The Smiley Smile Message Board

It appears the new Rolling Stone will have an article titled "A Beach Boy looks back in anger"  I have only seen the new cover with Chris Martin of Coldplay and you can see this article listed on the cover.  I have not found any detail or links to the article.   
Has anyone else found any information?  Likely an article about Mike Love's book?

Oh dear....

http://subscribe.com-sub.info/Rolling-Stone/Welcome#covers

Oh! For the love.

The Beach Boys and Black Sabbath articles in Rolling Stone?   

How did the hipsters over there let that happen? 

Here we go again. ::)

Feb 25 issue.

Hipsters practically worship the Beach Boys, and Rolling Stone is about as mainstream as you can get.

Well at least the hipsters are right about the Beach Boys.......and some craft beer. 

 :lol

myKe luHv angry????????????? About what? Hey myKe, guess your good old TM isn't as good as you profess, huh? Well, well, well, just another lie from the luHvster. Tell me, how in the hell can this ungrateful clown be anything but so damn glad he was Brian's first cousin?? Check out your portfolio and bank balance sometime you ingrate.  

Exactly, for a man who has everything (loving family, money, touring unit, and much more) Mike Love is one miserable guy. Old age hasn't mellowed his anger at all.

Lets hypothesis how this article could be positive...

I will start..
RS- Why are you angry?
Mike- I am just angry with myself, I probably should have given Brian more freedom at times, I guess. Look I love TM and I am Mr Positivity, but sometimes I was a real fucking prick to Cousin Bri.

I have a feeling Mike may finally let us know who came up with the lyrics to Good Vibrations and California Girls.
He may even give some insight into the inspiration for Back in The USSR. That will be great to hear, but I still want to hear Bill Jackson's side of the events that led to Do It Again.

This is defo Mike in the feature? Where does it say that?

Not Brian moaning about C50 ending, Al lamenting the loss of his pony tail or Bruce venting about Rendezvous not being a bigger hit?  Maybe Dave's vexed about the ingredients of Cheetos.

Or is the Mike link more than assumption?

I'd guess if it was about Brian, they'd have probably put his name in the cover blurb.

If I had to bet on it, I'd guess probably Mike with maybe a slim chance of it being Al (if this issue was from ten years ago, I'd say it was a stronger possibility of being Al).

If this article is as insightful and has the sort of access that Jason Fine's 2012 reunion article did, it could be a really good article.

I'm curious if it's at all possible that this is a reiteration of the recent "Record Collector" piece on Mike, and/or a repurposing of the Mike interview done for that article.

Good call, I bet that's it - though I'd be surprised if RC has scooped RS!

Rolling Stone... the "music" magazine than when one of the greatest band ever reunited with new album and world tour... opted for Charlie Sheen and his rehab on the cover...

Because it says "A Beach Boy Looks Back..." I would think it is Mike Love because he IS a Beach Boy. Brian Wilson isn't a Beach Boy and neither is Al Jardine. I'd be surprised if Bruce would be the one looking back...

It's the ghosts of Dennis and Carl...they had a séance and they are pissed.. :lol

Rolling Stone doesn't consider itself a music magazine; perhaps others ought not, either. Maybe it did once (though I'd say not exclusively), but its website homepage title text is pretty clear: Rolling Stone - Music, Movies, TV, Politics, Country, and Culture. It could be abbreviated to Rolling Stone: American Mainstream Culture. That's what it has been my entire adult life, anyway.

Sounds like a play off his album, "Looking Back with Love". Mr. Positivity is back in action.

Could it be an article on David Marks?  Angry at himself for quitting the band?

It's Jimmy Nichols....no wait that's the Beatles...

As per usual, SJS stirring the pot for Mike.  But I'm less interested in his transparent motives than I am in the accuracy of his statement.  It has been my understanding that Mike's exclusive use of the Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only and that, legally, Brian is as much a Beach Boy as Mike in every other regard: royalties, recording, etc.  If this is the case then to say Mike is a Beach Boy and Brian is not is factually incorrect.

