The Smiley Smile Message Board

I for one love the Mike Love look of 1969 with the long beard and the white robe. It's just so crazy. And when he puts a spell on the audience or something. Very funny. Anyway, I am just curious what Mike Love today thinks about that look. Anybody know? Does he distance himself from it? What did the other guys think in 1969? What do they think about it today? Anyone that has an opinion on it including backing musicians, Stephen Desper, managers, etc...

By 1969 Mike Love was in the centre of his own universe. His ego had been swelled beyond what can be considered normal for a pop/rock artist. His white robe jesus look and eccentric stage personality damaged the reputation of the band. I think that ended witht he Sunflower/SU era. Someone prob told him to shut up (I suspect Dennis) and one sees a much more reclusive figure of Mike in the early 70's. Perhaps he realised that Dennis and Carl really were the main guys. The Inclusion of Ricky and Blondie along with expulsion of friend Bruce probably contributed as well. Thank God.

Ya had to be there.  With all the stuff going on at that time, a white robe was not such a big deal.  Likely it was a
Maharishi influence, who also influenced the Beatles, as well. I think I saw him only once in the robes, and not in the
Summer of 1969.  Maybe the fall of 1968.  People were on downtown street corners in Krishna garb, so it was really no big deal.  Living in a college town exposes one to divergent ideas, dress and ways of life.

The guys wore what they wanted by that time in the summer of 1969.  I was one of those poor unfortunates whose Maharishi Tour was cancelled.  Boston.  That said, much of what Mike has supported, has taken 40 years to become mainstream.  Now, doctors prescribe meditation.  Meditation is being made part of the curriculum in schools.  It is being used for violence prevention in violent school settings, as a coping strategy. 

It is often a sign of a leader to make a statement for the public which, at the time, might appear radical, but, upon examination, over time, proves to be just one solution to a problem in society.  TM is now becoming mainstream.  Not so much, back then. 

Mike was shown old footage of it on VH1 around 1993. He laughed and said in his dense it was comfy.

Comfortable, yes, and, I think I saw the robe, on a black and white Paris show footage.  But, part of a bigger picture, whose concepts which were new to the Western World, are now more generally accepted and more mainstream.  Rock musicians took a risk, both thinking outside the proverbial box, with dress, and lifestyle.  They became a political force to be reckoned with, using their position as a voice for divergent thought.  One word: Woodstock.

My sense is that their touring and travel was a real source of direct education, and exposure to the ways in which other cultures think.  The US can be a very narrow and isolated country.  It was likely a post WWII response to the rebalancing of society post war.  Now, as a result of the web, young people are exposed to divergent societies and points of view.  It is a vehicle for tolerance. 

Ya, the robe was comfy.  But, it meant something deeper, I think.  Good for him, to have had made the statement. 

I have to play devils advocate and chuck this one in here, but couldn't it also be that he was trying desperately hard to be hip. A bit too hard.

He already was; he didn't have to try. 

Devils Advocates are good!   ;)

Now the term, "hip" is a "dated" word.  If you look at the art scene, and fashion becoming so global at that point, a real "anything goes" attitude was the norm.  It was a very cool time to be young, and experimental with dress and develop your own style.   

By 1968, the Beach Boys were not hip, in the states anyway. I just feel Mike's trying too hard to be credible here.

It all depends with whom you are speaking.  I'd say it is fair to assess that they were in a "different mode."
That does not mean they were not "hip." Do It Again came out in the summer of 1968.  The US was in a different mode. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated within months of one another.  Is it significant for music? You bet. 

FM radio, was discovering, at least, WBCN, in Boston, was playing Smiley.  Boutiques in Harvard Square were playing the entire album.  That was "hipper than hip." But in a different way.  Not the hit parade hip, but a consciousness-raising "hip."

They were being accepted, gradually, as serious musicians. Not the trite West Coast icons courting surf bunnies.  That is the difference. 

I thought I would faint, when I heard them being played, in a boutique in Harvard Square, (smirking smugly to myself.)

They weren't "square," on hippie radio. It was impossible.  And, the beginning of an inexorable brush fire in a drought.  I bet they were not even fully aware of what was happening.  They were on FM.  Unheard of. Hip FM.  Pet Sounds, as well.  On FM!

