The Smiley Smile Message Board

The Beach Boys have been around in some form for 50+ years. The members are now in their 70s (or sadly, no longer around), so we've probably had ample time to evaluate the "legacy" of the band and its individual members.

So what's the verdict on Mike Love? In another thread I asked which album was the band's most polarizing (divisive among fans) release. That's debatable. But I think it's safe to say that Mike Love IS the most polarizing Beach Boy--with Dennis Wilson receiving "honorable mention."  Love has been loved--pun initially unintended-- by some fans for his distinct vocals, lyrical contributions, dedication to the band, and commercial sensibility. He's been hated by other fans who believe he has no artistic integrity and has diluted the Beach Boys brand over the years. Of course, other fans see "both sides" and view him as having a mixed legacy--a contributor who has both helped and hurt the band at various points in history.

So where do you stand? With 50+ years of information to study, it may be time for a final verdict. What's your opinion of Mike Love?

I'm guessing you're new here.  ;D This is a constant topic, though, and I'm sure everyone has their own, highly polarized opinions.

One thing I have noticed about Mike Love lately is that one of his pet causes, TM, seems to be making a huge comeback among the celebrity set, thanks to David Lynch and his foundation (whom Mike also has links with via their mutual interest). I'm not sure what it means. Isn't TM still basically a cult, and believes in odd things such as the ability to fly via meditation?

Second only to Brian in his contribution to their legacy. You could even look at it as him being most important to their legacy. Confident guy, down with most anything Brian wanted to do, cared alot about all of the Boys. Big heart, even a tender heart, very generous in many ways, spent most his career biting his tongue and lumping it.

Haha, yeah I am new here.  :)  I'm sure this topic has been discussed in various forms for years. But since I haven't been around I wanted to hear what people thought. Additionally, following the 50th Reunion Tour it seems that Mike Love's reputation has been a topic of conversation considering how the tour ended in a mildly controversial way, with various fans "taking sides." So, I'm sorry if this is really old without providing any updated relevance. But just wanted to ask.

Not in my experience. If anything it might be a money grab, which is why it fell out of favor in the late '60s to begin with, but not a cult. It may depend on how into it you get, but I went to the TM center here in Chicago about 2 years ago. You pay $30, they have a ceremony where you eat an apple and get a mantra, then you sit some place quiet for 20 minutes. I know they have the retreats and everything, which things may get more "culty" there, but there certainly was no pressure get involved.

I'm tight on time today, so I won't go into any detailed thoughts on Mike Love right now. I know I've said this here before, but I find him to be a fascinating figure. It's pretty easy to guess what his long lasting legacy will be to your average music fan, so most people won't care to delve beyond his law suit happy reputation, but I think he makes for a really interesting character study.

I think what a Mike topic really needs after all this time is simply a Poll with three options - Hero, Villain, Equal

I personally would go with the preferable category. Yes, he has made some completely ridiculous decisions, but imagine a successful beach boys legacy without him - it just wouldn't be. He and Brian were the initial unstoppable team, with the rest following on. Obviously once they all flourished things change in that respect, but without him their chance to shine may never have come.

etc.

Yeah, that's a good idea. But I didn't want to do the poll option though because I preferred to hear more nuanced written opinions about Love, instead of simply clicking the poll.

Amanda Hart, I'd really look forward to your opinion/"character study" of Love when you have an opportunity.

My opinion: He's a human being, and has done good and bad things as human beings do.
Artistically, he was a great collaborator for Brian (and occasionally Dennis) between 1962 and the early 70s, is still one of the best bass vocalists and frontmen in the business, and has not written a good, or even listenable, song in my lifetime.

Before I started hanging out here, I always thought that everybody hated Mike Love, and if you said or thought anything good about him you were wrong.  I've never hated the guy, but when you start diving into the history of the Beach Boys, Brian's genius is shoved down your throat with Mike's contributions being marginalized, so it's easy to buy into.  Yeah, he's done a lot of jerky things, but he's done a lot of great things, too.  I think his main problem has always been that his lawsuits and asshole behavior have always been the most widely publicized and therefore criticized (some of it deserved, some of it not).  In my humble opinion, the farther you dig into the Beach Boys story, the more it becomes obvious that all of the guys have done great things, and they've all done terrible things.  I don't know, I think he's probably one of the more misunderstood rock stars of all time.  Hero, villain, somewhere in between.

I dunno dude, I very much like "Big Sur", love "All I Wanna Do", and am bowled over by "All This is That". If he had kept that sort of songwriting up...

I was born in 1978.

Just in time for Sumahama :)

What I've read about TM is that people who were involved in it heavily, even in recent times, have described it as a cult that can be difficult to break away from.  Though what they describe seems to be something they voluntarily submitted to. I just find it interesting that some recent practitioners who broke away have the same complaints that people in the '60s and '70s had (money grab, brainwashing), yet in some ways, TM has more legitimacy now among the wealthy and show biz types than it ever did back then. The Lynch Foundation has huge gala benefits in New York every year and the people advocating for TM include people like Dr. Oz, as well as musicians, actors, political pundits, and professional athletes.  Perhaps there's something about the group that appeals to the rich and famous, and Mike doesn't seem as out of step for believing in TM as he used to (when it was out of fashion for several decades).