Can anyone who knows clarify?  Andrew?

EoL

And just to set SJS straight, the article IS about myKe luHv.

It is about Zeppo Wilson.

Mike's book comes out this summer, right? In the words of Maury Sline, 'a gig like that, you gotta prepare the proper exploitation'.

Stir the pot. Makes sense.

I'm pretty sure John is factually wrong, Brian is a Beach Boy, legally, and really in every relevant way, he just isn't a member of the touring band for which Mike has licensed the name for touring purposes.  He was certainly a Beach Boy in 2012, I've got a CD to prove it.  Mike may have booted him from the touring band but he can't boot him from anything else.

Perhaps SJS is confusing the singular and the plural?  Mike Love is *a* Beach Boy but as Dennis Wilson once elucidated, Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys.

EoL

Jezus H Cryste!!!  Really?!?!?  Biting the hand that feeds him again?  Man!!! !!! !!!

Mike!!!  Say it isn't so.  Please.  DON'T present yourself as merely being one notch above a B-Hole.  It's never worked out for you before and it most assuredly won't THIS time either.

Cred Mike.  Cred!!!

Really ?!?!?

Poor  F O O L.
---------------------

I'll gladly return to eat my words and apologise to Mike and his fans if it isn't him in R.S. with more of his same old/same old, stupid, Beach Boy killing, ignorant, woe is me, YOU KNOW I'M THE MAN!!!...bull sh*t he's spewed out like some age old degenerate over these past ever-so-many decades.

WTF?!?!?  Just 'cause the 'Friends' lyric "I talked your folks out of making you cut off you hair." line wasn't about you Mike!!! !!! !!!

Surely "I 'loaned' you money when the funds weren't too cool." sounds like you...receiving...night after night after night.

Good gawd...this is just SO damm far beyond old. ::)

Give it a rest SJS.  This bull sh*t is what?  Your award winning essay from the Mike Love school of dickheadedness?  If so...I'm sure you got an AAA+  Good qawd!!!  Brian D. Wilson isn't a Beach Boy?  Give your dick a shake.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :woot

Brian and Al *are* Beach Boys by the only legal/corporate definition we can use. They simply aren't employed by the separate business entity currently licensing use of the name solely for touring purposes.

This issue is already on newsstands so I read it while at Barnes & Noble. This is an extremely bizarre interview/profile. If reading about Mike breaking down to his wife and pleading to know why some fans think he's a villain floats your boat, then you've hit paydirt. I found it all more disturbing than interesting. I don't know who comes off worse, Mike or the author of the piece.

Is the author Rocky?

And IF SJS is right in his assertion, that Brian and Al are NOT Beach Boys, well then it's obvious whose fault that is. From their LA Times letter, they clearly WANT to be Beach Boys.  And if SJS wants to blame-shift to Brian for voting to allow Mike to have a license after Carl died... well what about Al, whose vote surely wasn't in Mike's pocket? Why, SJS, is Al no longer a Beach Boy then in your eyes? Whose fault is that? It sure isn't Al's!

If this is Mike's article, as everyone including me is assuming... I'm just trying to figure out what Mike's motivation is in continuing to bitch and moan publicly, thus warranting a headline as such.

He clearly feels wronged, cheated by history/opinion in some fashion, misunderstood... wouldn't everyone across the board of BB politics agree that these seem to be the type of emotions that would make someone repeatedly have to complain in the media?

He keeps doing it, so I'm guessing he thinks his tactic is somehow working. Is there a group of a 5 fans who come up to him at shows and tell him "right on, man - you are right" about his verbal repeated griping, thus legitimizing the griping to continue endlessly until some magical Mike's-place-in-history-goal has been attained? Has it *ever* crossed Mike's mind that he fans flames and causes the reverse to occur inadvertently? It is so sad and pathological.

