The Smiley Smile Message Board

Back in the early days of the 'Net and for quite a while after that, I was one of the Mike bashers who saw him as Satan and Judus rolled into one, while Brian's halo simply shown more brightly with age. But with Mike leading the charge on the new tour, coming up with a constantly changing set list that manages to please nearly every type of fan, singing the praises of Pet Sounds and damning Capital's lackluster promotion efforts back in '66, while subtly pleading his case in the  many recent interviews the Boys have done, I now see Mike for the genius he is. If Brian is the 20th century's Mozart, Mike is almost certainly that era's Wordsworth.

Most of all, it has been the remarks of Bruce Johnston and David Marks in these interviews that have led me to look back at Love. As interviewers slobber over themselves while gloating over Brian's songwriting, producing and arranging prowess, it is left to Bruce and David to point out the equally significant accomplishments of Mike. Thankfully David has several times denoted Mike's unprecedented ability to move from a low to mid-range vocal interval. Bruce is, fortunately, always there to point out Mike's lyrical dexterity and the ease with which he can fit a thrice repeated "fun" into nearly any song. And it was Mike, after all, who added "excitations" to the vernacular. Poor Al has just turned to stale repetition of the "Brian is Genius" mantra, going so far as to claim that "Surf's Up" - a song that can't even maintain a tempo - is one of the Beach Boy's best.

Thank the God who made the radio and only knows that Mike is keeping that one off of our set lists.

I for one am grateful that this tour has given us the opportunity to reevaluate Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and to the progress of music in 20th century. While, perhaps, merely attempting to secure their future on the county fair circuit, the praise for Mike by Bruce and David has opened my ears and unleashed the Love. Thanks to Mike for making this tour happen and, for those of us who recognize that Wilson-Love > Lennon-McCartney, making this a sum-sum-summer in paradise.

I'll bet that was SOOOOO much cooler in your head. 

I honestly can't tell if this is serious or facetious, but either way... No.

Damn Ron, if your other 3209 comments are that witty, I've got some catching up to do!

Why Wordsworth, laddie?  Perhaps because Lyrical Ballads, as Wordsworth explains in his Preface, is about the mind in a state of excitement, leading to "excitations"?  An intriguing parallel. Let's hope Mike does not compose dry sonnets such as "Ode to Duty" in his (still) later years. "Emotions recollected in tranquility" is another chestnut that we can apply to Love as well. . . . .I am quite in accord with your learned historical analogy. And the details you are drawing from the interviews, etc., about Mike's artistry and vocal abilities are spot on, for David is no fool and would not aver such a thing superfluously.

By the way, Daminalist, how many beach boys are there?  I count 5.  What's your count? (This may be esoteric to the community but Daminalist seems likely to know the magic answer).

9 posts so far from Danimalist and he has claimed that David is a poor guitarist, Mike is a genius and that Surf's Up is a 'song that can't even maintain a tempo'! Funny stuff, lolwut etc.

It's about time that people are learning that Mike's the Greatest!!

This has to be a joke, noboby can say that Mike Love is awesome for keeping the setlist free of surf's up.

Who says it's Mike doing that? It's not as if Brian's been exactly keen to perform it himself...

Absolutely A+ trolling.

Not just anybody can do an interval! What a lot of people don't realize is that Mike Love was very good in English classes in high school - ask him, he'll tell you. This kid was no dumby. He was writing poems as a teenager. This guy had an insatiable appetite for words and turned that into a formidable talent. Plus, he had an true talent for emotion. Whereas Brian thinks "how much can I scare people?" when he writes a song, Mike wonders how he can remind them of the fun glory days of the Beach Boys, when Mike wrote hit songs. Instead of that lame PSA "Oxygen to the Brain", imagine what a hit "Fun, Fun, Fun to the Brain" would've been?

You know, it's gotten to the point now where if Mike doesn't perform "Kokomo" in concert, people ask for a refund. Most people are there to see Mike sing the hits. Yeah, there are few acid alliteration freaks that are there to check out Brian, but who cares about them?

Jeff put it best; Brian is the artist and Mike is the entertainer. For the most part Mike is correct. Most people who attend the shows want to hear the hits. They pay his salary so to speak. We all work and we do what our bosses and companies ask us to do. If we didn't, we would be out of a job. I have been to enough shows over the last 43 years, and believe me, Mike knows what works and what don't. Remember, we are a small fraction of the total audience and the only ones who get super excited over the deep cuts. Even at the Reunion Show I attended in Atlantic City a couple of weeks ago, most of the audience was very tepid towards the deep cuts, as well as as the lesser known hits. Personally, I don't mind the hit parade, because I feel that those songs show off Brian's genius just as well as the lesser known cuts. I am happy with the blend of songs on this tour.

The key has always been balance! The BB never figured out after 1980 on a regular basis  that they could still sprinkle in some rarities and play some hits and everyone goes home happy! There were moments 82-83, 88, 93 but they could have always been doing that! Obviously you have to play Good Vibes, Cal Girls, Rhonda, and Kokomo.  You play some car songs for sure, but you don't have to play LIttle Deuce Coupe,  Pasadena, Still Crusin.,and 409, and Shut down, and Little Honda. Pick 2 to play and  rotate which ones they are. Same thing with surf songs: you don't need Safari, Catch A Wave, Hawaii, Surf CIty, Dont Back Down, It's Ok. Pick 3 and rotate them around! How they never figured that out is beyond me!  I think Mike's gotten better at balance  but the RS article showed he still is resistant and the fact they are doing ALL the car songs, and ALL the surf songs still in medleys shows that!

Also, haven't the BBs made enough money? How many millions has Mike made over his career? I think Brian got to a point where he felt, 'look, we've made enough money... let's take a chance on being artistic.' And Mike has never been able to understand that. He pretty much had a breakdown in the late '60s because of the BBs fall from the top of charts. Yes, he was also fasting a lot and etc., but what do you think drove him to such bizarre behaviors? Mike doesn't seem like a guy that would normally go on fasts for weeks.

In a way, Mike is kind of like Steve Jobs. Thou he has some serious hippie leanings, he also has some major insecurities that force him to engage in narcissistic, self-aggrandizing behaviors on a frequent basis.

Somebody needs to ask Mike about his breakdown, because it was far crazier than Brian's problems at the time.

That was not the impression I got from that google interview.  Mike talked about his strengths.  And conceded that (not unlike myself) that he was awful in Math.  English, taught back then, was rigorous, and he talks liking poetry, literature, etc.  There are those, whose work,  in their respective professions could "academically credentialize" in a college or grad school setting.  Those self-taught, or those who taught themselves without tutelage, are referred to in French as "autodidact/e" and many literary giants, (and women, who were not sent to formal school) and possess a skill set, such as Mike as a lyricist, which was self-directed.  

My high school, as many are, was so rigorous, that college, grad school and post grad were well within my reach.  Whatever road he took, he would have been successful, because of his work ethic.  

Mike was asked a question, and he responded.  I read somewhere that he went to the record studio to learn the business on his own.  It shows initiative, and a desire to learn.  They might not have had a course in record company management back then, (and likely have some entertainment-typeindustry major as is available, now) which would teach the skill set Mike learned on the road, as well as in the studio.

His ability to capture a theme is enviable. And, many do.

Without a "translator" of sorts, Brian's music might have been all-instrumental.  Sine qua non (without which not) the lyrical ability, largely self-taught, because of a self-professed love for the written word.  And a disclaimer, therein, that he was awful in Math.  
 ;)

I thought that would require it taking at least more than a couple of seconds reading before spotting you were being trolled

It sounds incredible! Running around with an apple juice jug, writing it off as "tainted Wilson blood." He'd probably laugh it off.

The car chase part is amazing. 8)

Yep, that idiot savant Brian. Without Mike, how would he have written the lyrics to "Surfer Girl"? Oh wait, Brian wrote those lyrics. And how about that first line in "California Girls"? Oh wait, Brian wrote that, too, before even talking to Mike about the song.

Well, I guess there's still "Little Deuce Coupe", "In My Room",  and "Don't Worry Baby"? Oops, Mike had nothing to do with those songs, either. (BTW, what's up with "Surfin' USA" - Mike doesn't have a songwriting credit for it!)

Yes, I'm overstating my case. Mike was a talented lyricist, no doubt, but I think it's been overstated a bit. He's basically Roger Christian, except his focus was more surfing or lifestyle orientated than on cars, and he could write better love songs.

I have worked since 1980. Now, ask me if I have made enough money after 32 years? You think Brian and Mike are going to change their standard of living? They do what they do because of artistry and lifestyle. We hardcores couldn't fill up a theater, let alone a 60+ on this tour alone. Multiply that over the band's lifetime. Their record and concert sales all hinge on the average fan buying and attending. Had they had more success in the late 60s and 70s, we would be hearing more of their output from that period.

Yeah, but if you've made tens of millions, wouldn't you want to focus on doing what you love, even if that makes a little less money? For Mike, he loves huge audiences and tons of money, so it makes sense he'd march on.... Meanwhile it's clear that while Brian enjoys money, he's not quite as attached to it, or otherwise wouldn't have taken the chances he did with his career. I personally empathize with the latter more than the former.

Ugh, you're all just a bunch of Mike Loves, man.

Brian made a lot of money touring Smile.  Look at this setlist: http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/brian-wilson/2004/aotea-square-auckland-new-zealand-33d26041.html (http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/brian-wilson/2004/aotea-square-auckland-new-zealand-33d26041.html) He did a few major hits, but not that many. You can have successful tours and be artistic, but it actually requires thoughtfulness and conscientiousness. Sure, you can go around pummeling soccer moms with the old hits for 30 years straight, but isn't there more to life than that?

Yes, Brian started playing more hits in his later sets, but that's because honestly he was touring too much. 50 year old groups can't tour year after year after year without real breaks and expect to sell out bigger venues forever.

Yes, I think you are correct; you are overstating the case.  Much of the catalogue is Wilson-Love.  But Mike never seems to miss an opportunity to lavish praise on Brian.  That is in the Touring Band, as well.  He is talented as a lyricist, as you concede.  It might be left at that.  

And I read where Jeff said Mike is an entertainer. He is that, as well as a great vocalist in my opinion.  It would be nice to see credit accorded where it is long overdue.   And, I think, it is.  ;)

Added this quote to my profile.

There has definitely been a push to shift the public perception of Mike Love in the last year. The consequences of it can be seen on this board from time to time.

You live your lifestyle by what you make. If I lived the way Mike & Brian live, I'd need to make millions too. You act like they live like we do. They don't!

As Randy Newman said, "I've got a family to support. But surely that is no excuse."

Roger Christian also wrote the lyrics for songs like "Little Old Lady From Pasadena", "Dead Man's Curve", and etc. If he had been given the opportunity, he could've done a lot more with Brian (and let's not forget "Surf City", written by Brian and Jan & Dean, without Mike), but of course there were various reasons for why Brian ended up working with Mike more. There was a quote by Marilyn which goes along the lines of: "I think the group couldn't understand why Brian got all this attention and they didn't. Well, anyone with half a brain knows why."

True, but the early hits had already ensured that Brian would be quite wealthy for the rest of his life. Somehow they've managed fine despite scoring only two big hits since the '60s ("Rock & Roll Music" and "Kokomo"). Taking a more artistic direction wouldn't have completely dropped the BBs off the face of the planet earth, anyway, like you seem to believe.

