Why do you hate Mike Love?

[guitarfool2002]

Are you saying there were two threads with the same title?  This is the one I'm referring to. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=20337.0

And again, your fellow moderator agreed with him, so I guess Billy has an agenda against Brian as well?

Let us know when you've had your say. This is foolish.

Here is the thread with dozens of reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20283.0.html

Here is the one that got posted soon afterward where the original poster of this one was wondering why there were so many bad reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.0.html

The one with the dozens of reviews: How did that work out? Time well-spent, or a ridiculous waste of time? A genuine attempt to share with board members, or something less positive by design? What were the reactions? If majority ruled, that thread would have gotten shitcanned before there was a page 2. And the original poster who is no longer on the board...no agenda? Then what were those posting reactions to it saying, were they all just totally wrong? It's in the post history, apparently the same set of facts can be read two different ways. My thoughts are all over that thread, both of them actually.

I LOVE the last post in the second one. A great quote. Notice no one commented since June...not a bit surprised.

So there it is. How much more needs to be done, said, or argued?

Bottom line: You were wrong. You wanted to argue about something which you didn't know enough about to argue. Take away whatever you want from that, but at this point is it enough? Had your say? I hope so.

And this you keep posting about my "fellow mod", I guess you mean Billy, agreeing with something, what exactly are you referring to? In either of those threads? What, exactly? Must be important enough to keep mentioning it. have a point there or is it just to argue even more?

This is the kind of fun the board has, right? Great stuff.

I'll need a bigger scraper after wading through this.

[guitarfool2002]

He is. He's also a radio personality on the BBC and a contributor to Record Collector magazine. Very active in the Monkees fan community and a swell guy. I doubt he was prepared for the den of vipers he accidentally kicked up here (although this thread is certainly packed with good quotes to use in his article). 

That's the thing, and thank you for posting this and reminding everyone. I knew this, I know who Iain Lee is, and that's why all the attempts to paint this as some sort of trolling from a low-post new member were absurd, besides in some cases being hypocritical as I outlined in my reply to Andrew on the previous page. You have a published author with a known resume and background in music history and collecting posting here, and again I guess I need to be reminded why exactly he wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt and instead be questioned or even challenged as coming here to troll and start trouble instead of - just possibly - wanting to research or investigate or whatever the case.

All of the low-post count people, the new members who start posing crap right away and never come back...I got blasted for calling one out, but when someone whose name actually appears in music publications not to mention various other media outlets starts this thread, it's OK to question? Ha! I say. Ha!. Double standards, yeah right. Guess that only applies selectively. When it fits.

Again, fun stuff all around. Keep it light.

And Ghosty, thanks again for reminding readers of the facts as far as the authorship and the author of this thread.

[drbeachboy]

He is. He's also a radio personality on the BBC and a contributor to Record Collector magazine. Very active in the Monkees fan community and a swell guy. I doubt he was prepared for the den of vipers he accidentally kicked up here (although this thread is certainly packed with good quotes to use in his article). 

That's the thing, and thank you for posting this and reminding everyone. I knew this, I know who Iain Lee is, and that's why all the attempts to paint this as some sort of trolling from a low-post new member were absurd, besides in some cases being hypocritical as I outlined in my reply to Andrew on the previous page. You have a published author with a known resume and background in music history and collecting posting here, and again I guess I need to be reminded why exactly he wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt and instead be questioned or even challenged as coming here to troll and start trouble instead of - just possibly - wanting to research or investigate or whatever the case.

All of the low-post count people, the new members who start posing crap right away and never come back...I got blasted for calling one out, but when someone whose name actually appears in music publications not to mention various other media outlets starts this thread, it's OK to question? Ha! I say. Ha!. Double standards, yeah right. Guess that only applies selectively. When it fits.

Again, fun stuff all around. Keep it light.

And Ghosty, thanks again for reminding readers of the facts as far as the authorship and the author of this thread.