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

I love the moment from the European footage when Dennis says something along the lines, "We appeal to just about everyone from the very old (points to Mike) to the young (points to himself)"

One point that stands out about 1969 through maybe 1974 was Mike's demeanor: Is it just me or did it seem like he was acting stoned a lot of the time? I'm not being facetious or trying to stir something up, but I'm just curious if others may see that too. This was someone who was anti-drug in 65-66 and there is some proof of that both from that time and later interviews, yet a few years later that same guy is on stage acting and talking like an experienced stoner. Was this playing to the crowd? Or was it something to do with the TM studies? Even the Mike heard and seen in Hawaii 1967 sounds different from the bearded and white-robe wearing Mike of a few years later. And isn't it true that he did not take drugs at that time?

I would like to point out that in recent years groups like the Danielson Famile and the Polyphonic Spree have sported robes. The first time I saw the Polyphonic Spree it immediately brought Mike Love to mind. Come to find out, Tim Delaughter mentioned in an interview that he loved a lot of music from the late 60s and early 70s. Then he said, the Beach Boys were doing a lot of that kind of stuff too (talking about the music). So he is probably familiar with the robe look of Mike Love.

I think he said "from 16 (pointing to himself), to 60 (pointing to Mike)." He also reffered to Mike as Santa Claus. Assuming we are talking about the same interview. Mike, Al, Carl and Dennis are sitting in a bed? That one?

I thought the matching robe costumes of the Spree were a bit on the creepy side even though they made good music, but then again I think the only people who could make the robe look actually work as a fashion statement were Hugh Hefner and Brian Wilson, both for different reasons. :) 

Yes! That's it.

Was he really anti drugs in 65-66? It might be him rewriting history given what happened to Brian and Dennis. But in The Real Beach Boy, he is said to be doing some drugs with Dennis. The last time they were seen taking together. Not sure when he REALLY became anti drugs.

I thought he had sided with Murry when Brian was confronted about the drug use? Maybe I'm confusing that with one of those TV movie scenes, where I know that was played up... :-D  It's a very gray area, especially factoring in Smiley Smile and balancing what Brian has said about making that album with other members' comments about drug use through the years. Maybe rewriting history is part of it, I'm not sure. It was always the impression around those years 65-67 that one of the inner band and family conflicts was drugs. I also got the impression Mike was not partaking in the late 60's and early 70's, especially as his TM studies got more intense, yet his stage persona seemed to be that of a stoner.

You can sense something between Brian and Mike listening to the "Party!" sessions, and a few offhand comments are made about drugs, without getting too specific here. Same with the Hang On To Your Ego issue.

John Stebbins can probably fill some of the details in here, but I also remember reading in The Lost Beach Boy about Mike drinking and maybe a little toking with Dennis in the early '60s. I don't think in the '60s Mike was totally anti-drug, whether he partook or not. I think the issue with Brian, and later Dennis and Carl's, drug use was that it started to interfere with their work. When Brian started spending more time with the more than causal users, that's when Mike started coping an attitude. When these other people started sharing ideas and writing songs with Brian, that's when Mike started getting vocal about it. When Brian backs away from that scene after Smile and starts working with the guys in the band again, Mike seemed to get cool again.

Regarding his stoner act and banter on stage, I always figured that was just playing to the crowds. A way to get a few easy laughs or cheers. His anti-drug stance now probably is a bit of revisionism. His way of saying, "I never got messed up on drug, and look at me now."

You tube still has a 2 part clip from Gaumont Palace, Paris, concert, anid the interview is sort of shared among four of them, where there were two twin beds pushed together, for an interview.  Mike's beard is really long.  The Santa reference is in conjunction with Dennis comment about the beginnings of the band, stemming from the back seat of the car and holiday family gatherings and sing alongs.  And since it was in French, Dennis seemed to be trying to communicate effectively and with a sens d'humeur.  Hence the Santa remark. I think.

And it features a really stripped down and relaxed version of the band.  Mike has no robe, and the date listed is December of 1970. The interviewer is initially positioned next to a dilapidated truck with a barking dog in the background.  

It is a delightful clip, with Country Air (a favorite) and presents an opportunity to watch and decide.  No one appears stoned or drunk.

It is a little dangerous to comment on someone's sobriety, without being a witness.  At any rate, the message from the band is that they were trying to evolve their music, and the industry was non-supportive of them and basically hostile to allowing them to grow and change.  It appeared to be an attempt to get someone in the foreign press to listen to them.  Certainly, there was a reluctance, by some factions, to allow them room to grow, change and develop in other directions.  

Dennis looks incredibly in control, and precise...This clip has had over 86,000 hits.  

