Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[rab2591]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

[filledeplage]

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

Bully and browbeat.  Exactly.

[rab2591]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

And what the hell does that have to do with posting insults towards Mike Love here, allowing it on a BB message board, and then chasing a fellow poster because he won't change his mind?

Again, as I replied to you before, I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't be surprised that Mike gets insulted after he takes jabs at Brian. And from my perspective, if AGD is allowed to call posters here fuckwits and shitweasels without reprimand then it's possible for others to post insults as well I guess.

[filledeplage]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

[filledeplage]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

And what the hell does that have to do with posting insults towards Mike Love here, allowing it on a BB message board, and then chasing a fellow poster because he won't change his mind?

Again, as I replied to you before, I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't be surprised that Mike gets insulted after he takes jabs at Brian. And from my perspective, if AGD is allowed to call posters here fuckwits and shitweasels without reprimand then it's possible for others to post insults as well I guess.

First, two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

Second, the phrase under Mr. Doe's avatar is more along the lines of, "if the shoe fits..." (I'm not speaking for him.)

[Cam Mott]

Whoops posted to the wrong comment.

[Empire Of Love]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

[Cam Mott]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

I took it you were making some kind of a comparison and the original statement was by Mike commenting on a relationship between Brian and Landy but had your example had the two in the relationship, Mike and Brian, commenting on each other rather than someone commenting on their relationship. So I made it Landy commenting on a relationship between Brian and Mike so the circumstance fit the comparison you were trying to make.

[rab2591]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read.  

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

Exactly. Not only that, but again, would anyone here feel comfortable in discussing a friend's/relative's prescription drug intake with a newspaper/media outlet? Especially if you had no idea what specific regimen your friend/relative was on? Talking about such things in a public forum is insensitive (tactless) no matter how much one tries to spin it.

[Empire Of Love]

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

All that horrible bullying?  You mean trying to reason with someone by posting dictionary definitions and expecting that person to abide by them?  I hope the guy doesn't develop a bad case of lexicophobia.

What an utter crock to call this discussion bullying.  Anyone presenting an opinion should expect contrary opinions to be expressed and should be prepared to defend their own opinion - with reason and without denying the plain meaning of words.  If you consider being challenged bullying, then don't join the discussion.

Guys and girls, if the best defense you have is to cry "bullying", you've not got much of a case.

[filledeplage]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

No, but suggesting that there may be "omissions" in the interview text that might have provided a more complete context.

[Empire Of Love]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

I took it you were making some kind of a comparison and the original statement was by Mike commenting on a relationship between Brian and Landy but had your example had the two in the relationship, Mike and Brian, commenting on each other rather than someone commenting on their relationship. So I made it Landy commenting on a relationship between Brian and Mike so the circumstance fit the comparison you were trying to make.

I was demonstrating the meaning of "probably".  If Brian said that Mike "probably" wrote the lyrics to Good Vibrations he would be leaving room for doubt, because regardless of the level of likelihood implied by the word, it stops short of certainty...because that is the definition of probable/probably.

It does not matter who is asking/answering the question.  What matters is the meaning of the word.  Mike used to speak with certainty in regards to Landy's methods, and for that he should be commended.  But now, for reasons unknown to me, he reserves certainty only for Landy's money grab and speaks of his methods/therapy in probability.  He leaves the door open for the possibility it wasn't all that bad.  And then he furthers the point by referring to the Evan Landy article.

But you won't address the clear distinction between his "hell yeah" and his "probably", which mystifies me as much as Mike's choice of words.

EoL

[SMiLE Brian]

I agree with rab and EoL 100%. Sounds like Mike needs some prescription drugs to treat his anger and aggression towards BW since TM isn't working too well.

[Empire Of Love]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

No, but suggesting that there may be "omissions" in the interview text that might have provided a more complete context.

So Mike might not have been saying what he said and neither were you?  No one means what they say when it isn't convenient, defining words is ridiculous parsing, and challenging a stubborn poster is bullying.  This is one strange place ain't it?

[filledeplage]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

No, but suggesting that there may be "omissions" in the interview text that might have provided a more complete context.

So Mike might not have been saying what he said and neither were you?  No one means what they say when it isn't convenient, defining words is ridiculous parsing, and challenging a stubborn poster is bullying.  This is one strange place ain't it?

Please don't put words in my mouth.  There are reasonable explanations for an incomplete context.  There are many posters who have strong positions. Calling a poster "stubborn" because he or she doesn't share your opinion appears intolerant.

[Empire Of Love]

Lolz.  So now opposing someone's view is intolerance?  That is rich.  You must be an attorney.

[filledeplage]

I agree with rab and EoL 100%. Sounds like Mike needs some prescription drugs to treat his anger and aggression towards BW since TM isn't working too well.

And I agree with Autotune.