I struggle to convince friends and more casual fans of the band (and I have tried!) about Mike's legitimate contributions to the band, that the guy should be more appreciated for many solid lyrics and vocals which he did, because of things like this. People are less likely to have sympathy for a mega-rich endless complainer, and I am also less incentivized to back him up to casual fans because Mike's attitude keeps rubbing me the wrong way, sometimes enough to nearly mute my legit appreciation for his good work. Ugh. Talk about salt in a wound. Maybe this will be where Mike talks about how incredibly off-base he was portrayed in Love & Mercy and how the 2000 TV movie was more accurate. I can almost predict we'll hear that at some point.
 

Highlights (if you want to call them that)

- Mike asked to see an advance screening of Love & Mercy and was told to go buy a ticket like everyone else.
- Funny story about Mike and Brian riding around in a car in 2010.
- Mike admits he should've been more sensitive about certain things but has anger issues which were alleviated to some degree with TM, but he needs to meditate every day to control those issues (hence the title of the article, I reckon)

If that's true, it's unfortunate and not nice. Undeniably so. But I fail to see how he could exactly be surprised given how Brian was given similar treatment as C50 ended.

If anyone wants to claim the two incidents are unrelated, I'll eat my shorts.

Given Mike's litigious tendencies (to put it mildly), I don't think it was not nice , I think it was necessary and even wise.  However, it is unfortunate that such is necessary.

EoL

Absolutely. No greater level of disrespect could have been showed by Mike to Brian in 2012, and the favor was returned. I'm not a fan or advocate of revenge, but that seems to be it in a nutshell.  Mike's hoping the public have short memories about Brian and Al's letters to the LA Times about feeling like they were fired.  

In Mike's world of what's fair and right, Mike & Bruce continue on in late 2012, Brian and Al feel like they were fired (but of course those feelings are illegitimate and WRONG), their hurt feelings (and the person to which they publicly direct their hurt) go publicly unacknowledged by Mike, a bitter and very ugly ending to the reunion tour ensues... yet Mike expects to get a golden VIP ticket to the premiere screening, Q&A, and afterparty to Brian's film, which examines some very sensitive and emotionally draining periods in Brian's life (some of which involved Mike).

If Mike had been invited, I'm not sure (given his track record of public complaining) how it would have been unreasonable for Brian, Melinda, and the filmmakers to potentially anticipate Mike publicly demanding a mic (if there was a Q&A) and causing a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame type scene.  While I can understand if Mike would have had (or maybe has, if he has actually seen the film but won't admit it) some issues with the film, since I have heard some insiders express some issues with it... I cannot imagine anyone would feel super confident that Mike would contain his feelings, even there in the screening.  Maybe he would have. But reasonable doubt was there.

And while the film inexplicably didn't wind up getting an Oscar noms, a public spat incident like the hypothetical Rock and Roll Hall of Fame type one could also have helped sink the film's chances for awards. Yep, sounds like it would have been a solid, risk-averse idea to invite Mike.

It's sad, but quite understandable. Truthfully... are readers expected to feel sympathetic to Mike? I just feel pity for the emotionally crippled, yet talented man that he is.

I wonder if Brian knew Mike wanted to see an advanced screening.

As of the weekend the film was released to the public, he knew that Mike hadn't seen it.
See the following video (of the movie Q&A in West L.A. from this past June) at around 14:48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBN13zB8L6c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBN13zB8L6c)

I missed this… I thought Mike was quoted as having requested an advance screening, not a "golden VIP ticket to the premiere screening, Q&A, and afterparty"… or maybe you know for a fact that he also demanded free popcorn and five minutes with the usherette of his choice?

If he was offered anything less than the best screening, don't you think he'd mention that too? That'd just be another reason to get offended. I'm half joking, but also half serious! It'd be: "They couldn't spring for The Arclight, they got me tickets to the $2.00 matinee and didn't invite me to the Q&A", or a new M&B song addition of Drive-In: "don't sneak Mike Love in the trunk to watch Love & Mercy through the keyhole down at the drive-in"

I'm fairly certain it would have been a no-win situation, far from risk-averse, for Mike to be invited to even a non-premiere screening, don't you think? I admit it sucks, very much so. These are grown men, after all. I'd love nothing more than to have seen Mike watch the movie, sincerely choke up, and want to hug his cousin.

