The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://observer.com/2016/06/for-the-love-of-mike-love-its-time-to-destroy-the-legend-of-brian-wilson/

For the Love of Mike Love: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’
By Tim Sommer • 06/03/16 11:35am

Due to mental instability exacerbated by drug use, their distinctive primary vocalist and songwriter, a tousle-headed, coal-eyed satyr of shattering talent named Syd Barrett, had fallen into a state of high dysfunction. Despite the fact that Pink Floyd featured four other extraordinary musicians, three of whom were markedly capable of composing, singing and helping conceptualize a worthy career direction, Pink Floyd refused to step out of their leader’s long and dysfunctional shadow.

Due to pressure from their label, their management, the media, their fans and their families, they held on to the hope that their front man would return (and promoted the myth that he was operational), and that he would again achieve the remarkable heights he had reached on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

But their leader was no longer capable of coherent functioning, much less creating another masterpiece, and each of Pink Floyd’s talented members were forced to live with the specter of a faded and absent genius hovering over them.

OH, WAIT. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Floyd let go of Syd Barrett and his substantial ghost, they reassembled around their extraordinary core and they went on to make some of history’s most lasting music.

In 1967, the Beach Boys made a peculiar decision.

Due to mental instability exacerbated by drug use, their distinctive primary songwriter and visionary, a floppy-haired bright-eyed man-panda of shattering talent, had fallen into a state of high dysfunction. Despite the fact that the Beach Boys featured five other extraordinary musicians (Carl Wilson, Bruce Johnston, Mike Love, Al Jardine, and Dennis Wilson), each of whom had shown they were markedly capable of composing, singing and helping conceptualize a worthy career direction, the Beach Boys refused to step out of their leader’s dysfunctional shadow.

Due to pressure from their label, their management, the media, their fans and their families, they held on to the hope that their front person would return (and promoted the myth that he was operational), and that he would again achieve the remarkable heights he had reached on Pet Sounds. But their leader was no longer capable of coherent functioning, much less creating another masterpiece, and the Beach Boys and each of their talented members were forced to live with the specter of a faded and absent genius hovering over them.

America's top pop group the Beach Boys, from left to right; Carl Wilson (1946 - 1998), Bruce Johnston, Mike Love, Al Jardine and Dennis Wilson (1944 - 1983), at a reception held for them at EMI House in London. Their latest single, 'Good Vibrations', which took six months to produce, is topping the charts. The Beach Boys are here on a concert tour, which sold out as soon as dates were announced.
The Beach Boys, from left: Carl Wilson , Bruce Johnston, Mike Love, Al Jardine and Dennis Wilson. (Photo: Central Press/Getty Images.)
The tumbling, tragic and joyous story of rock is absolutely chock full of groups who lost their primary songwriters, vocalists and band leaders for one reason or another, yet carried on to achieve great creative and commercial heights: Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green would have once been considered unimaginable, not to mention Genesis without Peter Gabriel, Joy Division without Ian Curtis, or the Small Faces without Steve Marriot; for that matter, many would have considered Pink Floyd without Roger Waters inconceivable.

Yet the Beach Boys, a band of stunning skill who proved time and time again that they were capable of making extraordinary music without Brian Wilson, were never allowed to be fully free of him.

And f*** you all for that.

I have zero hesitation in pronouncing Brian Douglas Wilson a musical genius nonpareil; Pet Sounds is the greatest pop rock album ever made, and SMiLE, if it had been completed at the time of it’s initial realization, could have changed the course of pop music (its integration of American musical tics into an avant-garde and psychedelic context might have encouraged an entire vein of adventurous American pop divorced from the Beatleisms that define the rock and pop landscape to this very day).

But the startling vocal skills of the entire Beach Boys ensemble and their shared experiences as a growing band framed and made ecstatic the brilliance of Pet Sounds (and the extant SMiLE tracks), and Carl, Mike, Bruce, Al and Dennis (not to mention later additions like Blondie Chaplin) were each golden talents more than capable of leading and redefining a Brian-less Beach Boys. But they never really had the chance.


Despite the fact that some of the most wondrous and distinctive material in the band’s canon was recorded without Brian, he remained the Elijah we all left the door open for; but imagine if every time we sat down for Seder, someone said, “Well, it’s not a real Seder, since Elijah didn’t show up.”

There’s every bit of evidence that a Brian-less Beach Boys could have been a joyous and logical continuation of the band’s ideals and aural achievements.

Personally, I would argue that post-SMiLE, Brian Wilson wasn’t just a shadow of himself, but less than a shadow; the most Brian-driven of the post-SMiLE albums, The Beach Boys Love You, is bizarre and psychologically fascinating, but the people who insist that it’s a great album are like those who scan those tepid and twisted Alex Chilton solo albums for Big Star-esque greatness. It ain’t there, bubbelah; go back and listen without trying really, really hard to like it.

Which is all to say that Brian Wilson could have left the Beach Boys after late 1967, with his legacy and place in history 100 percent intact (after all, Syd Barrett is no less a legend for having been a primary force on only one Pink Floyd album). And if Brian had been allowed to retire, the Beach Boys would have gone on, driven by the considerable and unique skills of their remaining members, and likely would have been appraised as an original and important American band, producing work of invention, quality and diversity.


I barely give a f*** who Mike Love has his picture taken with, or what political candidates he supports, or how he may stumble in public speeches; he is a gentle and kind man whose heart is in the right damn place, and he supports many worthwhile causes related to the environment, conservation, and spiritual enlightenment. Have any of you ever met Ric Ocasek or Todd Rundgren, or even, for that matter, the great Lou Reed? Have you ever talked to a waitress or stewardess who had to deal with Paul Simon?

I have met a pile of so-called pop stars, and in terms of being a decent man with a decent heart, Mike Love is pretty goshdarn high on the “good guy” list. Most of you just hate him because he’s in a band called the Beach Boys without Brian Wilson. You think that the fact that he keeps the Beach Boys going is somehow denigrating of or defiant of the great achievements of that band, but it’s just the opposite; Mike Love has kept the Beach Boys, a vital American institution, alive and working in the face of great odds and even greater derision.

Go see the current touring version of the Beach Boys.

The band is made up of able, passionate and credible musicians: Jeff Foskett, Scott Totten, John Cowsill, Brian Eichenberger, and Tim Bonhomme are all committed and credible cats with an honest and real devotion to the songs, sound and legacy of the Beach Boys (and Foskett has been with the Beach Boys for 34 years, longer than Carl or Dennis Wilson were in the band, if you’re counting). sh*t, if those guys were backing Jason Faulkner or Matthew Sweet, you’d be saying they were the best band in the world. But instead, they are part of a band with Mike Love and Bruce Johnston called The Beach Boys.

The current Beach Boys do great honor to the work of Brian Wilson (and to the work the Beach Boys did without Brian), and they keep the legacy of a valued American treasure full of vigor, harmony, and the power to move and emote. Listen, I’ll come out and say this: I vastly prefer the current Beach Boys to the Brian Wilson touring experience. Brian’s band is amazing, and they play his compositions and his arrangements with loving detail, but there is no escaping the fact that at the center of the stage is a man who often looks like he doesn’t want to be there, like he’s just a sad ghost inserted into the middle of the world’s greatest Beach Boys cover band. Every time I see Brian Wilson, I leave depressed; but every time I see the current Beach Boys, I leave elated.

OK, which one of the Kokomaoists wrote this and how much coin did Mike have to pay to have it written?

This guy throws Add Some Music, This Whole World, Our Sweet Love, Til I Die (my absolute favorite BB track), Marcella, Sail On Sailor, The Night Was So Young, Good Timin' Love and Mercy, Melt Away, Rio Grande, GETTIN' In Over My Head, Your Imagination, Midnight's Another Day, Summer's Gone, The Last Song all under the bus because.... I don't know.

There is so much wrong with this article, I don't even know where to begin.  Maybe I'll write a long proper response later on.

He's back again for more!  :-D

Check out a previous Sommer article from the archives that we discussed a year ago:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22556.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22556.0.html)

"Brian is The Beach Boys. We're just his fucking messengers" said someone who should know.

The first part of this made some sense -- Yeah, they probably should've left Brian to his own devices back in the day, guilt-free, no demands -- But man, this article take a weird left turn in the middle. No problem with the praise of the M&B Beach Boys, but even that has to veer into nasty territory.

I SAY, GOOD DAY, SIR.

He's done it before, now he's done it again. There is a point where it comes down to people being who they are and doing what they do, once that is understood the supposedly random appearances of things like this article and the previous ones starts to make more sense based on the precedent.