He's Brian's biggest fan and supporter. That's good enough for me.

heh heh, yeah, but what's that in dog years?

Sums it up well. I was born in 1976 so he's done a few decent songs since-notably for the unreleased First Love. He stuff on TWGMTR was fine though Daybreak was first written for the First Love sessions.

As far as how the tour ended, the passing weeks have allowed me to see his point. The 2012 tour was special and I would hate to see the real Beach Boys playing tiny oldies gigs. 

He is undisputedly a fantastic vocalist, charismatic frontman and an enduring cultural icon for american culture for over 50 years. He is also a complete prat.

I think mike has had a bad rap because of  the things he says, but they would not be the beach boys without him. He wrote alot of songs with Brian, the so called albums he disliked, he sang very good on.  But he's done scumbag things like dogging brians solo stuff but gloating over Kokomo, saying  Brian never had a hit on a solo album. Almost to say that Brian can't write a hit song alone, but that he accomplished that with Kokomo.  Then he will say brian's great and a genius, mikes all over the map. I suppose I don't understand his actions, but nonetheless he's a crucial member of the band and all that they represent. Mike almost comes off as cocky buy yet insecure, every interview he seems to have to throw in a comment about what he wrote or did, it's like hes always defending his position in the band. But just be humble, we all know what u've done man!

I like Mick Jagger!

I like the Mike Love of "All I Wanna Do" and "Big Sur" and "All This is That"

I dislike the Mike Love of "MIU", "Summer in Paradise", the RRHOF induction, cheerleaders and Kokomo.

Artistically I believe that "Endless Summer" reversed his maturation as an artist.  A twenty three year old attempting to appeal to teenagers is okay.  A 35+ year old trying t appeal to teenagers is creepy.

I think he over rates his commercial instincts.

I admire his "I don't care what you think attitude".  Very rock 'n roll of him.

Was about to go asleep but this deserves some thought.

I have heard of but not heard a recording of one of the shows made back in '71, when Mike was temporarily institutionalized after the Wilson blood got the better of him, as he later put it, and Al ended up taking most of the leads.  I understand that though it's a crude recording, what's there is enough to establish that Al could not really reproduce the signature vocal tone of Mike's that carried the band to the top - that nasal thing just on the knife edge of whiny but not whiny. They might have done a little better imitatiing the bass vocal but again, that is Mike's domain, and he's very difficult to replace there too.  Look at the earlier Shindig clip for examples of his skill in that area.

As a lead singer, he can drop the cockiness when he chooses and sing with extraordinary gentleness and sensitivity - Meant For You is a prime example in terms of lead singing, and his counterpoint to Brian's "when day is over I close my tired eyes" really illustrates how he can weave around a lead vocal when a delicate touch is needed.

Songwriting - "All This Is That" and "All I Wanna Do" and "California Saga," plus some others, show that he can produce tracks that are true album highlights - on their best albums.

Now, in the area of bandleading.....

In another thread I talked about my advice to a reporter writing an obituary of Tandyn Almer.  Where the guys were concerned I told him to contact Brian, Mike, Al and Bruce in that order.  (Come to think of it maybe I should have suggested Blondie and Ricky too....) 

Brian, I just figure, would have someone call back with a statement - I don't know if it'll be something like "Tandyn was a great writer. It was great to listen to Rhapsody In Blue with him and write songs" or such.  (But I'm putting up the obit's text, so we'll see what's said if anything.)

Mike I listed second because, first, his recollections of the sessions involving Tandyn would be clear - whether the events as they happened support his interpretation of the behavior and motives of Tandyn is another thing.  But he could say what he thought and he would be unambiguous in saying it. 

Which is true of his interviews. He says what he considers to be the facts, and does, when challenged, present the reasons why he thinks his interpretation is correct. 

I think Mike tries to be fair, too, in balancing what he perceives as what the ordinary guy or gal would like to hear at a Beach Boys show with what the hardcore fans want to hear - but in doing this he always follows the conclusions he draws based on what he thinks the ratio at the shows will be.  The Mike & Bruce combo generally do casinos and smaller towns so they put on the playlist what they think most people in those locales hope to hear, which are the hits.  Since the audiences last year were more diverse than that, he was open to going into the deep catalog, providing it had something in common with what the band had played in live shows in previous times. 

Right now, I'm ready to put up with all Mike's insensitivity and occasional boorish leanings, because he's indispensable. I just keep my fingers crossed and hope next week he doesn't say or do something that pisses me off. But there's always that chance.

I think most BB fans have a love/hate relationship with Mike. Mike at his best is awesome, and awesome in a very unique way. He has a one of a kind voice, his voice is actually the most unique thing about the vocal blend. Brian's falsetto was the best ever and was beautiful, but there are other male singers with very clean and beautiful falsettos. But Mike Love is without a doubt the best Mike Love type singer in the world. His bass voice is great, but there are other great bass singers, but he is the very very best nasal singer I have ever heard. He is also by far the most rock and roll member of the band still alive, although Denny of course lived the lifestyle more than any of the others. They never would have made it as big without him.

