I don't take being called a Trump supporter as an insult. 

Digressing to another subject - the responses to criticism of NPP/BW concerts - shows a weakness in your argument. It's like when people use what is called The Golden Rationalisation: 'Everybody does it' to justify bad behaviour. You may accuse individual posters of hypocrisy if they take offence at any criticism of Brian whilst being unduly critical of Mike but IMO there is a big difference between criticising the quality of something, which is very subjective, and something like the 2005 lawsuit.

A very fascinating topic indeed. It would suggest that people who act as apologists for "assholes" in politics such as Trump are also more willing to be forgiving towards assholes in the arts like Mike Love.

I'm sure there will be plenty of studies and papers about Trump, his presidency and his supporters who enabled the whole conundrum in the coming years. Should be an enlightening read for certain.

It also puts the Beach Boys in an interesting light of contrasting viewpoints. For me personally when it comes to this band it's all about the music. I have no politics attached to the band at all, after all they were hardly ever political in their music or made politics part of their public image.

The band did however have some connections with the Reagans in the 80s and headlined several 4th of July concerts in that period, and so the band did progressively become attached in the public image as "America's band", which generally means it will be tied to American nationalism which in the modern day is best portrayed by the Republican party and certainly Trump. Mike and Bruce seems to have enjoyed and sought to attach themselves to this connection with American nationalism. American nationalism and white nationalism does root itself in the past - "make america great again", and to some people the Beach Boys music takes them back to what they view as better times for America.

And so the image of the band as been extricably linked to politics, exemplified by the C50 when Bruce was bad-mouthing Obama in public, Trump inauguration concert plans and Mike Love even posing for a picture together with that hideous orange man wearing his self-promoting red MAGA cap the same way Mike wears his own self-promoting Mike Love cap. Even this year during the 4th of July you could see that the "Beach Boys" concert at the capitol building was attended by what looked like a "Trump" crowd.
As a result it comes as less of a surprise that the group has a fan base with split opinions on Mike Love.

If that issue has never even crossed your mind at any point, then the lack of any interest in putting things in a larger context probably helps to explain why you find a litany of things and issues, especially concerning things Mike has said or done, as not a terribly big deal.

Every fan has their own areas of interest and preferences of course. I personally can't imagine not noticing the strong correlation between a certain strain of politics (and politicians attached to that strain of politics) and those who regularly come out of the woodwork to defend Mike, especially when it comes to specific key issues that tend to pull, at least in some fashion or another, some level of politics into the equation.

For instance, many defenders of Mike tend to point to his playing small markets and venues as a preferable and commendable thing, and some have gone so far as to accuse those who think otherwise (e.g. the band deserves to be playing Madison Square Garden, not a bowling alley grand opening in Alaska) of "elitism" and so on. Same thing came up in the 'Full House" discussion, as if it's snobby to point out that being attached to a s**tty sitcom from the late 80s rather than, say having made a Grammy-nominated album that same year, is a detriment to the band in every conceivable way.

These things probably don't tend to get discussed in intricate detail because political discussion, as I mentioned earlier, is a non-starter in most cases on the "main" section of a fan forum.

But seriously, if your attitude is seriously "Mike Love defenders tend to be politically and otherwise conservative? I would have never even thought about that and never noticed that!", then that helps to explain your train of thought when it comes to the wider topic of the band and Mike and band politics and various debates and discussions.

I disagree.  One of the criticisms this board often gets is that it can be "toxic."  And there was definitely some toxicity a year or two ago whenever people would criticize NPP or a BW show (and I'm not talking about people who go out of their way to be contrarians, I'm talking about people who legitimately didn't care for the album, or thought that Brian wasn't particularly good the night they happened to see him).  

I know you and I have debated about the Full House appearance, but I'm sorry, I don't see how it's a "detriment to the band in every conceivable way."  If you think it took away "cool" or "hip" points, then maybe I'd listen. 

As for the political stuff, I've learned my lesson from January.  I'm pleading the 5th (and maybe drinking a 5th later on). 

Sure we can suggest that there is a correlation with a group of people defending/excusing Mike's behavior as they do with Trump as you illustrate in your post but I think it also demonstrates a group of people who refuse to go with the rest of the pack.   Trump supporters vs everyone else and Mike-defenders vs Brian-supporters (everyone else).  I see parallels in the two groups.  The two scenarios are obviously worlds different but the mechanism that fuels both groups are one in the same: our innate human tribalism.  Is anyone right or wrong?  I feel both parties are right..and wrong.

The commonalities probably should not be ignored, yes.  But I think we should be looking at it from a larger perspective to reveal the humanity of it not just revel in the division between the groups.  Obviously this is a conversation bigger than this thread...

I specifically said “AGD” (who actually had lunches with the guy), actually read what the hell I write then you’re free to go off on some little tangent. And never once in this exchange did I mention an agenda but keep putting words in my mouth. And I think most here who dislike Mike have clearly stated their reasoning and their dislike is valid even if you don’t agree with aspects of it. The place is only “toxic” to you because you don’t grasp the reasoning of why getting laughed at about Full House is embarrassing to your average fan here.

Frankly this place is less toxic now that the shmucks have quit - you know, like the guy who took cheap shots at David Beard’s family. Or the guy who admitted to going out of his way to talk trash about Brian and Melinda. Or the guy who admitted to defending everything Mike did (and he proved this daily). Or the guy who spread false information about Brian and Melinda, their life, and their family via PMs. The list goes on and on and on.

But this place is so toxic because a few people hate Full House and falsely think that he only did car/surf songs? I’m calling bullshit on that. Jesus, what are there 5 of us that hate Full House? 2 of us who do the “woot” emoticon that has you flustered? That’s not toxicity. No one here went after Mike’s family like people did Brian’s. No one here constantly trash talked Mike’s mental state and trashed his wife. The people who did that to Brian reside on another forum...you know that forum you go to and trash talk this forum? Sorry pal, but you want toxicity, look no further than that cesspool.

I get what you're saying for sure, and there's certainly nuance to it all as you suggest. Yet I'll bet there are a ton of Bernie supporters (would they be considered going against the pack?) who are very "pro"-Brian and "anti"-Mike.  

While there are shades of grey, I tend to think based on repeated casual observation is that the vast majority of very vocal, ongoing Mike supporters (who will gladly continue debating and defending) are Trump supporters. I think we could probably have a *very* hard time finding any very ardent Mike supporters who voted for Bernie or Hillary. Especially the latter. Maybe they personally identify with Mike and Mike's "struggle" more, I dunno. There's a college thesis paper on this topic just waiting to be written. 

Didn't know it was a contest. Anyway,  :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

I think we need two more movies and at least three more books to really get to the bottom of things.

It will all come out eventually, probably after they pass.

Most of us won’t be surprised, some will still refuse to believe the obvious even when it’s written in stone in front of them.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I've considered Michael "Eddy' Love to be pretty much an ongoing and complete moron... [and lord KNOWS ... I've tried and tried to cut that effin' prick a break LOADS of times]...since about 1967-68.  "sh*t on a stick" I even went after Smile Brian and the Old Fella Balanced in the water aboard an Ironing Board to try and get them to cut out just posting mere poop rather than giving valid reasons for always crapping on the follically abandoned old  fool...like a year ]and a 1/2] or so ago but ol' Eddy wouldn't quit his avalanche of sh*t covered cheese so finally I had to admit that the guy really is an unsalvageable, yet still colossal asshole/muther-f*cker who was only just plugging his upcoming 'book' sales and so I give the 2 fellas here the benefit of the doubt.  [It sure as sh*t never had ANYTHING to do with "the Music" ...'cause he's incapable of making or releasing anything valid which would inspire serious scrutiny.  All he has musically is Scott Totten saving the live performances from wreckage just like Carl used to.  Eddy hasn't got a clue how to pull that off.  That and Brian's memorable songs, melodies and vocal arrangements...some of which 'love-stinks' penned lyrics to.]

Let it be known that I thought his talents were grossly limited and that his prickish demeanor was 100% OFF-PUTTING long before that Trump disgustoid ever became a subject of global concern.

KDS is a real, live, and valid fan of the music.  No doubt.  No 2 ways about it.  The 'politicalization' of the Beach Boys body of work is not his main objective.  In fact I doubt it's even a tertiary concern.  He is all about enjoying the best of the best that music has to offer in a communal atmosphere.  I'm with him on ALL of that.  I just think that it's hard to get out of a corner after you've inadvertently painted yourself into it.

Sometimes...you just have to let the paint dry...and go for a stroll.  The paint isn't a wall.  And Mexico ain't paying for 'it' either way.  The music IS great.  What we don't need is that 'Eddy' prick always adding... ... ..."but..."

You are forgiven! ;D

Ditto for OFB.  ;D

That guy! :smokin

What's funny is that for all we know, Brian Wilson is fine with stuff like the recent DIA remake. He's certainly fine with Mike touring as the Beach Boys, or he would withhold the licence. We all act like BW is this paragon of artistic integrity, when he's been part of a lot of dodgy projects over the years, from Spanish Kokomo and lame eighties videos to the country record and the pointless Disney album.

Brian virtually never overtly says a bad thing about another person's music. Plus, I can't see Brian making the effort to listen to an iota of what Mike would release after Mike repeatedly dissed Brian's recordings and voice.

The worst I can think of Brian saying is that Student Demonstration Time wasn't his bag and didn't feel "BBs" to him, or something to that effect. Saying Brian is "fine" with it is probably a gross oversimplification; things are surely somewhat more complicated than that. Brian's shown to take inaction as a course of measure for many, many things in his life because the alternative is far more stressful. At minimum Brian probably wasn't fine about it the day he felt like he was fired and the LA Times published his thoughts on it.

Brian has indeed been involved in some questionable endevours over the years, but at least he makes the effort to truly make sincere art as well quite often, to this day. And like clockwork, if Mike's around, Brian then has to deal with mimed shotgun blasts to the head and snarkiness as a response to Brian's sincere artistic statements; what a great thing a sensitive genius needs to deal with, right?

I appreciate that Lee. 

And, for my own sanity, I probably shouldn't involve myself into such conversations. 