That went off the rails -
But can we all agree on this:
Brian Wilson - a floppy-haired bright-eyed man-panda of shattering talent

Brian's band is the rare touring band that actually has the chemistry of an organic outfit. Which is impressive considering the varied backgrounds of the people who have played in that band.

Al Jardine -- a short-statured, red-haired folk-lover of indeterminate vocal age

this article is not really even worth consideration, full of falsehoods and seemingly no research. more of an opinion piece really, and an awful one at that. but this line may be the most misguided thing I've ever read:


i mean, wow.

Click bait article with puffed up headline. Sometimes click bait articles actually have something under the hood. Not really so here. Not that every single one of his individual points are invalid. But there's nothing new or thought-provoking here, and the author does himself a discredit by creating a straw man (who really specifically badmouths Scott Totten and the other backing guys?) and then coming across as a cheerleader for Mike.

Lots and lots of straw man arguments in this piece. Some of the band's most celebrated mid-period work from non-Brian members is celebrated by the fan base.

I'm not sure why so many people put forth the straw man argument that everybody's main beef with Mike Love is that he isn't Brian Wilson. That kind of implies that if you don't like something about someone, it *has* to be *not* because of that person's own actions, but because they're *not* somebody else.

"As an A&R representative, Sommer was integrally involved with the success of Hootie & The Blowfish....He was also involved in the very early careers of both the Beastie Boys and Kara's Flowers, producing three tracks for Kara's Flowers in the summer of 2000, shortly before the group changed their name to Maroon 5."

lollll

So much for ending the negativity surrounding all the "camps" and between bands, eh? If the guy wanted to promote Mike's band, he should have done just that. If he wanted to criticize Brian or Brian's band, he should have done just that. When the two subjects coexist in what was purported to be a music article, it comes off looking like a hatchet job. To me anyway.

Well it's a helluva lot better than my C.V.

Foskett was with them from 1982 to 1990 and rejoined the Touring Band in 2014. Not even close to have had a longer tenure than Dennis and Carl.

But surely we can agree that Foskett has had a comparable impact on the band. Don't be unreasonable.

In case anyone needs to know, Jeff Foskett's total tenure in the touring Beach Boys as of mid-2016 is about 10 and 1/2 years (December 1981 to July 1990, and early-mid 2014 to present). Even if you add his years in Brian's band, it comes to about 24 and 1/2 (the 10 and 1/2 plus 14 with Brian).

Very poorly researched. It'll be interesting to see if certain nitpicky folks who have been known to denounce things for minor factual errors and who might now be posting on other boards will be willing to discredit this article as well.

Bruce Johnston has been in the "touring band" longer than Al has at this point. Adrian Baker spent more time in the touring band than David Marks did.

Jason Sheff has been in Chicago longer than Peter Cetera was (or Terry Kath).

Rusty Anderson has spent more years touring with Paul McCartney than John Lennon did.

Comparing tenures in a band is a meaningless prospect, and doing so makes one look like even more of a tool when the comparison is made to someone who is deceased and whose tenure ended due to their death.

This Tim guy is gonna get some serious hate mail heading his way real soon. Shame on the Observer as well.  :o

While some may argue if Mike actually put someone up to write this article...

Regardless if that is true or not (I have no reason to necessarily believe that it is true)... I have no doubt that Mike would be genuinely grinning from ear to ear in agreement, if he were to see even just the title of the article.

Barf.

Tool is a very appropriate description.

Wait, so the guy says this:

the Beach Boys refused to step out of their leader’s dysfunctional shadow

But then soon after in the article he switches from blaming the *band* for not stepping out from Brian's shadow and literally says "f**k you" to fans (I guess?) as if it's the fans' fault.

Has this guy even listened to the band's entire catalog? Everything he says is contradicted and undercut. The band produced some fan-favorite material without Brian, and at the same time, had the BB's dumped Brian in 1967 (or whatever it is he's trying to say), we indeed would have missed out on some of *Brian's* best material, including two songs on "Surf's Up" that are regarded as among the band's greatest works. Separately, the band without Brian also produced some total crap too, and while Brian was producing music with mixed results at best in the mid-late 80s and early 90s, I'd venture to guess that one of the many reasons for the poor quality and even poorer reception for "Summer in Paradise" was the zero involvement from Brian.

The band did need Brian in many ways. Whether they should have kept bugging him to be there is a separate question. But the continued to get record deals based on promises of Brian involvement.

To be precise, they hired people to physically force him to be there.

And a thoughtful, well-informed, well-researched piece on that topic would have been welcomed.

This piece reads to me a bit like a few of the Beard pieces from last year. It has the appearance of working from the starting point of defending Mike against some straw man arguments, and then working backwards towards some sort of actual thesis. Weird.

The amount of pieces like this that we see in the lead-up to Mike's new book may tell us whether some sort of promotional/PR campaign has anything to do with it.

Ahh yes. Stanley and Rushton.

I am as much a defender of Mike Love as anyone, but there are some issues I have with this article. First off, Pink Floyd didn't have the commercial success with Syd Barrett that the Beach Boys had with Brian. Second, you can't just cut off a brother/cousin in the same way you might a friend. Third, I think the other guys did a fine job moving on while leaving the door open for Brian. It was the record company that demanded more from Brian. While I agree that Mike has been the most consistent to represent the Beach Boys on the road, and also agree that Brian looks like he doesn't want to be there most of the time, I still think that what Brian and his band has done over the past 15 to 20 years has done a greater job at reflecting the legacy of the Beach Boys music. Mike has done a fine job, don't get me wrong. I also agree that Mike is not as bad as many haters say. While there are some bad moments, he seems like a decent guy over all.

Is there an elephant in this thread? Or is it an ant, and I'm the only one who noticed it? Or is it a pink polka-dot elephant flying around in my imagination?
Given the reference to with whom ML poses, is this not aimed to some degree at this board?

Bingo! Good eye, Emily. Caught that thought as well. Coincidence? I think not.  :hat

WHo is this guy?  AGD under a pseudonym?

Yeah, he had me until that. I mean, how many great BB's tracks has Foskett helped create? Not dissing the man's talent, but there is a big difference between being one of the core founding members, and being a hired hand for Mike or Brian's bands.

And none of the "honorary" Beach Boys (or other associates for that matter) like Foskett or Billy Hinsche or Matt Jardine need their resume fudged. They all did great jobs in the touring band and contributed to some studio recordings over the years of mixed quality.

I don't think this author knows what he's trying to argue, which reinforces my perception that he decided to write a piece defending Mike (and as Emily mentioned perhaps in response to the acrimony surrounding "The Photo Op" that came up recently), and then went all over the place trying and failing to make some sort of point.

It is interesting to consider the premise of the article though....what may have happened if Brian had retired or began his solo career after the cancellation of Smile and how the group may have evolved without him.  Or if Brian had begun his solo career and been a part-time member since frankly, the latter is what he really was after a certain point.  As it was, the group was dependent on Brian and he was dependent on them, perhaps not the healthiest of situations, especially since it seemed to cause a certain amount of resentment from both ends.  But one sadly concludes that probably neither Brian nor the group could have successfully made it without each other, in the immediate aftermath of the Smile debacle.

I agree it is an interesting premise, and while I'm glad for the existence of most of the Brian material on the post-Brian is Back albums, and I love Love You and parts of 15BO, MIU, etc, I can certainly understand how the other band members felt stifled and unappreciated when they were pushed to the side (despite building years of cred for material with little to no Brian involvement) in favor of pushing Brian's "comeback" material.

Yet it seems that if this article is pushing a Mike-directed ideology, in anticipation of Mike's upcoming book... that perhaps Mike is resentful for the entire Brian is Back campaign in hindsight if the end result of the campaign was to help begin this supposedly "unjust" legend of Brian Wilson.  In hindsight, the campaign of bringing Brian back brought about as much respect for Mike's contributions as TWMGTR did: very little. Mike didn't get a chance to shine or get to feel like an essential part of a successful writing partnership with Brian anymore, and Brian started getting all the attention.

Wasn't the Brian is Back campaign the brainchild of Steve Love? If the campaign had an eventual result (years later) of giving Brian too much credit (at Mike's expense), perhaps that didn't exactly help his and Steve Love's relationship (which is non-existent now), and perhaps that's part of why Mike and Denny fell out.  In fact, I could imagine Mike falling out with anyone who would do actions that have an end result of elevating Brian's stature and legend (and just Brian's). I can't imagine that Mike agreed with Denny's comments about Brian being The BBs. I'm sure that Denny comment won't be addressed in Mike's book, and it's too bad that Denny isn't around to give his two cents about the content of the book, which I assume will run very contrary to Denny's own opinions on the matter.