With all that said, I do feel they reached a point where it was a mistake for Brian to stay along with the rest of the band. You just can't have a real band when the main writer and second main singer doesn't tour. I think when the BB split into two groups-the live and the studio group-was the real beginning of the end, and the failure of SMiLE was just the final nail in the coffin. And Mike did play a big part in that, but Brian's issues and weaknesses made it worse.

Mike reminds me a lot of Roger Daltrey, except I think Roger has done a much better job over the years with a similar position as a frontman and singer of another writer's songs. And Roger even had much less to do with Pete's songs than Mike did-at least Mike did do a ton of lyrics and some musical input as well. Maybe that's why Roger defers to Pete more than Mike does to Brian.

A performer, not an artist.

His speech to the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame is probably a more accurate example of who he is, than all the guarded interviews.

If you think performers aren't artists in their own right, you're seriously deluded. That's like saying someone like Mick Jagger or Jim Morrison or Elvis Presley isn't an artist. Total bullshit.

I would, er, imagine that performing is ..... an art..... right?..... "Performing Arts" ..... I've heard that term tossed around here and there.....

That's like saying that Enrico Caruso or Frank Sinatra isn't an artist. Seriously. Beach Boys fans REALLY need to listen to more music.

Song interpretation is a tough one and not many people have been all that great at it.... There are reasons why guys like Sinatra and Elvis survived and thrived past the post Brill Building "EVERYONE HAS TO WRITE THEIR OWN SONG OR THEY ARE FRAUDS" era.....

 :afro

Early promise burned away by the endless summer. :hat

You know how Eminem is a good rapper but puts on his stupid jokey voice for songs like "Smack That" while he sometimes raps unaffectedly (as on "Drug Ballad")? It doesn't necessary take away from his talent as a rapper but so much of the former makes you forget about the latter. That's how I feel about Mike's vocal abilities: If he were less pointedly nasal (think: "A Casual Look" as the apotheosis) and more like his voice on the songs I mentioned before, I think it would be an improvement, even if he's still a good vocalist generally speaking.

Right on!

Agreed. I'm not sure if this comes a prejudice against Mike [and some of the other Boys] or an over prejudice for Brian.

Um...  The shows were in early 1970 and it was Brian or Carl taking Mike's leads. But yes, the tape is seriously bad. The only worse one I've heard is the 1970 Whiskey tape.

As odd as it might sound I believe that if you look at all of his contributions to the success of the Beach Boys (lyricist, front man, lead vocalist, background vocalist) his least important contribution was as a lead singer.  I believe this because:

1. In the fast majority of the songs he sang, especially the hits, the lead vocal is least interesting part of the song.
2. In all the songs that require a great lead vocal it always went to somebody else (primarily Brian and then Carl).
3. His bg and bass vocals always sounded great.
4. Change nothing except give his lead vocals to Dennis from 1961 through 1966 and how different would things have been?   
 

My apologies about these errors Andrew.  I guess somehow in my mind I thought it was Al because Al can sing pretty well at those kinds of tempos.  Carl's strength was melody with a soulful touch to the words rather than the kind of fast-paced syncopated lyric Mike handles so well.

Sorry, but this is the single most annoying and false anti-Mike sentiment there is. People say all he did was sing, shake his ass and laugh all the way to the bank. Who do you think wrote about 3/4 of the band's lyrics, total? Mike Love did. Some of them are less than stellar. Some are outright awful. Several of them are really f***ing good.

That's not even considering the fact that he wrote some stuff all by himself or made significant musical contributions to others. As someone who has written dozens (if not hundreds) of pieces of music in his life but only about seven or eight cohesive, satisfactory sets of lyrics in his life time, I have to appreciate Mike's lyrical abilities. Like, a lot. The idea that a band is less legitimate if they had a friend or peer help them write a song, sometimes had session players on their music (especially for the purpose of enhancement/vision and not lack of skill), or that solid lyrical writing is somehow less legitimate or requires less talent than solid music composition is trite, stale "rawk n roll, man" bullsh*t that holds us as a species.

I'm not accusing you, urbanite, of that, I just felt it was relevant to what I was saying and it doesn't get said enough.

Didn't Brian sing most of Mike's leads in Seattle, in a nasal voice that was an attempt to imitate Mike? I've read that, that Brian was trying to sound like Mike that day, and failing. I had a CD of the tape once upon a time, but the quality was so poor, I couldn't tell. That tape probably went through many generations of tape to tape copies before it was ever digitized.

yeah, who needs Mike Love??

http://youtu.be/LcY1hpDG4pM

I'm not trying to denigrate Brian, but such songs have just never been his forte... Mike brings something to the game that the other Beach Boys just didn't have? Is it arrogance? Perhaps, but what's wrong with that in a lead singer?