So, what does it prove? That a bunch of assholes fight in a forum about how much they love & hate  Mike Love. What a few dozen people? What the fu*k does that prove about anything? It looks worse about the forum and its members than about Mike Love. Mr. Lee may be taking a poke at us instead.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I second that - life's too short for this sh*t. Toodle loo!

15 pages too late.

You guys knew very well where this thread was going to go.  It should have been locked up after the first post. 

Armchair quarterbacking? It's an open forum and will be kept that way. Should the "Negative Reviews Of NPP" thread have been deleted too when it first appeared? Funny that there are and were some legitimate discussions and some historical info put out in this topic that it seems wasn't widely known, on the years 88-97. Some wanted to throw dirt instead. If the issue was with the author's original post, call him out on it.

No armchair quarterbacking, I made the third post in this thread.  Threads made to call out specific members of the band are useless and idiotic.  Yeah there was some good info in this thread, maybe a couple pages worth?  Someone could have made a separate thread like you did with that lawsuit Mike had. 

As mentioned, some would say devoting a thread to reposting negative reviews the weeks after a new album got released and including such journalistic powerhouses as a student newspaper from Australia among them was useless and idiotic as well, should that have been stopped before it got started as well? Maybe so.

No, because that is about the material, not the person.  If Ian wanted to come back and create a thread titled "Why do you hate SIP" I'd be have no problem with it.

Oh, so there is a difference? Do you really think the purpose of dredging up negative reviews and reposting them here was about the material more than it was about the person who made the album?

As far as Ian's original intent, let's take it further and see if he gets the benefit of the doubt. What if there was a music writer who was researching an article about The Beatles and wanted to know why fans hate Yoko Ono? Or why KISS fans hate Gene Simmons? How would that writer go about addressing it to a community of fans who would most likely be the best sources of information, if the purpose was to actually find out why from the fans themselves?

There was a story about a fan of Slash who went to one of Axl Rose's GnR shows wearing a Slash t-shirt, Axl spotted him and went berzerk on the guy. Again, benefit of the doubt, what if a writer doing an article wanted to find out where that hostility came from, or why some fans either hate Slash or Axl, who better to ask than the fans if you want to hear opinions?

That thread was created three days after the album came out, but nice try.  Billy even agreed with the OP.  There were a lot of no name sites that gave it good reviews, too. 

There's plenty of stuff out there that he can use for research to see why people might hate Mike.  There's plenty of objectionable things he's done that have received bad press.  You don't ask a forum, especially one where people claim there's an agenda almost anytime something negative is said about Brian. 

 

So you think the negative reviews thread had nothing to do with the man whose album was released and everything to do with...what exactly? Sharing information? Sure. Ask the guy who started that one.

Why does it have to be about Brian?  Why couldn't he just be concerned that it was getting bad reviews?  Again, your fellow moderator even agreed with him.  That OP's posting history shows there is no agenda at all. 

That's hilarious.

Is it?  Or do you mean for me because you keep digging yourself a bigger hole. Show me his posts that show he has a history of an agenda against Brian.  Feel free to pm it to me instead.  But nice job of deflecting from my original point to make it about someone you think has an agenda against Brian. 

Your original point was addressed, I'll say again this is an open forum, if you don't like something just challenge it or ignore it and it will fade away eventually. If you have an issue with the topic, ask the original writer what he's trying to get at with the post.

The other topic: Ask him why he quit if you're a pal. Simple as that. Then ask what happened afterward.

Are you saying there were two threads with the same title?  This is the one I'm referring to. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=20337.0

And again, your fellow moderator agreed with him, so I guess Billy has an agenda against Brian as well?

Whoa...did you seriously say *I* have an agenda against Brian?! That may be the stupidest thing ever posted in the history of this forum, and that is saying a lot.

I personally don't get it. Brian's been more hands on involved than in many many years.  Best singing in over 40 years,  easily.

That was my post. So me saying that he sang better on the disc than he has in 40 years, and how involved we was was AGAINST Brian? Really? Do you even know who in the hell I am?!

