The Smiley Smile Message Board

First off, I want to clarify that I am not looking for an argument on weather or not Mike Love is evil. I am simply considering his overall reputation of being an egotistical talentless jerk (which I don't agree with) and wondering if there are persons from another band with a similar reputation? I am not very well read on other bands, or what fans think of its members, outside of the Beach Boys. Based on what a lot of people think about ML, its hard for me to imagine any other rock star being hated as much as him.

I don't know. When it comes to egotistical, talentless jerks I think the Gallagher brothers, particularly Liam, beat Mike hands down.

And if I've offended any Oasis fans then.......

Good!

I know Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are popular, but they make Mike look great as to how they treated Brian Jones.

Actually, I think the lead singer of the fictional band Stillwater in the film ALMOST FAMOUS is very close to a "Mike Love" type.

As much as I love The Smiths, some of Morrissey's quotes over the years makes Mike's HOF speech read like Sylvia Plath

David Lee Roth.

bono

I would take Mike Love over the Gallagher brothers any day because there is something seriously wrong with those brothers.

Mike Love is a Unique Creation of Mother Nature's Womb-Wisdom, friends. He is not to be compared to mere weeds in the garden.

Roger Daltrey perhaps?

I know in the early days of The Who, he would fight Keith Moon all the time, which is ironic because he became Keith's biggest supporter and  storyteller after he died.

Daltrey respects the talented creative force of the who.    Does Mike respect the talented creative force of the Beach Boys?

Does Pete take any crap?  Does Brian take any crap?

  Cat Mother and the All Night Newsboys- Cat was a total mother.

The anti-Oasis vibe here is staggering and confounding. Shows the kind of work that the media can do. It's like "Disco Sucks!" all over again!

I'd say Roger Waters was certainly a Mike Love type (only with a tad better fashion sense)! Though he has mellowed out quite nicely of late.

Townshend is a mater of communication with tons of honesty, so I'd say he's very apt with Roger. Pete always calls a spade a spade, almost to a fault.

Roger Waters is a great choice, very talented lyricist with a definite vision for the band, but with a much better melody writer (Gilmour) and singer (Gilmour) and filled with more talented instrumentalists (Wright especially and also Gilmour), and Roger is certainly extremely outspoken. One difference, though, is Waters could write good melodies every now and then (although mostly he was very limited).

My choice is going to confuse some people, especially those who don't have the context of being around in the '60's, but to me the closest thing out there to Mike Love is undoubtedly Paul Revere. He's slightly older than Mike, 70+, he's led his band as an emcee, jokester, and really the manager/leader driving force for over five decades. He goes out there night after night, tour after tour, plays the same hits, tells the same jokes, he has no one in the group that is an original Raider, just him and a bunch of faceless guys who were not on the hits. He churns it out, the fans have no idea who is who and they love it, and they sing along anyway. But there are less fans every year as the fan base ages. Paul's "Raiders" have not put out a new record or had a record contract in many, many years. No one cares. They play the old hits, they draw an audience, year after year after year. He's making a living, and making people happy, playing great songs that he only had minimal input on creatively. The guy that was the creative force (Mark Lindsay) hasn't been in the band in many years and tours as a solo act. But people come out to see Paul and the Raiders not because who is in the band, but because they recognize the name and the songs. Sound familiar?

Check it out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSSb2HlPps

Wow, looking at a situation of similar band to Mike and Bruce's that I'm not of fan of really has just made realise how bleak the situation of the "Beach Boys" really is. (except Mike and Bruce finally care about the live show these days)

J.C. Fogerty

This is so funny it's almost unbelievable. The media LOVE Oasis. If they didn't, i might stop hearing about their fucking awful solo records every couple of days. If there's a single Oasis song that has the class, attention to detail or basic respect for humanity of a CHIC Organisation production, that sh*t has not even been bootlegged. I have WASTED FORMATIVE YEARS in the belief Oasis were worthwhile.

Well, your not wasting your years now, believing about the greatest band ever, THE BEACH BOYS!!!. ;D

Who would have been the "Mike Love" of The Monkees?

You guys should read up on what it was like working with Captain Beefheart.

Peter Tork.  ;D

I did, it was a miracle they didn't kill him after the crap he put them through in making trout mask replica.

HOOORAY TO THAT  :beer

Word!

Fogerty is obviously an insanely talented guy, but from what I've read and heard regarding him, it wasn't any fun being in a band with him and his behavior seemed to be aggressively antagonistic toward the other guys.