I think "not caring" or being ambivalent is a bit different from being "fine" with something, and I'm guessing with Brian it's much more the former than the latter.

Fans are surely more worked up about the DIA single and Mike in general than Brian is; of that I have little doubt. But let's not mistake Brian doing his own thing and not paying a whole lot of attention to what Mike's doing with Brian being "fine" with things.

As for the license, it is been discussed *at length* in multiple threads now that it's NOT as simple as Brian withholding the license if he had misgivings about Mike touring with the name. It's more complicated than that both in terms of Brian's attitude towards Mike using the name, and certainly more complicated than that in terms of corporate machinations to actually strip Mike of use of the name. Long story short, as has been discussed in other threads, any move to strip Mike of the license would likely be tied up in litigation for years and years.

I also think you're off base in terms of how fans look at Brian's artistic output. Even staunch Brian fans and supporters have noted the dreck and wonky stuff he has put out. Heck, I remember back in 2004 thinking even hardcore "Brianistas" were being a *little* too hard on the "Gettin' in Over My Head" album!

Really weird that someone would knock *Brian* for the Spanish version of "Kokomo." I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with that other than showing up at the session, probably as some sort of weird conciliatory move in light of Brian having not been on the original version. There are plenty of questionable artistic decisions made by Brian over the years, though nothing you mention even ranks particularly high on that list. He has little to do with the Spanish "Kokomo" or "lame 80s videos" (whatever that entails), and the "Stars and Stripes" album was a group project undertaken after Brian attempted to corral the group into working on the Paley material. Brian does and should own the decision to do the Disney album, but I'd say that project was innocuous at absolute worst. I don't really put that album on the list of "bad decisions." I'd put it on the list of innocuous projects that simply wouldn't be *my* first choice.

To me the most irritating things about Kokomo are: a) Mike going on about it all the time as if it's a big personal success story when several were involved with the writing of it, Carl's voice was a huge plus in its favour and it had the enormous advantage of being used in a film.  And b) Mike's party piece atlas lyrics featured. He's done this so many times it is so predictable. Talk about doing it again!

I've never particularly criticized "Kokomo." I've always said it's a catchy song and was a good shot in the arm for the band. They failed to capitalize on it, and the song was eventually overplayed (a rarity for a BB song post-1960-something).

But yeah, it's Mike's attitude about the song that unfortunately has colored the whole thing for fans. You just know the guy thinks it's the most brilliant thing he's ever done and he truly holds it right up there with "Good Vibrations", etc.

Seriously, can anyone picture, say, McCartney going *on and on* about "Say Say Say" or "Pipes of Peace" or even "Coming Up" and holding it up to the best work the Beatles ever did, and behind the scenes touting that he did it without Lennon's help, etc.

I've often said that Mike sometimes inexplicably does things that would make you think he actually is from a one-hit wonder band. I get it when a band has one well-known song and nothing else and has to talk about it endlessly and milk it. I also get it when lesser-known bands/artists name-drop to associate with those who are more famous.

But Mike talks about "Kokomo" sometimes as if he doesn't have a *huge* catalog of music (much of which he had a strong hand in) that is highly regarded. And, he name drops Stamos and "Full House" (and McCartney and the "Back in the USSR" story) as if he isn't already in one of the most famous bands ever. Weird.

In regards to what Mike contributed to Kokomo, here's food for thought...keep in mind this was said prior to Fall 2012 when C50 got scuppered. I wonder if the facts have been revised since then.

AGD won't get a lunch with Mike any time soon.... >:D

Actually, they do.

Oh, look what I just did.  ;D

Before bailing out, consider at least acknowledging that you launched into a rant about this place in reply to Rab's comments which you misread, along with Rab too. But that seems to be modus operandi, like clockwork - Launch into someone or something based on what they didn't even say. You did the same with me and an issue from 2015 with Runaway Dancer, which was clearly explained to you after you chose to distort and misrepresent what I actually said at the time 2 years later.

It goes with the territory, I guess. But it would be cool if you acknowledged your mistake to the person(s) whose words you either misread or distorted before launching a critique against them. It's not offering opinion if the words being opined on were never said.

Anyway, "just sayin'".  :beer

I will apologize to Rab, as I thought that "free lunch" comment was directed as me. 

As for the Runaway Dancer dust up you and I had.  I felt back then, that I acknowledged that I didn't have any real knowledge of EDM (nor do I care to), and you kept pushing back trying to somehow change my opinion of the song.

But, I'm willing to say it's water under the bridge, and Billy's recent health issue just goes to show that it's not worth butting heads with somebody over a song.  So, I'm willing to apologize, and let bygones be bygones (or, is it my gods be my gods?). 

I'm not bailing from the SSMB, but will distance myself from any Mike Love discussions that don't involve music. 

Rememberer Mike pretended to shoot himself when talking about "Summer's gone"? I really love a lot of his work but he lost me at that point.

I won't say Mike "lost me" at any point, but I definitely feel what you are saying Shady...

And that's what I think KDS needs to realize. Mike either downplays or mocks what many people love about the group, in favor of what seems is his vision of a "populist", kinda faceless, no-nothing, lowest-common denominator type of band (or brand). And as far as playing concerts, there is nothing wrong with being populist. I saw Paul McCartney recently, and he played hit after hit after hit, sprinkling in some other great but lesser known stuff. Same with shows from The Who and Guns N' Roses that I had seen within the last few years. They gave the people what they wanted for the most part, but also sprinkled in newer material (in GNRs place) and other oddities (in both bands cases). But when these groups would go in the studio and record, they would be adventurous, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness (on Axl's part), whereas Mike, as evidenced by the fact that not only did he seemingly think "Summer's Gone" wasn't the greatest idea, but he demonstrated his opinion in front of a freakin' journalist! Are you kidding me?

Now sure, one can say, "hey, it's just Mike's opinion, which he's entitled to." But the thing that gets me is it rarely seems to be about quality to Mike. It's more about who wrote it, who it appeals to, how much it sells, and how high it charts (unless it's a number 3 album where he didn't have things go exactly as he would want. Then he downplays the importance).

And then to boot, the way he talks about Brian is just disrespectful. It is. There's really nothing else to say about that. Brian speaks well of Mike and Mike returns the favor by saying Brian's controlled, etc.

Now, at the same time, I don't think the man is the worst person ever. When he puts something new out, I buy it. I bought a compilation CD that had "Almost Summer" on it just to own an official CD with the song on it. I have the ESQ CD entitled The Boys Of Summer to have "Cool Head, Warm Heart" and "Love Like In Fairytales" (along with Brian's "Spirit of Rock and Roll"). I even.....*gulp*....bought a digital copy of the new "Do It Again." Though mainly it's to encourage him to have the guts to put out new material. And though I want The Beach Boys to reunite (Brian, Al, Mike, Dave, Blondie, Bruce) I understand that Mike doesn't necessarily owe that to me. However where that becomes sticky is that he essentially quit the group in 2012 so he could go back to full time touring under that very same name without Brian and Al.

Yes, maybe guitarfool comes on a little strong, he's very passionate about BWs work. And to be honest, some of the things coming from some of the people in the Beach Boys internet world against Brian, Melinda and their family is fucking disgusting, and I think that this is the reason why he sometimes may react against the horribleness of these people. And this is stuff coming from people in or around Mike's camp.

So I don't know if you read all this KDS, but I want you to understand that a lot of us are not OSD. I still love a lot of the music Mike plays a part in. I just showed that I still will support his new music, even if most of it's pretty shitty. However, people like myself have just been 'round long enough to have seen this movie before. And unlike certain "insiders" who may have traded objectivity for access, we just keep seeing this guy do things that aren't cool, and we will speak on it.

Mike had done worse things than offering drugs to his 10 year old daughter?

That's fine, Jim, and you're entitled to your opinion. 

And I'll admit, there's plenty Mike does that I'm not a fan of (ie. the 2005 lawsuit, Pisces Brothers consistent presence in BB setlists, the new version of Do It Again). 

I consider myself to be an passionate about the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, as the next guy.  Which is why, like I told Guitarfool, I'm strictly staying with the musical side of things here, as that's what drew me to this band in the first place. 

But here's the thing KDS, how could you be passionate about the members if you don't really have an opinion? It doesn't bug you that this guy has sabotaged the fact that we could've gotten more official Beach Boys music from a willing Brian Wilson, along with Mike Love and Al Jardine, all so he could go tour in Bumfuck, USA with John Stamos and be the big star, rather than have to deal with that darned Melinda?

And you don't have an opinion on the fact that there are people on the other board who have willingly spread LIES about Brian, his wife and his family, even though the claim to be a non-biased observer? That gets me.

Trust me, the music is ultimately the thing to me, but I can not avoid the bad taste that I've gotten from the Mike Love circle. It's crude, mean spirited and childish. Do I think Mike ultimately cares about Brian? Yeah, but I think the thing is that it's not only Brian that's changed so much over the past 50 plus years. It is Mike who has as well, and I don't think that he realizes that. He's grown into quite a different person than he was, and I don't think he realizes this, yet expects Brian to be the same as he was. And lastly, if this "inside baseball" stuff bugs you so much, why comment on it? There are quite a few topics on this board that I have little interest in and therefore, I don't comment in them. However, it seems like this one does interest you, because you do bring this up a lot on this board, and a few times on the other board, which you seem to praise as "fairer" despite the presence of posters who have variously demonstrated bigoted, white nationalist, misogynistic, and other horrific behaviors. So it's weird. Just my opinion.

COMMENT to Smile4ever:

He realizes it all the way to the bank.  ~swd

To be fair, there are plenty of insanely rich rock stars who *don't* have any significant contingent of fans who loathe them or otherwise vastly disapprove of the things they do or say.

How would anyone here possibly know?

It makes Mike and anyone who would defend him look pretty bad when they have to pluck one story, one which is 100% unrelated to *anything* to do with the band, and, um, I'm not sure what the point is?

I don't think much of anyone in that band, or much of anybody in the "industry", would particularly want anyone shaking out the cobwebs of their lives and trying to have a "Who did the worst thing?" contest.

I'm pretty sure almost all of the even over-the-top criticisms of Mike on this board have usually related to something pertaining to the band and/or the music.