BTW, what the hell kind of guitar is Foskett playing in this clip?

Electric?

Oh, come on, man! The electric part is clear.... Just look at the body of the guitar...... Never seen such a thing before.... Sorry for asking.

Should add, now that we're discussing Mike as wordsmith, that I think of Brian as his own best lyricist, in terms of the spirit of the lyrics capturing the spirit of the music - on those rare occasions when the words come to him just as he hopes they'll come to his lyricists after he talks about what the feeling or idea of the song is. "This Whole World," "Til I Die," "Busy Doin' Nothin'" - only he could have come up with those.

Second, Van Dyke Parks.  Third, Mike Love. Fourth, Roger Christian (a man who really put a story into a lyric). Fifth, Tony Asher (controversial to put him that low no doubt, but that's the order I'd put them in).

HAH! :-D

Works for me.

An essential part of the Beach Boys from day one. A lot of people sat "Brian could have done this with anybody, he didn't need Mike (or presumably Al, David or his own brothers)".Yes, but he didn't. He used who he used and we know the result. Who knows how it might have worked with "anybody".  What we do know is that it worked with the people it worked with. This band is not one of the greatest couple of bands in history for no reason, or because it was populated by Brian Wilson and "anybody".

.

Thank you.  Look forward to seeing you all right here n this thread's Part 97 in July

.

I don't think Dennis had it together enough to have been in Mike's spot during that time frame. But if he had, the band would have been even bigger considering you would be trading a balding dork for a total sex symbol.  But there's no way Brian or any of them would have trusted Dennis with that kind of responsibility. Didn't Brian say something to the effect that Dennis was "too stupid to learn" when they first started?

OK, time for a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ddymTC641M

This is the very first live performance, in somebody's living room around Xmas 2003, but that noted group of BBs soundalike collegians, The Fendertones. The first two songs they attempt are Little St Nick and Little Honda - two Mike lead vocals.  These fellows are already pretty good at the harmonies, but the guy doing Mike is having a little trouble hitting that nasal-but-not-quite-whiny quality Mike has.  He's improved a bit in that department since then but this illustrates, I think, the uniqueness of Mike's voice and the difficulty of the argument that Brian could have gotten just anybody to do that.

Did any member of a major rock/pop group ever get screwed over as much as Mike Love?

1) Early days, (Surfin' Safari era) he's co-founder, co-leader, lead singer, and co-writer
2) Then Brian becomes co-lead singer, and begins writing with outside lyricists (as well as Mike)
3) Then Mike is denied writing credits for huge hits that he provided lyrics for -- while Brian's roommate, guys Brian runs into at parties, etc. all get co-writing credits. And Mike is family!
4) Then Al, Carl, and Dennis begin getting lead vocal assignments, further diluting Mike's centrality
5) Then Mike is cut off from virtually all the songwriting, and almost all of the lead singing (Pet Sounds), completing his journey from co-leader to marginalized in the space of 4 years.
6) Finally, after Mike makes a bit of a creative comeback by co-writing their biggest hit ever (Good Vibrations), he's rewarded by once more being shunted aside so that Brian can co-write with some outsider -- who, in Mike's view, is providing meaningless, pretentious, word-salad lyrics

.

Yeah, but in all fairness he was a shitty drummer IMHO.

.

.

Very true. Somehow he ended up being the devil on Brian's shoulder during his creative zenith when in reality all he did was sing the hell out of those outsiders lyrics and ask a question or two. And when he was called in to write some lyrics he consistently knocked it out of the park

Sadly his actions during the 50th Anniversary tour, the tour that should have been his redemption so to speak among fans and the general public was in fact probably his worst year of press ever and he deserved every bit of it. We actually say the headline "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson" on major publications all around the world.

The final verdict on Mike, in my opinion...he truly is a jerk, and honestly I think he's lost his mind.

Dealing with the last one first....Well, that was Mike's view - but H&V still came very close to making the national Top Ten in spite of its thoroughly avant-garde nature. I think there have been discussions here before whether all those modules could have been put together in a way that could have made it an American smash and, just maybe, opened a different path than what was followed.

But there is something to think about here - what if Brian had not sat down with Van Dyke at [David Crosby's, subject to correction if needed] house and asked him about writing lyrics? What if GV had marked the start of ongoing collaboration with Mike on the words?

It is well documented that GV started out with a bit more of an R&B feel than emerged in the finished recording....so I've wondered whether, had Van Dyke not entered the picture, the follow-up album to PS might have come out more like Wild Honey.  An album like that would have likely been commercially quite successful - WH itself bounced back from SS's unhappy chart performance to reach #24 on the Billboard chart. And in some ways it would have been a suitable response to the Beatles's Revolver, which has pretty strong R&B/soul influences.  Which might have led the Beatles, when working on Pepper, into completely different directions.

Except that he neither said nor did anything of the kind, but was nonetheless vilified for it. That media construct on a slow day aside, Mike's press for the C50 event was pretty good, as was the whole of the band and the tour in general.

I feel he did.

Booking Mike and Bruce shows while the C50 tour was still going on was ridiculous. His timing of the press release was just as odd.