I don't know what that guy thought he was doing but I hope he stops it.

I don't think I agree on the mutual dependency. I can't say with confidence that the Beach Boys would have not been successful without Brian Wilson post '67. They were later, why not then? (Of course people have different ideas of what success looks like but 1965 Beach Boys does not have to be the standard.)
And I can easily believe that Brian Wilson may have been better off working as a producer or just taking a break.

Yeah, agreed that it's an interesting premise.  I think the Boys, depending on the focus and who was leading the band, could've stayed interesting and successful, but probably only moderately successful, both artistically and commercially.  I dislike Pink Floyd, but I can't really imagine the Boys coming anywhere near their achievements in the 70s.

An article about "What ifs" can be interesting (those types of premises don't often interest me personally, but they can provoke some interesting ideas).

Whatever this article was/is, it goes well beyond "Hrmmm, I wonder what it would have been like had Brian fallen off the radar in 1967?" And even that part of the premise is pretty odd, because as someone else mentioned, it arguably dismisses the trove of great post-1967 material Brian did come up with.

If the other BBs had ever had a huge burning desire to do more of their own stuff, we would have seen more solo albums. Again, I'm confused as to whether the writer is blaming the BBs or fans for the group not breaking away from Brian.

The author's main goal is simply to agitate and tear down a great and admirable figure. He thinks is is hip by going against "conventional wisdom."  Somehow he feels that by writing this diatribe, he can be "anti-establishment" and therefore cool.

However, his logic is flawed, and he clearly has an agenda to push. I ain't taking the bait, you two bit hack.

Really, this doesn't even deserve a response. However, it reminds me of the National Enquirer; the sensational headline to grab some internet traffic and nothing really to back it up, just a contrary point of view.

It is an absolutely stupid premise. The rest of the BBs were not ready to take over for Brian in 1967. That is likely one of the hidden reasons that Brian shelved SMiLE in its original form (aside from the flak and the pressure and a few minor things like that). It's because he knew that there would have to be a transition period to bring Carl and Dennis up to a level where they could write and produce material that could viably restructure the division of labor in the band.

I'm convinced he knew this even as he slowly succumbed to his own sense of failure in not bringing SMiLE off after all of the hoopla, and the next LPs were designed to make that transition by bringing into play new genres of Beach Boys music that would allow all of the other guys in the band a framework for moving forward with or without him.

The article criminally overstates the band's readiness to take over for Brian at this time, and completely misses the idea that Brian was himself looking for ways to make this happen even in the midst of a delayed breakdown as a result of SMiLE's demise. By 1969 the band was able to do just that, but the notion that the band would have been greater without Brian in the ensuing years clearly has forgotten the tracks that Brian was involved in and how he continued to "lead the way" even in his so-called bedroom phase. While Carl may have finished a number of Brian tracks in this time frame, he didn't originate them.

This is article is bombastic, malevolent revisionism at its most egregious and should be forcibly crammed down the author's throat.

The basic premise is way off-base. Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, and Bruce were not creatively stifled -- post-1967, they were given every opportunity to write, produce, and arrange.

The notion that including 2 or 3 songs from Brian per lp meant that the rest of the band were unable to flourish as songwriters is nonsense.

Tim Sommer doesn't get around in this article to disclosing that when he was an A&R guy at Atlantic he actually sent a message to old Syd (via the latter's sister Rosemary) asking if he wanted to sign a deal with the label and record something. There was no reply from the Madcap. It's discussed in several of the Barrett biographies.

Compare the timing of this articles release with the timing of his article last year and you'll see what you need to see in the timeline. Coincidence? Nah.

I'm starting to doubt the timing is any kind of coincidence either...

To ignore Brian's work on Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, Holland, 15 Big Ones, Love You, MIU, and That's Why God  Made Radio, plus his best solo work  such as BW 88. Orange Crate Art. Imagination, BWPS, Lucky Old Sun, The Gershwin project , and  his  last estate solo album is to say that a white horse is a brown cow. In spite of the obvious fact that the animal in question has a mane, can run at full speed, and neighs instead of  mooing does not impressed this most obtuse of writers. Oh well, the guy probably puts acid in his Koolaid. :ohyeah

Peter - the whole article is just a laughable crock of utter nonsense.  Even an alternate universe wouldn't accept this fantasy.

The guy ignores the fact that the labels that signed the BB were begging for Brian.

Excellently put. The title was enough for me to know it was going to annoy me but I read it anyway, finding that the arguments presented by the author were laughably unconvincing to anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the history. As for Mike being 'gentle' and 'kind' and giving money to charity, what the hell does that have to do with whether he is talented or capable of competing musically with Brian Wilson? (There are also numerous incidents of Mike being less than 'kind' which the author conveniently chose to overlook.) The timing is indeed suspicious too.

Yes that is perfect.

That embarrassment of a "news article" doesn't deserve to even be acknowledged on a public message board. And that's all I have to say about that.  ;D

Which kind of indicates that for all of those years the non-Brian Beach Boys did not agree with this guy's conclusions, both about Brian and themselves.

EoL

And neither did the industry which kept demanding participation from Brian on every recording project and which, in turn and as a reaction, caused that terrible LOVE driven 'Brian's Back' campaign to trip stumble and fall through the mid 70s.  This fictional article is entirely and inexcusably urine infested...not unlike most of my golf balls.

Great point.  Both of these facts, that the guys themselves lusted for Brian's participation, even to the point of disregarding his well being, and the insistence of the record label to include Brian, lays bare the lie that Brian's greatness is a later fabrication, a myth that grew over time.  It is no myth, it has always been the case, and has always been recognized by the band themselves and the record company offering the deals.  This is nothing more than the latest desperate attempt to improve Mike's stock by re-writing history in order to lessen Brian's.

EoL

.

Add Some, you should try Titleist.

There should be a follow up article "It's Time To Destroy Propagandist Hacks Posing As Journalists"

 :police:  :lol

What a frikkin' joke.

I don't know if it's more of an outrage to read the article itself or a bigger outrage that this same kind of hack propaganda came out of the same author yet again after he got nailed doing it at an "opportune" time last year as well. FFS...like no one notices what's going on?  ;D

Dennis Wilson -- a bushy-haired, muscle-bound tiger-man of raw sensitivity

And thanks for providing the evidence, GF a page or two back.  I think I conveniently forgot the first, idiotic article.  Does anyone really know who this guy is?  I saw the ancient history rock n' roll business stuff, and I know I'll be accused of referring to "dark forces," but I'd really like to know.  There always seems to be a connection somewhere, as that's how life goes.  If that implies "dark forces," so be it.  David Beard got an M&B tour book gig and suddenly his view of anything Brian turned negative.  I'm not claiming that I have the answer, but it'$ all $o odd.  

It's happened before at a very specific time when very specific things were happening in the world of the Beach Boys, same author publishing with a very similar tone and bent, and generating the same kind of backlash from fans who called bullshit on the piece. Then another one shows up? I doubt anyone's mind will be changed because some of the opinions don't even line up with the historical facts, or maybe that's the idea...turn the flawed historical perspective into the fact/truth? Who knows.

Either way, the timing is worth noting, and ultimately it was yet another ham-fisted attempt at doing whatever it was intended to do. Unless it was to be so over the top in order to get people pissed off, I don't know.

The question is does anyone agree with this guy?

Nobody with an IQ at a higher level than a bag of microwave popcorn.

I'm with Billy on who would agree with this idiocy.  I didn't even get angry because it was so pathetic. 

I confess to living by 2 cliches when things don't make sense, and it's always worked, 1) timing is everything, and 2) follow the money.

He's right about Syd. They way Floyd gave him this shaft yet gladly use his over-arching image to make $$ is a little sickening...and yet I like some of there later stuff and enjoyed Gilmore's last solo record.

This makes me wonder what would have become of the Kinks if Ray Davies had "done a Brian Wilson" and stopped touring, then withdrew to his bedroom? Would Pete Quaife have emerged as a songwriter and singer capable of filling his shoes? Or would Dave Davies insist that all the songs on the albums had to be his?  What if John Lennon had a nervous breakdown during the filming/recording of "Help"? Would the band be re-branded as "Paul McCartney and the Beatles"? With Jane Asher on keyboards and vocals?

I somehow can't picture the Beatles paying hired goons to stand over Lennon at the piano holding baseball bats and demanding he write a song for the band's next album...

I fully agree - except for the first sentence; I don't think that that's what the writer was saying about Syd.

Really enjoyed reading that. Thanks for posting.

I just noticed one of Mike's daughters posted the article on Facebook along with some of her own "interesting" commentary.