[Autotune]

needs some prescription drugs to treat his anger and aggression

"Cam, we get you have a sick obsession with the least talented member of the BBs who also happens to be the biggest jerk in rock and roll."

"Mike is a bitter old man looking to slander his cousin who he is insanely jealous of. What is hard to understand about that?"

"Exactly, Mike is a sick old bastard."

[SMiLE Brian]

There is nothing incomplete about Mike Love showing resentment of BW for the 1,000 time. His live stage patter of "working while BW stays home" is something that cannot be weaseled away from by blaming "bad journalism" or interviewers.

[filledeplage]

Lolz.  So now opposing someone's view is intolerance?  That is rich.  You must be an attorney.

What I am is a BB fan.

Yes, it isn't just forming an opposing opinion.  It is insulting the one who opines.  When one insults, it is often because the underlying  argument is a failure.  And they got nothing else.

[grillo]

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

All that horrible bullying?  You mean trying to reason with someone by posting dictionary definitions and expecting that person to abide by them?  I hope the guy doesn't develop a bad case of lexicophobia.

What an utter crock to call this discussion bullying.  Anyone presenting an opinion should expect contrary opinions to be expressed and should be prepared to defend their own opinion - with reason and without denying the plain meaning of words.  If you consider being challenged bullying, then don't join the discussion.

Guys and girls, if the best defense you have is to cry "bullying", you've not got much of a case.

First of all, I'm not "defending" anyone, I'm asking why you care what Cam thinks.  I also wonder why you feel the need to control the conversation by  telling me I should not join it if I think you are a bully.  Tell me what else I ought to do if I disagree with you. Empire of Love indeed.

[filledeplage]

There is nothing incomplete about Mike Love showing resentment of BW for the 1,000 time. His live stage patter of "working while BW stays home" is something that cannot be weaseled away from by blaming "bad journalism" or interviewers.

Your interesting opinion of Holland - CATP shows little regard for the rest of the band.

[Empire Of Love]

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

All that horrible bullying?  You mean trying to reason with someone by posting dictionary definitions and expecting that person to abide by them?  I hope the guy doesn't develop a bad case of lexicophobia.

What an utter crock to call this discussion bullying.  Anyone presenting an opinion should expect contrary opinions to be expressed and should be prepared to defend their own opinion - with reason and without denying the plain meaning of words.  If you consider being challenged bullying, then don't join the discussion.

Guys and girls, if the best defense you have is to cry "bullying", you've not got much of a case.

First of all, I'm not "defending" anyone, I'm asking why you care what Cam thinks.  I also wonder why you feel the need to control the conversation by  telling me I should not join it if I think you are a bully.  Tell me what else I ought to do if I disagree with you. Empire of Love indeed.

You are guilty of your own charge.  Why do you care so much what I think about what Cam thinks?  Because he is being bullied?  Except he's not being bullied, he's being challenged and instead of addressing arguments he snarks.  He is free to express his opinion and free to snark.  And I am free to call BS.

[rab2591]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read.  

Even if there was any omission of full dialogue of both the question and answer, the point is Mike definitely said Brian is "controlled" which is insensitive. And again, I'm curious, even if an interviewer was that crass in asking a question specifically regarding Brian and supposed "control", would Mike be comfortable in even saying that released response around Brian in person? Even if there were more context to the question/answer, talking about someone else's medication intake and supposed "control" in a public forum is very insensitive.

And, again it could have been, "in (full) control." And not in the "controlled" context.  It is why I love the Pet Sounds sessions.  They are less edited.  You get a better context for the "edited" or released product.  Had it been a live/taped interview, the result might have looked differently.

So you are proposing that Mike may have actually been complimenting Brian and the interviewer turned the comment upside down and Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment?  Riiiiiiight.

No, but suggesting that there may be "omissions" in the interview text that might have provided a more complete context.

So Mike might not have been saying what he said and neither were you?  No one means what they say when it isn't convenient, defining words is ridiculous parsing, and challenging a stubborn poster is bullying.  This is one strange place ain't it?

There are reasonable explanations for an incomplete context.

No matter what the context, talking about a relative's prescription drug intake in a public medium when you have no idea the specifics of the regimen is tactless (actually, even if you knew the details it is still tactless to speak about such things). And I'd love to hear an argument that says otherwise. And I don't care about what was edited or not for the article. The fact that Mike even uttered words regarding the very topic is rather disconcerting. The statement in it's current form is very insensitive, and as EoL said: Mike allowed the comment to stand and has not publicly renounced the comment? Riiiiiiight.

[SMiLE Brian]

Wow, now I am being insulted over my actual BBs musical tastes. So what if  I am not a big fan of CATP and Holland's songs, they are lacking from BW's touch.


Even ML on a good day would admit BW was the creative force driving the BBs.