He still talks crap about their playing, which boggles my mind because Creedence (for my money) had one of the best rhythm sections of all time. Sure he wrote the songs, but there is a lot more to being a convincing band than the material alone. 

Would I be accurate in saying that there is a similar split in Beatle fandom? Pro McCartney fans who dislike Lennon and visa versa?

I don't think Peter Tork was egotistical, was he? I don't know of any Monkee that has a Mike Love reputation. Davy Jones might be the least talented.

The Lennon/Macca divide isn't anywhere near as strong, though. ALthough more people hate Macca, I don't think it's for the same reasons people hate Love. Although he did break up The Beatles, imo.

Peter Tork is neither talentless nor a jerk. The definition at the start of this thread was "egotistical talentless jerk". Davy Jones all the way! You're all familiar with the '86 reunion recordings and all? His latest putdowns about every other member of the band (especially Mike Nesmith)? And although late in the Monkees career he co-wrote a couple of songs. Besides "You And I" (1969) can anyone else here even remember a single other song with any kind of substance? He makes Micky Dolenz look like a genius.....

Noel's egotism is justified. Liam's, not so much. Regardless, 90% of the time, they say what they say to willingly fuck with people. Regardless, Mikey boi has done several more f*cked up things than either of those two combined. Getting thrown off a ferry for being drunk isn't terribly douchey, just stupid.

The Oasis hate around here is indeed staggering. Listen to "The Masterplan" or "Talk Tonight", you fuckers.

When it comes to running a name into the ground and taking a ride on the nostalgia train for one too many years, Jerry Only of the Misfits may have Mike Love beaten.

Or..
Acquiesce
Half The World Away
Flashbax
Gas Panic
Columbia
One Way Road
Part of the Queue
Going Nowhere
Just Getting Older

Or...

*goes on*

Guys you do realise my Peter Tork remark was a joke right? The most musically gifted member of the Monkees was also the most passive and as a result had relatively few of his songs on albums. The two assholes of the band were Mike Nesmith and Davy Jones. However I defend Nesmith's right to be an asshole as he had the talent, songs and drive to back it up. It was mainly due to his insistence that the band were able to wrest control of their output after the second record and play on the recordings. All Jones did was rattle a tambourine and his endless slagging of other band members over the years is unreal.

Aren`t we forgetting the biggest talentless douche of them all...W. Axl Rose!                                      And speaking of Oasis, What`s the Story Morning Glory is a freakin` Beatles ripoff masterpiece! No one plagiarizes 60s pop better than Noel.

Not to derail the thread with talk of Oasis.....

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10772.0.html

I read an interview with Oasis in the early 90's, when they were pretty much unknown. Halfway through the interview one of the two twats ripped into the Beach Boys, dismissing them as "hippy s h i t", whilst extolling the Beatles in the same breath. This sort of put me against them. Then when I heard their feeble attempts at music my dislike turned to hate. Fast forward a few years to when everyone and their mother loved Oasis, to when Noel Gallagher was being called a genius, I felt as if I was the only sane person in Bedlam. Do these people not have ears?

And I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could be a fan of Oasis and The Beach Boys

To me that is like being a fan of a pile of turd and.....er.....The Beach Boys.

I don't need the media, or anyone else to tell me what to think of Oasis.

Beach Boy fan since '88

Oasis Hater since '92

And eternal bedfellow of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart

I thank you

And goodnight

Liam Gallagher is not worthy to carry Mike Love's turban.

Oasis - OK, but I prefer my Beatles straight.

Agreed, saw them in Kansas City with some follow up band. I think he had a John Sebastian Complex.

A John Sebastian complex?

Favors jeans, tie-dyes and wire-rimmed glasses.

I have seen O a sis twice first time completely off their freakin heads second time one off the greatest performances ever.. Sound familiar! I had the chance to have a few quiet ones with the brothers and it was a good laugh! Daniel johns and I compared smile thoughts whilst drinking with the lads

Yeah, Sebastian is a supreme prick...no wait....that's not it...Cat Mother and the All Night Newsboys wished they were the Lovin' Spoonful as I remember.

You're right. There was an advanced study that showed that the people who made What's The Story Morning Glory the 4th biggest selling album in the UK of all time had no ears. The study went on to show that the people who actively disliked Oasis DID have ears and really "knew their music."

Also, I have a hard time believing your claim. You're telling me you don't like Oasis because they put down The Beach Boys but not The Beatles? I can't believe that you would seriously consider that a valid enough reason for dismissing their music.