I don't like assuming so I won't say he did all those things behind the groups back but going by Mike and Brian's childish back and forth in the LA times I'll go ahead and say he was already planning when the reunion's end date without consulting anyone else.

He didn't "fire" Brian but he did take the name away from him, again.

I'm sorry - didn't Mike and Bruce skip the final crew dinner and group picture (the only two to do so)? And didn't Mike also reject about 30 to 40 more dates (including a few in the states) to go back to touring zoo openings with John Stamos? He didn't' fire Brian, sure - but I'd hardly call his actions nothing "of the kind."

Final verdict: Jerk.

Been here before - the C50 tour was originally slated to end in mid-August, thus Mike booking M&B dates in October was no problem... until the response made extra dates (which Mike could have vetoed, or at least made difficult) viable. You never made a plan which was later made to look questionable by later events  ?

And yes, the timing of the September announcement was very poor. No argument there. The LA Times exchange didn't help matters much either. Business as usual in BBWorld.

Source and quote, please. (Currently you're 0 for 1).

Edit - I'll save you the trouble: Brian Wilson, LA Times, 10/9/12.

"What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to? [text omitted]

We hadn't even discussed as a band what we were going to do with all the offers that were coming in for more 50th shows.

Al and I just assumed based on everyone's enthusiasm we would at least want to take those offers into consideration since we all knew about them. I mean, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field? And what better way to celebrate New Year's Eve than with the 50th band? That would have blown the lid off things. There were also offers for more shows in the U.K. and markets we weren't able to play during the tour."

Numerous... no mention of 30-40 shows, a figure apparently plucked from thin air.

0 for 2.  :)

I'm sorry...it's not polite to reveal your sources (which I do have).

Remember?

AGD, I'm legitimately curious about this..

Do you agree with Mike deciding to not continue on, against Brian, Al and David's wishes?

Do you honestly feel he alone should have dictated how many shows were to be included in the C50 tour, should that not be a band decision?

You're making it sound like the whole thing was Mike's way or the highway and they were all just puppets

That's fair. However, your comment - "And didn't Mike also reject about 30 to 40 more dates" -  indicated the 30-40 figure originated from a source in the public domain, thus easily verifiable. I've checked and you never laid that info before us until now, thus our collective answer must perforce be "Don't know - did he ?"  We all have our sources... OK, except for Eeyore.

I agree with Mike thinking there was a hard and fast agreement in place to end the C50 tour in late September after 70-odd dates, and after he'd already agreed to extend it by 50% from the original gameplan. BRI is a corporate entity: no-one can call the shots single handed, thus to extend the tour required a minimum 3-1 vote, as did the setting of a closing date. Now, consider this - the tour didn't extend past fall last year, which indicates to me that either...

1 - no vote on extending it again was taken or...

2 - the vote was taken and it was 2-2, and - granted I'm speculating here - if so, the other dissenting vote would logically be Carl's estate.

I'm betting option #1 as Brian stated in his article "While I appreciate the nice cool things Mike said about me in his letter, and I do and always will love him as my cousin and bandmate, at the same time I'm still left wondering why he doesn't want to continue this great trip we're on. Al and I want to keep going because we believe we owe it to the music. That's it in a nutshell, all these conversations need to be between the shareholders, and I welcome Mike to call me", indicating that not even informal corporate decisions had been taken. More to the point, if Alan & Brian were so all-fired on continuing, why not try to at least force the issue ? By not doing so, they gave their tacit, if grudging, assent. As has been stated frequently by those who really know Brian, if he really wants to do something (or not), he will.

I could be entirely off base here, but looking at things logically (never a good notion in the BB world) it doesn't look like the desire to further extend the C50 tour was as overwhelming as we've been led to believe.

From Mike & Bruce, we know everyone else wants to keep it going.

The whole thing is incredibly bizarre and if you told me two years ago Mike Love would be the main hold out in a Beach Boys tour I would have said you're insane.

At least we got the C50 tour and it proved one thing, for it be be truly special you need all the guys up there, even Bruce.

Verdict on Mike Love : anyone who's been a Beach Boy their entire adult life is bound to have one or two issues.  :)

Are your sauces ketchup and barbecue?

If you make a formal commitment to perform a  particular task for a certain period of time, and there is no indication that the time agreed upon to do that will be extended, and you need to continue with your livelihood after that date, then wouldn't you make arrangements to that effect ahead of time? Once again, we're lucky we got what we got, and to use the end of the reunion tour as just another lame reason to call Mike Love a jerk is ridiculous.

Someone posted that Mike's vocals were often the least interesting part of the song.  I can't imagine anyone doing 409 or Shut Down or Surfin' Safari, just to name three of many, as well as Mike Love, to say nothing of his co-lead portion on Kiss Me Baby.