Define much. Love co-wrote with Brian sporadically until All Summer Long and then after Summer Days, the only albums that they worked together on in any significant way were Wild Honey and Keepin' The Summer Alive.


The whole band should be credited more.

I never said no such thing. The only big seller from Smiley through Holland was In Concert. They were very artistic throughout that period and no one listened, but us. Over the last 20 years they have been playing smaller venues, so we know their fan base was shrinking. If more avarage fans are turned off by playing the more unfamilair material, then they lose even more audiences. You play what your audience pays to hear.

So, Mike and Brian are wrong, because they don't think like Randy Newman. Well, maybe they do. They did wait 20 years to make a new record. That new record is of much better artistic quality than their last one. Also, are you saying that Brian's hits have no artistic quality?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4zzrgS3xK1qi30rco1_1280.jpg)

Wow, you're bursting records for most words put in someone else's mouth per capita. All of them false, incidentally.

Oh sure they do. But it represents a very short period of their recording career, and one definitely gets the sense that Brian feels like it's been done enough. Sure, play some of the early hits, but do we need the BBs to keep pretending like it's 1965 forever? I also believe that the BBs fall from grace in the late '60s was largely out of their control, and in many ways was a reaction to the square surfing image people like Mike had worked so hard to build up. That the BBs came back into favor had later little to do with Mike's efforts at the time, since I think he was writing about baby seals and Big Sur then. Endless Summer took off on its own accord (yes, I know, Mike thought of the title for that album...) as the haze of the '60s dissipated and cheese came back in (see: disco). Aside from "Kokomo" and "Rock & Roll", it's not like the nostalgia songs have been that big of hits - a few others were top 40s hits, but that's it.

When you listen to songs like "Good Timin'" and "California Feeling", both written around 1974, it's clear that Brian wasn't going to stay in his abstract phase forever, either. He's always had a fond love for '50s music. And those two songs, both done without Mike's involvement, show a classier path the BBs could've taken back to commercial relevance after Endless Summer. Of course, it was Brian that recorded Love You, which opens a whole 'nother bag of questions...

I was with you until you started putting down disco and Love You.  8)

No, I love Love You, but it wasn't a commercial album! So it kind of pokes a hole in my idea of Brian's songwriting leading back to commercial relevance. But I stand by the statement that disco was cheesy!

Well, you have to remember that you andNo, it is more like a more a balanced view has started to prevail.You and I have rarely agreed on anything. We both speak English, yet we rarely understand what each other is saying. We speak jibberish to each other, that is just the way it seems to be. Oh well! ;)

 ;D

That's because I am from Jupiter and you are from Saturn. It's all in a book, surely.

Lastly: In Concert's success was the end result of the BBs trying to be more artistic and mature. Didn't Rolling Stone call them the touring band of the year or something around that time? So they weren't doing THAT bad. 1968 was a bad year, but it wasn't all like that.

:lol And, "if Mars had life on it, you might find my wife on it."

Haha. I guess that's before they discovered that the women were all on Venus. Boy, what a disappointing trip to Mars that would have been.

Given your take, your might disagree but could the success of In Concert have had anything to do with the fact that an audience was clearly ready for some of the old BB hits (this was after all only a year before Endless Summer) and this live album had Sloop John B, California Girls, Help Me Rhonda, Surfer Girl, Don't Worry Baby, Surfin' USA, Good Vibrations and Fun Fun Fun?

Deleted- posted twice.

Oh, most definitely. It was not due to the success of their 70s albums. They were very smart in touring the college campus circuit. While that helped build a great repuation for their live show, it really did not make significant inroads with their studio albums. Though, I suppose that Surf's Up & Holland did benefit a little from it. As much as I understand what Mike has done over past 30 years, I would have been much happier had they continued down the path they were on prior to Endless Summer being released. Also, their path of wandering through the wilderness ran from 1968 through 1970.

Well, that album was about half hits, and half artsy or cult classic songs. And the unreleased version of In Concert has "You Need a Mess of Help To Stand Alone" and "Wild Honey", too. Also, check out this setlist from 1973: http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/8-73.html (http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/8-73.html) Imagine asking Mike to do some of those songs now!

Of course, I'm sure those hits you mentioned helped sell In Concert. But it's also clear that the plethora of deeper or newer cuts didn't stop people from buying it, either. So there was ample room for balance. Now Brian has to fight Mike for "Marcella"!

Dada - An interesting video came on the streamer, featuring Brian, discussing, in an animated fashion, the much castigated "Hey Little Tomboy" and seemed to be in a mode post 15 Big Ones -  and seemed to be looking to get back into that groove of whatever thematic thing, made them have success in the first place.  He was so into the song, HLT, that I was surprised that no one here has mentioned, that interview where he discussed the concept of this ditty, which never impressed me as sexist

[It was an interview with Bob Harris in 1976 in the Part 2 section.  It has come GIW 1874 marking on the lower left hand corner. - YouTube]

The remark about "pummelling soccer moms" appears needlessly and vexaciously sexist.  As well as the "idiot savant" remark.  Mike worked well with Brian.  And, seems to continue to do so. Brian seems pretty "connected," and the google interview supports that. I've been blessed to have seen this reunion/"re-birth" of the Boys three times and Brian is participating fully.  

And, I have never seen the pre and post litigation songwriting credits list for Mike.  

Seems the court found that ownership was vested in Mike and he was wrongfully deprived of rightful credit. I think that was Murry.  Naturally, the record company cannot recall all those millions of records, 45's, LPs, and 78's for that matter, and re-stamp the labels, where Mike was not properly accorded authorship.

And, it was commonly occuring in those old days, that child, young adult performers, and other artists were robbed of their work by parents, agents and other charlatans.  Mike must have had some clearly articulable set of facts which would compel the court to dig deeper and discover to whom authorship was owed.  

It took a while for me to get used to the new configuration of the band, pre-reunion (rebirth) while they found their way, but after having seen Mike's/Bruce's band scores of times, I have come to truly respect his work, and the way he rose to the occasion, keeping the legacy of the music alive and flourishing.  

Even back to the early days following Carl's death, when they played smaller half-filled venues, re-building both a new younger clientele as well as reeling in the lifers, I think Mike has worked hard and built a band that is second-to-none.  He could just as easily thrown in the towel.  I find him open-minded enough to take music direction from a man younger than he, despite being the band leader. I admire that.  He has brought people aboard who add to the music dynamic.  And like Andrew, life without that music would be of lesser quality for many. [I'm paraphrasing.]

Humility to learn, when you are the Master, is a good quality.  If one looks at the situation from all directions, and points of view, not just one-sidedly, Mike's contribution is tremendous, I think.  
JMHO          

OK, sorry - soccer mom and dads. It was just a handy phrase to describe the khakis and polo suburbia crowd that Mike and Bruce pander to. The last thing Mike wants to do is present anyone with challenging work. He can't see the purpose in that, seemingly. And the idiot savant comment was just me generalizing the way people characterize Brian when they claim that he needed Mike specifically to figure out how to be commercial - as if without Mike's 'unique' ability to filter out Brian's quirks, Brian would be nothing.

I give Mike credit. He was a good lyricist and had/has a nice lead voice. But does that make him anywhere close to what Brian was/is? Brian was a capable lyricist when he was inspired, wrote dozens of hits with numerous cowriters (not just Mike), could produce and arrange with the best of 'em, had an amazing voice, could play multiple instruments on stage, and etc.

And that's where I agree with you wholeheartedly. The boys could definitely throw in a few more deep cuts at the expense of some of the hits and the "casual audience member" that we talk about here would probably never notice. Hell, Neil Young gets away with doing shows where he doesn't play Heart of Gold. I think the Beach Boys could get away without performing Catch a Wave or Shut Down.

Mike was due rightful credit on many of those songs, yes. But there are a handful of those songs that I still find it hard to believe that Mike co-wrote.

Why don't you guys all just whip 'em out and lets break out the ruler, eh?

Well, Ron, because then I'd win and it would be over!  :smokin

"The Child is the Father of the Man" - Mike Love

 :lol

Mike should get co-authorship of "Til I Die;" surely it was he who came up with the line in the gorgeous final round of the masterpiece! Only his lyrical genius could have put the icing on the cake of what otherwise would have been more like a Twinkie. This is quite similar to his rightfully being given co-authorship of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" for his pithily summing up what took Tony Asher so many words to even hint at: "Good night, baby. Sleep tight, baby."

"The Child is the Father of the Man" Wordsworth.

Still waiting for your answer; how many BB are there!

Doooon't answwwwer! It's a trap!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9-Te-DPbSE

As I understand it Mike didn't claim to be the only writer of lyrics on those songs, he only claimed to be due copyright for what he wrote. He didn't ask for any percentage of credit, the judge/jury came up with some across the board formula I believe. Something like a percentage based on the number of co-contributors I thought I heard.

Not sure why some people are still so threatened by Mike (and the other Beach Boys) being praised sometimes. Praising them doesn`t take anything away from Brian...

In that case, Mike should sue Brenton Wood for copyright infringement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPq_eHN3cF8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPq_eHN3cF8)

No, but unduly praising someone because that's the way the wind is now blowing rather than doing it because it is deserved takes a lot away from rational discourse.

PS. The OP is just joking anyway.

OK. I don't know what Mike claimed on that song, I only know the fan presumptions about what it was and who was right about who wrote what. 

Tony Asher himself has stated that Mike had no involvement in the songwriting.

That in itself makes me curious what Gary Usher would have to say about Mike's involvement in songs like "Chug-A-Lug" and "409" and why those songs needed two lyricists.

Tony claims he wrote all of the lyrics, I don't know any different. Some evidence convinced a jury apparently.

This has to be the funniest board i've ever joined.

Yep, I'm sure it was "some evidence" all right.

Why don't you do us a favor and go see if you can top it! 

I found a blog post from a long time ago where someone named Andrew Hickey reviewed a show Mike did in England in 2008.  The Beach Boys did Til I Die as part of the set and Mike gave it an introduction saying it was a personal song written by Brian.  Mike's Beach Boys did 50 songs in the set and did part of Pet Sounds too.  Bruce Johnston was quoted that they would never play a show like that in the United States. I wonder what the difference is that Mike allows less known songs in England than he does in America.  The blog:http://olsenbloom.blogspot.com/2008/04/mike-loves-beach-boys-last-night.html

So THAT'S where the info -that "The Beach Boys" played 'Til I Die live- came from !!! and there isn't any mp3/video of it ? jeez
it's about time they start playing it live now again!

Andrew posts here. The difference is that in England the band was famous for work that in the US would be considered obscure.

Only if we do it together babe :hat

Genius and Myke Luhv do not belong in the same sentence. :o

"But they are dead; those two are dead!
          Their spirits are in heaven!"
          'Twas throwing words away; for still
          The little Maid would have her will,
          And said, "Nay, we are seven!"

Well done brother, well done brother. I am with you all the way, bound by natural piety.

But it seems that basically ANY form of praise of Mike (specifically) seems to be taken as  "undue" and as a threat toward Brian. It seems that praising the guy is fine as long as it's somewhat backhanded and followed by a "BUT"..... It gets old.