I've heard pretty gawdawful stories about many members of the band, so I doubt any of them want to start throwing *those* types of stones.

But see, we don't KNOW what Brian Wilson thinks about anything, because the man basically no longer gives interviews. Remember all of those crazy interviews from the sixties to the early nineties -- basically the pre-Melinda era -- where Brian Wilson, sometimes under the influence of some substance or other, would go into the craziest, most revealing, sometimes painfully honest stories and revelations about himself or his music? That man is gone. Now we have a creature of silence mixed with PR. Does he even KNOW Mike Love just released a new version of DIA? Has he even been told? Would he care anyway?

I love Summer's Gone, but Mike Love obviously thinks it's too depressing. But what does Brian Wilson think of Daybreaks Over the Ocean or the lyrics to Spring Vacation? Again, we don't know. So personally, not only do I find it more interesting to know Mike Love's opinion, I find it more normal and, well, HUMAN that he does have opinions and expresses them.

It's easy never to say anything douchy when you never say anything...

As for Kokomo, isn't it well established who wrote what? Mike Love contributed the "Aruba, Jamaica" section. It's obviously not the part that makes the song -- it's not one of the hooks -- but it's still a contribution. If Kokomo had been written by Brian Wilson it would be praised as the greatest comeback ever.

Brian actually wrote the lyrics to Spring Vacation.

The exact opposite. Take another look at what I said.

A creature of silence? The man just spent a good amount of time working on his book which is FULL of actual thoughts and introspection on things like TWGMTR or probably even his thoughts on Kokomo. The guy came here a couple years ago and did a really funny Q&A that was also mixed with some good thoughts about serious subjects. He just did an interview with the telegraph. Whenever he is asked about Mike he has nothing but praise for the guy. And Mike expresses his opinion? The guy couldn’t even listen to Brian’s single ‘The Right Time’ when asked about it in an email exchange interview - in fact he gave some passive aggressive response about autotune instead.

This “creature of silence” you are trying to convince people exists doesn’t exist.

It's not that I don't have an opinion. 

I can understand how Mike gets your goat.  But, I'm not really sure why you seem to be concerned about everybody having the same opinions as you.

I said, I don't like everything Mike has done.   Some of the things he's done and said has ranged from childish to petty in my opinion.  But, also my opinion, I don't buy into the belief that everything Mike does in 2017 is somehow tarnishing the great legacy of The Beach Boys.  I'm more passionate about the mistakes that were made in the late 60s and 1970s, when the band still had a legit chance to be as respected as The Beatles, Stones, Who, etc etc.   In the light of those gaffs, a solo single remake with a TV star and a one hit wonder isn't a blip on the radar in my opinion.   

Hey, Sugar Ray had three hits (top 15 singles). And you, sir, have permanently tarnished the legacy with your misinformation campaign!  :lol

You're right.   Sugar Ray did have three hits.  (Ugh, the 90s). 

Maybe Mark can convince Mike to appear in Sharknado 6?

Actually in that infamous 2012 Rolling Stone article he talks about how great he thought "Daybreak Over The Ocean" was. So....there's that.

But of course, you'll find a way to undermine this.

Not all of them. "Spring Vacation" is one of the Brian/Joe songs that Mike was given in order to add additional lyrics. Mike received a co-writing credit on the song, so he wrote some of the lyrics.

And Mike almost certainly didn't write any of the music, as "Spring Vacation" was likely one of the backing tracks that was cut in Nashville before the BBs even entered into the picture.

Indeed, the Rolling Stone article paints a picture where Brian seems to like "Daybreak Over the Ocean", yet objects so strenuously or is so weirded out by Al's "Waves of Love" that he almost literally runs away from Al and the control room to avoid having to work on the song.

I've often pointed out that Al had even less control and was more marginalized in most aspects of C50, including studio work and in concert, compared to Mike, yet it was *Mike* who came away from the project feeling more disenfranchised. Mike didn't feel he had enough of a hand in the writing, yet it was Al who got *no* songwriting credits on the album and who had the pleasure of enduring Brian running away screaming from his song. Yet Al sucked it up and got over it and is still working with Brian, and you don't see Al dredging up in every interview over the last five years how nobody wanted to work on "Waves of Love."

Per the second piece of the funniest thing in BW's biography, joe and Brian had part of a song that they gave to Mike to finish, resulting in Spring Vacation.

First: "The day Mike came to dinner and I was working on That Lucky Old Sun, we went out to the car. I had written a song called "Mexican Girl," probably the best song ever written about a Mexican girl. I played it for Mike and asked him if he would want to work on the lyrics. 'I could make it 25 percent better, but I don't want to,' he said. 'If we do anything, I want to start from scratch.' There were times that would have made me sad or angry, but in the car it only made me laugh a little. Mike was Mike." (p. 227) 

Then: "We had a piece of a song and Mike finished it up and turned it into "Spring Vacation." His new lyrics were great. They made the song at least 25 percent better." (p. 265)

Lyrics like "We used to get around" and "Spring Vacation, good vibrations" can really only come from one person. 

Cap, I forgot about that part!!!! :lol

I think their legacy is set too. I don't buy it that Mike doing a shitty remake single or even a shitty remake album will tarnish much if anything. I mean, let's be honest...he actually made this and people still aren't embarrassed to be fans...

(https://e.snmc.io/lk/f/l/81efd09bba2b91923e864cb2ff31f0d9/4424884.jpg)

It has nothing to do with the legacy for me. What it has to do for me is that Mike Love acts like a fucking prick a whole lot. Giving more credence to Evan Landy than, say, Melinda would be a start. All I know is if my cousin, who I was in business with for over 50 years started praising and/or valuing the words of the family who almost killed me over those of my wife and I, well that would be something. Or the constant saying that he is "controlled" or "medicated" or whatever. He is the only person in the group who does stuff like this. Brian doesn't. Al doesn't, even though I have to feel that he could go after Mike big time if he really wanted to. Bruce is a pretty major douchenozzle, but you're not gonna catch him being that disrespectful. And those are just a few things. You act like everything is even, and you just can't understand why Mike gets the kinda stick he does. And you go over to the other board and talk smack about this one and it's anti-Mike viewpoints every now and then, yet I've never seen you complain that Came Molt is in intractable asshole who pushes an outright false agenda for....what? To serve some bald, paunchy egoist? Or that posters like "The Fake Surfer Girl" and "Bruce's Moustache" are by turns white nationalist and misogynist, amongst other reprehensible traits. But not a word from you. It's this joint that deserves the pile on.

And I'm not worried about anybody having the same opinions as me. And I don't think I line up with any particular group on these message boards. I would be just as likely to challenge guitarfool as I am filledthepageupwithgarbage or Came Mott. What does get my goat is you try to pull this whole I'm all about the music schtick yet, here you are. If this place ain't giving ya what you want, the door is that-a-way!

Unfortunately, I think that song is the weak link on TWGMTR.  Musically, it reminds me of one of John Mayer's poppier songs for some reason.   The lyrics are pretty silly, and the "Easy Money, what's it to ya" bit always makes me chuckle.

Probably reminds you of Mayer cuz of the adult contemporary bluesy type guitar on there.

I have to say though, that I like every song on the album. Every. Single. One. "Spring Vacation" and "Beaches In Mind" probably shouldn't work, but hearing Brian and Mike together on "Spring Vacation" and then to hear Brian on the harmonies, while Al shadows Mike on "Beaches In Mind" they just conjure up a good feeling for me. And "Daybreak Over The Ocean," though it obviously owes a debt to "My Bonnie," it's one of Mike's best solo compositions. And if it was a necessity to have solo Mike Love joint on TWGMTR, then we coulda done a lot worse. And hearing the groups harmonies on the intro, it's a joy.

That's probably it.  But, I also enjoy every song, though I like SV the least.  I forget where I read it, but somebody said that the verses of Daybreak sound like a slowed down version of Bluebirds Over the Mountain. 

Frankly, I've seen little evidence of Bruce being a douche.   And I have no idea who Fake Surfer Girl or Bruce's Moustache are.  As for the "white nationalist" or "misogynist" views of some of my fellow posters on PSF, I can't say that I agree.  But, I know that you and I share completely different political views, so you might think some of my opinions are "white nationialist" for all I know. 

Nope, the white nationalist would be former SS moderator The Real Beach Boy. And the misogynist would be Mike's Beard. Ask Debbie Keil if she thinks he's respectful to women. Not a lot on the internet surprises me, but within the BB fan community the things these fellas said....wow.

And I guess I can see why you don't mind a lot of the horrendous things Mike has done. You've got a thing for the egotistical, paunchy, crude, rude serial adulterers who "tell it like it is."

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjwCqASUgAA_Tv3.jpg)

I'm pretty sure I said in some post way back when that I thought fake profile used to demean Debbie was out of line. 

If I had any interest is making this about politics, I'd make a post in the Sandbox. 

So that's "out of line" but not worth bringing up on it's own. But guitarfool being a bit over the line on "Runaway Dancer" (which I don't like all that much either, though I kinda did like the ska type live arrangement), that warrants a calling out.

Kinda reminds me of the GOP assholes who will go on the cable news shows defending their prez when it comes to p*ssy grabbing or meeting with Russians. They'll say, "oh, it's just horrible, horrible" but then proceed as if nothing happened and that the behavior is totally acceptable.

Because a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of Runaway Dancer makes sense in the context of this portion of the SSMB.

My supporting Trump and your not supporting him is Sandbox material.  And after some of the nastiness that I encountered here, and other nonBB boards I sometimes participate in, back in January I don't feel like getting into politics. 

I guess it's difficult to quantify what being a "douche" entails, but Bruce has said plenty of objectionable things to fans and in public forums.

In fact, a number of fans have described how Bruce has more of a "Jekyll and Hyde" thing going on than *anyone* in the band.

I've long maintained based on plenty of specific and anecdotal information, Bruce may be the weirdest guy in the band personality-wise.

Bruce has even done his Jekyll and Hyde thing online in the past. He praises Brian (almost overly-praising him in a creepy way, similar to how David Marks described Bruce's attitude towards him in his book with Stebbins), and then says negative stuff. I still feel bad for the poor guy that *clearly innocently* referred to Bruce as "BJ" only to have Bruce tear him a new one. Then there's the other poor slob that just posted a link to a YouTube video of Bruce, and Bruce tore *that* person a new one as if every fan that watched the video had personally come into Bruce's home and stole money out of his Scrooge McDuck vault.