I don't recall that being a big deal. Didn't the Wilsons put on that dinner? Maybe those two weren't invited, or they felt the Wilsons were doing some kind of political thing by having that dinner (or misunderstood the gesture as being political). Or they had something else to do. I wouldn't read too much into it or say they're bad people without more information. It was just a dinner. As for Mike "taking the name from Brian again," as someone made reference to elsewhere on the thread, he didn't take it in the first place. Brian gave it to him with his vote for Mike when it came up. I don't know if Brian even wants the Beach Boys name other than having a few more reunion shows than what he had agreed to in the first place. And if the reunion continued beyond that, who knows if Brian would have wanted to play a whole bunch of dates. He's never been a big touring guy and he pretty much played his quota with the shows they did perform.

"A performer, not an artist."

....

I'm not accusing you, urbanite, of that, I just felt it was relevant to what I was saying and it doesn't get said enough.
 
My recollection is that Jeffrey Foskett made that comment in the article that ran in the L.A. Times just before the Hollywood Bowl show last summer.  I agree that Mike is a skilled showman and singer, and has written some timeless lyrics, but I don't think of him as a creative force, at least not anymore.  If you had asked me this question years ago, my opinion probably would be quite different, but the mediocre to mush lyrics he's come up with the last 30 years or so, have colored my view of things. 

Maybe an even bigger "if only" would be : if Mike instead of Parks had collaborated on 'Smile', would the album have made its original Dec '66 release date? The boys coming off a critical and commercial smash with an lp timed for Xmas shopping, and while their sound still had central cultural relevance -- it would have sold tons.

As '67 went on, the 'Smile' project lost cultural relevance month-by-month, as 'Strawberry Fields', the 1st Doors and the 2nd Jefferson Airplane albums, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, etc. progressively set the bar higher and higher re: the cutting edge. In '66 'Smile' would have been a musical landmark. Even if it had been completed and released by May or June, it would have been too late -- it may have made a bit of a splash but would nonetheless have been swamped by Pepper.

Don't get me wrong, though. While I think Mike did have a point about the lyrics, they were in the style of the time, actually done better than most. I wouldn't have them changed.

When evaluating Mike, an important point to consider is that The Beach Boys are unlike any other band in that the creative force behind the band is not the dominant figure in the group. Think of the contemporaries of the BB's--Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. In each of those bands, the chief creative figures--Townshend in The Who, Jagger and Richards in the Stones, Lennon and McCartney in the Beatles--also controlled the band for the most part, meaning that most if not all of the important decisions were determined by those individuals.

With the Beach Boys, it is entirely different, as the main creative force behind the band--Brian--after the early days was not really the leader of the band. That left a void, which Mike, and Carl when he was alive, had to fill. As a result, you have Mike, who has a "leader" type personality--arrogant, brash--without having the so-called creative "chops" to back it up. (We forgive a lot of our creative types). I have heard just as many stories of bad behavior from the likes of Jagger, Richards, Lennon, Townshend, etc., (worse in fact) than from Mike, but because they also were the creative forces behind their respective bands, much of that behavior is forgiven by the media and the general puiblic. As an example, Richards trashed Jagger in his autobiography, but instead of public outrage--as there was say at Mike's Rock 'n' Roll HOF speech--it was just "Keef being Keef." Imagine if Mike had said the same kinds of things about Brian!

In addition, Mike does not possess some of the qualities of other "subordinate" band members, such as Roger Daltrey, who, unlike Mike, literally wrote almost nothing for The Who, but still became the long blonde-haired amazing interpreter of Pete Townshend's music. The general consensus about Mike is that he is nothing special as a singer, is off putting as a frontman (I have shown people who know nothing about the BB's clips of the band, and most take an immediate dislike to Mike's stage presence), and that the band could have easily been successful without him. Compare Mike to Dennis, for example--though Mike wrote some of the most well regarded and famous lyrics in rock history, he is considered by many to be dispensable to the band, while Dennis, based on just a handful of songs, was this amazing talent whose greatness was cut short. Stories of Dennis's behavior are far worse than anything Mike ever did, but because Dennis is perceived as talented--and good looking and cool--while his sins are acknowledged, he is also called things like big hearted and sensitive, while Mike is just some ass. I know that people on this board know better than this, but I think these factors I cited are why Mike doesn't have a good rep, and never will. 

Not plucked from thin air. Fact. You don't want to believe it, fine. But it's the truth. Plus, what would I have to gain making stuff up to go against a guy like you, whose life is posting on a message board?

At least 30-40 dates could've been had. Numerous European markets were after the Boys, and they came nowhere near. It's actually quite amusing that Mr. Doe wouldn't know that. But, considering his source (Bruce)...

Again, consider this everybody: Andrew's only source is from the Mike camp. All he'll get is information from their perspective, or miss out on stuff from the other side. That's also why he can't tell us anything as far as the next album is concerned. Right, AGD?

Well said.

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

Always good to start the morning with a laugh. As my father used to say, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear. But... one more time: Bruce is not my only contact within the BB world. Far from it. Go back to the Smile box, or last years album. All that info come from one source ? Here's another thing to consider: my contact with Bruce is well known in the BB fan world, and beyond. Mike knows about it. Thus, it would be pretty dumb of me - and irresponsible in the extreme - to have just that one source and say what I have on these boards in the past.