For sh*t's sake, man, please tell me I read that wrong.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Are you saying there were two threads with the same title?  This is the one I'm referring to. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=20337.0

And again, your fellow moderator agreed with him, so I guess Billy has an agenda against Brian as well?

Let us know when you've had your say. This is foolish.

Here is the thread with dozens of reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20283.0.html

Here is the one that got posted soon afterward where the original poster of this one was wondering why there were so many bad reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.0.html

The one with the dozens of reviews: How did that work out? Time well-spent, or a ridiculous waste of time? A genuine attempt to share with board members, or something less positive by design? What were the reactions? If majority ruled, that thread would have gotten shitcanned before there was a page 2. And the original poster who is no longer on the board...no agenda? Then what were those posting reactions to it saying, were they all just totally wrong? It's in the post history, apparently the same set of facts can be read two different ways. My thoughts are all over that thread, both of them actually.

I LOVE the last post in the second one. A great quote. Notice no one commented since June...not a bit surprised.

So there it is. How much more needs to be done, said, or argued?

Bottom line: You were wrong. You wanted to argue about something which you didn't know enough about to argue. Take away whatever you want from that, but at this point is it enough? Had your say? I hope so.

And this you keep posting about my "fellow mod", I guess you mean Billy, agreeing with something, what exactly are you referring to? In either of those threads? What, exactly? Must be important enough to keep mentioning it. have a point there or is it just to argue even more?

This is the kind of fun the board has, right? Great stuff.

I'll need a bigger scraper after wading through this.

Am I done?  You're the one that went on a rant about a completely different topic to make me seem hypocritical.  You say I'm wrong, but you were wrong about me armchair quarterbacking this thread, wrong about why I think this thread should be locked, wrong about when that first thread was created and unclear about which NPP thread you were talking about.  Maybe you should sit back and relax a little before you try to intimidate people with your long essays on why you are "right".  

Yes, I'm talking about Billy as that's who I said I was talking about.  Just look at his first post in that second thread.  

A bigger scraper, indeed.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I second that - life's too short for this sh*t. Toodle loo!

15 pages too late.

You guys knew very well where this thread was going to go.  It should have been locked up after the first post. 

Armchair quarterbacking? It's an open forum and will be kept that way. Should the "Negative Reviews Of NPP" thread have been deleted too when it first appeared? Funny that there are and were some legitimate discussions and some historical info put out in this topic that it seems wasn't widely known, on the years 88-97. Some wanted to throw dirt instead. If the issue was with the author's original post, call him out on it.

No armchair quarterbacking, I made the third post in this thread.  Threads made to call out specific members of the band are useless and idiotic.  Yeah there was some good info in this thread, maybe a couple pages worth?  Someone could have made a separate thread like you did with that lawsuit Mike had. 

As mentioned, some would say devoting a thread to reposting negative reviews the weeks after a new album got released and including such journalistic powerhouses as a student newspaper from Australia among them was useless and idiotic as well, should that have been stopped before it got started as well? Maybe so.

No, because that is about the material, not the person.  If Ian wanted to come back and create a thread titled "Why do you hate SIP" I'd be have no problem with it.

Oh, so there is a difference? Do you really think the purpose of dredging up negative reviews and reposting them here was about the material more than it was about the person who made the album?

As far as Ian's original intent, let's take it further and see if he gets the benefit of the doubt. What if there was a music writer who was researching an article about The Beatles and wanted to know why fans hate Yoko Ono? Or why KISS fans hate Gene Simmons? How would that writer go about addressing it to a community of fans who would most likely be the best sources of information, if the purpose was to actually find out why from the fans themselves?

There was a story about a fan of Slash who went to one of Axl Rose's GnR shows wearing a Slash t-shirt, Axl spotted him and went berzerk on the guy. Again, benefit of the doubt, what if a writer doing an article wanted to find out where that hostility came from, or why some fans either hate Slash or Axl, who better to ask than the fans if you want to hear opinions?