I finally found which daughter and viewed it.  Yeah, this writer is so similar to Salman Rushdie... ::)

How desperate are these people to rewrite history?  It's bizarre.

COMMENT: 

I think it's time to Destroy Tim Sommer for writing such CRAP !!
This guy was evidentially in diapers when Brian was making Rock & Roll legends -- and still is.
~swd

By complete chance, I randomly just happened to notice that this garbage article is now trending on the main page of Yahoo:

(http://i66.tinypic.com/14xid94.jpg)

How does that even happen? Could it be a situation of money paid to a PR company, where money is exchanged for this article to somehow get some higher, more prominent placement on a page as well-known as Yahoo? Or am I expected to believe that this is only a matter of chance? This came up without me searching for the article in any way... I simply went to the main page of Yahoo and scrolled down, and this came up.

In other words, if one were to suspect that there was the po$$ibility of an agenda behind the article even existing at all - let alone appearing as a main article on Yahoo's main page - I would think its placement on Yahoo's main page would lend credence to that theory. Then again, maybe Yahoo knows that I'm a BB fan, and showed it to me that way as a result of their algorithms... yet it's not listed as a "sponsored" ad.

The good news is that the title is so ridiculously inflammatory, let alone the content, I can't imagine anyone of any intelligence taking the article seriously, and perhaps even more so now that the article is getting more prominent exposure. I think both the author as well as anyone cheering for the article's sentiment from the sidelines is gonna see their intentions backfire.

Well that's sh*tty.

What did the daughter have to say? Agree or disagree?

Melinda Love - the SWA flight attendant, as best I can tell.  You can find her easily enough on FB.  She, or some other relative after her post - I don't remember - compared the author to Salman Rushdie.  I found that particularly funny - but that's just me.  I find the attempt at the history re-write less amusing, since I saw a good part of it happening and I'm guessing that she didn't. 

I thank Mr. Desper for commenting, btw.  He was there, too.

From the author's comments on Facebook:

Thanks for weighing in, Jack Rabid, and I always respect your viewpoint. The only thing I'll say is that you should give the current Beach Boys another chance; go see them and get back to me. My piece was largely based (and inspired by) my assessment that the current band is far better than they are given credit for, and that there's something very sad about the current Brian touring experience.



Regardless of his views of the current bands, how does that support what he wrote in the article?

I bet you did. Someone has come up with a bigger turd than your recent article.

It's a hoot reading the comments on the main page of the article. And there are PAGES and PAGES of comments. It would seem that revisionist history drivel doesn't go over too well with people with functioning brains.

I guess this is a sneak peek at the warm reception Mike's autobio is gonna have  :-\

"Tim Som...som...som...Sommer of Love"

Just hold on a minute. I suspect some of you you don't actually understand what being a journalist actually involves. This is a piece of polemic, no doubt designed to send some of the more sensitive BB fans into fits of apoplexy and to create a bit of stir. And on that basis, it's very much job done.

As for the points made, I have no interest in destroying or ripping down the legend of Brian Wilson; he is a genius, albeit flawed, and my all-time hero. Some of the author's points are lazy, yes, and the Pink Floyd analogy while seemingly apposite doesn't really fit but he is expressing a view, raising several points that have been argued back and forth on here since time immemorial.

However, being what I regard as something of a reasonable fellow, I like to hear points of view that sometimes differ from my own.; I don't have the need to read endless screeds telling me how brilliant Brian is. I already know that. As much as I struggle to comprehend it, some people sometimes have a different take on things to me. I actually agree with some things he says and disagree with others. I would assume (but of course I could be wrong) some of this is based on seeing the current touring versions of both bands, so his closing point as of 2016 is at least a valid one.

What  am I saying? Just don't get your knickers in a twist. It's an opinion 'article' not Hansard.

Knickers not twisted.
Sad, your opinion of the job of a journalist: to be a polemicist. Happily not all news venues agree, though I'm afraid many do.
Murdochification.

Not at all Emily. I loathe Murdoch as much as the next right-minded person. I wasn't saying that ALL journalists are polemicists, but this one most certainly was, rather like a shock-jock – an opinion piece that would undoubtedly ruffle feathers and long-held views. There is nothing wrong in that. Dismantle and debate his views by all means – it's all publicity to him (the main intention I would suggest). That's a tactic used to stunning effect by certain politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly at moment.

This article encapsulates the absolute worst way possible of trying to prove a legitimate point: that Mike and the other Boys should be appreciated for the rad contributions they made. I, for one, appreciate Mike's contributions, I will defend Kokomo, I will even defend some of Summer in Paradise, Cool Head, Warm Heart, not to mention all of his great collabs with Brian, etc... I think Mike is often overlooked and not regarded highly enough.

So for a fan such as myself, I go into the article with an opinion that already is appreciative of the many contributions Mike made to the band. And I read it, and it just seems like a desperate grab at trying to say a bunch of nonsense (and tear down Brian in the process), and it makes me want to rail on about what a piece of excrement the article amounts to.

Whatever point the article was trying to make, even if the author's heart is in the right place, is just misguided in its approach, and only fans the flames of ire. I'm sure it is possible to have an article written about Mike that praises his contributions, mentions that there are many ways in which he is underrated, etc, and doesn't turn into a moronic sh*tshow.

OK. So you think this piece was 'planted' by Mike to do Brian down?

I have no idea, but I do doubt that Mike would be upset at reading the article. Do you think he'd disagree with it?

I might add that it makes me legitimately very sad to think of any BB member, past or present, reading the article and thinking "yay, how great it is that such an article exists".

He's also said this

>>People hated this so much, so I am posting it again. It's a free country, dammit. If I want to applaud Mike Love and Bruce Johnston for keeping a strong and energetic touring Beach Boys out there on the road making people happy, by golly, I will. <<

So, yes, as Mentalist says, a writing equivalent of a shock-jock; and a rather childish one.
I question either his honesty or his skills as a writer, because what he says he's trying to do in both of these comments is not at all what was conveyed, to me anyway, as the gist of the article.
Had he written the article he describes in his comments, though, he wouldn't be getting the attention.

The author also claims that he had nothing to do with the title. Maybe that's true, but regardless of who concocted the title, I can't see that title appearing on the front page of Yahoo inspiring anything but grins on the Loves' faces. I wish that weren't the case, and I wish that just the title alone would make everyone in the BB organization cringe, but I doubt that's the case. Personally, it makes me ill to see an article with the word "destroy" in the title directed towards a Beach Boy band member. It's gross.

I think Brian Wilson deserves to be legendary.

Of course he does. In addition to his unbelievable prolific talent as a songwriter, he could be considered legendary *just* for his innovative producing alone, *just*for his amazing voice alone that conveys emotions bringing tears to people's eyes, as well as his truly remarkable comeback story, triumph from abuse, and overcoming multiple near–death experiences. Plus he is widely considered a mensch... one of the nicest, sweetest, generous, and gentlest people in the entertainment industry.  None of these attributes hurt his legendary status one bit.

Many of those attributes are not shared by Mike, but Mike regardless can be considered a legend for some very legitimate things as well. The list is just a good deal smaller, that's all.  Mike has written some great lyrics and hooks. Mike is "more" of a legend when it comes to quantity of shows performed (often times quantity over quality), and sheer stamina of years on the road. He's got Brian beat there.  Brian can't do the chicken dance like Mike can.  I will also credit Mike for helping the California tourism industry. The whole band should be credited for that, but perhaps nobody more so than Mike.

Yet I don't know why it has to be any sort of competition, because in reality it's no competition whatsoever. What I think Mike and any champions of this article fail to understand, is that there are a great many valid reasons why Brian is held in the high regard he is, in a vastly different way than Mike will ever be.  That will never, ever change, and it should not ever change, because it's the truth.  

Mike will never remotely come within striking distance in terms of his own legacy, even if he obsessively starts playing three shows a day every single day trying to prove something. Jealousy is a human emotion, I understand it, and I also understand Mike being hurt about the crediting snafu from decades ago.  I get that and I empathize. Seriously.  But damnit, he is just digging a deeper hole for himself.  And authors who write articles like this, even if they are acting completely independently, are also inadvertently helping to dig Mike a bigger hole. In my estimation, Mike should go on social media and say that he finds the title of this article despicable, but instead we get embarrassing Trump pictures.  Posing with the guy who wants to remove a Mexican judge for being Mexican, and usher in a new era of McCarthyism.