IMO it's quite obvious the non-invite (in the likely manner in which the non-invite happened) wouldn't have happened had Mike not acted in a way in 2012 that made Brian feel like he was fired.  Do you not think there's a cause/effect thing there? I'm not saying it's right for Mike to have been given that answer, but I'm saying it's perfectly understandable given the disrespect Brian (and Al) received in 2012. It's hard to have much sympathy for Mike over this, unless there's some great secret mystery of the events of 2012 that makes everyone (including Brian and Al) realize just how wrong they were over blaming Mike for the tour's demise.

Of course, the disrespect Brian and Al received in 2012 is a matter of opinion, and Mike probably thinks he was disrespected first with the songwriting, so that made his actions of killing the tour beyond the extended dates ok. And then you dig further, and it all goes back decades to if Brian and Mike are equals, or if Brian deserves to be deferred to more than Mike is willing to defer, which of course we can infer what Mike's answer would be.

Bottom line: If Mike didn't "make things right" both publicly and privately with Brian after Brian publicly stated how hurt he was over Mike's actions (and Mike's LA Times response is not making things right... Brian's feelings have to be acknowledged, not dismissed), I don't know what universe exists where Mike gets an invite to a touchy film like that, and everything is hunky dory. There are some logical steps missing on the road from A to B.

So Mike got some alone time with Brian, in a car no less, and failed to take the opportuniity to write a new classic car song. What a shame!

Interestingly, this at least partly answers two of the questions or points people have had about other recent Mike interviews -- why he hasn't seen Love & Mercy (I can imagine being a little grumpy after being refused an advance screening when he's a character in the film), and why he never admits he's been at fault about things in the past (he says he was, and that he had anger issues, and that TM helps control them).

Could this be an excerpt from the autobio? Does RS do that (ie. reprint book excerpts)?

Yes, quite frequently.

Serious note about Mike.  If he truly has anger issues that make him say dumb things and come across as a villain, than maybe he should mediCATE instead of mediTATE. 

Just to reiterate, this is not an excerpt from Mike's book, but rather a typical Rolling Stone profile piece, and not a flattering one either. Yes, the main focus is the songwriting credits issue. No one (not even the author) comes off particularly well either.

In the interest of fairness, Mike Love should start looking for a talented director/producer who's willing to spend his money and a year or two of his life filming 'Good Vibrations: The Mike Love Story'. In fact, maybe all of the surviving parties should director up.

If there was a risk of a lawsuit, it wouldn't be unusual for an attorney to advise against it for fear of a stay against release.

Is it worth picking up Ghosty or is it trash? Hard to find in the UK these days.

Thanks in advance.

Haven't read the RS article yet. But it may or may not be worth mentioning that there are other "versions" of the L&M screening issue floating around. Of the two I've heard, one sounds pretty identical to the story Mike has related several times, while another version is very different. Interestingly, the very different version of the story ends sort of the way Mike's story goes, but has a completely different and far more plausible context that explains it.

Even separate from the versions of the story I've heard, I will say that the corporate structure and "approval" requirements that I would think would be involved (regarding the soundtrack, for instance) would make a scenario of saying at the outset "Hey Mike, go buy a ticket, we ain't showing it to you" not very plausible.

I will say this: I don't believe Brian's camp or the film's producers "hid" the movie from Mike and didn't want to show it to him for fear of litigation. Not only would they have already vetted the film for that as much as possible, and not only is the film (in my opinion) not inflammatory in the slightest regarding Mike, but such a scenario implies Mike wouldn't be able to see it on his own or get a DVD copy eventually. In other words, if Mike had grounds to sue over something or wanted to sue, it would happen sooner or later anyway.