Search Beach Boys - Live (Paris, December, 1970)

On the cover of 15 big ones he looks amazing for a bald guy.

Yes, good videos. I think that the Santa comment along with the "from 17 to 70" comment suggests that there was antipathy between the two on this day, though Mike more than likely wouldn't have shown it at that time.

I like your drift-well written.

Mike Love's lost years ended with 15 big ones. ;)

Check out the footage of a full band concert in '69 that's on youtube.  Fascinating document of the era. Mike is insane.  Doing all manner of goofy and weird sh*te.

I kinda like it.  But Carl looks like he's about to have kittens and I don't blame him.

"Damaged the reputation of the band"? You obviously weren't around back then, were you?

Yeah, lol.  Crazy.  We know nobody in the 60's looked like Jesus Christ.  Wearing white?  Wow!  What a jerk!  And a Rock Star had an ego?  Noooooo.  You're right, Dennis was probably the sane one who didn't have an ego and stopped Mike's.  LOL 

I think this might be possible, however if he really was just desperately trying to be hip, he would have quickly lost the whole TM thing and moved onto something else, yet he did not. The man is seriously devout and doesn't care what anyone on a Beach Boys message board thinks about it.

I was and he did. Rock and Roll's original jack ass. Nobody's done it as well as Myke. :p

Perhaps it had a lot to do with Brian stepping back after abandoning SMiLE. As much as I love Smiley, Wild Honey and Friends, the other guys were not ready to make hit records. By the time their music improved, they were unhip. People thought of them as an oldies act. Now back to the news!

I don't know how much these meet and greet VIP packages cost, but the patrons will be treated like cattle. In and out after a few pics or autographs. Glad I got that done from 1969 through 1992 on my terms. That's all I need at this point. I wish them well and I hope the fans get a thrill. For me , the thrill is gone.

Listen to this man, he knows of which he speaks.  Trying to understand where Mike was coming from back then from a 2012 perspective is fruitless.  His rishi approach was a bold move, and well in keeping with the times.  If anything, the rest of the touring band was lagging, Dennis excluded.

filledeplage is female  :-D

Right again, you have touched on something that I've seen overlooked in even the most in depth Beach Boys bios.  Their courting of the counterculture was a brave move.  They could have easily turned into the Buckinghams in 1967 and cranked out a slew of "Darlin"-styled blue eyed soul singles and had some consistent chart success.  (I love "Darlin'" by the way.)  But instead they pushed themselves creatively as a band.  Pet Sounds is a completely different album from Smiley is a completely different album from Wild Honey is a completely different album from Friends and so on.

There were a lot of fab bands in the sixties, but how many would re-invent themselves from album to album and still create a wholly satisfying body of work?  Maybe Dylan, Beatles, the Who, the Stones (Aftermath-Let It Bleed)... The very top tier.

That Joe Public couldn't swing with it was their own damn fault.  The good folks programming hip underground FM stations knew better, and they programmed what they wanted to.  An album like Smiley Smile fit perfectly into what they were trying to accomplish.  The problem was most of those stations had a 50 mile radius on a good day, and were only based out of the biggest markets.  In the mid 70s that would all change, but the real "heads" knew where it was at, and Smiley was revered in certain hip circles, paving the way for the ultimate (relative) success of the Surf's Up LP.

Mike's robes were really not that far out, if you look at the hip cultural trends of 1969.  Ever seen pictures of Peter Green and Danny Kirwan from that era?

 :-D

Craig, I've re-read your post several times, so that I can adequately get to the heart of what you're getting at.  Hopefully this can answer your question:  Mike in the mid-sixties was a dilettante, a dabbler.  He was never immersed in the drug culture and had a healthy suspicion of those who were (Schwartz, V.D. Parks and whomever else) .  It doesn't mean he was a choir boy as you clearly understand, but he probably toked up a bit here or there to see what all the fuss was about.  Regardless the extent of his drug use, clearly it did not come to dominate his life, but when he was exposed to TM for the first time in 1968 it all changed.

Whether or not you or anyone views TM as a crutch, a sham or a divine source of enlightenment, one thing is for sure:  the teachings as read in The Science of Being and The Art of Living absolutely frown upon the use of external inhibitants to achieve enlightenment.  For someone who is a willing student of TM, meditation is the only way to get in touch with Being, aka cosmic consciousness.  And since we know Mike was and to this day is a huge practitioner of Maharishi's teachings, it only makes sense that he would have followed the path so to speak and gone on the straight and narrow.