Is that what it's like? That's quite the analysis.

Oasis and others were part of a defining overall scene for 90s English pop music. If you put on their first album it just sounds like being in England in that year. That's the appeal they had and still have to many I'd imagine. They are a good old boys in the pub sort of band. With all the overconfidence & swagger of youth to back it up. Now they're old and have turned into the Rolling Stones. They will live forever like Mike Love & Bruce Johnston touring.

Oasis were the band that pretty much turned me onto music.  I went to a couple of their gigs in the past...to this day I like a lot of their songs and after Beach Boys related CDs I probably have more Oasis than any other artist in my collection.  Although these days I prefer The Stone Roses for that kind of thing.

The disappointing thing about Oasis is they never really grew musically and their last few albums were just entirely ordinary as far as I am concerned...or maybe I just grew out of them.

I don't really like Liam, but Noel seems to have his head screwed on a bit more.  Still I think I remember a quote where he criticised Brian Wilson for not writing his own lyrics or some such...how saying the same to Noel about not producing his own records :p ?

I'm sure everyone has a pet hate that makes them unreasonable, and mine is Oasis. I hate them so much that it actually feels nice, and I dismiss their music because it is rubbish. I don't care how many people bought it. Owning an Oasis album is as idiotic as owning a mobile (cell) phone imo History would be full of forgotten fads if they hadn't been forgotten.

...and the analysis was what it was, sorry you didn't get the point. Oasis are turds basically. Couldn't be simpler.

90% of their music is a pale regurgitation of someone else's, and the other 10% is just too foul to contemplate. Their success is a sad reflection of the decline in musical standards which has been occurring gradually with brief respites since the early 19th century. If I could return to the 18th century I would leave today, and bollocks to the boxset!

Just imagine a bewigged, pantaloon clad, counterpoint composing smiley inserted right here. Oasis are knob-heads of the highest order.

I of course respect your right to form an opinion, odious and repugnant though it is. :)

(and lay off the sarcasm, you're terrible at it....)

I really can't see the comparison with Fogerty or Waters, both were the chief creative forces of their respective bands. it makes sense they would call most of the shots.

Paul Revere seems pretty right-on. He's content being a nostalgia act, replacing every member of the band if necessary.


I think McGuinn and Crosby of the Byrds are similar to Mike in a lot of ways... McGuinn especially. neither was much of a writer, yet they kept much of Gene Clark's brilliant material from being released. McGuinn became the leader by default, but his talents never matched those of bandmates like Clark, Gram Parsons, Clarence White, or Chris Hillman.

and speaking of Crosby, Stephen Stills is an egotistical ass as well. in fact, CSN might be like 3 Mikes in one band!  ;)

What do you mean McGuinn had little comparative talent! Who bears a co-writing credit on the latter-day masterpiece "Ding Dang" with one Brian Douglas Wilson? That's right...

Except Graham Nash is a genuinely nice chap, and one of the least egotistical people i've encountered. Trouble is he's a Man Utd supporter, but nobody's perfect.
Crosby on the other hand, has, or had, a massive ego, but he did write "Everybody's Been Burned", "Deja Vu", "Compass", and the entire If I Could Only Remember My Name album.

Makes sense. Our #1 do-gooder may have a great voice, but he's also stinking filthy rich. In itself that's not a crime. But here's a man who's got more mone than he, his children, and his children's children and their offspring can ever spend. He's an advocate of charity. He has a foundation of his own ("One"), that allegedly collects money for charity. Harsh reality, however, has it that only 1% (hence "One" ::)) of that money really goes to the needy of the planet. Yet Bono admonishes us to spend quite a bit of our own dosh on good goals.
Irony has it that Bone is not satisfied yet by a long shot, regarding his own finances. Therefore the financial HQ of U2 is located in Holland (just as the Stones' one is). Because a lot less tax has to be paid. Were Bono honest, he'd do that in Ireland, just as any hard-working Irish person is obliged to.

It doesn't come across well at all.

Mike Love's a saint, in comparison. Mike doesn't strive for photo opportunties with Nelson Mandela or the Pope.

The Cros, like Keef, demands respect for the simple act of still drawing breath on a daily basis. Plus, he's well aware of his ego, generally very amusing and yes, his body of work in the 60s and 70s (ending with the sublime "Delta") is great.