And that's not even getting into the other more innocuous but arguably annoying stuff, like going *on and on* about how awesome and successful his kids are, or how he lives down the street from Oprah, and so on.

I'm not trying to excessively criticize the guy. Sometimes he's as nice as can be. But other times not. And those "not" times tend to be more negative than just about any fan encounters I've heard with *any* of the other members.

Yep, that's for the mods to decide. However, it's great to see you support a man whose sole purpose in the earlier part of this decade was to "prove" that our first African-American president was actually not a natural born citizen and thusly an illegitimate president. Also I must say I'm sure you're a big supporter of the military, though you probably only like the ones who haven't been captured right?

And by the way, did you that when you're famous women will let you do anything? Just kiss. You don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it! You can grab them by the p*ssy! It's great!

To be fair (and clear for the historical record, such that exists and matters), a lot of the Trump stuff from last year and early this year *was* intertwined into on-topic band-related discussions. From Mike's infamous s**t-eating grin photo op from last year, to the inauguration speculation, to the weird post favorably comparing Trump's rally operations to BB tours of the past, a lot of the stuff was intermingled with on-topic discussion, with no clear delineation point for where to break it off.

I felt that an *objective* conversation about the PR problems with the trademark/brand having that association could be had (e.g. even someone who personally favors Trump could and should be able to realize the PR problems with the BB brand being associated with him), but obviously that didn't much occur.

Like I said, I'm not getting into a political argument. 

That much is true, and it was debated plenty back in January, regarding the rumored BB appearance at the Inauguration that never happened.   It was all much ado about nothing. 

More like "much ado about something, though it's not clear how much"; not to dredge up that debate, but Mike and his band *did* play a more or less partisan event related to the inauguration, just a more low-key one that fans had to dig a bit to find.

This is just my conjecture and gut feeling, I'm pretty certain in my gut that Mike *REALLY, REALLY WANTED* to play the full-on inauguration, and I'm guessing either his advisors/agents told him it was a BAD idea, and/or BRI quietly behind the scenes told him he'd face serious consequences if he did it.

The Trump/Love stuff is a real thing (far from "much ado about nothing") and a serious topic that impacts the band and its fans; but it is indeed difficult to broach in any significant way given the political overtones. (I'd argue a lot of, if not most of, the criticisms of Trump related to Mike's association with Trump kind of transcended politics as such and were more pretty basic moral, ethical issues, but even the stuff that the guy said that *everybody* admits was awful still ends up getting parsed and downplayed and ultimately politicized, so it's inevitably a non-starter).

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24775.msg601938.html#msg601938

I was hoping not to have to get back into a 2 year old issue because I already addressed it and "set the record straight", but KDS, man...you still won't acknowledge that what you brought up wasn't even what I said back in 2015. And you're still doing it.

If this isn't clear enough, maybe there is a better way to spell it out besides stating the facts in plain English. I never cared or argued what your opinion was good or bad toward RD or any other song. But there was an issue where you were seemingly unaware of what the EDM genre actually was, or what it sounded like, yet saw fit to post about RD being something that it was not and never was. It would be like saying Mike's new Do It Again remake was "disco", and using that as a negative factor. It's not disco, right? Therefore it's not a valid point to make or to tell people that the song is disco. A hot dog isn't a hamburger.

So again, I'll restate I never took issue with your like or dislike of that or any tune, in fact I really didn't care at the time and don't care now. But don't come back 2 years after the fact and try to paint a picture of me getting on your case because you didn't like the song. That was never the case, period, case closed.

But with a lot of previous posters, and maybe not coincidentally the bulk of them among Mike's most vocal defenders and supporters and excuse peddlers, it doesn't matter what someone actually said or did...it's open season to twist and parse and even make sh*t up on the fly if your opinion is strong enough, in spite of the facts. Just ask Dr. Beach Boy, and see my sig line for a reminder of that warped logic. It just won't fly, so I'd suggest getting the facts straight before putting words into my mouth or anyone else's.

I'm sorry if I can't recount every argument I've ever had on this board, so obviously I shouldn't have brought it up. 

At this point, like I said, I'm willing to move forward and admit that I improperly called Runaway Dancer an EDM song, and not bring it up again. 

I thought I was pretty clear in my post to you yesterday that I was more than willing to apologize and move forward. 

Just this morning you defended what you said about debating the "merits" of RD in a reply to Jim, so I didn't see any change even though you did offer an apology and offer to move on, which I agree and appreciate. So...how about moving on instead of rehashing it yet again as if the discussions from 2015 were about the merits of RD? I never argued with you on the basis of liking or not liking the song as pure opinion, that should be clear from this point on.

It's hard not to get a little pissed off at some of this stuff considering how quite a bit of what I said or wrote got twisted or parsed into things I never said or even suggested, in the name of making points or trying to take shots at me. And I'm not the only one this has happened to. And...again I'll observe most of this garbage came from those who seem to be Mike Love's biggest defenders and supporters. Coincidence or not?

All I know is, the best course to take is stick to the facts and the truth. If those are not on the side being argued, then it's no surprise to see lies and bullshit and parsed words used instead, and it's sad that has become the M.O. in a lot of these discussions...especially since fall 2012.

This was all I said to Jim, who was obviously trying to bait me into a political argument.

"Because a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of Runaway Dancer makes sense in the context of this portion of the SSMB."

He mentioned the argument you and I had, not me.  Just a slight mention. 

Now, are you willing to move on, and let bygones by bygones, or not? 

I thought I had done that already when I logged off yesterday.

Your beef is with Jim, not with me.  Like I said, he questioned me about it, and I referenced it when I answered his question. 

I made no mention of you, or my genre based basis of the argument.

What do I have to do with your "Runaway Dancer" argument? All I mentioned was that I kinda dug the live arrangement, and not so much the studio version.

Though I do have to say it's funny that most (if not all) of the apologists for Dr. Love are so-called "conservatives" or Republicans. Sure is odd.

Geez, it's as if Bruce has a thing against BJs or something...

That's part of the bit that Brian wrote. I suspect most of his credit was the music.

Favorably? Now you're putting words into Mr Desper's mouth. Logistically, okay, but favorably??

You mentioned my previous beef with GF re: Runaway Dancer, and I simply mentioned it in my reply to you. 

It was pretty obvious that dude was fired up that his candidate was putting on some big rallies and found a decent way of connecting it to The Beach Boys.

Now before you ask how I know who he supported, I'll just say this. I've seen him complain on this board about "not being able to start a business" til we saw how the 2012 election turned out or something like that and then of course the video he posted where a guy sang a hateful, bigoted song about undocumented immigrants to the tune of "Surfin' U.S.A." So I think it's pretty clear where Mr. Desper's head is at. And that's cool. He's a private citizen. And it doesn't take away from his sterling work on 20/20, Sunflower and Surf's Up.

For as much as I love Brian, I have a lot of respect for Mike Love. He may be seen as the formula guy, but he's responsible for getting a lot of people into the band. The guy can sell the product, something that I'm sure Brian was thankful for back in the day. He's not really a villain, he's more like the parent that sometimes needs to be the bad guy to do the right thing in the long run

I'm clearly out of my depth (again). My apologies!

No words were put in anybody's mouth; I didn't quote anybody.

*Definitely* have no interest in dredging up that debate again, especially because a big part of why it blew up was because some saw it as a favorable comparison while others didn't. My interpretation/impression is just that, *my* interpretation. But yeah, there was a *serious* disconnect between people understanding why some found that "tour logistics" post to be ill-advised, so that whole discussion even more quickly than usual blew up. So it's a bad idea to delve back into that one; I only raised it briefly as an example of something that wasn't either solely "political and off-topic" or "100% on-topic", but was instead something in between. Plus, large swaths of that old thread have literally disappeared, rendering even a tired rehash of the debate difficult to undertake.

Don't really agree with that last sentence. I've often said he's more like the parent who harangues his kids about their mistakes 30-40 years after they corrected them and made good. (e.g. going back over the now 30-plus-years-old drug and alcohol abuse of the Wilson brothers, or going over the songwriting lawsuit that he *won* over 20 years ago).

But most everything else is totally correct. Mike should be given a lot of respect and credit for the huge role he played in the band. Briand did and still does *to this day* credit Mike for his huge contributions and seems to fondly remember their collaborations.

Want to know who has damaged Mike's reputation/legacy that more than anybody else? Mike Love. He had about ten billion chances at ten billion different turns over the last half-century-plus to work on it, and he has regularly made it worse. He could have spent the last 20-30 years talking about his work on "Today" or "Sunflower" or "Wild Honey" instead of reminding everyone that Brian did drugs decades ago and he (Mike) didn't.

He has and continues to be on the wrong side of history, and the only time in the last several decades he has managed to contain himself and do *himself* and *his own legacy and rep* tons of favors was an approximately five-month gap between late April 2012 and late September 2012 (or, I'll be generous and extend the beginning of C50 to mid-late 2011, so maybe a year or so at the most), where, I'm guessing, he *had* to play nice to secure any large advances being paid out due to the tour and album.

You're right----best left alone. My bad, as they say in US. 

I don't know your background or experience as a fan, I'd like to say that upfront along with saying this is only my opinion. But what product has Mike been selling over the past 30 years or so? His attempts to be the torch-bearer some say he is have at various points alienated both his own bandmates and the more dedicated fans of the band because he often made the band look like a commercialized shill rather than the truly great band that sold all those records and were in the upper echelon of rock music.

At the risk of angering some people, and I truly don't care if I do, consider had Brian not gone on tour with his own band back in 1999 and basically blew Mike's version of a touring band playing Beach Boys music that he had at that time off the stage based mostly on their musical skill and respect for the music and the legacy (and those more dedicated fans who didn't want cheerleaders choreographed on stage and Mike's Be True To Your School type of old showbiz schtick), there would be no touring band in 2017. The fact that another Beach Boy could present such a crack band and live show that was as musically solid as anything that had been done in the recent past I think forced Mike to up his game and actually consider people were looking for a quality and respectful show if it's billed as The Beach Boys and not a Mike Love solo revue. I have to question if he feels any of that today. If the July 4th concert on TV was any indicator, he very well may not.