That thread was created three days after the album came out, but nice try.  Billy even agreed with the OP.  There were a lot of no name sites that gave it good reviews, too. 

There's plenty of stuff out there that he can use for research to see why people might hate Mike.  There's plenty of objectionable things he's done that have received bad press.  You don't ask a forum, especially one where people claim there's an agenda almost anytime something negative is said about Brian. 

 

So you think the negative reviews thread had nothing to do with the man whose album was released and everything to do with...what exactly? Sharing information? Sure. Ask the guy who started that one.

Why does it have to be about Brian?  Why couldn't he just be concerned that it was getting bad reviews?  Again, your fellow moderator even agreed with him.  That OP's posting history shows there is no agenda at all. 

That's hilarious.

Is it?  Or do you mean for me because you keep digging yourself a bigger hole. Show me his posts that show he has a history of an agenda against Brian.  Feel free to pm it to me instead.  But nice job of deflecting from my original point to make it about someone you think has an agenda against Brian. 

Your original point was addressed, I'll say again this is an open forum, if you don't like something just challenge it or ignore it and it will fade away eventually. If you have an issue with the topic, ask the original writer what he's trying to get at with the post.

The other topic: Ask him why he quit if you're a pal. Simple as that. Then ask what happened afterward.

Are you saying there were two threads with the same title?  This is the one I'm referring to. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=20337.0

And again, your fellow moderator agreed with him, so I guess Billy has an agenda against Brian as well?

Whoa...did you seriously say *I* have an agenda against Brian?! That may be the stupidest thing ever posted in the history of this forum, and that is saying a lot.

I personally don't get it. Brian's been more hands on involved than in many many years.  Best singing in over 40 years,  easily.

That was my post. So me saying that he sang better on the disc than he has in 40 years, and how involved we was was AGAINST Brian? Really? Do you even know who in the hell I am?!

For sh*t's sake, man, please tell me I read that wrong.

Yeah, you read it wrong...       

In that thread you were essentially agreeing that there were more bad/mixed reviews than expected.  Craig is claiming that Nicko's thread was started with some sort of agenda (even though I wasn't talking about that thread, but whatever).  So I was asking him since he thought Nicko had an agenda, surely you must have an agenda, too.  In short, I don't think you have an agenda against Brian.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Ok, that makes more sense. My take was I didn't understand why there were as many negative reviews as I saw.  I still feel it's not only the best BW solo disc, but my favorite  BB related release since Holland

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Ok, that makes more sense. My take was I didn't understand why there were as many negative reviews as I saw.  I still feel it's not only the best BW solo disc, but my favorite  BB related release since Holland

Yeah, I agree, except I'd have to go back to Sunflower.  Hopefully that wasn't his last album of new material.

[guitarfool2002]

Am I done?  You're the one that went on a rant about a completely different topic to make me seem hypocritical.  You say I'm wrong, but you were wrong about me armchair quarterbacking this thread, wrong about why I think this thread should be locked, wrong about when that first thread was created and unclear about which NPP thread you were talking about.  Maybe you should sit back and relax a little before you try to intimidate people with your long essays on why you are "right".  

Yes, I'm talking about Billy as that's who I said I was talking about.  Just look at his first post in that second thread.  

A bigger scraper, indeed.

Not tolerating that.

[Mike's Beard]

Face it, you got your wires crossed. I thought he was talking about Nicko1234's thread too.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

So I was asking him since he thought Nicko had an agenda, surely you must have an agenda, too

I still don't see what was wrong with my post. That part makes absolutely no sense to me.

[guitarfool2002]

So I was asking him since he thought Nicko had an agenda, surely you must have an agenda, too

I still don't see what was wrong with my post. That part makes absolutely no sense to me.

Same here.