Why does Brian need to be torn down?  When's the last time an actual professional article was written with the title "It's high time to destroy Mike Love's legacy",  followed by members of Brian's family posting status updates that seemed genuinely happy about said article?  It's just so, so sad that this has turned into the Ewings vs The Barnes'.  This would not be the case to nearly this degree if Carl and Dennis were still alive. 70-year old  Dennis would probably show up at Mike's front door to have a word with him about his constantly bashing The Wilsons in the media.  Come to think of it, the worst thing that might've happened to help further harm Mike's tarnished reputation in the internet age might have been the untimely early passing of two of the Wilson brothers, who, if around today, probably would've kept Mike's Wilson-bashing and original-bandmate-firing much more in check.

I'm surprised the article didn't end with a plug for Mike's autobiography!

The Mike vs. Brian saga reminds me a lot of the McCartney vs Lennon saga - with the obvious difference that both BB's are still alive. But ever since John Lennon died, Paul McCartney has had a chip on his shoulder about being underappreciated compared with John.  Supposedly the story goes: John died young, was sainted, and from there the story developed that John was the genius in the Beatles, the visionary, and Paul just booked the studio time. Now anyone with even half a brain knows that's not true, McCartney was always appreciated for his singing, his songwriting (particularly his way with a melody), and bass playing (a lot of fans consider him the best); and the cute Beatle still sells out stadiums around the world when he tours. So who are these people that write him off as a second rate talent?
It's hard to make as strong a case for Mike as for Paul, but still, he is touring constantly, pleasing several generations of fans, and he did win that lawsuit about songwriting credits back in the 90's. What else does he need? He should be thankful that he has been able to do what he loves to do all these years, even after the deaths of 2 of his cousins. he appears to be in good health, has a happy marriage...that's all most of us would like out of life. I suppose he'll carry this till the day he dies, I can see him on his death bed crying to his loved ones "you guys didn't love me as much as you loved Brian...".

This article is garbage and if it appeared in printed form it should be burned as the falsehood, slander and insult it is.
And the writer is a complete asshat. The world would be better off if he refrained from picking up the pen ever again.

Mr. Sommer's next piece of brilliantly blazing insight will be titled, "For the  My Love of Laine : It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Paul McCartney’ = How Denny Lane enabled Wings to reach great commercial and creative heights while McCartney's use of the reefer madness made him a shadow of his former self!  :hat Intro by Mr. Ian Lee

The article title is deliberately provocative and calculated to trigger a response.  However, looking back at the last article, discussing "lesser Beach Boys" almost hearkening back to a "lesser apostle" concept of the 12 Apostles, I don't think the title would ever be endorsed by Mike, as it is completely inconsistent with any statement I have ever heard him make since seeing them live, starting in 1967.   

The author seems to be attempting to call attention to "the five other extraordinary musicians (Carl Wilson, Bruce Johnston, Mike Love, Al Jardine, and Dennis Wilson) each of whom had shown they were markedly capable of composing, singing and helping conceptualize a worthy career direction..."

This, and the earlier article, are calling attention to be drawn to the merit of the Beach Boys who were on the road laboring in the vineyard, not only advancing Brian's work, but branching out to try-their-hand at composing or lyrics.  Dennis had POB which was largely under-appreciated, even if it was critically valued, Bruce earned a Grammy, Carl did some solo work and that is overshadowed, alongside Mike/Al's work.  I also don't think that Brian would ever object to a lens being focused on Dennis' solo work, or Carl's sweet albums, or the others for that matter.  Brian is very altruistic in that way, and gives credit where it is due. 

And, it s unfortunate that such an inflammatory title was assigned the article. Do we know if it was the author or the higher-ups who were looking for headlines, notoriety, controversy and drama?  He does mention other bands who earned their stripes on the road and doing composition on their own as well. The other BB members did and do have "stunning skill."   And Brian is still a "musical genius nonpareil" as the writer says. 

Pet Sounds was only a #10 LP at the outset because of the record company and not the band.  It was under-promoted even though it contained within it's jacket, Sloop, WIBN and GOK.  Capitol had The Beach Boys and The Beatles.  They promoted the Fab 4 and threw the BB's under the bus. 

What I don't get is this concept of "if Brian had been allowed to retire..."  Who retires at 23?

   

Why don't we let this go. This is playing right into the author's hands. He's probably reading the posts on this board and having a great laugh. Let it die a quick death.

LOL!

They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring.

Thanks for the plug. And it turns out what people have been telling me about you is true!

X

Makes you wonder if the impetus for this article is in any way connected to things that have appeared on this or any other forum.

Now all is explained. My advice, stay away from shady characters in the gambling industry. Especially those that have brought themselves into disrepute! Say hi to Chuck for me  ;D

Mate, that post makes as much sense as any of your usual rants.

But again, thanks for the love. Back at ya man.

So funny you instanty pull the "mate" thing. Sorry, it doesn't make you a tough guy, just idiotic. And a parody!

The fact that you like this article tells us all we need to know about you. As if your recent piece if crap didn't!

You're rambling now pal. Seriously. Calm down dear. It's only a forum.

Ha. I've had so many PM's about you. Each one spot on!

Keep em coming. I'm enjoying this.

Ahh! More proof of the PM system being used to trash people considered not welcome! Who was doing this, and did they use impeccable sources to back it up?

Thanks for that. It will be added to the files. They're already stuffed full of similar reports.

Smiley Smile Message Board
1996-2016 RIP
It disappeared up its own arse.

Wow, I have obviously struck a nerve,  bingo! (A term Chuck will appreciate).

I bet you have. Care to share "all these PMs".

Spot on. Wow, another zinger from the famous writer  :lol

This is a train wreck that I can't seem to stop driving by. Having said that, the most troubling aspect of this article to me, other than the headline is Mike Love's family's reaction to it. I've often found that a celebrities family knows less about their career than the fans do.

IainLee, please try not to antagonize.

*antagonise

And you're joking right? I know there's a queue of people waiting to boot me off this forum because I wrote an article saying I liked the lead singer of my second favourite band.

This is a place to celebrate beauty and light and a handful of people bring nothing but darkness and shame into what should be a beautiful place.

Guys. I know my days here are numbered. That's cool. But if you're gonna defend that troll...

And mate, I have no idea who Chuck is. But then, I would say that wouldn't I?

Toodle pip. I'm off to listen to Kokomo

X

Iain, I remember you said you were looking into issuing a Mike Love solo album or something...

Did anything ever come of that?

No, it won't disappear but people will know more of what was going on, including attempts to screw people over personally via the PM system.

I'm wondering how many sore noses there are considering how far up the arses of impeccable sources and their mouthpieces certain members seem to have been.

I'm not joking. There's a lot of turmoil here just now, of which you may not be aware, but your posts are prodding exactly at the sources of that turmoil. I think it's a good time for people to not try to push people's buttons and be controversial but to try a little extra much to be accommodating. And I find it very hard to believe that you don't know that your last few posts are antagonistic.
I also think that ORR should not have reacted as strongly as he did to your first post. But you are very much crossing a line.

*and I hope you don't think you were correcting my spelling.

Sadly no. It would have been too tricky and expensive so we are currently focusing on Monkees releases. Never say never though. I'd still like to.

Hang on.

I wrote I enjoyed the piece (never said I agreed with it. I liked reading it)

He replied

'I bet you did. Someone has come up with a bigger turd than your recent article.'

And I'm being antagonistic?

No. You're wrong. He was doing what he always does - bullies and shouts louder and hides behind his keyboard. Others may take it. I won't. Sorry!

He was rude. I agree. But the 'take it up a notch' response to rudeness does not help. I doubt it has ever stopped anyone from being rude.

Should he instead have sent other board members a bunch of personal attacks hidden in PM as has been done before? Well, you actually got some of them Iain, maybe you can speak to that. If the attacks came from impeccable sources, we'd have to believe them, right?

Then tell him to stop being antagonistic and not me.

I said I liked something I read

He said I was crap at my job.

Er...and that's not personal?

Man. The PM's were spot on. That guy is incredible!

Still, I love him.
X

  The Brian Wilson/Syd Barrett analogy is flawed. Brian did withdraw from public life but Barrett withdrew from the world the rest of us live in. It was all but impossible for him to remain with Pink Floyd or launch any sort of solo career. (Not that he seemed to want one.) Brian's problems were substantial but less debilitating.

 This thread is getting personal. Must it always be like this?

So the PM's were sent by those with impeccable sources?

Literally no idea what that means. Try again and fill in the missing words

Here's the thing. You're a mod. And you're paranoid. And out of control. And you should retire.

There. I said what several people are thinking and are too scared to say.

Peace.

Sorry "mate" if you think me calling your article a turd "bullies and shouts louder" . As a journalist, you are very thin skinned. If you can't make stand the heat.......

It wasn't a personal attack on you but you made it one on me. And in doing so, you exposed the practice of a now banned member of PM smear campaigns.