As for the hypothetical new album that people here seem to think exists/will exist/is being considered, maybe I'm saying nothing because I've been asked to keep quiet... or maybe, and I understand that this is hard from some folk here to get a handle on, but indulge me and try, please, maybe it's because right now there IS no 'new record'. Brian's been talking about making a rock & roll record since 1998: it's just something he says to get interviews over quickly. Yes, there's a stockpile of songs, some of which are pretty good (but not, IMHO, as good as most of TWGMTR) and yes, given current recording techniques, they could have a set out by summer. I somehow doubt that'll happen. Would be pleasantly pleased if it did, as well as being simultaneously disappointed that the magic of Radio had been diluted. As for other albums, well there was talk of a live set, and of course there's the MiC box.

A thought - you're insistent that I spill the gen about the hyp[othetical new album, yet when it suits, use the "confidential information" gambit (as I do) regarding the 30-40 offers Mike personally declined last year. Do we detect a double standard here ? Do as I say, not as I do...

They can't be - Bruce didn't tell me.  ;D

My word, you are a delight. In the same breath, you say maybe you were asked to keep quiet about a record - then hint that there IS no record. That, my good man (and I use both of those terms VERY loosely) is double-talk. And hilariously wrong double-talk, at that.

And okay, fine. I give. I'll buy that Bruce is not your only contact. (From the Mike Love side of the BB world).

(Cue another smug response from AGD with no real substance and probably a quote from his Dad)

English not your first language, I take it. I'll make it simpler. There are two, no, three possibilities:

1 - there is an album and I've been asked to keep quiet about it.

2 - there is an album and no-one's told me about it.

3 - there is no album.

That's called considering all the alternatives. Double standards is asking me to break a confidence - assuming any such exists, of course - while saying you can't/won't do the same. Eeyore was of a similar mindset, as was Jock McSporran on the Bloo. As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.  ;D

But... people are getting bored with this: I know I am, as all we're doing is talking in circles. Final verdict on Mike Love ?  Flawed human being who could have made better choices in the past. Not unlike his cousin.

In other words:

1) Andrew doesn't know.

2) Andrew should stop coyly acting like he knows.

3) Andrew's a fraud who's been cut out of the loop for leaking what little he knew in the past.


Glad that's settled. But have fun at Sea World with Mike, Bruce and Stamos. A "respected Beach Boys historian" cheering on that band calling itself "The Beach Boys." Yeah - that checks out.  ::)

I'd like to refer to a question that AGD put before us a month or so ago: how well do we really know Mike Love? IIRC it was around the time his piece on the passing of Ravi Shankar was published, and most of us here really liked that article.

The BBs fanbase has a habit of admitting that Brian is a mystery, a man whose innermost thoughts we often can only guess at; and this despite the fact that there's been so much information floating around about him. Yet the same fanbase frequently suggests that Mike Love is an open book - and this mostly in a negative context.

I think we shouldn't pretend to know more on Mike that we actually do.

Which statement just torpedoed the listing remains of your flimsy credibility.  You really don't know anything about me, do you ? ;D

Just too precious. Oh my...   :lol

That's what I've been suspecting all along -- the only thing that gives me the slightest cause to doubt my suspicions is that ESQEditor was *so* firm in his statement that there would be one.

JR -- think what you like about AGD, but I've known him sixteen years, off and on, and in that time I've had disagreements with him but have *never* known him to lie, or to make up anything about the Beach Boys. He's respected around here because if he says something is a fact, it's a fact. If he says something is probable, then it's probable. He's never mixed fact and speculation to my knowledge, and frankly it doesn't matter if his source is Bruce, Brian, bugs planted in the band members' telephones, or just voices in his head. What matters is that the information he does share is accurate.

Just looking at it from a purely evidential point of view, the prior probability that something AGD says is correct is pretty close to 100%. You have offered no evidence at all to prove your case -- to the extent that you even have one, other than "I don't like AGD" -- and so unless and until you establish a track record of actually knowing your stuff, you're just another anonymous troll.

Check's in the mail.  :)

Seriously, on a personal level I don't give a flying one if someone doesn't care for me personally - hell, I've been hated by Carol Kaye (pretty sure I still am) and she's damn good at that - because I know what I know (and more pointedly, what I don't) and that time will be my judge, as it has in the past. As The Croz said, I accept I have an ego, opinions differ as to its size and health. I find it mildly amusing that anyone is in any way envious of my shaky reputation in the BB cosmos - trust me, it's not all that - and of my alleged "access" to, er, whatever. What does, in the pungent words of a dear FB friend of mine, boil my piss is when perfectly decent threads such as this one get derailed purely because someone doesn't like me. If you feel the need to take a pop at me, please do it privately and not annoy the other good people of this forum (although you might like to consider what Voltaire said when challenged to a duel: "Very well, since I am challenged the choice of weapon is mine. I choose words: you're dead."). Not big, not clever.

Now, Mike Love - man, myth or monster ?