I am more of a Gene Clark type of person (as for the celestial/hymnal stuff, he could equal Brian Wilson IMHO); sadly enough, Clark didn't survive his passion for substances, including alcohol. But Crosby did write sublime material, and contrasted that with the ridiculous ('Mind Gardens' really mars Younger Than Yesterday).

He SO would if he were more famous. Come on! You know this!

Is there evidence of this? Or could he just be filthy rich because u2 has been very successful.

Trust me. We had a lenghty discussion about this on a British board. I am in Holland and know of the tax locations of U2 and The Stones. The Britons know about the 'One' foundation. U2 simply evades paying Irish taxes properly, yet Bono urges us to donate to the Third World. I don't like that.

Well, maybe he trusts that more of his own money will be given the the Third World then that of the Irish government. I don't know, you could be right.

Personally, I think we could give billions of dollars to people in a third world country. But it wouldn't fix the root of the problem. Their governments are too corrupt. And perhaps other governments of wealthy countries are part of the problem as well.

Agreed. Even the UN THROWS money/aid to third world countries and NOTHING ever changes.

I watched an NBC special about bono helping in third world countries - and at least he is doing something. He has made a sh*tload of money (and regardless of whether or not he pays taxes in Ireland) he is at least making people aware of the situation in Africa and giving some money. He's not a saint, he's a rockstar&human being. Having loads of money doesn't equate to having a perfect conscious.

People get pissed at Bono's charitable attitude, but no one gets pissed that Axl Rose doesn't do much to help third world countries. No one cares that Justin Beiber doesn't raise awareness about the suffering in the Congo. People just bitch about Bono and how he doesn't give more. Whatev.

*That being said, I totally see Heartical Don's point....I don't know where I stand on the issue (I DO think bono is a hypocrite) but I also think people pounce on him too much...idk. As for the tax thing, yeah, that's kinda a shitty move on his part.

Double Post.

U2 as a band was the highest grossing musical act of last year, estimated earnings of 195 million US...give or take a few mil. The Spider Man musical added quite a bit to their coffers, after it got off the ground safely and actors weren't falling out of the rafters during the show. :-D

Re: The Holland issue...What is an estimated percentage of the current tax rate in Ireland for a wealthy man like Bono or a collective like the Rolling Stones? I'm not taking sides either way because it dips into the politics of taxation and opinions of what is a "fair share" to pay in taxes out of your wages and earnings, but I am curious to find out. I remember reading accounts of The Beatles in a similar situation in the mid to late 60's - wasn't it a staggering tax rate of 95% or something which they were facing on their earnings as a band? They tried to buy an island in Greece to escape it, if I recall the history. :-D

I never realised until I read his autobiography (a great read BTW), just how bad Crosby's drug addiction got in the early 80's. When you read him talking about staying up for days on end constantly freebasing, and having his publishing rights bought by Graham Nash before Crosby could sell them for drug money, it really is amazing that he not only kicked his cocaine and heroin habit, but lived long enough to do so.

Ignore

Yeah, but the difference between Fogerty and Waters is: Fogerty wrote all the songs, sang all the leads, and played all the lead guitar, Waters: had a very limited scope as a bass player (Gilmour played a lot of the bass on the records), didn't really come into his own as a singer until the band's later days, and had three bandmates would could play endless circles around him, therefore, sure he wrote 90% of the lyrics and a lot of the songs, but I dare suggest his bandmates had more to do with the overall sound/vibe/attack than Waters.

Exactly. Waters would come up with the basis and theme for a song, (something the other two became less inclined to do over time) but it was Gilmour and to a lesser extent Wright who added colour, hooks, texture and melody.

If Bono really wanted to help Africa he should send them a few million crates of condoms. It only adds to the problem that each family has about 12 children.

Bono for safe boners.

Meh, you can't really compare him to any of the greats.  Maybe David Lee Roth as others have suggested, but David's personality was so extreme it caused Van Halen's demise, Mike never wanted to break up the BB's at all, except maybe for Al.  If it wasn't for Mike's lawsuit against the 2004 Smile stuff he would not be as vilified as he is.  Take away the the rambling, drunk and emotional hall of fame disaster and he might just be halfway normal.

Or Bone no.  ;D

When Mike Love found out all he had to do was learn a few impressionistic dances like the 'roman chariot whip' and the 'rebellious school girl defiantly testing her daddy's rules by getting herself a real good ding dangin' and other such classics, he.........

(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/343/makelove.jpg)

Or, they can air drop the condoms in gift boxes with U2's last album included and no one will ever think to have sex ever again!