So is Mike selling The Beach Boys when he's presenting McGrath, Stamos, and himself wearing a Mike Love ballcap on national TV and calling that single "our" new single instead of presenting it accurately as a Mike Love solo release? How about when he promotes a Mike Love solo release in multiple interviews at the concert that day yet fails to mention a truly terrific archival release featuring the real Beach Boys as they were 50 years ago? Is he carrying the torch for the Beach Boys brand or the Mike Love brand?

And I'd like to see some people who became fans in the 60's when the records were hitting the charts recall what exactly got them into the band. And I wonder how many would cite first and foremost Mike's antics as a "frontman" at live shows. If anything won over the fans, it was the sound of the records they would hear on the radio and when they dropped the needle on the records at home.

There is no way to codify or define such a thing, obviously, but seriously how many fans got into the band more from something Mike did over the past 6 decades versus the music made by the actual band?

There wasn't ever a Beach Boys six decades ago.

I expect my rock stars to shoot off the mouth about stuff, scandalize the bourgeois bien pensants (like with that picture with President Trump) and not give a crap what people think. In that respect, Mike Love and Bruce Johnston fit the bill perfectly.

I've always felt that Mike's speech at the R n' R Hall of Fame, for instance, was one of the most rock n' roll things to ever take place at that event.

2017
2007
1997
1987
1977
1967

Six decades. Not 60 years.

 :lol

Having a photo op with the symbol of the contemporary ownership class does not scandalize anyone or anything.

If there is one thing I will always respect about Mike Love, it's his having the balls to call out Paul McCartney  for his cop out from The Beatles' Induction.

I don't know. I think Ray Davies put it better when he called out everyone in the room, including himself, for attending such a dignified and respectable event. I think history has shown that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is really not something worth showing up for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSAQX2uuUY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSAQX2uuUY)

There's the actual HOF speech. Even before Mike starts talking and the other band members wisely get the f*** out of there as he's making an ass out of himself, watch him and his actions before he even starts speaking. That was really something to respect watching him interrupt Brian's speech.

That's punk rock?

This speech was a positive for Mike and the band?

Sure.

Four decades later it's still one of the most embarrassing public spectacles that has befallen the band.

How can Mike's calling out of someone else in a different band be worthy of respect when Mike himself has behaved in ways (on a consistent, ongoing basis) that absolutely epitomize what he himself was calling out in others? Like Mike missing the Hawthorne monument induction (just for starters)...

It would be like praising Mike for Mike teaching a college class where the sole purpose of the class was to call out narcissistic behavior in others. Umm... you only get to do that (and be praised for it) when you take a good, hard look at your EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR and make a change. That's how it works. Then respect could make an iota of sense.

Please explain if I'm missing something here, Jay?

Ironic that in 2012 Mike became the one who was too chickenshit to join his own bandmates on stage. They got more attention and adulation than he did, perhaps.

When? I seem to recall him being at every single show.

Fall 2012. He scuppered C50. Blew the lid off at a public Grammy event, again kind of ironic.

Hey did you doublecheck that whole decades thing you tried to nail me on?  :)

Sure did. A decade is 10 years, right? 1967-2017 is six decades. Granted, I do have a math learning disability...

I wasn't calling you out on anything. I honestly thought you had made a typo.

No worries, I was just checking! I should have said 50 years, seriously. There is a show and cable TV network called "Decades" which runs great old TV programs, I had that on in the background. No lie!  ;D

But back on that HOF speech, no matter what the opinions in 2017 may be, it's there on video above for all to watch and to me it doesn't come off 29 years later as much more than a guy making an ass out of himself in spite of his bandmates who wisely got the hell out of there and away from Mike, whatever opinions of the event itself may be. CD is onto something in his post about it.

I'm not excusing or even pointing out any other negative things about Mike. Basically, Paul was in the middle of a lawsuit with Apple(I believe it was Apple) at the time. I just think it was kind of a dick move that Paul couldn't put aside everything for a day and if not perform, then at the very least stand next to his former partners and friends. I'm glade somebody called him out on it. Granted, it wasn't the ideal situation, but my point stands.

I won't deny it's unfortunate about Paul at the time. That's not an untrue statement.

But again, I just don't see how to make the connection about it being a comment worthy of respect for Mike *specifically because* he himself does and did that kind of Paul-esque thing over and over again himself.   I do not know how some fan watching that speech divorces themselves from that knowledge about Mike to independently praise him for calling that Paul thing out, just simply casually omitting what we know about Mike's long history of actions.

Because by that logic, you have to respect me and everyone else (and publicly state it on a message board) for calling out Mike for missing things like the Hawthorne dedication. I called out it, Mike's no-show in 2005 is a thing worthy of criticism, just like Paul's was, so those who call it out as a dick move should certainly, by that logic, get praise and respect. Deal?

Seriously though, just watch the tape and you'll see everything you need to see. Respect isn't the first word that comes to mind.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with this board. Poster A makes one semi-positive point about Mike, while conceding that he also has quite a few faults. Poster B uses that one positive against any and all of the negative stuff Mike has ever done while being a member of The Beach Boys, and subtly insults poster A for having the nerve to ever actually respect that low life, no good excuse for a human. Man, the grass is looking more and more greener on the other side.

Alright, let's try "admire". I admire the fact that Mike ws probably the only one in the room to speak the truth. I concede that it wasn't the best situation to do it in though, and much of the rest of what he said embarrassed the group.

Nah, I think there are some good things about Mike. I think he loves his cousin, genuinely, yet is just pretty severely messed up in a lot of ways, and surrounded by a cocoon of those who enable his narcissism. I just honestly have a hard time specifically understanding how it's worthy of respect for a guy who does a particular lame action to call that out in others.

I don't know how anyone is able to do that. It disgusts me when politicians do it too. I don't mean to sound like a jerk about it by making various analogies in my posts; I'm literally trying to wrap my head around it.

I can get how one can say that Mike wasn't incorrect *in principal* about not digging Paul's actions; it's just that Mike was in no position to point that out publicly, in the manner that he did, being that he's guilty of the same thing repeatedly. That's my sole point in this back-and-forth discussion. I have plenty of things to praise Mike for musically, and I won't hesitate to continue to praise him for those things in the future.

I have to ask - Do you think Mike cared that it embarrassed the group, or that he as a de facto spokesman for The Beach Boys at that moment embarrassed the group he was the face of at that mic? When Mike called Jagger "chickenshit" did he realize he was also the face of his band at that very moment? I don't think he did or he just didn't give a flying f*** about the band and his bandmates who just bailed off the stage behind him.

For what it's worth, he did wear that hard hat construction hat thingie soon after (was it a week later?) at some other awards show appearance. Not sure if that means he cared, or was making a joking gesture about not wanting to take more flak for the speech. That's anyone's guess.  That he still won't - to this day - just outwardly state that he regrets if he embarrassed his bandmates speaks volumes to me. But that's Mike, he doesn't ever FULLY apologize for ANYTHING publicly (and I highly doubt privately either), and that's the main reason I have endless problems with the guy.

I suppose that's a fair statement to make, even though I don't quite agree with all of it.

Would you say you admire those who call out Mike for missing the Hawthorne dedication too? Aren't those people just speaking the truth too? Serious question.

Mike went on the Howard Stern show just a few years later to promote Summer In Paradise. Along with his usual talking points including telling the same Manson story that was such a "revelation" when it was used to tease Mike's book over 20 years later, and trying to pump gas into the SIP hype vehicle even though there was no engine under that hood and 4 flat tires, the HOF speech came up. Stern played that speech damn near every morning in a montage of audio before his show started just after 6am. Stern also kind of went along with what Mike said, and if you listen to what Mike himself said about the speech...there doesn't seem to be a speck of either regret, humility, or even an acknowledgement from Mike that he may have screwed the pooch on this one or embarrassed the other Beach Boys who were there. In fact he seemed to feed off Stern and almost doubled down on his actions at that ceremony.

So as far as apologizing for the speech or any aspect of it including the embarrassment to his bandmates, Mike's actions almost show he feels he did nothing out of line, let alone worth an apology.

I don't think Mike really knew what the truth was, which was largely that the relationship between the three living Beatles was, at that point, at the lowest point it had been probably since their breakup and much of this had to do with the fact that there was still a massive fallout due to Harrison, Starr, and Ono discovering that McCartney had been keeping secret an override clause with EMI which would give him more royalties than the other three - something that he secretly negotiated in 1975. Whatever we think of McCartney's actions - I don't think they're great - I don't think Mike was in any position to know what was going on in order to make the statement he made.

But let's face it, the rest of the speech is evidence that he didn't really care. He was just using that as a way to position himself and the band as superior to other people in the room, which is why he didn't just call out McCartney but also Diana Ross, The Stones, and others, which prompted the responses that his speech got from Dylan and Elton John. So, no, I don't particularly think airing the dirty laundry of others to make himself appear better is really an admirable act. Nor did Ringo evidently who mocked Mike Love when it was his turn to speak.

I get your point. I definitely should have said *in principal* like you just did. I think quite a lot of people wouldn't have had the guts to say something like what Mike did, while secretly agreeing with it. It was a "tell it like it is" moment, I guess.

I also want to say that the "subtly insult" thing in my above post wasn't directed at you specifically. It just seems to me that many people here are going out of their way to prove that with Mike, the bad outweighs the good., no matter whatever positive there may be in him.

I thought he *did* attend it. Unless I'm confusing it with something else. I remember seeing footage of Mike, David, and I believe Brian. Somebody held up pictures of Carl and Dennis. If that wasn't the actual dedication, then I admit that he essentially did what he called Paul out for doing.

Nope, he unfortunately did not attend it. I would know because I was there myself, and it was a really sad thing to witness firsthand. Really quite sad. All of these old-school Hawthorne people were there, a really cool physical monument was unveiled (made by Dennis' own son Scott, who built it), and Mike was a no-show.  And he had the added chutzpah to publicly state that he was too busy being on tour or something to that effect.