The Cincinnati Kid is getting a 7-day timeout from posting here. No need for this at all.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Point ons. A known and published author who starts a thread with such a title , instead of, say, "Do you feel Mike Love's reputation is justified", is not asking for impartial comments but rather setting the agenda (which, having read the very poorly-written J&D blog, became entirely understandable), the outcome of which was utterly predictable. Or simply trolling.

Point two. This thread should have been locked 35-odd pages ago. It serves no purpose other than to antagonise and cause divisions, something it's doing superbly. Manna from heaven to the usual suspects. I've been talking to those who either don't post here very much, or at all any more, and one word that keeps cropping up is "toxic".

[Mike's Beard]

Point ons. A known and published author who starts a thread with such a title , instead of, say, "Do you feel Mike Love's reputation is justified"

The results would have been exactly the same.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Question:    Who is your favourite Beach Boy
Brian Wilson    - 92 (62.6%)
Carl Wilson      - 18 (12.2%)
Dennis Wilson  - 19 (12.9%)
Al Jardine        - 10 (6.8%)
Mike Love         - 5 (3.4%)
Bruce Johnston - 3 (2%)
Other                - 0 (0%)
   
Total Voters: 143

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,3637.100.html

Hate is strong word but not well liked, yeah.

[Smilin Ed H]

Point ons. A known and published author who starts a thread with such a title , instead of, say, "Do you feel Mike Love's reputation is justified", is not asking for impartial comments but rather setting the agenda (which, having read the very poorly-written J&D blog, became entirely understandable), the outcome of which was utterly predictable. Or simply trolling.

Point two. This thread should have been locked 35-odd pages ago. It serves no purpose other than to antagonise and cause divisions, something it's doing superbly. Manna from heaven to the usual suspects. I've been talking to those who either don't post here very much, or at all any more, and one word that keeps cropping up is "toxic".

+1 and a big thumbs up, as they say on Hoffman...

[Cam Mott]

So I was asking him since he thought Nicko had an agenda, surely you must have an agenda, too

I still don't see what was wrong with my post. That part makes absolutely no sense to me.

Where did he say anything was wrong with it, I must have missed it? His next sentence was "In short, I don't think you have an agenda against Brian", so he wasn't saying he thought you had an agenda.

I believe his point was to illustrate that Nicko's thread was a straw man argument that had been brought to his point about ForHerCryingSoul's thread.

Anyway, the kid was calm and polite and stuck to the point. Why was he put in time out? 

[clack]

This thread did, accidentally, veer onto an interesting tangent about 15 pages ago : whether or not there was an alternative to Mike assuming the leadership role post-Kokomo. That tangent was soon drowned out by the usual noise.

I'd open a new thread on that topic, but maybe not quite yet. Can there ever be a calm, dispassionate discussion on Mike's evolving role in the band?

[Empire Of Love]

Point ons. A known and published author who starts a thread with such a title , instead of, say, "Do you feel Mike Love's reputation is justified"

The results would have been exactly the same.

I completely agree.  A different thread title might have given people more reason to think the author was being sincere, but the end result would have been the same.  Assuming the author is an outsider to this board, it is possible he had no idea the sh!t storm that would ensue.  I'm sure he knew it would be lively, but be probably wouldn't know there are two factions who really go at each other on this topic.  If a long time member started this thread with the current title I would be more likely to think he was trolling.

EoL

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

This thread did, accidentally, veer onto an interesting tangent about 15 pages ago : whether or not there was an alternative to Mike assuming the leadership role post-Kokomo. That tangent was soon drowned out by the usual noise.

I'd open a new thread on that topic, but maybe not quite yet. Can there ever be a calm, dispassionate discussion on Mike's evolving role in the band?

I'd like to know more about that, and why Carl gave up artistically. As far as I can tell it was by default tho. No one else wanted to take over after Brian was gone and Dennis died. I really do believe what another poster was saying about how if Dennis lived, Mike would have been more restrained. Dennis seemed to be the one most determined to keep him in check. And had Dennis kept up the songwriting, it's possible Carl would be more motivated to keep being artistic. The more I think about it, you could say the band more or less died with him.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

So I was asking him since he thought Nicko had an agenda, surely you must have an agenda, too

I still don't see what was wrong with my post. That part makes absolutely no sense to me.