I can't help but think of the classic Simpsons episode where Homer forbids Bart from seeing the Itchy and Scratchy Movie. 

In one scene, Bart sneaks to the theater to try to see the movie, and the box office has a picture of Bart when a sign that says "Do not sell tickets to this boy." 

It's worth picking up but there's very little that we don't already know. Some good tidbits but sad overall.

Many thanks again.

I think it is regrettable that Mike (or if any other Beach Boy featured in Love & Mercy) wasn't provided an advanced screening or screener. I would assume they were more concerned about Mike seeing it and badmouthing it. As HeyJude mentioned, if there was any fear of litigation, I'm not sure it would have mattered much when he eventually sees it.

If they were concerned with him badmouthing the film, I would question the logic. Critics are going to have more credibility for whether the film was good or worthwhile viewing. If Mike was squealing how inaccurate or unfairly he was portrayed, I would think that is earned media that the film could have used. Plus, I think there would be more than a couple people able to refute his accusations. I also see a scenario where they include all the living Beach Boys at a premiere and get a ton of free publicity off of the coming together for the first time in 2-3 years.

Sadly, I buy in to the fact that Brian and his camp were likely snubbing him. Whether or not it was warranted due to past behavior, I just wish a couple of guys in their twilight years could be a bit more cordial.

Alright guys, let's put together a GoFundMe campaign to buy Mike Love a copy of "Love & Mercy" (DVD or Blu-Ray?).

We will send it to Foskett, ask him to forge a nice note and Brian's signature on the packaging, and he can then hand it to Mike. Mike will think Brian sent an olive branch, he will love the movie, and they can tour the 50th anniversary of Smile and Smiley Smile next year.

"Gettin' Hungry," bitches

If they thought there was a risk of litigation (I don't personally see much to sue over), they would prefer the litigation to occur after the release as a court is more likely to order a stay before release than a recall after release.

I don't believe Mike not seeing the film has anything to do with the producers fearing litigation from Mike or fearing Mike badmouthing the film.

I think, if the full story of the soundtrack approval/non-approval ever gets told, it will also shed some light on this "to screen or not to screen" fiasco.

My gut and various musings I've heard suggest that a "nah, you'll have to just buy yourself a ticket" scenario is not very plausible. It may be the final part of a much longer story.

I agree there's not much to sue over, so I don't think a fear of litigation was probable. It sounds like you've heard something I haven't heard regarding the soundtrack. Is that something you can share?

There was speculation that Mike was holding up the release of the soundtrack.  At least I think that's what HeyJude is referring to.

Ah. I hadn't heard that. Thank you.

 :lol

Now I get it. When Mike stated in that other interview that (I'm paraphrasing here) "they had the projector all cued up, and then they pulled it. They wouldn't let us see it". He must have been referring to a promise to him and Evan Landy to a private screening, just the two of them, and at the last minute it was nixed.

We don't know that he doesn't. It's not an either-or thing. And many mental health professionals will recommend -- either with or instead of medication -- cognitive behavioural therapy for that kind of mental health problem. A lot of the techniques taught in CBT are also taught as part of most schools of meditation, so it may well be that TM has a beneficial effect on any problems he has.
Personally, I don't think how he -- or anyone else -- chooses to deal with any mental health issues he has is anyone's business but his.

I have read the article as well, and every fan should pick up a copy to read it for themselves. It is a pretty long piece that reads well and is interesting in the quotes, the replies, and the information provided to put the quotes into context. But that's of course up to those reading to decide.

Is it worth reading? Absolutely.

To correct GhostyTMRS, it says the car ride was during the reunion tour, not 2010, for the record  :). Plus, the writing credits and the film topics are just a few lines or paragraphs out of many covered on several pages, the piece covers many issues without focusing on any one of them too much.

And Al Jardine gives his responses and comments that are featured in the article too, that hasn't been mentioned yet.