It bears repeating that some fans actually love all sides/eras of The Beach Boys. Some more than others, sure, but all the Mike insulting and fine toothed combing of his contributions sucks to have to wallow through for those who are actually fans of the guy and like him.

Public opinion. Mike`s attitude is to give them what they want. At the theatre shows in the U.K. the fans seemed perfectly happy to hear the longer setlists. in America they presumably wouldn`t have been quite so thrilled.

Mike deserves a lot of credit for his 1961-75 work and lots of scorn for much (if not quite all) of what came after until the 21st century. He has obviously realized slowly over the last seven to ten years that he should do the oldies justice and put in a healthy dose of lesser hits and good album cuts.

The show on this tour is perfect in putting across all sides of the Beach Boys and I stand firm that this is the best tour since 1975. The new album isn't a classic in the way the majority of the LP's from 1963-73 are, but it's the first Beach Boys album since then that I can play through without at all cringing. It may not be an all time classic but it IS a good new Beach Boys album. Did you ever think we would see that?

Mike's reputation over the last twenty years has improved because we now know that he was a big part of the band's songwriting and creative process. You can argue over this point or that point but "Please Let Me Wonder" alone shows Mike was an excellent lyricist. Never mind the dozen's of other great songs he did through Holland.

Brian Wilson was a one of a kind genius and occasionally still is. Dennis was too in his own way. Carl, Mike, Bruce, Al, David, Ricky, and Blondie all have, or in Carl's case had, talent to spare as well. If you like the Beach Boys at all one must realize Mike was a big reason they were commercially successful. He couldn't have done it alone, but not even Brian would have gotten through to as many people without the harmonies and talents of all the other Beach Boys. The Beach Boys were and shockingly still are a great GROUP.

So Love didn't like a few lines in 1966....get over it! This is a common occurrence in groups of all sorts. The bottom line is he gave in and sang his parts with passion. It was one night at one session and again asking what something means isn't unfair for a singer to ask a songwriter. Even if Mike was an ass about it for the last time he did NOT stop Smile. He didn't have that kind of power in 1966-67 not even close. Not excusing the Baywatch, SIP, or Full House garbage but Brian's made just as bad of music at times himself IE Sweet Insanity or many of his eighties demos. Even Domenic Priore will tell you that!

There are no clear heroes or villians in The Beach Boys, they all could be great and they all could be jerks. Mike's sometimes goofy persona shouldn't get in the way of the hard fact that he wrote some excellent lyrics over the years. Some are among the best I ever heard in rock and roll and I have 4000 albums and 400 singles of all sorts of artists from the first twenty years of rock.

I also want to add that of all the Beach Boys Mike worked the most with Brian. They all wrote with him (bar Ricky and Blondie), they all sang with him, but Mike was the one he had the most rapport when it came to songwriting. Maybe Carl and Al were far nicer personally, maybe Dennis and Dave were cooler, but Brian and Mike have a special bond in that they never creatively were able to write so many good songs, over so many years, with anyone else. Gary Usher, Roger Christan, Tony Asher, Van Dyke, all wrote stuff that is superb, but none of them wrote together as prolifically or as long as Brian Wilson and Mike Love.

One last thing it is true that Brain was mentally healthier than Mike (who was truely ill) in early 1970, but Brian's problems run far deeper, began well before that, and have lasted far longer. That's not a knock on Brian or Mike, it's just the facts, at least as we know them.

I can't fault you, Mike, for your fair minded and rational assessment. With that in mind, though, I think there is one part of your discussion that is somewhat simplistic and, I think, overlooks what certain people are really arguing or really have argued:


For me, it is getting somewhat frustrating to see things like this because it's built on what is now a bit of a strawman argument. Very few people now say the Mike was directly responsible for Smile stopping and no one denies that Mike sang "over and over the crow cries." But the fact is unfortunately, that this issue goes way beyond Mike's objection to those words. According to Brian, Tony Asher, and Mike Love, there was resistance to content during the Pet Sounds sessions. Plus, there is audio evidence that the boys were giving Brian a hard time about the music beyond the Cabinessence sessions. When Brian was both creating the most interesting and complex music thus far of his career, and taking the biggest risks and therefore, because of both of these things needed all the support he could get, he didn't get it. And furthermore, while Mike's objections to those lyrics seems kind of insignificant to us, it did seem significant to the people who were there (Van Dyke Parks) and to the people who were there writing about it (Jules Siegel). Regardless of what it seems like to us, it had a serious effect on the people who experienced this "incident" first hand and, as such, I don't think it can be mere coincidence that the project as a whole really went into a chaotic tailspin at exactly this time. Is it common that band members object to lyrics? Yes. But that's not what this was. It was an ongoing resistance to an artist who, because he was taking major risks at the time, needed support.

So let's put this in a context we may actually understand. This is not like, say, John Lennon telling Paul McCartney that he doesn't like a few lines in When I'm 64. Rather, it is more like John approaching Paul, two months into the making of Sgt. Pepper and telling him that he doesn't like what they've been doing. Now that in itself might not have stopped the album from coming out (Paul was much more stable than Brian at that time anyway) but it may have seriously changed the nature of the project and could have changed the tone of sessions in general. And the fact is simply that Smile didn't come out - and to this day we still don't know what a Smile version Heroes and Villains would really sound like. We still know The Elements in track name only. We still don't know what the second half of Surf's Up would have sounded like. We still don't know what the melody to the Do You Like Worms verse would have been. We still don't have 1966/67 lyrics or a melody to Child is Father of the Man. This is why people "can't get over" the course of events from Pet Sounds through to the end of Smile and I think that's fair enough.

That would be me, and I didn't quote Bruce as saying that. In fact they did do a few shows like that in the US around that time, too, IIRC, though not very many. But to the extent that they do more interesting material in the UK, I think there are three principal reasons:
Bruce is a bit of an Anglophile, and believes that UK audiences are more receptive.
The band's commercial peak in the UK was roughly 1966-70, rather than 1963-65 as it was in the US
And most importantly, they don't play here very often, and so when they do it tends to be a bit of a special event, and they play theatre venues. Til I Die works better when played at the Manchester Apollo, with a fully seated audience who haven't had a chance to see the band in four years, than when played at the Albert Lea, Minnesota, county fair to a small audience of middle-aged farmers who only know the hits and only came because they're the only band who'll play in Albert Lea that year. (Not that there's anything wrong with middle-aged Minnesotan farmers, I hasten to add).

There are MP3s floating around of that show (audience recording) and of at least two shows from the 2004 tour where they also played it (soundboard recordings of Newcastle and Glasgow), to my knowledge. There may be more, but those are the ones I've heard.

.

After 50 years, it should be a "given" that they know their audiences.  They know what American audiences want.  They know what the sales and critical responses have been over time.  I seem to remember Brian doing Til I Die at his shows.  But, he has a different demographic, even in the States, than the Touring Band.  

One might know what the market for air conditioners is in the North Pole, and the equator, and using that information, you create an offering consistent with the market or audience.  Certain albums which did not do well in the States where huge hits in Europe.  Go figure.  The US was in a different mind set from Europe in the late 1960's and 70's.  Sort of like today.  We are at war.  

As this whole "harmonic convergence" strengthens, there might be some subtle changes and tweaks in the setlists.  It has already happened with Marcella.  It would be great to see Southern California with the slide-tape show that they did with Brian's show.  Right now might not be the time.  Now that they are into this "reunion" it is looking more like a "rebirth" of the Band.  Some kind of magic is at work as the core group finds its' way.  

Each of these backing bands has strengths which have synthesized into what will likely  be  and historically regarded as the most amazing group of musicians in rock history. And they are getting the crash course as they add and subtract from the setlist.  I can remember the razor sharpness of Brian's band on Heroes..."You're under Arrest."  Drilled, practiced, performed.  They just hit it out of the park at every performance.  And, yet, when they do one of the California Girls chorus sections, they all clap over their heads "in unison," with Cowsill's toe on the bass pedal, his arms over his head clapping, not missing a beat.  They are working together and the audience is lovin' it.

Maybe at a point, Til I Die will replace some other song.  Maybe Southern California will replace Why Do Fools Fall in Love, although the doo-wop history thing is important, and almost all "covers" with the exception of Barbara Ann (She ain't goin' nowhere) and they will do only their work.  The compromising on the setlist has likely worked in getting to "yes" with this tour.  And  now that there appears to be confidence in "the team" - anything can happen.  But right now, it is video rich with the Dennis and Carl tributes.  Maybe it is a better place at the end, telling the story of the dream...And they must be on overload with the planning, practice and schedule

We'll just have to watch and wait.  They will surely find their way.  One thing I learned from teaching small children for a long time... That "smart or genius" has many "faces." One learns a lot watching children, with both high and low abilities, with building blocks, building cities, imaginary race tracks and swiming pools...learning from one another.  

Sometimes the "planner" is also the genius because they know how to get the job done, while the "design" genius is moving on creatively.  We need both.  One to create and the other one to get it to us. Sometimes it is hard to reconcile the two.   JMHO

Mike's statements in this interview.  Is it truth?


"I wrote every word to that song." ~ ML on Good Vibrations

"I wrote every word to California Girls"  ~ ML


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrSQ5tZMWhU&feature=related

You're right. Mike Love really was the bomb. Dennis Wilson thought MIU should self-destruct. NONSENSE! Mike wrote "Please Let Me Wonder", so we should bask in the genius of his every accomplishment.

Mike made Brian promise that Pet Sounds would be Brian's only experimental album. He sat in on the sessions calling Brian "dog ears", telling him he's writing "ego music". He told Brian the lyrics sucked on Smile, probably over and over. Brian basically has a breakdown, so the group decides to get behind whatever he does - we get Smiley Smile, which I love, but I wish we would've gotten Smile, too.  Then Mike writes the lyrics on Wild Honey and completely cements the BBs as squares. And we know what Mike has done since the mid-70s on!

But he's a hero. We wouldn't have "Fun, Fun, Fun" without him. It is curious though, that if you really read about the early BBs songs, Brian was no slouch when it came to lyrics and concepts. Brian came to Mike with some of the lyrics of "I Get Around" and the concept, for example. It wasn't just genius Mike translating some abstract Brian composition. Mike's done a lot of myth-making over the years and it's quite a coincidence that that he finally decided to bring that songwriting issue in court when Brian was in terrible shape, reeling from the Landy fallout -  you know, when Brian was in no shape to defend himself. But Mike Love is the BBs compassionate savior and Brian's greatest cheerleader!

Mike comes up with the title for Endless Summer. Brian smashes his gold record for Endless Summer at a photo shoot. Fancy that.

I wish there was a picture of that, and it was on the gatefold for love you.

They really don't. If they did then Summer in Paradise would have been at the very least a minimal success. What galls me is Mike Love acting as if he has his finger on the pulse of what the average Beach Boys listener wants to hear. Not saying he doesn't have some good idea, but in many ways he's like an executive at a movie studio who believes that all you need for a blockbuster are the usual suspects that make up a winning formula. But here's the thing - some times it does, and some times it doesn't. In fact, it typically runs the same risks as, say, taking some artistic license.

When all is said in done, in terms of consistently drawing in an American audience, the Beach Boys downright rely on Brian Wilson.