See, once you witness that firsthand in front of you, it becomes mighty hard to have respect for the guy for saying what he did in such a manner in 1988, and who has had no self-awareness of the hypocrisy in the years since; despite doing the exact same actions himself in 2005, he continues to this day to double down on not apologizing for what and how he said what he said in 1988, correctly betting on the fact that not enough people know about what went down in 2005. It boggles the mind, and the situation is both hilarious in its ridiculousness as well as utterly sad.  

You might be thinking about the Capitol rooftop reunion which was in 2006.

Also, the thing that Mike was really calling McCartney out for - and everyone else in the audience for that matter - was the inability to achieve "harmony" with his band mates. If there was a point to the rambling fiasco of that speech, it was precisely that - the people of Earth needed to see themselves in harmony with one another. That's why it was a drag for Mike to see The Beatles not in harmony with one another at the RRHOF. However, the ensuing years have shown that that point is quite rich coming from Mike Love.

At any rate, there is a counter-response that I think is well worth considering. McCartney noted in his comments at the time that it would have been hypocritical for The Beatles to present themselves "in harmony" at the HOF while, in reality, they were at each other's throats behind closed doors. Indeed, if The Beatles did anything for popular culture, it was to be at the forefront of taking away a little bit of the artifice. The band was, at its core, cynical about the pageantry of entertainment. They were quite knowingly from the get-go attempting to portray themselves as genuinely as possible. For them to go against that at a ceremony that was set-up to celebrate them and their accomplishments, would have been going against the very ethos that was The Beatles. Or at least, that's what McCartney might have been thinking. And if it was, McCartney might be quite justified in calling out Mike Love for going on about harmony at a time when his own band was wallpapering over a pretty unhappy situation.

I'm no great Mike Love fan, but I will say this.....

I'm glad my family squabbles haven't been played out in public for years. Not sure I'd be fairing much better than Mike in the popularity polls. Especially  if I'd been famous since my early twenties and spent my life in a weird isolated bubble where I never had to grow up.

Like an insect trapped in amber, Mike is an eternal petulant child, squabbling with his siblings in the backseat of his family car on a long trip to nowhere.

"Dad, Mike's just hit me"

"Yeah, well Brian stole my writing credits for California Girls"

"SHUT UP YOU KIDS, OR I'LL HIT YOU ON THE HEAD WITH A PLATE AND sh*t IN YOUR EAR"



(Silence for two minutes)



"Dad, Mikes pulling faces"

"Yeah, well Brian's taking drugs"

"RIGHT, THAT'S IT,  STRAIGHT TO BED WHEN WE GET HOME AND I'M SELLING YOUR PUBLISHING COMPANY"

It was indeed the Capitol rooftop reunion I was thinking of. I didn't know that Dennis's son made the actual monument. For that reason alone Mike should have been there. I do recall a particularly evil thing Mike once said when the Wilson house was destroyed. I believe he called it "poetic justice".

The imagery you've just described makes me wish for a Beach Boys-related childhood cartoon, drawn exactly in the style of The Simpsons. Leggo your ego, man. Cowabunga.

You are correct on all counts, and if there's something that I can feel a little bad for Mike about, it's understanding that he is really messed up from getting famous at a young age, and addicted to the adulation, and deeply afraid of losing it. And having a really messed-up family situation as well. It's not hard to understand how those things can mess someone up.

Right. And yeah, he should have absolutely been there if only for the reason you stated. I mean, I *get* that things sometimes get SO ugly that it can be excruciating to be around certain people. That is a sadly common thing that happens in relationships sometimes unfortunately, be it family, band members, etc. It's mighty sad when things like the Hall of Fame or the Hawthorne dedication don't bring everyone together. No doubt. And maybe it's kinda sh*tty in both cases of Paul with The Beatles and Mike with The Beach Boys.

And I know Brian didn't show up to Mike's Ella award either (although that was an award for Mike specifically, not an award to the whole band). But Brian gets a pass - not because he walks on water - but because he *doesn't* go hypocritically publicly calling out other people in other bands for doing that sort of thing, and then continue to defend said callouts for decades to come.  

People dislike Mike because he does stuff like this (Hall of Fame speech - followed by defending HoF - followed by Hawthorne no-show - followed by more endless defending HoF for DECADES)... AND largely because Mike states that people don't like him because they think Brian walks on water, as opposed to simply finding patterns of such hypocrisy quite off-putting. Those who dare to take him to task for this are insulted by Mike as being some blind worshipers of Brian Wilson, as opposed to just logical folk who find clunky hypocrites - whether they are politicians, rock stars, etc - to simply be laughable yutzes. The more smug and the more they cling steadfastly to their own defense in the face of obvious opposing evidence, the bigger the yutz factor. Common friggin' sense! At a certain point, the yutz factor becomes a putz factor. We're long past that point...

I don't even know how to respond to the "poetic justice" comment. Mike perhaps has no parallel except 45 in terms of celebs who have no filter and say very offensive and excessively inflammatory stuff. I have to think that the sycophants that surround 45 must be similar to the yes-folk who surround Mike.

That was a bad moment, Jay. Something just occurred to me: I think one thing that particularly irks many folks about him is that the Beach Boys represent something very important to them, a symbolic ideal of good times, comfort, beauty or what have you, more than most bands,
and for that ideal concept or entity to have a nasty presence continually marring it in their eyes with bad acts and statements is doubly irritating, for that reason. The reverse of what the Wicked Witch of the West said: "how can such a little girl destroy my beautiful wickedness." How can such a mean old man diminish our wonderful music? Just a theory.

Ultimately the problem with Mike Love is that he is very unfiltered.

When he thinks of something he blurts it out without any thought to what he's actually conveying, how that message is received by others and the consequences of his statements. Ultimately his unfiltered way is very un-appealing to very many, including his band mates.

Mike Love simply doesn't have that "inner guidance" which most people have when talking.

We're still hashing out the R&R HOF speech nearly 30 years later?

It's pretty simple, once you know the context both in terms of the event and the band, and once you actually listen to and *view* the entire speech.

A confrontational speech taking the HOF and the industry *and* some artists to task for a myriad of issues was and is needed.

Mike's speech was NOT that speech.

I don't think Mike knew precisely what points he was trying to make. What's ironic is that he ended up looking like an idiot and in subsequent years his speech carries *less and less* credibility, and it started with little. Taking other artists to task for not showing up or being in lawsuits is pretty rich from a guy infamous for being litigious and who has skipped his own band's events. Keep in mind this speech is less than ten years prior to him refusing to be on stage with Al Jardine anymore in concert.

Mike was totally called out *at the event* with snarky (and much more clever) retorts from Elton John and Bob Dylan.

Anybody that goes to an event and says "I'd like to see the mop tops match that!" is immediately going to look like a total tool.

He called out Mick Jagger not knowing that Jagger was actually in the audience.

The guys who had the worst were Carl and Al. Al described in his 2000 Goldmine interview that both Brian *and* Mike were weird at the event, with Brian stiffly reading his Landy-approved speech only to be followed up by Mike's weird speech. Al said *he* had to go apologize to George and Ringo for Mike's speech, with the two Beatles consoling Al and assuring him.

Look at the footage of Mike at that speech. Something's off. He's not there to call people out in the industry. He's in some sort of altered state, and he kind of admitted as much in later years, at least in terms of having "not meditated."

Mike's speech is no doubt *entertainment* on some level; joining the "trainwreck" spectacle list of BB events alongside Dennis at the Good Morning America interview and Brian in the leather pants on late night TV in '88, etc.

But I have a problem with it because it caused the band (and Mike, even if he doesn't care) some level of irreparable damage. Not enough to tank their career or anything. But it was *just enough* that it's *still* remembered by fans and in the industry.

I also have a problem and have always had a problem with anyone trying to paint Mike's speech as some sort of renegade, tell-it-like-it-is moment calling out the industry. Not only was that clearly *not* the angle or intention of the speech, but he didn't achieve it either. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if he had stopped at going after Diana Ross or something. But he basically challenged Paul McCartney, The Beatles as a whole, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, and Billy Joel all at the same time in one speech. He managed to call out almost exclusively the *small number* of artists who ever lived who are *more* popular and acclaimed than the Beach Boys. Sorry Mike. McCartney could have been in the midst of suing every single person in that room and you'd still look like an ass claiming your band is in any way superior to the Beatles. And that's not even getting into how his "moptops" comment made no sense considering it's not as if there was a Beatles in 1988 to challenge Mike's rigorous touring schedule.

James Hetfield sort of did that when Metallica were inducted by listing a bunch of hard rock bands that should've been included before them.  I think Michael McCready of Pearl Jam wore a shirt listing RNRHOF snubs. 

A few people have made slight statements. McCartney's daughter wore the "About F***ing Time" shirt. Jeff Beck infamously and rather dryly pointed out during the Yardbirds induction that he had been kicked out of the band (his ire seemed directed specifically at his own former bandmates, not the HOF I suppose).

A few other people have spoken out against the HOF backstage during the ceremony (I think Steve Miller was one case in the last year or two).

Nobody came away from Mike's '88 speech thinking he was "tellin' it like it is." If he had stopped after admonishing people for not being more harmonious, etc., then maybe it wouldn't have been too bad. But once he called Mick Jagger "chickens**t", it was over and Mike had lost. The headline and legacy of the event became Mike ranting and being ever so slightly unhinged, along with Elton John saying "Thank f**k he didn't mention me" and Bob Dylan saying “I want to thank Mike Love for not mentioning me,… Peace, love and harmony is greatly important indeed, but so is forgiveness.”

I forgot about the Steve Miller thing last year. 

Yeah, I know I defend Mike a lot, but the Rock and Roll HOF Speech isn't something I can defend.  Didn't George Harrison quip something to the effect of "I guess he didn't listen to the Maharishi."

That speech was entertainment. It's still got us talking all these years later. It was the punk rock thing to do. It was Keith Moon driving his car into the hotel swimming pool and getting the whole band banned.

If you guys would rather get the excruciating platitudes that make up 99,9 % of all speeches at the HoF, then we have a different idea of what should be expected of rock n' roll.