Firstly, if Mike is going ahead and actually admitting he has anger issues, I applaud him for being honest about it. I haven't read the article yet, but fessing up to it sounds like something commendable to me. It's quite uncommon in a public interview for Mike to say anything negative about just his own personality (and nobody else's) - not sure I can even recall one other example (on the level of mentioning "anger issues") in 50+ years of interviews.

Secondly, how Mike chooses to deal with any mental health issues he has is, of course, his own business. However, considering the unique history of this band, in which multiple band members have experienced deep emotional issues... with Mike himself far and away being the most publicly vocal about *other* peoples' issues... it seems that by repeatedly, endlessly bringing up Brian's and Dennis' issues (neither of whose problems were only, completely, and unequivocally *just* related to substances - there was an abusive guy named Murry who greatly contributed), Mike himself thus puts Mike's own issues (and the destructive ways that his own issues outwardly manifest) up for scrutiny and examination. What's fair is fair, right?  

Anger issues often manifest in ways that hurt *other* people, so it's not just about himself anymore, it becomes about how other people around him additionally have probably also inadvertently been hurt.  And when you factor in that the other people themselves were overly sensitive due to abuse, well it was a recipe for disaster that has unfortunately been whitewashed for way too long. If (and that's a big "if") Mike is beginning to come to terms with it publicly, this could only be a good thing in the interest of healing.

Thirdly, if people are concerned for Mike's well-being, in that he may be slowly be committing career suicide in interviews... well I'd say that's a good thing for people to be concerned and to want him to help himself not further dig any holes. Much in the way that fans were deeply concerned about Brian's well-being in the early 90s from the public glimpses they saw, so are a number of fans concerned about Mike these days. While mouthing off in countless interviews isn't anywhere near the same as overmedicating to the point that Brian was, it's still very harmful.

This really is sad. I don't dislike Mike , but what is he really angry about: That he was the front man for one of the great groups of all time? That he had an extremely talented cousin who gave him a career? That he traveled the world and that an average looking, prematurely balding man had access to beautiful women? That he won millions in a lawsuit and owns beautiful houses?That he has had great health for 73 plus years?  That he's won awards over the years? Mr. Positivity indeed.

This is exactly what 90%+ of readers are going to say who read the article, and 90% of the comments will doubtlessly reflect.

Plus: being publicly sour and angry in interviews all the time (about the same old tired people and things) is also pretty much the worst advertisement Mike could make for TM. Is someone supposed to go "I want to mediate so I too can endlessly hold onto issues and be as bitter as that guy, despite all the money and amazing life that he has!"

Mike has on numerous occasions, most recently just a couple months ago in the aftermath of the holiday season, posted huge photo albums of Facebook showing the amazing, warm, privileged life he leads.

We all have stuff that bugs us, and we all have stuff from the past that we have issues with. Being wealthy and having good fortune doesn't mean you're not allowed to be disgruntled about anything ever.

But it does seem to be, both by outside observance and by his own indications based on sharing his life on Facebook, hard to empathize to a great extent with his feeling so disenfranchised.

He has secured the license to tour under the BB name (arguably at least on a few occasions to the exclusion of other original group members), travels the world to adulation and well-attended shows, collects awards, has nobody to answer to in his touring operation, has dinners with Bill O'Reilly, and so on.

And some of his go-to complaints, namely the songwriting lawsuit and inner-band drug usage, are literally *dead* issues. Mike won the lawsuit, and the guys left alive are guys that Mike doesn't have to work with and who aren't doing drugs anymore anyway.

Hoping to read the article soon.

Maybe I've missed it - if so, apologies for my obtuseness - but who wrote the article ?

It's absolutely pathetic that these men are still publicly squabbling at this point.

I'm embarrassed for all involved.