And more over, why is it so important to strictly give American audiences what they want? How about putting on the best show they possibly can and if someone in the audience walks away unhappy (which is bound to happen under every circumstance) then that's unfortunate but not  a big loss. It's something that someone like Neil Young has always done and it certainly hasn't impeded his success to any significant degree.

That said, if Mike made a cheesy psychedelic video for "10,000 Years" off of Mike Love Not War, I'd forgive everything.

R&R, as I was walking away from the Greek Theater show, I overheard a mom ask her kids, "What did you think of the show?" One of her late high school/early college aged sons replied, head down and sulking, "I just wish they'd played 'Getcha Back.'"

I thanked God that Mike didn't know his audience that well.

 :lol

Oh, those kids and their MTV.

Speaking of Neil Young - he took a slam on that magazine nowtoronto as did the Boys this week.  

No one, I don't care who they are, {even the Boys} does everything perfectly, or ever has 100% commercial success.  So what! It is part of life. Most of us only learn from mistakes.  I happen to like  Summer in Paradise.  My perogative. Was it a mistake?  I don't know.  It feels like nitpicking.

Would anyone go to a haircutter to have them cut your hair the way the haircutter wants?  No.  It is no different.  They know their audiences' tastes.  Some albums were not commercially successful in the States.  They might have been artistic successes, after the bias calmed down, but, during certain periods, they were combatting an ingrained stereotype, a hostile record company and a war-time climate.

And some challengingly abstract lyrics. There, I've said it.  Awesome vocals.  And words, that the common man did not get. But I was  blessed to be a student, and Wordsworth was on the menu (The Child is the Father of the Man.) Not so, for the rest of the world.  The world that Mike faced night after night.  And, this is the old slippery slope.  And, hopelessly debated and old.  That window is probably closed.  I hope it has run its' course.

It is a delicate balance.  I would often read the European setlists and drool.  "Why not here in the States?" and there were clear and reasonable explanations.  It might not be what I wanted as a casual fan but the reality of my geography.  And, I can only liken it to Chicago.  I know their greatest hits.  (some with the Boys)  But, I don't know their obscure, deep cuts and don't want to hear more than one or two at a show for the first time as a casual fan.  The audience is not comprised of all die-hard, know every word fans.  I guess that is a good reason.

And," commonality of experience and background" is what drives audience response.  The questions are:  1) What do they know? and 2) What do they like? The "commonality of experiences" is different in Europe from the States.  

And they should not have to apologize for that.  Things are different.  My understanding is that many other venues are theatre based and not casino/entertainment center based.  That is the new concert model.  Theater performances are generally night ones.  That limits children and young people.  Casinos limit that as well.  Smaller venues, in the summer are more family or resort based and more songs are done that younger people (and rightfullly so) would be familiar with.  

It is largely situational ethics as in "When in Rome; do as the Romans do."  

JMHO  

That was exactly my point. Audiece reactions are unpredictable so it is useless planning around audience expectations.


What do you mean no? Many, many, many, many, many people do just that. What do you think the term "hair stylist" means? People are trained for this and they know about haircutting way more than you do, which is why many people pay top dollar precisely so that the haircutter cuts hair the way they want.


It is different. Aside from the cases mentioned above, one is a business and one is art. Art and business are not the same. Business models have been forced on art but that doesn't make them the same thing.


Some albums were not commercially successful anywhere and I'm talking about the ones that came later in their career, which you suggest should be exactly when they should know their audience best, not crafting their lowest selling album ever.


I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Like A Rolling Stone was a #1 song and it had abstract and complex lyrics. One could say the same thing for Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, and Come Together.


Seems to me the reason is if the audience is unfamiliar with the songs, they don't get the hear them - which is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything. Didn't these "die-hard, know every word fans" get to be that way precisely because they heard the material? Why not give the audience some credit and believe they can experience something unfamiliar without going ballistic. It works for plenty of artists.


But they killed Jesus! The expression really should be, "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do."

California girls: Brian had said so for years before the Court settlement.

Plus, let's not forget that Brian somehow managed to tour Smile in the 2000s. Freakin' Smile, man! And the BBs played this setlist in 1972: http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/3-8-72.html (http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/3-8-72.html) Has Mike given you all Love-induced amnesia?

But there was no choice but to have the BBs be "fun, fun, fun in the sun" forever. Remember that.

Explain this: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/12/entertainment/ca-socalsong12 (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/12/entertainment/ca-socalsong12)

Yes, the rest was history. Wilson, then 22, kept working the keyboard and, turning his thoughts to fashion magazines, he came up with one of the most famous opening lines in pop music. "Well, East Coast girls are hip, I really dig those styles they wear. . . "

The next day, Mike Love came by the apartment on Gardner Street and the pair -- one a troubled auteur, the other the commercial-minded driving force behind the Beach Boys -- took turns building a hit that would define the sun-tanned promise of L.A. as the center of American glamour and youth. "Every other line was his or mine," Wilson said.

Which went to #13 in the US. That's remarkable for a 60s artist in 2004.

As I understand it, in the process of Mike testifying for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving [1991?] it came to Mike's attention that it would still be possible to recover the authorship Murry and [mostly?] Brian had cheated him out of from Irving/Brian. He had thought it wasn't something that could not be righted up until then.

Still would like to know who exactly Mike won the suit against and who was supposed to pay. Any of you lawyer-types able to look it up on that lawyer thingy?

I stand corrected: can't find a source in which Brian says Mike wrote all of the lyrics. On The Wilson Project, Brian is quoted as saying Mike "wrote part of the song".

Yep, Mike's squadrons of lawyers never thought of that possibility before.... or was it that Mike saw an almost incoherent Brian at the 1991 trial and realized his chance to rewrite history? I'm not saying that Mike didn't get cheated out of some songwriting credits, but a few of the songs he got credited for in the lawsuit are ridiculous.

Besides, didn't Mike originally ask Brian for less than a million and songwriting credits? It was only after Brian's lawyers took Mike to court that Brian got slapped around. Which, again, makes it seem like Mike was in it more for the perception of being viewed as a creative force than for anything else.

Dada - You are missing the Big Red Boat, here.  Brian toured it in 2004.  Ya, I was there.

But it was not 1967, wartime, Carl facing arrest for draft-dodging, and a hostile record company. The "boss" record company did not like the work.  So, Mike gets blamed?  For the record company's lack of support? For the need to establish a new record label? For the poor promotion of Pet Sounds, too?    

Thirty-seven (37) years had elapsed! During that time, Pet Sounds became #2 on the all-time Rock and Roll "must-have" LP's.  SMiLE evolved into a myth of sorts.

And, what Brian has said, is that he had to "chuck it (SMiLE) for a while, because he got too 'close to it.'" That is out of Brian's mouth.  Not Mike's.  

Big difference.  Apples and oranges.  During that time, Dennis was gone, Carl was gone, Murry and Audree. And, Landy, too.  

Mike did do some of the Smiley stuff, live. Please don't allege he didn't. Check out the Setlist Archive of Eric Anniversario. Mike sang beautifully on SMiLE.  And, he plugged and promoted it, incessantly and loyally.

Is Mike the scapegoat here? Is this the real issue?

I don't think he should be.  

And people often do see the Boys to "turn back the hands of time" when life was less calculated, managed by computers, and the retirees, back-in-the day, were the ones not paying rent or mortgages, not getting groceries, and their hair was flying around in the convertible.  And, they bring their grandkids!

Fun is in;  It's no sin!  ;)

  

No. Mike Love gets blamed for the actually stuff he did do, which I mentioned in an above post. It's bad enough.

Also, not that it matters in terms of my argument, but where is it said that the record company didn't like Smile? I thought they were just upset with how long it was taking.


Even at the time, Pet Sounds sold just fine, as did both Sloop John B. and Wouldn't It Be Nice. It went to #10 while Surfer Girl when to #7. Not exactly the commercial underachiever that it's been made out to be.


Also out of Brian's mouth is the number #1 reason Smile didn't come out was because Mike Love didn't like it. So, let's say, for your sake, we actually omit Brian's word from this particular discussion of why Smile didn't come out.


But we're still talking about how audiences would receive an album or certain material live. And regardless of what time period we're talking, we know that it's proven that Smile can be received quite well by a large audience.  


No, the issue is reality.


He's not. He's being called out for behavior that should be called out, regardless of how well the current PR campaign is working.

I always loved Tony Asher's line on that:

The record company was so unhappy that they printed up 500,000 sleeves for Smile in preparation of the initial run, and gave Brian one of the largest budgets ever for a pop album. Of course, Capitol Records would've probably preferred if Brian handed in "California Girls Pt. 2 - The Sequel", but I think you'll find that a lot of record companies were divided at the time. Half were saying "I don't like this new stuff, how can we sell it?", while the other half were shrugging in the face of the rapid social changes at time and saying "Just let the kids do what they want, they know better than us."

Pet Sounds was under-promoted, but I think Brian also made a mistake thinking that fans would get the transition from "Barbara Ann" to Pet Sounds. There's a story about Brian playing "Barbara Ann" for a record exec and asking for feedback, calling it the BBs "new single." The exec told him that it was wrong for the image Brian was trying to build for the BBs, causing Brian to storm off. However, we can see by the time of "Good Vibrations" that Brian had made significant headway in his PR campaign, and hiring Derek Taylor was one of the correct moves he had made towards that goal. But then that was all lost...

You apparently have a lot more inside information about who actually wrote what and Mike's motives than I've heard.

I believe Mike offered the defendants a low ball settlement to his own suit against Irving/Brian[?]. I'm not aware of Brian taking Mike to court over it but the eyewitness claims Mike/his lawyers were advocating for Brian against Brian's own lawyers to the judge in Mike's suit against Irving/Brian[?]. What does that seem like?

Not having read these voluminous legal documents, or, been in the courtroom or the recording studio, makes me a poor person to ask.  I would never speculate about who did what. I was not a witness.  Or why people respond in the ways they do.  I am not a doctor.  

The bottom line for me, is that they walk on the stage together, sing together, and the most recent concert photo I saw, shows them holding hands and taking a bow together.  

I never thought it would happen.  I am surprised. No one is more surprised then they are.  

They all have similar roots.  Now they have wings.  ;)

How it works, is something only they know.  In their BB "bubble" as David Marks says.  



  

Well, no, Brian's lawyers didn't directly take Mike to court over any of this, but by rejecting Mike's overtures, they basically said: "See you in court, punk." And Mike's lawyers must have done a great job advocating for Brian when you look at Mike's final settlement!

Mike's done a lot over the years for fans to have something against him:  The Hall of Fame speech, the resistance to Smile and Pet Sounds, Summer In Paradise, the lawsuits, etc.  But his attitude on surrounding this reunion put it all in the distant past to me.  I'm loving the setlists and I'm loving the renewed camaraderie he and Brian seem to have.  

But then I started seeing his comments about the second half of the new album!  Brian gives us what I think is easily some of his best and best RECEIVED material in SEVERAL DECADES and even throws Mike a few bones (lyrics, plus one of his older songs) and Mike knocks this stuff too, talking about how depressing it is.  Wake up, Mike!  "Spring Vacation" is a fine song but the other two songs you contributed to are almost unanimously named as the weakest tracks on the album.  Pretty much everyone likes the stuff you're knocking.  Let it go.  Stick to running the show on stage and keep your trap shut about Brian's new songs.  