Where did he say anything was wrong with it, I must have missed it? His next sentence was "In short, I don't think you have an agenda against Brian", so he wasn't saying he thought you had an agenda.

I believe his point was to illustrate that Nicko's thread was a straw man argument that had been brought to his point about ForHerCryingSoul's thread.

Anyway, the kid was calm and polite and stuck to the point. Why was he put in time out? 

Read his previous post, the one I responded to. He backtracked like hell once I called him out on it; I was okay with it until I went back and read the previous stuff. In any case, it's 7 days, and is the final discussion on that matter.

I'd like to know more about that, and why Carl gave up artistically. As far as I can tell it was by default tho. No one else wanted to take over after Brian was gone and Dennis died. I really do believe what another poster was saying about how if Dennis lived, Mike would have been more restrained. Dennis seemed to be the one most determined to keep him in check. And had Dennis kept up the songwriting, it's possible Carl would be more motivated to keep being artistic. The more I think about it, you could say the band more or less died with him.

I've long held that Carl was the weakest songwriter in the band (which says more about the talents of the other band members rather than any true 'weakness'). He was best in a complimentary songwriting role, but was never prolific enough to be relied upon.  I do think by the time he recovered from his addictions in the late 70s, his (writing) spark was gone forever.  IMHO with very few exceptions, his post-Holland writing was boring and putrid.

[Smilin Ed H]

I think he was exceptional on Surf's Up and Holland. I guess we'll never know how much he contributed to songs where he's listed as co-writer, but I think when the group fizzled after Holland, his songwriting went in the opposite direction to Dennis' - either fairly turgid ballads or (especially later) AOR stuff, that could , frankly. be by anybody were it not for his fantastic vocals. Having said that, I do love Angel Come Home.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

I think he was exceptional on Surf's Up and Holland. I guess we'll never know how much he contributed to songs where he's listed as co-writer, but I think when the group fizzled after Holland, his songwriting went in the opposite direction to Dennis' - either fairly turgid ballads or (especially later) AOR stuff, that could , frankly. be by anybody were it not for his fantastic vocals. Having said that, I do love Angel Come Home.

I was really excited to hear Surfs Up because of all the hype about Carl's contributions to it. I know it's blasphemy but absolutely nothing on it stood out to me as brilliant or particularly memorable (except SDT for the wrong reasons, and the title track which oddly made it sound even more out of place). So to me...if that was his peak as a songwriter, I must say he inherited none of Brian or Dennis' talents in that regard. Nothing against the man personally, and he more than made up for it in terms of singing and his more grounded personality/mentality.

I love Holland, but no one track really stood out to me there either.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I like his work on those albums (hell, 'Trader' is one of my top 10 favorite BB songs ever), but it was very much in the vein of the norm of the time. Which is a good thing as far as quality goes, of course, but unlike Dennis and (especially) Brian,  there was nothing groundbreaking or innovative.

[Moon Dawg]

This thread did, accidentally, veer onto an interesting tangent about 15 pages ago : whether or not there was an alternative to Mike assuming the leadership role post-Kokomo. That tangent was soon drowned out by the usual noise.

I'd open a new thread on that topic, but maybe not quite yet. Can there ever be a calm, dispassionate discussion on Mike's evolving role in the band?

I'd like to know more about that, and why Carl gave up artistically. As far as I can tell it was by default tho. No one else wanted to take over after Brian was gone and Dennis died. I really do believe what another poster was saying about how if Dennis lived, Mike would have been more restrained. Dennis seemed to be the one most determined to keep him in check. And had Dennis kept up the songwriting, it's possible Carl would be more motivated to keep being artistic. The more I think about it, you could say the band more or less died with him.

 Indeed. We had a good thread going for awhile. The whole thing with Al in the 90s - it merits further discussion and research.