Two questions for you, kreen:

- So you're not bothered by the fact that Mike is a hypocrite who did the exact same thing as Paul in 2005 when he was a no-show for Hawthorne?  That's ok and cool?

- Does that mean that if a fan goes to the Hawthorne monument and holds a press conference to discuss the finer points of why Mike is pathetic for not showing up at the dedication, that the fan who does this is being "punk rock" and should be patted on the back for making "entertainment"?

Anybody seriously exemplifying the punk attitude wouldn't have been at the ceremony in the first place. In that sense, I guess Macca was being the most punk out of everyone involved.

I could be misremembering things, but didn't Mike and Bruce not attend the unveiling in Hawthorne due to a Beach Boys performance that same day? 

As I just mentioned in a previous post, a "punk rock" sort of speech tearing everybody a new one would potentially be great. That's NOT the speech Mike gave.

It's like saying Carl being high and drunk and keeling over on stage in 1978 was "punk rock", when it was rather just being zonked out.

Whining that you don't get more credit for your back-breaking tour schedule is not "punk rock."

Asking a near-20-years-defunct band with a dead member to "match" your touring schedule is not "punk rock." It's like a boxer in 2017 opining that he'd like to see Muhammed Ali step into the ring and beat him.

Leaving yourself wide open for an epic "burn" from both Elton John and Bob Dylan is not "punk rock."

And as also mentioned, even being at the ceremony isn't really "punk rock."

That was the excuse... but OBVIOUSLY it was something where Mike chose to make that happen. C'mon. You think Mike would've missed his Ella award because of a "BBs" performance?

There was bad blood, and booking a show was a very easy excuse to avoid saying that he didn't want to be there to have to deal with the awkwardness of being around people he was suing.

The dude has access to jets. If Mike really absolutely wanted to be at the Hawthorne dedication, he could certainly have made that happen one way or another. Plus the city of Hawthorne would have certainly rescheduled the ceremony to fit his schedule if a founding member of the band had asked for it.  You know it, I know it.

I don't think either you and I know 100%, but I do agree that things could've been moved. 

Just a quick detour on the topic of what is or isn't punk rock.

What is frustrating, not in an angry sense but in a forehead-slapping WTF moment kind of deal, is that fans can listen to some of those songs and performances especially in the early and mid-60's and hear that some of Mike's vocals were in fact "punk rock" before that was even a term. I love that vocal on Papa Oo Mow Mow...and Brian himself has said he loved that guttural sound Mike could get on songs like that. Just listen to the raw energy of that...and listen to things like the various live material from 63-65...some of the songs rock like a motherfucker. Pure youthful abandon.

It is frustrating that Mike was actually doing authentic garage punk rock in some of that music before it was even a term or genre, and it's more universal of a positive to be known for than a speech which made him a laughingstock. It's hard to understand. If Mike thinks that speech was punk rock, it's hard to understand.

And if he tried moving the event and the city refused, he'd have mentioned it in a press release or something, expressing how bummed he was and how many Herculean efforts he'd undertaken to try and make it.

Mike's "I'm busy with a show" excuse is akin to the "something suddenly came up" excuse that future Landy patient Maureen Marcia Brady McCormick was on the receiving end of, via that jerk Doug in the famous Brady Bunch episode. Just as paperthin.  

The Hawthorne event was discussed online back then, but it slightly predates this board. I recall it was unclear whether Mike and Bruce were truly booked up on *that* particular day.

The available tour schedules I can find show that the Hawthorne event was on May 20, and the closest Mike dates on the public tour schedule would be May 1st in PA and then May 21st in Kansas City, MO.

So unless they had a private gig, they could have made it to the Hawthorne event. One could also argue they could have shuffled any private gig to another date to attend such an event. I should say Mike, because Bruce wasn’t really part of that era or that monument.

Much like other cases of “scheduling conflicts”, it’s probably a mixture of several things. But I think it’s not out of line to assume it’s quite possible politics were at play concerning Mike not showing at the Hawthorne event.

Prior to C50, there were very few cases of Mike appearing in public with either Brian *or* Al. Mike and Al made an appearance at the Grammy events in early 2000 (where Al infamously said he stayed “as far away” from Mike as possible). I think the Capitol rooftop event in 2006 was the next instance, and then nothing else until 2011 when Mike and Al appeared together at a couple of events sort of as a prelude to the C50 reunion (California HOF, the Reagan gig).

I'm no expert on punk, nor have I ever claimed to be, but I've heard and seen the word "punk" or "punk rock" often overused to describe acts that may not be along the lines of "acceptable."

Ie.  "That guy kicked that trash can over, that's so punk."  "That band made their audience wait two hours before they hit the stage, that's so punk rock."  

Thanks, I couldn't remember. 

I'll willingly rehash an issue I've commented on many times.

At the end of C50, in the UK, The Wilsons threw a dinner party for band and crew to celebrate the C50 tour. There were photos posted of that dinner on Facebook and other media, including this board. Everyone is there, around the table, band and crew...except Mike and Bruce. They didn't go.

If they say a picture is worth a thousand words, that picture of the C50 dinner could be the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Has it ever been clarified why Mike and Bruce shined on that event? "previous obligations"?...sure. I think people can reasonably fill in the reasons why they weren't there.

So there is another example more recent than 2005 in Hawthorne where Mike and the notion of "band unity" didn't seem to mesh. And this one involved members of Mike's own crew and band...along with his cousin who he says he was being kept away from, this time in what was literally a chance to "break bread" at the table with his cousin and bandmates of 50+ years. So why wasn't Mike or Bruce there?

I think there was fairly ample proof that Mike and Bruce weren't absent from that C50 final dinner due to a concert obligation, as Totten and other Mike band members were there at the dinner.

Previous obligations.

Again, we can point fingers and say it's lame all we want to... and I do think it's lame, although perhaps understandable under the circumstances... yet I'd be WAY less judgmental about it if Mike weren't so into the idea of calling out rock stars for missing events with their bandmates.

I just wish Mike had been at that dinner, along with photographers, to see the awkward look on his face as he'd keep trying to change the conversation subject from "why does C50 have to end" to "did you know I came up with the idea for Back in the USSR?"

Let's be clear: It's quite likely that Brian and Mike usually don't attend each other's functions because of the most obvious answer. Politics and interpersonal issues. Also sometimes pending legal stuff in eras where that was at play as well.

Brian didn't go to the Ella thing in 2014 because of this. There was that epic Mike birthday bash from a year or two ago where Mike posted an epic manifesto on how great the thing was, all serving as a big set up to report that "cousin Brian" didn't attend.

Brian even bowed out of the *luncheon* part of the Grammy thing in 2000, only attending the actual Grammy ceremony with Al, Mike, and Bruce (but all seated apart from each other apparently).

Similarly, Mike didn't do the Hawthorne thing. He's not at that C50 dinner for even more painfully obvious political reasons.

As far as I've heard, Brian and Mike have not been in the same room together since September 28, 2012, and prior to 2011 had rarely been together.

There are elements of the fallout of C50 that still haven't been reported much. It appears things were getting awkward and kind of icy earlier in the month (if not earlier) when the guys did the Grammy Museum thing. Al was reported as talking to Mike during the event and nearly begging Mike to reconsider ending the reunion. People who were there said there was a noticeable sort of pall over the proceedings. I think there are some posts on this board of some reports from the event.

By the final two UK dates, I think it was a "contractual obligation" situation.

But yeah, Mike and Bruce could have healed things a bit by doing the dinner.

Exactly. I have great memories of my cousin and I as kids, listening to The Beach Boys(and Jan and Dean), and the happy and wonderful feeling it gave us. We saw our first BB's show in 1992. Then, life rears it's ugly head, and Carl dies. Then came all the legal nonsense between Mike and Al. Then somehow 2012 happened. It was literally like God himself pulled all the forces together, and gave us this beautiful moment with an amazing tour and album. To slightly paraphrase Andrew Doe(I know, I know...), "The way things stood in 2012, they had absolutely no right to be 1/10th as good as they were". I completely agree with him. Then, to quote Jim Morrison, "Everything's f***ed up as usual". Paul could have given everybody a similar moment. But as I read the above messages, I guess I do see the hypocrisy of it all.

For people who like to over analyze things(i.e. me lol), the *only* thing I can figure about the "poetic justice" comment is that in his own somewhat backhanded compliment way, Mike meant to convey that it was "poetic justice" that the house that Murry abused his children in was leveled to the ground.

Ah yes, Mike and Bruce's little-known leaner, two-man "Beach Boys" show....

They both just play tambourine I guess.

Nothing says rebellion like a photo-op with a radical right-wing billionaire.

:lol

Let's be honest, the dude is no punk. He is a joke. As I said, I like him as a singer, but he's a joke. And he's about as far from punk as one could be. He's a money hungry, commercially-minded guy who hob-nobs with establishmentarians like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. I won't mention Trump cuz he's just a joke.

I despise him in a crowd of one if that is worth a damn! ;D

Endless syncopation for sure! Where's my due??

OSD is welcome! ;D

I don't care ML wasn't at that dedication, and as for that second question, I wouldn't care either way

Mike Love is a guy with a high school education, and he improvised his RRHOF speech without reading from any prepared notes. So obviously we were not going to get the Gettysburg Address. The BB had gone through years where they were out of favor commercially speaking, so this was a chance for ML, out of cockiness, to rub the other acts' faces in their inability to show up at the event or continue to perform. This was basically, "you guys think you're so hot, but you can't do what we do".

You're being sarcastic, but for anybody in the arts and culture field to openly support President Trump is actually the epitome of rebelliousness.

To be honest, I think Mike was drunk when he made that speech, and he just ran his mouth a bit to much.

Two points here Kreen.

First, Mike is an intelligent guy who has proved himself time and again in interviews to be verbose and sharp witted. To blame his speech on poor education is quite ungracious to the person you're defending.

Secondly, I don't get anything cocky, rock'n'roll or punk from Mike's speech. What I get is his usual sour grapes, (which has been directed towards Brian in recent years). In this case the sour grapes stem from the fact that all the acts he mentions were, at that time more artistically respected than the Beach Boys. And Mike's chagrin at this may have been justified if he hadn't been the one who has consistently gone for the commercial over artistic route.