MY "demands" for the next Beach Boys' album?  More of the same.  Brian makes the album he wants and tells Mike what and where to contribute and where to sing.  I personally LOVE that Brian had Jeff involved in the album before he even told Mike about it!  That way, Brian held the cards and all Mike could do was say yes or kill the project everyone wanted.  But knowing Mike's past, he's probably planning to leverage himself into a more democratic set up next time and I for one, hope it doesn't happen.  

Both guys have their strengths.  Mike should stick to being a singer and a showman and stop trying to force his seemingly outdated opinions on Brian and the fans.


...Just my two cents.

I'm not speculating either. I'm working off of first hand evidence from people who were there and in a position to know.

I'm really glad that they are all getting along and I hope they continue to for the rest of their days. It wouldn't change my opinion on the matter, but I am happy if they are all happy.

It is good that you are not speculating. I hope this "re-birth" lasts.  Only they know, and can look at all the variables and find the path/s that work/s best for all parties. 

This is just the coolest thing, to be a fan for so long, and turn on the TV and see them on Leno, and Fallon, annd QVC, etc.  And, have a #1 hit.  All in the same month.   ;)

All the negative stuff just melts away when they go onstage and rock out.  The bad stuff is unimportant at this point. Seeing Dennis and Carl being honored on the videos is just wonderfu and powerfull beyond words.  It cannot be easy for them.  And the audience has a chance to finally have a real tribute to both.  It seems to be so healing for everyone. 

I think it has been a real place for everyone to put the past behind them. And get on with life!  :)   

 

Eh, perhaps. But to an extent I see Van Dyke Parks's point of view which is that there is something deeply unsatisfying and unjust in seeing bad behavior being rewarded. And this should not be coded as "getting on with life." Don't get me wrong, though, I am being completely selfish in that I will be going to see a live show and will be as exuberant as anyone in the stadium.

"He's being called out for behavior that should be called out, regardless of how well the current PR campaign is working."

Some of the posters defending Mike have been around longer than many of us.  Their opinions of Mike have been the same over many years and it's not a recent PR campaign, it's just how they feel. I think Mike is a jerk myself but don't agree he's the reason Brian had mental problems or anything that harsh like some people imply.  

I am aware of that. But a PR campaign is happening nevertheless which seems to be having material results. The consequence of this will be that these long-time posters as you say, can say, "Well, no one thinks like that anymore" or "Yeah, that used to be the common thought but now everyone knows differently."


Who is implying that?

It is hard to say. My personal knowledge is so limited.  But, that said, Van Dyke was not a stranger to the business aspect and rough-and-tumble of the entertainment business.  I've read where he was a child actor.  Business people are expected to be familiar with the rules of the road.  And someone mentioned the early artists, in Rome.  They were in business for hire from the Roman Catholic Church.  It is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.  Michelangelo and the
Medicis as sponsors. He must have been working within some parameters for his patrons. Didn't Shakespeare have sponsors and patrons?

Is it different?  Should he have worked on commercially acceptable concepts given the era, past business models?  Would it have turned out differently?  Or accepted more widely?  That is all what might have been.

He seems to have been included in the 2004 project.  I don't get what the problem is.

There are a lot of unknowns for me.  Sorry.

I hear what you are saying and I am not addressing those that have an even view like yourself. I was only touching on Smile here and just cutting to the heart of the whole Mike Love Is Evil stuff. I still say they were able to work it out on Pet Sounds, they did Smiley Smile which was even more far out and had plenty of Parks lyrics. I think the problem with Smile was the fact that the lawsuit and Brian's other quirkier projects (Jasper Daily, The Jokes session, the Smile Session Party etc.) made him loose focus. I also think Brian ultimately was somewhat unsure of the work himself. After Van Dyke left perhaps Brian second guessed him. In other words it's not so simple. I do think the fact that The Beach Boys pitched in and did their best, despite any reservations, means something. Yes there is some teasing on the tapes but it's from Brian too. But the main crux found in the general public of Mike, or Carl or Bruce or Al (we know Dennis loved it) stopping the album cold just isn't true and that's what I was briefly addressing.

::)
Old legends die hard. Too bad the truth makes this all crap. Don't believe Brian's or Leaf's old press releases if you want the truth. I've been researching this for 24 years and have spoken to most if not all the principles. Where do you get your info? Nothing personal  mind you but I hate regurgitation of someones old agenda's. If you want to think it's Brian and the five assholes there's a lovely blueboard for you.

Shakespeare did but he was not a businessman and most of his material would have been way over the heads of the people who were paying his salary, otherwise he probably would have been imprisoned for treason. And the reason why is because Shakespeare was not a businessman and neither was Van Dyke Parks and neither should be any artist, really. But even business people have the right to expect basic decency and it seems to me that Van Dyke felt that he never received that.


The problem is what I said, there is something unsatisfying and unjust about seeing bad behavior going rewarded which to him is what has happened with Brian returning to the Beach Boys fold.

I absolutely agree with you that it's not so simple though I don't quite have the same view as you as to why Smile fizzled out and why Smiley was made. Again, I think it is pretty telling that the project started to lose focus immediately after that "incident" as described by Jules Siegel and Van Dyke Parks.


It's not just teasing though. When Brian says words to the effect of, "I'm going to cancel the rest of the session if you keep giving me a hard time" we can kind of see right there what was happening with the album.


Fair enough, though I would add perhaps that no one really says this anymore.

I was looking at Beach Boys videos on YouTube yesterday and found a link to a video from the David Lynch Foundation about Mike being appointed energy czar of Fairfield, IA. where MIU is.  So, Mike is buds with David Lynch?  TM makes strange bedfellows, lol.  I didn't know Mike was still that into TM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23dxy03rxYY

In the continuum, the 2004 project was a Brian project and the newer release is the Sessions project.  One, Van Dyke seemed to very involved in, appeared at the galas, etc.  It appeared that the Boys were excluded.  I don't know.  It is 8 years later.  50th anniversary.  A career milestone.  It is not a "one-size-fits-all" situation.

People on this, and other interest boards clamored for a reunion.  They are reunited. They clamored for the  Smile sessions to be released.  They are released.  And still people are unhappy.  Everyone can't be pleased.  This is not a perfect world.  

Didn't Van Dyke sue some young artist and get an injunction to cancel an art show where there were some extrapolations/re-interpretations of his verse which were reconstituted  into a new art form?  Pot meet Kettle.  Even the Beach Boys made some nice statement about Katie Perry's California Girls, after some crazy story emerged.  It seems analogous but the responses were different.  They didn't try to get the recording pulled.  Van Dyke, it seemed, got the art show cancelled.  And Van Dyke is calling out someone else?  Sorry.  As my mother used to say, " 'Sympathy' is in the dictionary."  

Brian Wilson is a big boy. He decided.  Or, initiated the process. I would not know. And it is of no consequence. "Brian is back" but I never knew that he was 'really' gone.  

In the three shows I have seen, Brian appears not to miss one thing on stage.  His "wheels" appear to be very much in sync with the band.  And, each time I see him, he is walking better and he seems more relaxed.  His google interview was hilarious.  The interviewer asked a question, expecting a "deep answer" as to how he felt about singing I Just Wasn't Made for These Times, and Brian says something about the sound coming out of his throat through his mouth and out to the audience.  His wit is still dead-on, even with his poker-player expression.   He comes out with some really funny stuff.  

Brian, as an individual performer was right in the flow of things in his performances, including Pet Sounds Live, TLOS and SMiLE.  Unfortunately, I did not catch Gershwin.   Even the "hot and dirty hits" shows - he was relaxed and would tell some little story connected to a lot of the songs.  I love Brian.  He embodies hope, recovery and the concept that miracles really do happen.  Every night he gets behind that piano, with his Boys, the audience can witness it all. When Brian is said to have told Carl at his end, that, he was "gonna stay around for awhile," he meant it. Maybe he is doing this for his brothers as well as his bandmate "brothers."   ;)      

JMHO  

I'm sorry. I'm really confused. Do you think Van Dyke is upset because Mike Love cancelled his art show? 


Erm, I'm not so certain it was a joke. That interview was okay I guess. Brian didn't utter a single word unless he was directly asked a question but that's fine. That's what makes him comfortable - no different than he has been at all over the last ten or twelve years.

Rockandroll - There is probably a thread, on this board, which contains the story of the art show.  I think it was this past winter.

And, my take on the interview was that it was less spontaneous and particular questions had been formulated for each participant.  The question was particularized toward Brian.  Brian seems to be a listener.  It may be a lost art.

How would you know what makes Brian uncomfortable?  Isn't that a question for Brian?   

Well, sure... these guys are getting up there, and they decided to put their differences aside to have one last go of it. Part of that means patting everyone on the back constantly and giving them tons of credit in group interviews: "Bruce wrote 'I Write the Songs' and won a Grammy, you know.  Plus, we always do 'Disney Girls', which the Mamas and Papas dug." "Mike was a great lead vocalist and had unbelievable synergy with Brian - he was such a brilliant, genius lyrical talent, whether it was 'Fun, Fun, Fun' or 'Kokomo'. And he got great grades in high school." "It was Al's idea that we do 'Sloop John B', and he sang a great lead on one of our #1 hits, 'Help Me Rhonda'. He always brought a great folksy vibe to the band." "Brian, too, was just a such a genius in the studio and with his songwriting and harmonies. We all looked up to him. He was a pop Rachmaninoff."


And, of course, the revisionists are using all of this back-patting to support their view that Mike was great and how Brian was just one slice of the BB's pie. The group has largely accomplished what they always sought to do - to be looked upon as more or less Brian's equals, and to square away the artistry of Pet Sounds and Smile as a drugged up aberration. It was PR campaign that took them decades, but it's finally paid off. Strangely enough, Brian even seems to support this new viewpoint, telling every interviewer how much "hashish" he smoked while recording Smile, as if he should somehow need to excuse some of his best work.

My question though is what does it have to do with what we're talking about?


But there was a part where he was caught not listening.


Because it has been a consistent behavioral pattern. And yes, sometimes (in fact, very often) people don't know what is the source of their comfort or discomfort and it takes an outsider to figure it out. So in answer to your question: no, definitely not.

The issue raised is bad behavior and a feeling of injustice.  Did I miss something?  I found the situation somewhat hypocritical.  And, I always supported his work until I read that he shut down the young artist's show.  After the Beach Boys showed Katy Perry support. 

And, newsflash. Some of our best creators were daydreamers, who appeared to "stare into space" and appear to be inattentive.  Some of my highest and creative student acheivers were those daydreamers.  It can be an indicator of ADD or ADHD.  Those people are the real creative people for they think outside-the-box.   

And, making an outsider observation about "discomfort" appears to be practicing medicine. 

Phoenix, I pretty much agree with everything you said.  And after hearing the last 3 tracks on TWGMTR after the Mike Love-co-written tunes, I believe that there is no way that "Pet Sounds" would be at or near the top of greatest album lists had Brian not insisted on working with other collaborators in 1966.  Not to bash Mike, but he has a pretty narrow "artistic" worldview that Brian did and sometimes still wants to transcend.

Apparently 50 years of bad behavior from Mike Love if you believe this constitutes some kind of similarity.