A lot has been made of the Mike/ Al nexus as pertaining to the eventualities that went down in 1978.  While Mike and Alan are consistently viewed as the squares who stood in the way of the Carl/ Dennis progressive nexus, not many people seem to consider that the negative karma of the Wilson drug lust was negatively impacting the positive, drug-free, uplifting ideals of the meditation practitioners.  Simply put, as someone who practices meditation myself in the hopes of achieving a slight bit of enlightenment, the last thing I want around me is a bunch of junkies, hangers-on and soul suckers trying to bring me down from my aspirations.  It's a perfectly valid argument!

All of this I guess is a roundabout way of saying, Mike in 1969 was trying to achieve an ideal with his robes and beard.  We can laugh today at how silly he looked, but I would still bet heavily that he was doing his best to keep clean; and if you listen to his patter from most of the shows of the era, his tone is that of the "big brother" who has seen the damage drugs can cause and was trying to advise his younger peers, in a non-judgmental way, to steer clear of that sh*t.

Spot on.  I've only read a few of your posts here, but I feel like you have a better working understanding of the subtle dynamic of the Beach Boys than so many others I read on the boards.  No offense intended towards any posters here of course, but I read a lot of BB information throughout the whole of the internet written by people who are certain they have it figured out what band member X was thinking when they did action Y and so on.  Maybe I present a bit of that vibe too, but I feel like what I say comes more through an understanding of the human condition-- as relates to the brothers Wilson and their cadre-- and I sense that same understanding in what you post.

At any rate, I think it's important we all should all strive for higher understanding.  Of course this stuff is fun to speculate about, but in the end Mike was a guy who said what he thought, while Brian was outwardly shy but quite passive/ aggressive when he wanted to be.  No heroes, no villains.  Just shades of grey.  I just want to reiterate that Mike's 1969 apparel had nothing to do in the way of drugs or the condoning of their usage.  If anything it was a holistic, opposite approach.

He can be seen toking on stage in the Central Park 1971 film very briefly. What that means I have no idea, but I don't think he ever did hard drugs which obviously was a wise decision.  He probably was just a social or occasional pot smoker maybe tried acid if the "Our Prayer" session tape is anything to go by, and left it at that.

As much as I love the Wilson brothers musically and admire quite a number of things about them personally, I wouldn't have wanted to tour with Dennis after 1976 or so, nor Carl from 1977-78, nor Brian from 1976-82. I actually feel sorry for Mike when I see that Good Morning America clip from 1980. I have all the sympathy for them in the world as people, but in a group if you can't do your job properly it's understandable that your bandmates would be angry.

Thanks, Jason...it is one of those difficult things to "project yourself into the past" with a book or video, or History of Rock and Roll intro course.  And that is what is often going on.  That is not intended to insult anyone's body of study.  But, no more could I go back and relive (nor would I desire to) live in the 1950's la-la land of stereotypical life, can someone who did not experience, hands-on what was really going on during those turmultous, war-driven years of real rock and roll. 

And, this forum is for music discussion.  I like to think of a person's private life, as private, and largely off limits.  They are "ours" whe they are onstage, and via a recording or video, but, go back to their private lives, when they go off stage. 

Yes, filledeplage is a girl!  We need more, as ladies are badly outnumbered.  Or, not.  ;)

That made my day! 

More foreign language classes! 

Thanks, Jason. Are you trying to make nice with all the ladies this morning by complimenting our posts?   ;)

At the base of it all, of course they are humans. I find the Lovester to be so interesting. Even though he has this huge rock star ego, I think the band still comes first for him and always has. I know I brought this point up a few years ago during a discussion about Mike and Dennis' relationship and got some heat for it, but I think it really illustrates Mike's professionalism and band-first attitude. During this late '60s time frame, one of his band mates, who also happened to be his first cousin, slept with his wife. Can you imagine? Think about how unbelievably upset you would be if your spouse was boning someone else. I wouldn't be able to be around that person, but here Mike was playing music with him on a near nightly basis. I don't want to get into a whole thing about that situation, but I think it illustrates the ridiculous lengths Mike went to because he believed in the band.

Obviously I don't agree with a lot of decisions that Mike as made in the past 50 years, but I have tremendous respect for him. There was a lot of chaos going on around him at all times during his adult life, so if he gets a little weird sometimes to deal with it, who cares? If he was writing "All I Wanna Do" in 1969, I don't care what he wore or how he spent his free time.