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/ee6c35e1b93f4c378adee62e0852accd.jpg)

 :lol :lol

Yes!!! :lol :lol

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/7a3199dd3ca94d02b9d8aafcc5dabc17.jpg)


(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/ec4c4e2eea28435796b58fa4f8dddf8c.jpg)

Even better!!!! :lol

Something I've noticed for some time now are Mike's long, varnished fingernails. Now back in the '70's and '80's Brian had long fingernails but that was because he was unkept and hygienically challenged . This is obviously a fashion choice on the part of Mike, and I don't get it. This is the opposite of the Seinfeld "man-hands" . These are "lady hands" man. An almost 75 year-old man with all those rings and the fingernails...

Ummm... Brian still has long fingernails.

The ticket situation was probably something like this,,Mike walks up to buy a ticket for the pre screening to find a young punk working at the window, he says "I am MIke Love and I expect to get in for free!" the teenage punk responds "Yeah Right and I'm Brian Wilson! Now go to the end of the line just like the rest of us!!!!" lol

Well....from another angle.....folks the "Wilson" genes aren't the ones to be used for the next gene replacement surgery.  First lets focus on the Love's that we are aware of from BB's history.  Stan, Steve and Mike-----enough issues to fill up blogs until the next reunion in 2112.  Lets assume their mother (a Wilson) had no affairs and her husband fathered the 3 Love's mentioned above.  Geez, enough stuff over the last 40 to 50 years with these 3 alone that makes us all just scratch our heads.  Then we have Dennis, Brian and Carl.  Again making the same assumptions with Audrey/Murry as we did with Mike's parents.......again enough issues with these 3 to need a doctor to treat our scalp wounds from all the head scratching.  So what do we know about the next generation back ??  Mike's mom and Murry's parents.....any of them with issues ??   Back then in the 30's/40's   people were just put in the asylum....sadly

Mental health treatment of the tough diagnosis' (as we know with Brian) was basically non-existent in the 60's/70's/and 80's.  Yes all very sad.  But when you through in Money, Entitlement, Drugs,  Enablement, etc etc along with mental health issues......it all creates very bizarre behavior that gets lumped in as "mental illness".  Yes, I feel Mike is very passive/aggressive and I have felt this way for a long time listening and reading to all his interviews.  Good for him to acknowledge this in public.  In fact I applaud him !!  For all we know, this may be from the advice of a therapist......and NONE of our business.

I will read the article tomorrow on the plane from Seattle to SanFran and make my own judgement.  But I have to say, some of the things I've read that you Smiley Smilers have typed on the 4 pages of this blog....to me....is also very sad      Making value judgements about Mike with no mental heath experience is just stunningly morbid....and I'm a Brianista

"Tainted by the Wilson blood"

Oops. my bad. Yes, 2012/reunion era.


I found this article more depressing and disturbing than anything else. I will never understand this kind of TMZ-style fascination with the guys' personal lives that so many fans and writers find enthralling. On the whole, I'd rather not know these things. For example, I'd rather not have read about the "play-acting" session at the end of the interview. That just seemed embarrassing to all involved. While it was revealing to learn that Mike feels that he needs to meditate every day because it would be bad for him and "other people" around him not to, that's still a little unnerving to read.  


I can understand Mike being bitter about certain things, like being bitter about Dennis sleeping with his wife (something else I wish I didn't know). Heck, I've ended friendships over far far less than that, and I can totally understand being upset about the lost songwriting credits. That was a major F-up, outright thievery, etc and he should've been upset and he was right to get that straightened out...


....but, I sincerely hope that the crux of Mike's book isn't about getting screwed over for those credits. His name is all over those songs now. Maybe they weren't originally, but it's not like people are walking into record stores in 2016 and grabbing 1964 pressings of singles and albums and not seeing Mike's name. Everyone, even younger fans, seems to know that Mike wrote the lyrics to those songs. It's a compelling story, of course, but the court case was won. The credits have been amended. The chances of someone getting a copy of California Girls and not seeing Mike's name are slim to none. Maybe Mike runs into his peers and they don't know who did what, but certainly the next generation has it figured out and that really should be all that matters. The history books will list him as Brian's main collaborator. This isn't 1979. He need not agonize over it.