Kreen, I respect and would fight for your right to be impressed by Mike's speech. But punk it is not


To also address this, I agree wholeheartedly with you here. But is rebelliousness always a desirable and commendable action?

Serial killers are rebelling against the societal norm which dictates that killing is wrong.

Early supporters of the Nazis were rebelling against a failing political system in Germany.

Am I also a rebel for being one of the few UK citizens under the age of 50 to NOT be riddled with tattoos? As we know, tattoos are the epitome of rebelliousness.

Ahh yes, the old I’m so rebellious I’m gonna drink a lot of liquid courage then say a bunch of hypocritical bullshit routine. Such courage. So hip. And what part of this cool rebellious hip attitude played into him being a fuckin douchebag to Brian while Brian himself tried to give his speech? Not actually asking you, Kreen, as you have a penchant for ignoring questions directed at you. Btw, Brian had a high school level education to, and stage fright, yet he managed to walk away from the event without being called out by Bob Dylan, unlike the guy you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel to defend.

MAGA- Mike's anger gets around...... :hat

Hey everybody! Guess what? Kreen also thinks "grabbin' em by the pu$$y" is punk as well!

Which shows he's basically a piece of sh*t!

So his big, great point is to essentially say, "You guys may have all had more consistent commercial success than us but we can do something you can't - appear places." What a sick burn!

Most of the musicians from that era didn't have anything more than a high school education but they managed to not make completely embarrassing speeches. I mean, Mike boasts all the time about his ability to turn a phrase and relate to the people and yet he can't manage to cobble together a coherent line of thought. I mean seriously, when he goes on one minute about we are all one people and need to find harmony with each other and then the next minute about the Stones being chickensh*t, it's pretty clear even he doesn't know what he means.


Many celebrities wouldn't like Mike's support of Trump but it's not actually rebellious to support the leading symbol of the Establishment. In a larger context, it's just devotion to a powerful person. Just because something ruffles someone's feathers doesn't make it rebellious as pointed out by Hickory Violet IV. You have to be ruffling feathers to disrupt the status quo for it to actually constitute rebelliousness. But to be fair to Trump, he's done a good job at swindling people that his project of reinforcing the power structure is in some way different.

"shoot off the mouth" AKA talking sh*t and being an insufferable boor while lying to yourself and to others that such behaviour is justified in removing the totalitarianism of civility, decency and PC culture.

A few more thoughts about our friends "kreen" while we are at it.

I have a feeling he is so into "tellin' it like it is" and Trump and what not because he (or she? I don't know what kreen is) probably is a rich kid who has mommy and daddy paying all his bills while he trolls around on the internet praising his dear leader and talking about "punk" while his "punk prez" and his lackeys keep daddies taxes low.

.
Personally, I think this attitude drives people further into the arms of powerful right-wing extremists.

In addition to your thoughts on him/her, I also think they’re a previously banned poster with a dummy account. This utterly juvenile and nonsensical discourse is something we’ve seen from previous posters before. Almost verbatim.

So you're saying we should handle these "snowflakes" with kid gloves?

It's pretty rich that it would be the words coming from someone like me driving a pour tortured soul like kreen into extremism, as I'm sure he's spent time before likely making fun of "snowflakes" with "safe spaces." Yet it's little old him (or her) who we need to tip-toe around.

No, I'm saying petty, empty rhetoric makes our argument look weak, not theirs and yes, that has all sorts of dangerous effects.

I absolutely agree Shake Man.

However, lately I have been making a point to take back "snowflake" and I know, maybe in a way it's sinking to their level, but all I know is last year, the whole "when they go low, we go high" thing was shown to be a lovely thought, be still leaves us in the dust. So I feel like you can't keep bringing a knife to a gun fight.

And yes, I know, this has f***-all to do with The Beach Boys.

I don't agree with that assessment, though. The "high" argument, which did exist, was for the most part excluded from the mainstream and most people still believed they were caught between two status quo establishment figures. What was actually remarkable last year, for me, is how receptive people actually are to genuine, left-wing antiestablishment positions that weren't dumbed down. So as far as I'm concerned, the fight we have to have to fight harder to get the most reasonable, rational argument heard even more. But the way to make them heard more is to not preach to the choir but to build connections with others who could potentially be receptive to these ideas. And that's not going to happen when we resort to the same tactics that they use on the right.

I truly hope you're right Shake. But I also just don't know if a country that could elect Donald Trump has the smarts to do what's right for themselves. And I also really don't have any hope that there is much of a chance that there will be any group out there on a larger platform than Bernie making a real push for real solutions. The media doesn't care about that kind of thing, and the other side will use buzz words to scare people who may have been willing to give reason a chance. The American people, and really, the whole world has had a long time to figure this out, yet Mr. Shake, even after all this time, we hardly make a dent.

Mind if I PM you rather than clutter up thread here?

I'd much appreciate it! That way we can get back to the BB on here.

I cannot lie, I have also come to despise Mike Love...

...'s fashion sense. I mean, what was he thinking with the white robes and long beard in the 70's? And nowadays, is he in some competition to see who can wear the loudest shirts?

There. I've aired all my grievances.

Why is this thread now about President Trump and snowflakes??

Not that it should matter, but I'm forty and I've been a lurker/member on these BB boards since the days of the old Smile Shop.

Bottom line on ML's speech: there are TWO speeches that I've ever found memorable and worth listening to over the years at the RRHOF. One is Mike's speech. The other is Alex Lifeson's. So Mike has my respect for at least trying to make a point instead of spouting platitudes, and I salute him for causing a scene at an event that's dedicated to rock n' roll, the ultimate scene-causing, ruckus-rising music.

Well, it certainly was memorable, I see your point. The thing is though, to take a few playful jabs at Mick Jagger and the Beatles might be OK. But he sound so hateful throughout the speech. Mentioning lawsuits between Paul, Ringo and Yoko, that's a low blow and unnecessary. Diana Ross? Billy Joel? Kinda like what Elton John was getting at, why didn't he mention him and everyone else, too? Mike was drunk and rambled and said some things he shouldn't have, and took the spotlight away from what should've been a nice evening for the boys. Now all anyone remembers is that speech.

Oh well.

Wait a second, he was causing a ruckus and creating a scene? Kreen, do you even know what the definition of “harmony” is? So your argument is that Mike Love’s drunken diatribe about harmony was actually a scene-causing ruckus-creating non-harmonious speech...and for that he deserves respect?

This is like respecting Axl Rose for fighting a fan because it makes headlines. In a world where most people living in reality would consider this jackass behavior it doesn’t surprise me that Mike apologists jump through hoops to defend this hyprocritical nonsense.

Well, so here we are half a year into the Trump presidency and already white nationalists, racists and nazis have finally emerged in numbers from their hiding in the shadows to take a stand in the spotlight. The emergence of Trump lead to Charlottesville.

Racism and bigotry has always existed in America but the last few decades have seen a decline in its prominence. The emergence of Trump isn't the cause, but it certainly has catapulted them back into international attention and the president's worrying inability to denounce the worst of his supporters is yet another reason I hold Mike Love and Bruce Johnston with some contempt, seeing as they were openly supporting and almost publicly endorsing this wrinkly orange nightmare.

Only one man rammed his car into that crowd, but it took the votes of 60 million people voting for that horrid individual Trump to embolden the racists and "deplorables". The road leading to this moment has been paved out ever since Trump started his candidacy 2-3 years ago. Just call me a prophet for realising this from the get-go /s.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech: the part I found most annoying wasn't his diatribe. That was embarrassing or funny depending on whether you were a fan of his or not. I hated the way he acted during Brian's acceptance speech. Continued attention seeking, though he must have known that Brian isn't comfortable in this sort of situation.

 Despised by just "millions"? You might be lowballing this...it may run into the billions. Gee, another Mike Love hate thread on Smiley Smiley.

Yeah, it's all becoming so predictable and so boring.

That was exactly the intention. Thank you.

Every new day for Trump appears to be the worst in his presidency. This week was his worst week, just as last week was his worst until this one.
This disgusting man is what Mike and Bruce for certain voted for and for whom they wanted to perform at the inauguration under the very Beach Boys name we all love and cherish. In fact, that performance was only avoided by protests from many fans who recognised early what a Trump presidency meant.

So guys, here he is again. Mike Love and Trump:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjwCqASUgAA_Tv3.jpg)

On the right we have Mike Love, who fronts the group we are all united in loving. To the left, wearing his self-branded red cap that has come to represent the ugly face of american nationalism, is Trump, the president of the USA. He recently stated [Charlottesville] that "not all of those people were neo-nazis or white supremacists". When I look at that crowd and the promotion poster (included below) I cannot see how anyone worthy of the defence of the president should be there, yet he imagines they exist and are not involved in waving those flags and torches. This was strictly a hate rally, and yet he finds himself unable to stop defending it in some way.

Here is the rally poster and some of his supporters.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCfZtOrXkAANJi6.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3405025.1502511323!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/article-charlottesville-4-0811.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3407082.1502595959!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/article-charlottesville-23-0812.jpg)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/charlottesvilleprotest3_081217_gettyimages.jpg)

It is extremely unfortunate that we have two members of our favourite group (currently fronting the name of the band) to be in support of the president who, predictably, tacitly condones this rally. It deeply saddens and disappoints me but these are the facts as I (and many others) see them and I cannot for the world understand how these two members of the Beach Boys and many SmileySmilers who all "knew" this was coming, yet gave him their vote anyway, as if action is without consequence.


This might seem hypocritical, but my post is not to incite more "political discussions" (that is for the sandbox), but it is with extreme regret and disappointment that the band is now even remotely linked with this. I would never believe it yet here we are.

I ask that this post is not taken down (fine if mods wish to lock thread if they believe it's inappropriate), but I don't think this should be shoved under the carpet. As sad as this incident is, the Beach Boys name has been linked to controversy before (Manson episode, 2012 election BJ comments, etc.), yet discussions about it have not been (and should not be) silenced or ignored.

It seems to me Cabinessenceking, that ironically, the man who wrote the beautiful lyrics to Let The Wind Blow, will be facing whichever way the wind is blowing.

As Trumps popularity wains, I wouldn't be suprised to see Mike at an anti Trump rally