A well-reasoned and well-thought out post! Great points. I'm of the mind if someone finds something that affects their life in a positive way, and helps them find that elusive inner peace and satisfies that search for something more, then more power to that individual. Whether it be a traditional religion like Christianity or Buddhism, a study of meditation, or any other worthy pursuit, they should definitely aim for their goal of spirituality, inner peace, knowledge, relaxation, or anything else.

I do see something else that wasn't mentioned with Mike in all of these posts: As much as he was pursuing his goal, through TM, that pursuit did actually affect the band more than once in a public way. There are a few cases where Mike's fasting caused him to act erratically, to the point where he could not perform live and in the case of the R&R Hall Of Fame, where he went off on a rant that - agree or not with his sentiments and opinions in that speech - it did become a negative PR issue for the band as people began to hear and read accounts of it. Howard Stern would actually open his show regularly around 6AM at that time with a collage of sound clips that included Mike's speech. It wasn't good press for them, and whether Mike was right, it probably wasn't the right forum to get up and say that. Besides interrupting Brian and futzing with his microphone. It just didn't look right.

Add those into perhaps a few or many more examples of this, and not only did the substance abuse issues affect the band as a whole, but also Mike's fasting which led to erratic behavior which also affected the band. I don't like relativism, comparing apples to oranges so both look the same in the end, but the TM as good as it may have been for Mike had also caused harm to the band, which was part of the issue of mentioning the substance abuse as it related to how the band was affected.

Perhaps the bottom line is that as big as they were as stars, these were and are human beings with the same issues everyone faces, and there but for the grace of God go we...

I've written enough already, but wanted to mention the radio airplay as well...later. :-D

One important thing to mention as well is that at that time, it was not entirely out of place to see men going for the Jesus look, for lack of a better term. "Jesus Christ Superstar", the Jesus freak pseudo-movement, folks looking to various interpretations of Christianity in the wake of trying and failing to find what they were looking for through chemical means - it actually became part of a movement to make Jesus cool. I really don't like using that phrase, but it's as close as I can find to a description.

One scene from All In The Family that stands out was when Mike brought home some college friends who were into Jesus in the way I mentioned above, and Archie tore into them, saying things like "Jesus is the Lord, not a superstar!". You had to see it to get how funny it was on the show.

But seeing guys with long beards, sandals, and robes, and looking very religious in 1970-71 was not as unusual as it seems today, depending on where you lived.

Then you must not have been paying much attention to the bands reputation and career in '68-'69. And if you're that down on "Myke" as you oddly call him, how'd you ever effin' get to be a Beach Boys fan in the first place?

"Effin" Wilson, Wilson, Wilson, Jardine and Marks-that's how I got into 'em. Luhv never did it for me if that's ok with you, and even if it isn't. >:D

What about Brooce?

Personally, when I am watching a video of the Beach Boys in a concert from the late 60s through the 70s, my eyes are drawn to Mike in a completely heterosexual way. :)   But seriously, nobody else in the band could come close to Mike as a front man except for maybe Dennis. I am sure if Dennis was made the front man early on, he might have become better then what Mike did, but who knows. Actually, I would include Blondie Chaplin as a solid front man as well. But part of Mike's appeal for me was his beard, the clothes he wore, his sarcastic humor, etc.

Its Bruth in OSD terms. ;D

Dennis was charismatic, but he didn't move that well and he was moody. Mike was the only one that worked the stage, danced and nearly always kept up his front man persona. And while some of his moves and patter were at times hokey, it worked.

While I liked hearing Dennis introduce songs and seeing him in the front lineup, he wasn't qualified for for the front man role. That job required responsibility

Wow, that's quite a feat. Did you just not listen to the songs with Mikes' lead vocals, or to say it another way, 3/4 of their early catalogue. And how about all of those pesky backing vocals of his in the other songs?
BTW, is that the "olde English" spelling of Mikes' name you're using?

Myke, Alle, Bruth, Dennise, Brhyan, and Carrrl.

Uh, yeah, that's it, old english, sure. I always liked the ballads with the Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Al leads. Myke's leads were hokey and irritating-like fingernails on a chalkboard. Brian could have found someone who could have done the baldster's parts and looked more like a Beach Boy instead of a dirty old man with an ego the size of the United States.

Instead of all the fluffy questions, I'd like some reporter/journalist to ask Mike about that era, his clothes, etc.  The picture of him in the white robe with flowers on the Sunflower album is odd, but admittedly it's hard to put into words all the weirdness that went on in the late 1960's and early 1970's  in America.  I remember a hippie clothing store near my house in New York called "My Thing," it sold groovy threads.   