 :woot  :tm :tm :woot   More please.

..and slightly off-topic but not...this article (and nearly every article about Brian or Mike) illustrates why ESQ is so necessary. The focus there is on the music. I could read comments from the guys about working in the studio, touring, career stuff, etc. all damn day. Very little of that kind of thing out there in the press. I hope we get a lot of that in both Brian and Mike's books.   

I wonder if that's what it's all about. People like Dylan (in Rocky's story in the Rocky thread) having no respect for Mike, etc... that's just gotta suck, and maybe Mike thinks that making his trials and tribulations publicly known for the umpteenth time will make people re-evaluate him. I can understand the desire, but this in-print complain-repeat-complain-repeat method makes little sense. The other problem, is that NOBODY but nobody gets respect by asking for it. It has to come naturally. The vast majority of people scoff at others, most especially highly successful people, who repeatedly publicly ask for respect, even if indirectly.

2012 simply needed to not have happened like it did on Mike's part. There's just no way to sweep that under the rug,and the only way to dig out from under that hole is not to complain about the L&M non-invite... but to talk more about his OWN regrettable actions over the years from a sincere place in his heart, including regretting hurting Brian and Al's feelings. Frankly that's the only subject that I think will make any perceptible amount of people take notice and re-evaluate Mike for the better.

I, as most everyone in attendance, was touched when I saw him choke up in person talking about family struggles at the California Saga Grammy museum event. It's time to publicly continue in that vein, to selflessly own up to the issues people have with him, not give excuses... as that would undoubtedly make at least some people think more highly of him (isn't the surely his desired outcome?)  If he was sincere about it, it would not have a negative effect the way the words of endless complaining by a rich man with an amazing lifestyle continues to do. Maybe his book will get into some of this stuff, it's got to be buried in his heart somewhere.  I think Mike has a good person lurking within that's aching to get out, but too many yes-men have enabled the egotism.

I cannot for a moment truly believe the only thing he regrets is his cousins' drug use.

Great post CD........

Ummm.... not to belabor the point but in Brian's case I think it's just laziness or preoccupation. In Mike's case it appears to be a personal fashion choice and ,in my opinion, odd.

Up now officially on RS site.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/the-ballad-of-mike-love-20160217

Why?

I mean, I don't think there's anything unnerving about, for example, someone who had stress and anger management issues who felt they had to pray every day.   They know they have a problem and they've found something that works for them.   It's really the same thing.  I mean, if someone's acknowledged a personal issue and they've got something that works to help them be better, the last thing to be unnerved about is that they feel the need to stay committed to that path.

I don't have a problem with the rest of your post, but I found this comment really puzzling.

I don't know if it's what the previous poster found "unnerving", and I don't know if I'd use that word, but I think one of the takeaways from the article is the irony that he still seems to harbor anger and resentment even *after* doing the supposedly soothing meditation.

I'm surprised the interviewer had the balls to actually point this out to Mike, that the guy who has been espousing the benefits of meditation for nearly half a century doesn't seem all that calm when it comes to a series of his own hot-button topics.

Mike says he gets something out of what he does, so that's all good. But I don't think it's crazy for an observer to scratch their head a bit when they hear a dissertation on the calming benefits of meditation, then see Mike foaming at the mouth about being CHEATED! regarding an issue for which he *won* a lawsuit over 20 years ago.

It's even more perplexing considering Mike has subsequently worked with Brian again well after he (Mike) won the lawsuit. Yet, when they're estranged, the topic comes up *again*.

If you goto the RS article on their site now, they deleted the line about shawn that was originally in it and was in the magazine
"although the early, horndog vagaries of his life may have resulted in at least one more."

wonder if mike threatened legal action? hah

Jesus Mike... :-\

I will say one good thing about Mike: after going through a seemingly endless succession of marriages, he seems to have found the right one this time around. She seems like a real nice lady.