How is it hypocritical? Where has he criticized or condemned the same behavior?


In the last post, Brian was a beacon for the dying art of listening and now he is a beacon for the great daydreamers? Which one is it? I'm not sure I'm the one who is impressing my own speculative view on the situation here.


No, not necessarily.

Reasonable minds can differ.  We can "disagree, without being disagreeble" as my former Harvard educated principal used to say. 

Obama says it, too.   ;)

Mike has been good behavior recently, but the "heroes and villains" book shows how much of an asshole he was back in the day.

That book also says that the band's seventh album was called The Beach Boys, that Holland had a track on it called Cool Clear Water, Today! was full of uninspired car tunes...

That book sucks on music details but gets the personal info down perfectly about Mike beating his wife and kids.

Now, now, everyone knows Brian is the messed up one. Stick to the script!

I read that book a long time ago but don't remember it saying he hit one of his children.  Something about him getting mad at his wife for smoking and going off on her but not sure about what he did to his kids.

The book says he hit Christian so hard he flew across the room.

This doesn't apply to most of you so I'm sorry in advance to the real fans who at least give me credit for trying to present an honest look at the band even if they don't always see or hear what I do. Yet I can no longer stand the turn this board has made in the last year. This is a Beach Boys board for fans and friends who want to intelligently discuss their career and the story behind it. Lately it has been turning ever so blue. Hey people can differ from me, people can think I have it all wrong, but people who deny hard facts are infuriating. After having those of us who say nothing but that the Beach Boys all have talent, that during their prime they mostly worked together in harmony, were being called revisionists? That's the last fucking straw.

First Mike seems to have a good relationship with many of his kids, I was slapped sometimes as a kid and once I even fell from it. So what! My parents didn't "beat" me and I doubt Mike "beat" anyone either. It happens.otherwise good, honest, respectable people sometimes lose it and get violent.  He's been married a long time to what seems like an intelligent woman, even if he was a slapper maybe he learned from his mistakes and has his temper in line today.

When I grew up in the 80's all my friends got spanked or slapped. I'm not saying I agree with it personally, but it wasn't even an issue. Also Gaines simply reported what he was told. Is there a police record on Mike for domestic violence? Did Gaines consider the sources? Why don't you confront Mike yourself if it bothers you so much. It's really none of our damn business what people do in their personal lives, especially half a lifetime ago. Dennis is dead and people pick on him for crap choices he made. The man is DEAD and many judge him. Who am I or anybody to sit and judge Mike or Dennis for being dumb at times. It's not happening now, nobody died, nobody seems damaged beyond repair, sh*t happens in every family. Again not to defend it, I think it was an idiot thing to do,  but it's not your business and happened decades ago. Forgiveness is something sorely lacking here lately.

People like Mark Dillion, Jon, myself, and Andrew, we've done the legwork. Calling us revisionists! We just bother to get the truth. In life people do crappy things and do good things. It's part of maturity and growing up. We've beyond a doubt proved that much of what you hear about Mike or even Brian is unfair and perhaps we see through agenda's better. I have been angry on here the last few days. Angry that people look at stories that have been disproved and won't let them go. I work my ass off to get the truth out and I know everyone else I mentioned here and many others like C-Man and Ian do so as well. 90 percent of what is here in this thread is mythology and lies. Brian's not some innocent victim in the Beach Boys story. He has mental issues which are sad, but he's made really bad choices, that were his choices not matter what,

If some of you think we are so off why don't you personally take years out of your lives doing nothing else but writing, and meeting, and getting to know these people before you say crap that can't be backed up. I used to wonder why Andrew got upset at some of you...now I know. I want to get along with people in any situation, I want people to think I am fair in what I say, hell I'll come right out and say I want to sell books just like any other writer, but not to people that won't realize that I put my own name on the line to do this right. Some really insane things are being said on here that negate all of our hard work and frankly I can't let it slide.

I'm not getting up on a high horse, I'm no better than anyone,  but this is my career, my living. I'm not playing around or pushing any sort of agenda. I have put my entire heart and soul into this, simply because myths are what have caused these real people called the Beach Boys the most pain in their lives. Look at Dave, I bet many of you wrote him off without thinking. I bet some still do. Historical fact backs me up when I say that Mike Love isn't a demon and Brian isn't a saint. Frankly if Brian told some of you all this himself, you would question him. One last time these aren't your stupid icons and legends, these are and were real people with real feelings. How would you like to be so cruelly dissected and analysed? At the end of the day the Beach Boys have done nothing major in life but to make their listeners happy. I know they made my life a lot more fun. When you all put in the time and work and achieve even half of the positive things they have, then you can open your mouths. From now on I refuse to hear such nonsense. 

I am taking a very extended break from here. I don't need this kind of crap thrown at me. I will come back as promised to fill all of you who are interested in my book on the progress. If I see things have changed I will come back for good. Right now I can't handle such idiocy. I've worked too hard man, way too hard to have my work and those I consider colleagues work to be treated like dirt. The internet is a strange place. I've met the most wonderful people in my life on this board and on others, but some of you need some fresh air and maybe some long reflection. Just because you are behind your keyboard doesn't mean your words don't cut. Do not talk to people any differently than you would talk to their faces. I don't need it anymore. For the 80 percent of you that are good people I love you all as fellow fans and historians, honestly. Goodbye for now I promise when the air clears I will return.

Mike, for my part, I want to say I was moved by your posting and that I share your ambition in the realms of scholarship and fandom. Let the professor pledge his brother and support to you.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I just want to say that you wrote a book on the Beach Boys. So why don't we have a right to state opinions? So some interpret facts differently - is that such a big deal? Why can your view be the only one heard?

::)

The essence of Mike Love: I want to not like "Spring Vacation" -- this is not at all what I would like a new Beach Boys album to sound like -- but I can't get the da*n thing out of my head and it makes me happy when I hear it.

Thank you. I will be back and I am not angry anymore. I just need a break. This year I have been doing two books at once, lost my mother, and worked very hard at putting together a wedding for me and my wife that was a success but sucked out all of my energy. I have a new marriage to focus on and my work. Everybody does have a right to their view, very much so, but honestly despite what some people in the media are all about, others of us do this because only because we care about the art and the artist. I just hate when people who have worked so hard to spread positive things in their music are personally attacked. I hate Summer In Paradise as an album much as anyone, but to keep harping on issues that happened so long ago and to have actual personal hate for Mike or any of the others is deeply disturbing to me. I know their work has improved all of our lives, it's time to cut them some slack personally if not critically. Myself I have just been burning the candle at both ends and need to rest. I am sharing this with you because most of you are my friends and care as much or even more than I do about the group. There are those of us who are trying so hard to humanize groups like The Beach Boys as people, and offer some critical balance based on cold facts. I get too close to it sometimes and lose my own sense of self. In other words I am deeply sorry I showed my anger publically. What I said basically stands, but how I said it could have been much kinder. I forget that anybody on here does care in their own way, but when someones very hard work is dismissed as revisionism it does hurt. I've been working on this project since 1994 and that's a good half of my life, it's my baby and I guess I am far too protective at times.

Why thanks!  It's nice to know someone sees where I'm coming from.   :)

...How does "the group" accomplish this by putting out a huge and acclaimed Smile Sessions boxset, having Al sing the praises of "Surf's Up" in interviews, and playing half a dozen tracks from "Pet Sounds" and "Smile" to rapturous receptions at every show?

There's some rewriting of the record going on here, but not by the group...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Mike, I didn't mean any trouble when posting, I just posted what I learned from the  H&V book.

Well thank you for saying that. I just have talked to people who love and are close to Mike and Dennis and see many other sides to them. I don't excuse this, I just don't let  mistakes they may have made privately color my thoughts. The main reason for that is in basically all cases this involves people who they divorced or aren't happy with them for whatever reason. Because of that I don't feel we get the whole story. Obviously something like this is not easy to tackle and it's very hard to know what really happened, but nobody tells that to a writer without reason. I just know I wasn't there and I have been told many good things that counteract that.

Gaines for instance wrote Dennis didn't like black people. I made a point of asking many close friends of Dennis' and they say it is completely false. Gaines' book is interesting for what it is, but it is a tell all. I was told things in the course of my research that paint people in a very bad light, in every case of that though the person telling me that was angry at who they tattled on. Also I had zero way of backing it up. Perhaps Gaines felt that if someone told him something he had the right to print it, I understand that view but I personally couldn't do that unless I had a lot of conformation. The more scandal in a story the more care I took to prove it. Again that's just my way of doing things. I don't hold malice at all and thank you again for taking the time to write about this to me.

I still do need to take a break for a short while but I'm happy that most do know that revisionism is the last thing on my mind. I will also say in good faith that it isn't on the minds of any of the other recent authors I mentioned. I know like myself they are only trying to find out the truth the best they can and give everybody their due. Funny enough for me it was the excellent work Brian did from 1967-71 that initially confused me as it went against the stories I heard that led me to write about the Beach Boys. I mean when I learned Brian cut music from 1973-75 I was stunned because we were told he was in bed the entire time by some writers. My hunches were mostly proved to be true about his productivity being far higher than we knew from Smiley to Surf's Up. No it was not like it had been before but until 1972 he was there more than not in the studio or at very least worked on the lionshare of the songs to some level. We had always been told otherwise but everyones stories matched when pressed for details.

As I went on I realized every last one of them hadn't got their due for what they put into the Beach Boys. That's not true in the work of the authors I mentioned before, but before the songwriting lawsuit it was very much the case. I'm not talking about Mike solely, that lack of recognition went for all of them.  My book isn't a puff piece. I'm very hard on a lot of the material from 15 Big Ones to GIOMH, but I try to show what they each added musically while also showing where they each went wrong at times. Personally I just tried to make them human beings good and bad like anybody else. I again don't mind disagreement I just get upset if someone thinks I have anything but honorable intentions. Revisionism=agenda. For a writer that is only trying to present all sides of the story that word is the worst thing you throw at them. Thus why I was so upset rightly or wrongly.

You are utterly insane.

Dada - Revisionist history is a bad place "to go."  And, I am not an historian of the work, as Andrew or Mike or Jon, but, have actively lived and grown, since a pre-teen, alongside their music.  I find the suggestion of the recounting of the accolades bestowed on the members of the Band, "backslapping" in a sort of political connotation.  It is just what would appear on their CV Curriculum Vitae (resumé.) 

The interviews are exactly the appropriate  place where music awards should be duly noted.  Bruce mentioned Mrs. O'Leary's Cow  [which I hope slides into the setlist at some point- along with The ( totally goofy!) Barnyard.] Mike mentioned Bruce's Grammy, when he was on his "sabbatical."  David spoke of his academic and other musical pursuits, including not being far from the Boys, and playing in Boston with them in 1971 when he was at Berklee.  I was there.  That is only my "casual history."  He wasn't making it up.  Dave stepped back when Carl was so sick.  Al has a solo album.       

And, there have been many reasonable posters who now, no longer post here.  They came to have a place of intelligent discourse about the music that was their soundtrack in life.  A real "history" lesson as it were, might be that ardent  fans who were marginalized among their peers and generation have joyfully found a place for discussion.  That was the era when the Boys were at the height of creativity and written off in the States.  All of them were creative; not just Brian.  I "lurked"  here for several years before I jumped in.   