Yes, and then there was George Clinton. George and Mike were both making statements. Then, it was OK to dress. It's not so OK now.

Oh, come on man, you don't even like Fun Fun Fun or I Get Around? don't think of what your opinion is of those songs now. think about the first 20 or so times you heard them.

Mike's ballad and bass vocals were quite different than his rock leads. How do you rate those in the 1963-73 period? Forget his stage manner for a second and think only of the records.

Without Mike Love we wouldn't have Let the Wind Blow, which is currently my favorite Beach Boys song.

He says he never liked him.

This is what I mean. Myke sang on that particular song. To begin with, Brian wrote the song and Myke wrote the lyrics-Now how do you   formulate the logic that the song would never have happened at all if it wasn't for ml? Brian could have written the words if he had to and someone else in the band could have sung Myke's part quite easily-and the song would have been fine-even without Myke. ::)   

I have heard that Brian just arranged the song. Mike wrote the music and lyrics.

It's about 75 percent Mike's.

Don't use logic and facts - they only confuse oldsurferdude if they pertain to Mike.

P.S. The same applies to "All I Wanna Do", which is one of their absolute best songs imo. Also, yeah, Mike did write the basis of "Let The Wind Blow" and other songs. I do not want to live in a world where those songs never came out imo.

Hey!! I think it's really something that you guys were right there when it was written. Were there any other fanboys there as well? "I heard", "He said", "I know"  is just so Gosh Darn overwhelming! And since it's been said here before with no repercussions from the powers that be, RDZ, uh, f*** you. ;)

Lets have some more light-hearted Mike bashing, like the 20 rings he seems to wear. ;)

Was done with the beach stuff and the ML lead vocals after SDASN showed up. I always thought PS would have been a couple of notches higher w/o the ML leads. It was alright when I was a teenager but kinda knew his time as a lead singer had come and gone. It was Carl's turn , thank god.

I disagree with the last part but the first part I agree wholeheartedly.  It's so 'fake' to do these vip packages.  I don't blame the boys and I realize it works for some people, but if I'm going to actually purchase a ticket for this and then just get cattled through a line to meet everybody or whatever, what's the benefit of that?  I'd MUCH rather run into one of them at the damn gas station or something, just say Hi! and get about our lives. 

To me: meeting one of them (or all of them!) at these prearranged vip things backstage is pretty much the same as never meeting them at all. 

Oh, and about the old man: he's the definition of a hater.  Always has been.  You can't use logic or anything with him, he's wayyyy too old to change his mind about something.  Regile him to that place in your mind you send other senior citizens, like your cooky old Neighbor, your aunt that collects beanie babies, or grandpa simpson.  His day has come and gone, and he's not even putting up a fight anymore. 

Yo punk! Don't see you spreading amorous vibes in this neck of the woods very often either. Still President of the Myke Luhv Fan Club with all of it's 3 members? Time to lick his bootstraps and shine those sandals. By the way, genius, regile ain't no word.

"Brian could have found someone who could have done the baldster's parts".

Well, yes, but he didn't, did he?  Brian could also have got somebody who already knew how to play drums, somebody who already knew how to play bass, somebody who already knew how to play lead guitar, etc. etc. etc.  But he didn't.  He got his two brothers, his cousin with whom he had sung all his life, a next-door neighbor kid and a former high school football team-mate and they became one of the greatest bands in the world.  Mike's leads and bass and harmonies were a huge part of that, especially his leads.  He was a key component. There's no point in speculating about another singer because there wasn't one.  As for them being "alright when I was a teen-ager",  they were then and they still are for me as I calmly await my first social security retirement check in a few months.  Aahh well, to each his own.

In regards to Mike toking or not, listening to the Smiley Smile outtakes he certainly sounds like he'd spent time in the tent.  :afro

i luv acronyms "SDASN" is an unrealized beach boy song called "show dicks and show nipples" some guys covered it you can download it on the internet is the best song that i have ever heard

You're arguing with soemone who's senile.  What you say makes perfect sense, but he has bigger issues to worry about then your logic... like being in bed by 9 so the nurses don't get mad, bladder control problems, and erectile disfunction. 

:) 

Also, Our Favorite Recording Sessions. Everybody sounds ultra-baked.

Yikes!  Major gaffe!  All apologies, and good vibes all around. ~JP

It would be cool if Mike would make fun of himself and wore this robe for one song every night on this tour. :)

I want him to bring back his sex machine.