Mr. Lee, several people have said that. No one's been scared to say that. And there's nothing brave in saying things as rudely as possible.
There's a new board. It's an opportunity to stop the constant fights. I'm trying so f*cking damned hard to take advantage of that opportunity. Please help.

I'm tired and typing this on my smartphone.

I've said all in going to say here but if you want to discuss this further call me

02081336732

Have a great night.

X

ORR, please stop as well. Can everyone just stop?

Ridiculous!

You volunteered the information about receiving PM's about other board members, so would you step up and reveal some of these impeccable sources which told you about this or any other poster?

Sounds like exactly the kind of bullshit that has been ripping this place apart beneath the surface for years. And as such, worthy of the sources doing it.

But I guess noted historians, writers, and radio commentators have more free time to pass gossip and dirt about posters on messages boards than they must have devoted to talking about the music.

It's not paranoid if it's true. And if anyone should know, Iain, just because an angry and vocal mob says something to remove someone they don't agree with, it doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

Agreed...this is so damn childish.

Next swipe after this response will be met with consequences

Iain volunteered the information about receiving PM's about other board members that have obviously shaped his opinions of them, perhaps if that had not happened in the first place none of this would have come up.

It shows the damage that was done by those who engaged in this crap and hid it in private messages. Perhaps the ultimate blame rests yet again on those who were using the PM system for those efforts rather than coming here to talk music. I don't fault someone for being upset when it was publicly revealed that they were the subject of messages being sent around in an effort to discredit or even insult them to other members, and finding out about it either months or years after the fact via a public revelation.

I don't fault anyone for being upset either but it seems to me to be a time for holding in our feelings and being as calm and polite as possible. And for trying to post posts that you know won't stir the pot. Which Mr. Lee did, but I've spoken with him and he's agreed not to post controversial posts for a 'calming period', which was music to my ears. I wish everyone could do the same. Can everyone please try to do that? Even if it means silence for a bit?

Sweeping the issues under the carpet doesn't make them go away.

True,  but personally I'm tired of this 'oh he started it first'. Dammit, I'm finishing it. And yeah the PM thing bothers me, but not surprised, esp. considering what we uncovered during our investigation

It's happened far too often where any number of posters have been affected by these PM campaigns or efforts to smear them or even challenge their integrity. And it seems if they dare to speak out in their defense or even show some anger when they find out people were sending messages around to others in an attempt to bash, smear, or discredit them personally...and others believe and repeat it on the basis of the gossip...they're either more at fault or blamed equally to those who sent the PM's. I can empathize with that, and understand exactly how some might feel when the gossip spread reappears in public posts, whether true or not.

Maybe the deeper outrage and calls to stop should be directed at those who were actually engaging in this bullshit, and using the board and the PM system to do so.

As Iain would know firsthand, the angry mob doesn't need the truth or even a sense of fairness to push for the results they want if they feel someone was out of line, and often times people end up getting hurt.

Billy.  I guess I'm trying to follow this and understand what's going on and what action needs to be taken.  Could you be more specific?  

I remember Iain starting a thread roughly around the time when NPP was coming out - I think - with a title something like, "Why do you hate Mike Love?"  I haven't researched the details and timing of it, but remember being a bit puzzled by such a provocative thread.  If any of us were sitting around "hating Mike Love," I suspect the number was very few - I certainly wasn't there.  Not liking some of his actions and comments, well - I think that's a different story.  Not long thereafter, Iain produced an article from it.  Most posters here were trying to understand what was going on, including me before the article.  It became clear shortly thereafter.  It was an attack on SS and its posters and a defense of Love.

Suddenly, he reappears after all this time "enjoying" a hit piece on Brian, and admitting he's having a little trouble getting a Mike Love project out.  That's a bit like Mike Love finding Evan Landy's interview "interesting" last year after sobbing in front of Diane Sawyer back in that period (video easily accessible on YouTube, last I looked), about what Evan and his dad Eugene were doing to cousin Brian.

I'm sorry, but I see more of a link here to some weird history re-write going on than paranoia.  I understand wanting the fighting to stop.  I'm more interested in having the lying and subterfuge stop at this point.  But that's just me.  

Sorry - posted without seeing those most recent, but I don't think it changes my view.

Just curious why you would signal him out as he sems to be getting it from multiple posters?

I agree with you the bickering is absolutely out of control. Why don't you try Pet Sounds Forum for a while. So far, seems to be more tlerant...tough it's early lol.

I've really got to go right now, but I'm happy to talk with about why later. I talked with Mr. Lee on the phone and he accepted my reasons.
 I'm going to say again, and this is not directed at you, JB, I think the best thing to do in order for this forum to be bearable is for people to drop all this for a bit and to try to be agreeable for a while, whether you are right or wrong about the underlying causes. It's wholly unpleasant for those not involved and it's becoming unbearable.

Because, Juice Brohnston, he just revealed that he had received private messages about another poster that obviously were not complimentary in fact were quite the opposite. If people who were not only directly affected in this case but who may have had the same things happen (or happened) to them are more than a little upset to hear even more proof this was happening are now "giving it" to the member who just said his opinion of another person was shaped by the gossip if not outright bullshit he got in a PM, that's part of a dialogue. All sides get a say.

If Iain Lee or anyone else would step up and say who was spreading gossip to them privately about other board members, maybe that would be more information to use for those deciding whether to join another forum. Especially if those who were engaging in the behavior that led to this are prominently posting there too.

GF, you are asking someone who has agreed to not come here to push buttons to come back and argue. You're free to do so, but it will not solve problems; it will exacerbate everything; and it will cause people who feel more affinity with this board to leave it anyway.
I'm done.

Emily, what you don't seem to realize is that there was and is a very defined "right" and a very defined "wrong" in all of this, there is no moral relevancy argument or weighing whether something is right or wrong in these specific underlying causes.

If you and others may think trying to ruin other board members with gossip and innuendo using the PM system on this board was in any way "right", even if that percentage is .00000001%, that is what could also be considered unbearable because some things truly do come down to right and wrong.

Or maybe if it came out that you personally were one of those who was targeted in these private message gossip efforts designed to discredit you personally for whatever reason, and the results of the messages was changing people's opinion of you to the point where you had to read it posted by members you didn't even know were involved, the issue of right and wrong wouldn't be so blurry.

It is also important to see both sides and give both sides equal opportunity to speak.

Where did Iain agree to not push buttons - on a phone call with you instead of the board? Is that what it was? How is that supposed to make things right with the people who were bashed in those PM's he referenced, and what was in them...and who sent them, and why? He already did push the buttons and opened up a can of worms that got to the heart of many underlying issues that have been causing tensions and problems far beyond Iain himself.

Maybe an apology is in order

I advocated for removing the PM function and brought that up several times, but there was not agreement to do so and I dropped it.

I spend a lot of time talking about it because it was a part of this community that I wish had never infected it to the levels it did, and those who engaged in trying to destroy other board members by using and abusing the PM system are not getting away with it. I can understand someone letting off some steam in a PM discussion with a pal, but not when it was done as specifically and as targeted as it turns out to have been. Or still is. It's the equivalent of punching someone in the face and breaking their nose while they're sleeping. Cowardly, backhanded bullshit.

So, I understand ORR was banned due to behind-the-scenes info that proved to be false?  I do see that he was reinstated.  I realize that much of this is private info, but is there any way to resolve this?  Possibly someone could step forward, without directly quoting private messages and clear ORR's name?  If what I understand is true, he deserves that much.  

I'm not certain what Iain's allegations were about ORR's character that he received in pm's, but I'm wondering if anyone bothered to confirm them.

Please clarify if I'm mistaken.

I was banned for raising such a stink about it. The instigator was questioned by a Mod and he lied about doing it.
That was that for the investigation, at the time,  and I was not happy. So I would not let up about it so I banned.

Edit: Ian was not involved, to make that clear.

Much of this is in the AGD thread, or at least I thought it was.  I'm not at home and it's a pain to do this on my phone but I'll post longer when I get home. If this is something different,  then I need to be caught up. I did reinstate ORR, yes.I have apologized to him publicly and privately.

All I know is I'm tired of all of the fighting and people being complete assholes to each other. My God, my life is enough of a shitstain as it is already without adding to it.  This is so old to me.

I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologise for any offence caused to anyone.

I'm genuine.

That's my last word on the matter.

I hope everyone can move on and I can continue to post here if I see fit.

I did speak to Emily, she called the number I posted. I agreed with her I wouldnt post here for a month unless I saw myself being besmirched. Well, I lasted nearly 3 hours. But I will go back to that initial agreement.