And, I don't mean to single you out, but the "revisionist" thing got to me.  There is a certain hostility and pugnaciousness on this board, which is unacceptable.  For an BB author to feel the need to take a break, is unacceptable.  Even if this board is largely uncensored, which is a good thing, people need some boundaries and tolerance.   

And, I have felt for a long time that there are "multiple personalities" on this board, where the same person logs out as one "nom de plume" and relogs in as another.   

Frankly, when I look at the Rock and Roll HOF clip, I just laugh.  And it is all "situational" and "contextual."  It might have been an "off-day" and we all have them, and most of us have mis-spoken at one time or another in life.  High profile people don't seem to get the opportunity to have a "redo" and it is unfortunate.  I laugh because Mike told the truth.  The Stones NEVER toured as the Beach Boys did.  People may not like the "context" but, he did not lie.  And, maybe it was less-than-perfect judgement.  I would hate to think that something I said in the late 1980's or 1990's would either control or define my life.  It is brought up here, ad infinitum. 

Mike (Eder) should not be so provoked and challenged, as he does have an opinion, but it is an INFORMED (via study and research) opinion.  And I might not agree with all  that he writes [which I have not read] or other historians for that matter, but I respect that they are INFORMED (via research) and it is not all opinion. 

Informed opinion, such as court experts are given greater weight in court. Why?  Because their opinion is formed by studied research and information, not based on reflection. 

People should be able to post here, freely and not be hassled to the extent that they feel the need to "take a break."

For myself, I take everything I read with a grain of salt, and for the most part I don't read those books any longer although I have a few. Largely, I love photos, so if a book has good ones, I might pick it up.  I concern myself with the music, and the time between stepping on the stage and off. 

When they exit, "stage left" - they go back to their own lives.  Period. 


 

Hi Mike,

Hope I wasn't responsible for your desire to take a break. Like I said from the start, it is impossible to find fault with your fair-minded and objective assessment of the band and I just wanted to share my take on one small piece of what you wrote, more to engage with it than to try to aggressively undermine it. Hope there are no bad feelings.

Mike Eder says that maybe some ex-wives or girlfriends with an ax to grind tattled on Mike Love.  If he ever did hit any of his ex-wives or kids, it's no excuse that it just came out because they had a grudge against him.  I don't blame any exes at all for telling the truth about that. I've known women who were victims of that and the passage of time doesn't make it hurt less and it also affects a woman's future trust of men.  I hope Mike Love has turned a page since those years ago and his latest wife would never put up with anything like that and it never happened to any of his wives or girlfriends since.  It still makes me think less of him for doing that even in the past though because there are many men who never have and never would treat a woman that way in their entire lives.

Haha, fair enough. I will say that when I wrote "equal", I meant musical equals. I certainly consider myself musically inferior to Brian Wilson, and I feel no shame in admitting that.

Also, I'm sorry that the term revisionist bothered people. I honestly wasn't aware of the work Eder or Blum had done when I made that comment. I wasn't try to slam someone's book. I was criticizing a perception on this board.

I guess I'm just a little concerned to see how the BBs image is being shaped for posterity. Look at how many articles blithely make statements like "Brian, after finally emerging from a 40 year long haze of drugs and mental troubles, in which he blahlblahblah...." It's so dismissive. Yeah, they released Smile - and packaged it with a surfboard?!?! And, of course, in every article, Brian clams up about Smile, only mentioning how much hashish he smoked (and journalists quote that with gleeful aplomb).

Nobody writes this: "Mike, after spending a good chunk of the '70s clutching apple juice and obsessively meditating, reemerged much stronger in the '80s to permanently shape the BBs as America's fun in the sun malt shop band. Though the band scored a hit with 'Kokomo', it was largely a disastrous turn that ruined the public perception of the group's artistry and relegated the BBs to small carnival shows for portions of the '90s and '00s."

Seems absurd, right? Well then why do people do that kind of stuff when writing about Brian? I'm not saying Eder or Blum do that, but there are some preconceptions out there that need to be fought.

Also, I never brought up anything negative about Mike's family or whatever. I think that stuff is irrelevant.

It does tend to make for interesting reading when you want to read books about bands with intricate histories that began more than half a lifetime ago, however.

It is relevant if you're writing a biography, though.  Biographies are people's personal lives.  You either have to whitewash it or bring it out. I'd like to think most of the Beach Boys have improved greatly as they've gotten older in the way they treat their women and kids.  To tell the truth, the only one of those guys I'd even want to meet is Al Jardine, and a lot of that is because he seems like a nice guy and that's based on the fact that there aren't too many stories about him being unkind to people in the past.

Al secretly kicks cats and small dogs when he thinks no one's looking.  :police:

When he's not running his Harlem numbers racket and gunrunning concerns, anyway.

I'm done with this board too..... I shall lurk but not post or respond. No one will miss me, so it's no loss...

The Beach Boys exist and are kicking ass in the here and now, and I refuse to spend anymore time getting caught  in the same endless circles of "Mike's a merdahole"! "No he isn't" "Mike's a merdahole"! "No he isn't" ...... It's time to let go.

1 million percent agreed.

Aww come on Erik H I will miss you! When I was new here we had some excellent discussion about Surf's Up!

I'll miss ya, Erik!

Thanks guys! Maybe I'll be back when the tour is over ;)

This distills the genius of Mike Love...

"I'm the surf word man, gimme some dooooooooo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZBQCWwAp9I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZBQCWwAp9I)

Damn you, JM. I nearly woke my six year old I was laughing so hard. Remind me not to take a drink as I open any of your future links. Some of it ended up coming out my nose.

Some day, he's going to find me and make me pay for making that.

You made that thing?  You are a God among men.

Brian Wilson: "Mike Love is a hero".

I think it's possible to both appreciate and dislike a person all at the same time.  I'm a Cleveland sports fan, ask me about Lebron James.

As other posters have mentioned, there are a number of reasons to loathe Mike Love but also reasons to appreciate his contributions to the Beach Boys classic output.  It's impossible to think about the metioric rise of the band without seeing Love as the front man and co-writing with Wilson.  It's also important to remember the 'blend' of voices and that unique sound that only Love could bring to a song like "Add Some Music To Your Day". 

At the same time, it's nearly impossible to ignore the fact that Love has gone to great lengths to prove he is the most uptight TM practictioner the world has ever known.  There is great irony in both the man's last name and the fact that his public actions throughout his career have fed into the negative private rumblings about him.

I do not, for one, think Love is the ultimate reason for the failure to finish SMiLE.  That had more to do with a limitation of technology and the overwhelming pressure that I sense Wilson was under at the time.  Although, it could be rightly argued that Love definitely contributed to the pressure that Wilson felt creatively about the material.

I do think Love is a necessary portion of the Beach Boys blend and that he is probably the most negative cog in that wheel, but that is only my person opinion.  I choose to appreciate his talents for what they are but also cannot help but chuckle at his many public foibles. 

:pirate :h5 :rock :love :happydance :woot :woot :thumbsup

Never knew about his breakdown until I looking at it here. What was going on around that time. Clearly his breakdown was more than a fast gone wrong. I've heard similar stories happen to other people going crazy due to malnutrition. In almost all cases, stress played a major role (example: forgive me for bringing him up but, that guy who made the Kony 2012 video, can't remember his name at the moment) Don't know too much about the BB's personal history other than what I see on the board but from what I hear, Mike comes from a dysfunctional family, which is not surprising because of who's he related to. What I wonder is how dysfunctional was his family? I think someone pointed out on the board that he also came from an abusive home, which is also possible because of his family ties.

I'm no psychologist but I believe that Mike might have some psychological issues or whatever. Just my two cents.

I've either forgotten or never knew the crazy stuff Mike was doing in the 70s, anyone mind highlighting some?

FUN FACT: the first hit on a google search for "Tainted Wilson Blood" is an episode of House MD.

"Tainted blood has been known to cause a sense of impending doom..."

Gaines' book "Heroes and Villains" has a vivid section on it. Search the google books entry on it for "apple juice" and it should come up with a rousing page preview for you.

Despite teasing him relentlessly for months, gotta say he's putting out a merdaload of energy on the tour and I have to commend him for seemingly mellowing out a bit! His double act with Brian staring and blinking as the straight man in the press is just hilarious.

 I repeat: We kid because we Love. Michael Edward Love.

 :lol  :lol

 :smokin

What's interesting is that the An American Family biopic everyone hates tries to address this. When Mike gets a girl pregnant while he's working at a gas station, his parents kick him out - it's not exactly a loving response, on top of whatever other issues Mike may have had with his family growing up. According to the movie, this a huge motivation for Mike when it comes to working with Brian. Mike needs money, and once he gets through the band, you get this sense that his attitude is: "I am NEVER going to let myself be put in a desperate situation like that EVER again." He's not going to be the Mike that pumped gas with had a kid on the way and no home, forced to beg Brian to start a band.

Ultimately, he seems to cope with the trauma of his formative ears by coveting money and success, viciously protecting the band's image because it's his "livelihood" and reputation at stake. The fact that he marries a girl he practically just met not too long after the BBs turn into a pop industry mainstay in the mid-60s shows he's a man with some desperation. There's some ideal of himself and his life that he dearly longs for.

Through the lens of the movie, Mike's breakdown is a clear reaction to the band's commercial downfall. Having to cancel a tour in 1968 because of lack of interest must've killed Mike inside, given his past. Just two years ago they were on top of the world! By Mike's own admission, he was seriously abusing alcohol and pot before he got into meditation and fasting. Had he not lost it going on extreme fasts and meditation binges, he could very well have fallen apart from substance abuse. He was trying to control some serious trauma, and he no longer had the fame and constant stream of money to fill the hole.

Mike's about control - whether it's in personal life, or the band. That's why he's so in love with meditation. Meditation promises you control over your emotions. As he sings on his solo album: "You need a cool head and a warm heart to get you through the day without coming apart."

The BBs were in many ways a band of desperation. The Wilson brothers had a deep need to prove to the world - and proxy their father - their self-worth. Believe it or not, my mother was in many ways an emotionally abusive tyrant (and yes, even physically, although nothing like Murry... she just choked me on the couch once and threw glass at me a few times, and things like that), and I can see how that can create persistent self-esteem issues.

That made me laugh so hard i thought i was going to wet myself!! Fantastic. Yes, Mike wrote some nice lyrics, yes he did some great vocals, yes he's a talented frontman, but believe it or not he can do all that and still be a repellent, rather unlikeable, unpleasantly bullish person in private. And vast amounts of evidence suggest this is the case.

The irony of Mike is that he is intelligent but he has done things that seem rather stupid or make him look stupid.  If only he had let his work speak for itself instead of having to crow about it on top of sometimes suing for it. Mike could have done more with his life if he had not been a Beach Boy than just pumping gas if he had done his homework.  The fact he may not be sure he could have might be the reason he has done some of the bad stuff, because he has low self-esteem underneath.  He's not dumb, he had talents like having a nice deep speaking voice with good diction.  He also wasn't bad-looking with clean cut WASP looks.  He reminds me of those old-time game show hosts you see on reruns on Game Show Network.  If he weren't a Beach Boy and used his brain he could have been a TV announcer or a disc jockey with that speaking voice.