Again, my heartfelt apologies to anyone who may have been hurt or offended by my comments in this thread.

That was on me....one of my biggest regrets here.

Okay, so we're back on topic. That's a good thing - I guess, even though this is referencing an idiotic article that holds no credibility when compared to facts. Now, may it happily go away.

Iain, what are you apologizing for?? You haven't done a single thing wrong - only a complete and utter moron wouldn't be able to see that OregonRiverRider was deliberately trying to get a rise out of you, as he does with many posters on here (in your case, I suspect it's jealousy on his part because you've had published articles in popular music magazines and he's consigned to making incoherent ranty comments on here, seemingly 24/7).

I don't really understand why the moderators are siding with such a twerp and being so blatantly wrongheaded in their arguments - I mean, of course posters complain about OregonRiverRider to one another in private messages! He comes on here and behaves like an absolute tool, makes no sense, spoils it for everyone else, and gets away with it - what else do they possibly expect?? (This was an interesting and fun thread until he appeared and made that needlessly bitchy comment about you.)

It's precisely because of people like him that I stopped visiting this site myself about six months ago - I've only just recently returned but I doubt I'll be coming back here again...

P.S. The Record Collector article was great - didn't agree with everything you said (so what?), but a lot of it had me nodding in agreement and it was great fun to read. Look forward to something similar soon :)

I don't understand.  I don't use PMs, but figured people bitching in them about other people is par for the course.

It's high time we get back to talking about why the article sucks.

Please stop.

7 days. I wasn't playing

Both parties have had their say, more information was revealed and clarified, more of what actually happened versus the innuendo was posted, and the discussions about the article will return while the discussions about the PM issues and the like can and will be continued in the sandbox threads.

Very noble of you Iain (yes mate  ;D), even though you didn't need to (olive branch and all that) - Love from Cider Land

NOW back on topic anyone ?

Look I have to comment.
When I first read Ian's comment, my perception was that it was a passive aggressive comment designed to rile or re-ignite feelings. He has since apologized, but that's normally what passive aggressive people do.
Above all like I have stated before so many times, I would like to know why?
Why people feel compelled to go to such lengths to inflame or defame. I have asked this before, what is at your center? What drives you to do such things?
To make grandiose statements about the death of a forum, to even put out an article that relies on fictional interpretations of fact to be divisive is a reflection on ones self.

Been away for a few days and just spent an hour if my life reading this thread, catching up.

What a waste of an hour.

Seems the board is becoming more and more about the "fans", the feuding fans, rather than the music and the band. Everyone piling in, mods and posters alike… Emily, in the absence of moderation, on the phone trying to moderate the unmoderatable… rare sensible posts earning their author a seven-day timeout, more innuendo about PMs and who said what and who called who a smelly pig…

No wonder lots of good folk are dissuaded from posting here.

And just for the sake of being on topic, I read the article in question. Some good points, some dismissible points. Nothing to warrant burning The Observer in the street as one poster seemed to be suggesting. The world's still turning… and fer fex's sake, this is all about a pop group. Some folk need a sense of perspective.

Night night.

Goodnight, John.

The article was a travesty.

Mr. Manning, what Disney Boy (1985) said is anything but "sensible" post. Nobody forced Mr. Lee to apologize, he had an option not to. DB's post is uber-emotional overreaction which didn't help any. What he doesn't understand is that people didn't merely complain about OregonRiverRider - his private information was passed and, as I read it, lies about some of it. It's not OK.

Let's not feel bad for his ban. Your post about moderators not doing their job should be in the Sandbox thread. Not sure why you raise it here.

Well, I mentioned it here cos "here" is where that particular conversation has been taking place for a while now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other matters. I've missed ORR's beef about what went on in PMs and have no wish to know - or to attempt to second-guess - the detail.

She called you on it, John. Maybe taking the time to read what happened - i.e. the "beef" - prior to passing judgement especially considering someone you know behaved very badly in the course of whole thing, and the details are anything but positive.

Might be time to discuss the article, perhaps?

And yet another thread gets kidnapped, sabotaged, waylaid, overturned, pee'd on, ruined and turned into a bitching festival. ::)   And this one starring those of us who haven't gone off to exclusively post at the new 'shop' on the block.  The topic article is a piece of crap.  It's sadly weighted down with enough bullshit to re-float the Titanic.  And as 'some' don't want it to be analyzed and discredited for being exactly what it isn't...ie: it isn't worthy of any thinking person's further attention...the thread takes a mangling as some kind of weak-assed retribution by a scant few with a shallow yet transparent agenda.

Anyone with a nose can see that.  The stench being all one needs to read between the lines.  So quit the tom-foolery.  Mike's minions...YOU have failed yet again.  The truth floats highest and it does so with dignity.

Discussing the article - yes, what a concept.  

What's highly amusing is that that the well-known flame-thrower sent in to disrupt the thread is made out as the victim.

What else is new?

The article is spin, aiming to get clicks to promote it.  It has nothing to do with what really happened.  Some eyewitnesses are still alive to state the obvious.  Brian was the musical genius behind the BBs.  The "licensed" BBs perform Brian's songs every night.  Show me one performance where his music isn't used.  Then tell me how he isn't essential to the BBs brand.

Just saw your post AddSome - also quite on topic and accurate.

For what it's worth, "trending" articles are usually skewed towards things in your search history.  Me, I just did a completely clean search on yahoo.com and yahoo.co.uk (which I never use, so no history), and there wasn't any sign of that article.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

No it won't, because nobody is trumpeting Laine's contributions to Wings. Macca won't even mention his name these days. Notice that in the Macca Archive Series, there haven't been any bonus tracks sung by or written by Laine or Jimmy McCulloch, or any other Wingsmen. It's not a popular opinion, but I think those guys are seriously underrated. Of course everybody knows who the bandleader was, the guy writing and singing most of the songs; back in the day, Paul always emphasized that Wings was a band; now they're treated as just part of his solo career.

I feel I have to comment too. I had a very annoying time trying to get things to cool down - to get everyone to go to their corner and stop. I failed; maybe I shouldn't have tried, I don't know. But, I started with Iain Lee mainly because he was bringing up the PMs which are such a hot button issue. When he posted his number, I gave it a shot. I think when he posted his initial post, he did intend to stir a bit. But I think he honestly was unaware of the whole deal of what's been going on here. When I explained to him that there's been a board fracture and a lot of beyond-usual conflict and that I felt that it's a good time to let things settle down, he was entirely amenable to that and said he would not post here for a bit, because he understands that his posts might conflict with some resident views at a time when conflict is particularly heated. He did have the caveat, that I completely understand, that if he felt maligned he'd come back and defend himself.
Then there was a bit of discussing him in which he did not defend himself. Then he came on and apologized.
Can we take him at his word? I do.

I respect your decision to do so. But I cannot except that the initial post by Ian was not outcomes based. The response was already known it was laid to bare in the frustrations of previous posters whom had vented their displeasure at the original article.
I am not a unreasonable guy, I have been dragged into some things by posters here and remained fairly reasoned and understanding of why people do things. But above all I want to know why? I have seen people I know both on here and personally change and I cannot understand why? It actually upsets me to the point I can't even bring myself to ask why. From a relative outsider to the PM/agenda issue it is pretty clear to me that there is some type of undercurrent that is driving some current/former posters and I can't understand why? When someone has a vehicle like an online blog or other online platform it creates an issue when historical events are re-touched to suit or generate a perception of said historical events. This is dangerous and sets a new precedence that only those at the very core of the issue can answer. Why are they doing this? What do they seek to destroy? This is only a Beach Boys Message Board and its our board not Mikes nor Brian's.

"There’s every bit of evidence that a Brian-less Beach Boys could have been a joyous and logical continuation of the band’s ideals and aural achievements.

Personally, I would argue that post-SMiLE, Brian Wilson wasn’t just a shadow of himself, but less than a shadow; the most Brian-driven of the post-SMiLE albums, The Beach Boys Love You, is bizarre and psychologically fascinating, but the people who insist that it’s a great album are like those who scan those tepid and twisted Alex Chilton solo albums for Big Star-esque greatness. It ain’t there, bubbelah; go back and listen without trying really, really hard to like it."

1, Brian was more involved in those post Smile albums than people once thought - at least up to a point.
2. One aspect of the legend that could be done away with is the one about Brian being in bed for X years.There may have been spells, but it's not quite like the song.
3. When the sh*t does hit the fan for the BB (Murry's death, anyone), it affects all of them. The output of the allegedly Brian-less band after the live album cannot compare with the riches of 67-73 and that includes music by Mike, who may well be the greatest human being the author has ever met - though I suspect he needs to get out more). In fact, Love You aside (yeah, I'm one of the fans), Brian's contributions often aren't up to much either.
4. I don't think the author has much of an understanding of the BB's post-Brian output. I've seen Mike and Bruce and really enjoyed their show and I would advise anyone who hasn't, to go see them, but he's kidding himself if he thinks that post 73 output is that good. Looking back, the huge mistake was not to take more of a leaf out of Dennis' book - he should have been elevated to main songwriter.

You can always come over to the other borad, Iain.

This supports my hunch that the guy started with defending Mike's current iteration/band, and then went from there. A "give Mike's band a chance" article could be an interesting, thoughtful piece (although again a bit unneeded, requiring a straw man), acknowledging the issues/gripes some hardcore fans have with the context of Mike's tour, while touting the musical quality of Mike's band.

I also agree with what someone else said, that one of the guy's problems is an apparent lack of actual familiarity with the band's latter-day output. That includes the output from the other guys. The author isn't exactly highlighting that the one "Brian-less" album the band did in 1992 was by most measures their most UNSUCCESSFUL album of their career.

Apart from the issues of accuracy or the way opinions were stated, it seemed to me a lot of the background that fans might read into surrounding this article is how the author basically did the same thing last summer with another article that got mostly negative reactions, if not outright hostility. As Yogi Berra said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Look at the timing. Last summer Brian Wilson was about a month or two into a tour of the US, his new album had just come out in the spring, and Love And Mercy was in theaters and getting positive reviews. People outside the hardcore fans like those on this board and others were talking about Brian Wilson and his music again.

Then that article showed up, with almost the same focus. many fans who commented also seemed to feel it was an article to boost Mike and his touring band's profile, by what fans thought was trying to knock Brian Wilson down a few pegs. What are the terms..."set the record straight", "put things into perspective", etc?

Now almost a year later, Brian is again getting press coverage with the Pet Sounds tour, and the *same* author shows up yet again, with what looks like the same template for another article: Try to give readers points on why Brian Wilson should be knocked down a few pegs in terms of his reputation and legacy, and get in a few plugs and praise for Mike and his touring band.

Deja vu, all over again. Even if there is the slightest chance it is pure coincidence, if people look at the timing of both articles, they would at least raise an eyebrow and think it's odd for history to repeat itself with close to the same results.

I've yet to hear even any of Mike's biggest apologists respond to the question of what they would think Mike's opinion of the new article might be, and if it seems logical that he'd be anything but pleased by its existence. 

Please don't bait or create controversy for a month or so. Please.

I wish such an appeal had been made to the article's author both last summer and before publishing his more recent screed. fans can react however they please, that's what the forum is for.

Of course they can react as they please. I was just asking. I won't again.

You're right, Emily. And I say that honestly, not sarcastically. I'll try. I suppose my response may have been baiting, but I was trying to prove a point, motivated by the fact that I am deeply put off by the article, and perhaps I foolishly hope that railing against articles like this - which are so negative and hate-inducing - might make articles of this sort not continue to get traction to get published in the future. This article is the type of drivel I could see being written and published on someone's blog... but to see it get such high placement on the internet as to be present on Yahoo's main page (if Yahoo's algorithm decides the reader is a BB fan)... it's terrible. It's one thing to discuss stuff on a message board, but quite another for an article like this to be presented as a proper news/opinion piece of some sort. The flipside is that even though I have issues with Mike, I would not like to see the Man Vs. Clown page be promoted as a "legit" news article by a news source like Yahoo either.

The point was the article itself and its author should be receiving the criticism and calls for civility especially since the exact same author did the exact same thing a year ago under similar circumstances, and played into all of the trigger issues that can cause arguments among the fans. It succeeded in doing exactly that in both cases. If anyone is to blame it's whoever was behind the articles, not the fans for reacting to it and commenting. We're putting money into that publication's coffers every time it gets a click on the link, the fans can say whatever they want about it.

I totally take your point, CD, and have no problem with your post in typical (is there such a thing?) times.
But GF is right too. I'm no mod and must let people post as they will.
Thank you for your considerate response and for not taking offense.

I guess the final word on all of this is the fact that Brian Wilson paints originals.  Mike love paints lovely reproductions.  They're both painting... ... ...and it's there that the similarity forks.
 So...again...the paint by numbers writer of the fiction which prompted this discussion can fork off too.

You just made my day, AddSome - the writer desperately needs to fork off.  I keep repeating that I won't click on a link for the article, based on the fact that it is click-bait for angry fans.  May he find another occupation.

Range Rover has had a beef with me for about two years over something or other, can't remember what, hence her negative reaction to you describing my post as sensible. That's all that is... I'm reminded of that film where someone goes to work in an insane asylum and they very gradually start to realize that the patients have taken over and are running the place! Pet Sounds Forum, here I come...

Can't speak for certain for the rest of the article but my uncle has been in ringos band with todd rundgren for the last 4 years, touring frequently with him and has had nothing but nice things to say about him. In fact, ringo usually changes his "all-starr" band every 2 years, but he loves this group of musicians so much he's kept them for 4 years & counting, something hes never done in the last 30 years....b/c all the guys in the band are great guys, not assholes, including todd....
just pointing out this person, at least with that fact, probably doesnt know what theyre talking about.

Who's your uncle?  I saw that lineup twice.  They put on a great show!

I've met Ric Ocasek a few times. Seemed nice enough, if a bit withdrawn and quirky.

The guy from mr. mister, richard page

Yeah, they put on a great show....seen it a few times.....especially lukather on guitar is amazing

Steve Lukather is one of my favorite guitarists. Like Hal Blaine and Joe Osborn in the 60's & 70's, I found out eventually that many of my favorite guitar parts of the 80's were played by Steve Lukather! I understand Ringo's next album will feature quite a few songs that Lukather wrote, as well as one written with Van Dyke Parks!

Your description reminds me of someone... :)

I can't imagine Todd Rundgren isn't a nice guy to his colleagues, especially in Ringo's band. Ringo doesn't put up with bulls**t in his band (ask Dave Mason who was booted during rehearsals in 1997).

But Rundgren certainly has a reputation, and I've seen some interviews where one could understandably see his personality as disagreeable a bit. His interviews when he did "The New Cars" were refreshingly honest but also disappointing, as he basically admitted it was a paycheck situation. There are also stories all the way back to his early days as a producer; Badfinger had a very mixed impression of him for instance.

I saw every Ringo tour between 1997 and 2008 or so, but haven't checked back in precisely *because* he hasn't changed the band. That was always the whole point of his "All Starr" band, to change it up from tour to tour. A few holdovers were cool, or returning guys from older tours. But he has been reusing the exact same band for numerous tours now.

One of my favorite things about Ringo's band was always getting into new artists. I picked up stuff from people like Howard Jones, Colin Hay, got back into Frampton and Bruce after not having paid a ton of attention for a little while, learned the genius of Gary Brooker, learned that Sheila E. is a freaking amazing drummer, and so on. Where else but in Ringo's band would you see Greg Lake do "Karn Evil 9" with Howard Jones and Sheila E. as a three-piece?

To bring it back to the BBs, I always thought Al Jardine would have been great as a second guitarist in Ringo's band. They would definitely need a primary guitarist, a Frampton or Billy Squier or Lukather, and Al would be there primarily to add the hits. Back in the day, Carl Wilson would have also been great in Ringo's band. I would think Carl would have dug it too, playing in Ringo's band with Joe Walsh and Billy Preston, etc.

Karn Evil 9? I have to check that.

Speaking of Howard Jones, he just got to meet Brian backstage at the Brooklyn gig last weekend, and he has been doing a beautiful cover of God Only Knows this past year at his solo piano/voice gigs. Well worth checking out. Howard was just sitting in with The Roots on Fallon's show this week too.

I have never gone to an All-Starrs concert; when I wanted to see them, they didn't play in my area. It's been ages, though, since Ringo's had a lineup I was really interested in. What I would have paid good money for, though, was a Ringo and the Roundheads concert. They did VH1 Storytellers back in 1998, and sounded great. I can see why Ringo doesn't tour like that, though - he doesn't want to be singing a whole show when he is really a drummer first, a singer, second. So it makes sense for him to tour with other guys that have hits of their own to sing. But I thought the Roundheads, with Mark Hudson, rocked better than any of the All-Starr lineups. Really wish I could have seen him when he had guys like Billy Preston, Levon Helm, Rick Danko, Felix Cavaliere, Dave Edmunds, Timothy Schmit, Randy Bachman, John Entwhistle and Burton Cummings in the band.

I saw that tour live too. It was incredible.

Just listened to it, fabulous live rendition, with Greg in very good voice!