I could totally see Mike hosting something like "Family Feud".

He does, Aegir.

In many ways, Mike is Dick Cavett without the Ivy League education.

Mike and Dick  Cavett did look a little alike in younger days. If Mike had used toupees instead of hats to cover the hairline. It's that generic old-school clean cut type TV host look. 

(http://snl.jt.org/caps/guests/Dick%20Cavett-1.jpg)

Now that I think about it, Cavett looks like Mike Love and Al Jardine's love child. Yike!

OK, I lied and am back.

I just want to ask once again, because it's never been answered......

..... Just what makes Mike Love any different than any of the other grand assholes in rock (particularly frontmen)?

Keith Richards wrote in his bio that Mick has a small penis!!!! He refers to him publicly as "Brenda" and has talked endless merda about his solo albums. Both him and Mick systematically destroyed Brian Jones (have admittedly) taken credit for songs that other members of their band have either written or were the genesis of. Brian Jones was a confirmed woman beater. Bill Wyman brags about how many groupies he's slept with. Keith Moon was a wife beater and actually ran an elderly man over (killing him) with his car. McCartney pinned Denny Laine down on the floor back stage once and held a knife to his throat. Dennis had sex with underage girls and married his own cousin's daughter. Elvis threw a pool cue at a woman's chest seriously injuring her. He cheated on his wife left and right.... The Who and The Kinks have beat the hell out of each other countless times. George Harrison has sex with Ringo's wife and Clapton stole George's wife. Pink Floyd just decided not to pick up Syd one day for rehearsal. Roger Waters sued his former bandmates and talked endless merda on them for years and years and tried to take credit for everything. Same with Fogerty. I could go on and on..... But  we all love these guys and forgive them for anything everything but Mike's been called to task for 50 years for what?

Being bald is the only thing I can think of that makes him guilty forever on all charges.....

Welcome back! ;D I guess its because Mike's public persona pisses people off sometimes and they want to find dirt on the man. Whoa on the McCartney story.

Dang. Never heard that one. Any online sources? (Google search doesn't yield any results from what I see)

Hey guys! Did you know that Paul McCartney also said that God Only Knows was his favorite song of all time? You may not know that and this seemed like a good time to point it out.

(ducks)

I think it's because Mike Love looks and talks like a square.  Rock fans don't like squares.  People also expect people who talk against using drugs and do seem so square to be better behaved than people who aren't.  No one really expects obvious messed up guys like Jimmy Page or Keith Richards to be squeaky clean.  Mike was not only clean cut looking but he looked older than the other guys even before he started losing his hair.  Mike always looked like more like the teacher or chaperone instead of one of the kids.  

Those are all good points!

Can obsessiveness with TM and bad clothes count as drug addiction?

I think it's because those that dislike Mike feel like he messed with Brian's creativity during Pet Sounds & Smile (and even during the writing of songs like "Til I Die") and pigeonholed Brian in later years with the "fun in the sun" image he relentlessly pursued.  A lot of the stuff you mentioned regarding those other musicians related more directly to their personal lives than the artistic output of their respective bands. Believe it or not, there are people out there that hate Pink Floyd for dropping Syd Barrett and the Rolling Stones for mistreating Brian Jones, because that effected the creativity of those two artists. However, neither Barrett nor Jones ever reached the level of critical respect bestowed upon Brian, and that's probably the key difference.

But bands fight all the time nonstop about creative direction. And it wasn't like Mike put up some solid and endless opposition. All we really hear regarding Mike in this situation is the beginning of a conversation. Brian more of less got his way all the time (as if should have been, mind you). What we don't hear about is when Brian made his case and Mike either went "Oh, OK" or just shut up and sang.

Also, I think Brian might have messed up his own creativity more than any other figure in rock!

Yeah, but it's like... we know The Beatles had creative differences, but it never resulted in something like MIU, with Ringo taking the band to Iowa and forcing John and Paul  to record easy listening, nostalgic stuff. Same thing with all those other bands. They never had such a strong challenge to their identity from within. Maybe Pink Floyd did eventually, but it was after the fact, once we'd already gotten the classic stuff. The fact that the world never got Smile is probably where a lot of the hate came from. And it is unfair to put so much of the blame on Mike for Smile's collapse. At the same time, though, it's hard to see how his behavior during Smile would endear him to fans of the material.

Hmmmm, I dunno. We got "The Long & Winding Road", "Ballad Of John N Yoko" (GREAT song but there's no George or Ringo) "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", "Honey Pie", but we didn't get "Not Guilty" or a boatload of great stuff that ended up on All Things Must Pass..... and MIU came well after the classic stuff, I'd say.

Sounds like a distorted version of McCartney throwing Jimmy McCulloch to the floor backstage and punching him one time when McCulloch refused to go back out for the second encore.  (From Geoffrey Giuliano's book.)  No knife, though.  And I think that incident probably says more about McCulloch's notorious temper than Paul's, though!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

None at all.

Didn't say it's an excuse, what I am saying is that it's hard to know if any source with an axe to grind is telling the truth. Many major rock stars of the era have been accused of this in print, it's just hard to know unless you get them to talk about themselves. Many do come clean with behavior they regret with the passage of time. Myself if I ever interviewed Mike I would rather focus on the studio and stage. If it came up and he wanted to make a statement about it I would not stop him, but my book is about the music and history of the band. The personal lives are there insofar as they influenced their work. but it's more of a historical case for the band and their work then a deep personal probe. Why? Because I am a music oriented writer and that's all I feel interested in talking about, I'd make more money the other way but who would trust me or want to talk to me? I wouldn't sleep easy at night about it.

Mike Eder, just FYI

I always enjoy your posts a whole heckuva a lot, and if you do take a break, I hope it's a short one!

Keith and Mick hit women too according to the books. Keith Moon ran a man around his age over when being chased by skinheads. Actually it was his friend and driver Neil Boland and some say that's why Keith changed so much in the seventies and ended up dead. Again the point I am trying to make is that while not all of us have been violent, all of us do things in life that aren't anything to be proud of that our friends and family let go. I don't have to answer for fighting with my step brother 15 years ago but Ray Davies does for fights that took place 40 years ago. I think one needs to take great care in deciding what to report. In their case the stuff that you can verify about the Beach Boys is sometimes far more interesting than who slept with who.
Breaks over heysboda and thanks for the kind words. Just needed a few days to rest.

I see what you're saying about avoiding too much personal stuff in interviews. People would take Steven Gaines' book more seriously if he didn't get into the mud so much.  It is a book he did a lot of research and hard work on but he put the emphasis in the wrong place too often.  I'm sure people who were interviewed for that book regret saying some of the things they told him.

Smileysmile.net is a virtual Hotel California: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave...

Right, I mean I don't know them on a deep level where I feel I could ask certain things. Gaines probably has some great interview tapes with solid info. However because of the tone, and getting so much of the music stuff wrong, the entire book has to be used very carefully for research. He did a lot of hard work, and there are many things in there I was able to build on and confirm, however the worst of the worst mostly didn't check out. Todd Gold is the only source I use next to nothing. I only used I think one sentence of the whole book and that's only because it was "Brian" on an album saying thoughts he had said less succinctly elsewhere. Even when I use it I make sure to say that it's only because I could confirm it was his basic feelings. I think that book has done more to spread false info than anything. Even Steven McParland uses it in his new Beach Boys tome which lessens it quite a bit.

Side point: I would trust Guiliano about as much as Albert Goldman. Cut from similar faux-leather.

Gaines' book is incredibly readable and provided a needed glimpse that suited the times. Worth the price of admission for the Frost tape alone and the intriguing glimpses into Dennis' life.

There's room for a million books and viewpoints, so hurry up and get more out! I've been rereading Paul Williams' book and... man, it'd have been nice to have read what Paul thought of the reunion and new album. I sure miss reading him rave about the Beach Boys and Philip K Dick!

Yeah, I was just rattling those off the top of my head in a mad frenzy! I do think the Denny Laine knife incident happened in some form or another. I'll try to remember where I got that from.

This board weathered the McCabes and the McShanes of the bluebored. It will weather the psuedo-revisionists on here now. Stay strong, Erik and Mike!

I'm back for good. Just needed a quick breather!

Ha! Who is doing the revising here? Somebody needs to revise the revisionists. I, for one, am an anti-revisionary!  Unfortunately, that requires engaging in revisionism.

More proof of Mike's genius for the non-believers:
"It was the best of times, the worst of times, an age of reason with a rage for rhymes"

Who else could have come up with such a brilliant intro? "It was the best of times, the worst of times" doesn't that sum up the 1960s in fewer words than any other lyricist could do?

What a brilliant line!

And it could be applied to so many other eras...World War II...the Victorian era, hell, even the French Revolution.

And the background vocals whispering: "It was the spring of hope, winter of despair"

The man is a genius. Just admit it and then you can go back to hearing about crows repeatedly circling crops.

Mike didn`t write that song though...

I just looked up that album. How come Mike didn't write any of the lyrics (except on one song)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Back_with_Love

He was too focused on the brilliant music....

Crap! You mean to tell me that he's not a genius? Well, OK, so he did cowrite one song on his only released solo album; that clearly displays his confidence in his own songwriting abilities (or perhaps overconfidence in his singing abilities). But that one song, like the one I mentioned above, displays a clever play on a great literary work, turning a dreary, overly complicated, unbearably long "masterpiece" into a simple, beautiful sentiment, as only Mike can do. "Paradise Found": Milton only wishes he could have come up with something so epic!

Mike Love is no genius, he is just a hard working dude.

Yes, he works really hard at self-promotion. Bruce and David are excellent disciples.

A shame really that they didn`t re-record some of the First Love songs.

If you were to take the best of the LBWL songs (One Good Reason, On and On and On, Calendar Girl, Teach me Tonight, Paradise Found) and combine them with the best of First Love (Daybreak, You`re Looking Better, Viggie, First Love etc.) then it could have been a genuinely very good album.

Yes, that would have been an awesome album! I bet those covers have never been sung better.

 :-D

Diddums wants some attention does he? Not getting enough love at home? Or psychosexual problems perhaps?  ;)

If you call needing to have "Country Pie" as background music in order to get it up a pyschosexual problem, guilty as charged! My wife calls it getting twice the Love!

OK, I cave in... aside from voicing a few inconsequential concerns regarding Pet Sounds and Smile, Mike Love was great and THE most important Beach Boy.

What were Mike's comments regarding the closing TWGMLR suite i.e. what is, by some considerable distance, the best thing on the entire album? Honestly, did he really say it was depressing? Is he really so completely and utterly detached from the views and feelings of those (like us) who love the band? Has he not learned anything by now? Hey Mike, remember how much you disliked Til I Die? You know, that song that's now considered a masterpiece and one of the band's finest moments? Well, you've got it wrong again. Christ, if it was left to him we'd have an entire album of Beaches In Mind's. I'd really appreciate if someone could print a direct quote re his remarks, thanks.

Also, i really, really hope their is not another BB album!! History tells us absolutely that they will blow it, so let's just end it on a high, right? That closing suite is a perfect career finale, as is the tour. It'd be great if, for once, they didn't f*** it up and did the right thing and ended on a positive note.

TWGMTR is a very good album, but a new album could be better. We won't know unless they try.

Wanna bet?