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable. ::)

It might not keep the name valuable, but it will entertain hundreds or thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't go to see the band and who will have a good time.

Very simple answer: $$$$$$$$$$$. Just as Brian and Alan don't play for the yucks or the sheer altruism. It's called 'making a living'. Venue stumps up the fee requested and fulfills the terms of the contract, band'll turn up. Oddly, that's exactly how the C50 tour worked too.  ;D

Are Mike's personal finances so bad that he has to tour? I would not be suprised if he still has spendthrift habits left over from the glory days.

No, but touring is his #1 income stream. Plus, of course, it's what he lives for.

They will have a good time, but some of those people won't see the full BBs because they already saw the "BBs" at Seaworld. Mike is contradicting himself about keeping demand down.

I'm willing to bet any sum you care to name that if it was Brian touring as The Beach Boys there would be no such problem. In fact, in a way he is - his songs are sung (kept in the public eye... ear... whatever) and he gets an income from every show.

What 'full BBs'? The fiftieth anniversary tour ended months ago.
And even if there were any likelihood of another reunion tour, the vast majority of those people wouldn't be in the market for a ticket anyway. When my in-laws went to see Mike's band at the county fair in Albert Lea, Minnesota, where $9 gets you admission to the gig and also to the tractor show, in 2011, they didn't think "well, now we've done that, we'll not need to spend a hundred dollars a ticket to see the reunited band next year" -- the idea of doing so would never have entered their heads for a nanosecond. But they enjoyed the show they did see.
If Mike's band playing those sorts of venues did anything to lessen demand for shows featuring all five, then last year's tour would have been a massive flop, because he's been playing those venues for fifteen years or more. Either way, though, the idea that he shouldn't play those venues because it would stop the demand for something that isn't happening is an absurd one.

Andrew, I understand you are used to Brian not being there with the touring group very often throughout BBs history, but wouldn't you like to see the group touring consistently with their main songwriter in the twilight years.

Question, semi-related and probably answered here a dozen times before: Did the songwriting credit lawsuit restore Mike in a legal position of part ownership of the songs where he claimed co-authorship, so he would in effect be collecting a royalty too every time California Girls is played? Or was it a one time retroactive payment, or a settlement for a lump sum of his share on back royalties?

I'm just curious because of the notion Brian can sit back a collect money in royalties (which is true...) as Mike or whoever else performs the tunes live and gets paid for it: But If Mike agreed to a lump-sum settlement, a one-time payment on the royalties due, then that's Mike's fault for agreeing to it. But if the lawsuit put his name as co-writer entitled to future royalties, then Mike would also be receiving royalty checks for those songs listed in the case each time they're played. meaning, it isn't just Brian getting those checks on all the tunes.

Mike gets his full songwriting royalties. However, when people talk about Brian sitting back and collecting the money, they're referring more to the licensing fee that Mike pays to BRI for the use of the Beach Boys name -- both Brian and Al receive that money independent of what songs Mike chooses to perform.

My view of Mike is complicated (Like everyones I guess);  He wrote some good lyrics in the 1960s and I question seriously if the band would still be around to celebrate their 50th anniversary without him.  I think his commercial instincts probably aided the band's early success as did his strong work ethic.  I have also heard from a number of people who've met him that he is actually the most approachable member of the group and can be extremely fun company if you catch him at the right moment.  On the less positive side:  I believe he is perhaps too commercial minded.  I think Mike honestly believes Kokomo is just as good a song as Good Vibrations-since he equates popularity with artistic quality.  They were both number ones yes, but I just can't agree with that view.  I also believe and have seen nothing to change this view that he was behind the crass directions the band went in circa 1987 onwards (though others agreed to do it)-wipe out, problem child, cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Stars and Stripes-etc-that did little to enhance the band's reputation.

Ok, so Mike's name was properly added to the credits so he gets what he's entitled to as co-author going forward, and it wasn't just a lump-sum payout. Thanks for clearing that up!

As far as the other deal with BRI, that doesn't seem to be a bad deal at all. I definitely don't begrudge Al or Brian for asking for and getting part of the revenue since what Mike asked for and received amounts to exclusive rights to use the Beach Boys name when touring. And that effectively shuts Al out of potentially larger sums of money he could be making on similar tours, along with Brian...so they get something in return for not being able to use a name which is a profitable trademarked entity. Sounds fair to me and all parties agreed to it.

As I said jokingly in another thread, it would be funny if Al and Brian showed up with lounge chairs and a cooler of beers to one of Mike's mid-summer sweltering hot outdoor festival shows, set themselves up in the front row, and heckled him as they cracked open beer after beer. "Work harder Mike, dance and sweat some more, we're almost out of beers, we need another BRI check immediately, haha!" Shake up a can, spray it towards the stage, light up a big cigar with a royalty check from "Summer In Paradise", all that fun stuff.  :-D

Oh, I do. And it speaks to your complete hypocrisy. You defend what Mike does, and yet...

There is little if any chance of me turning up at SeaWorld, as you would understand if you knew the first, most basic thing about me, as just about everyone here does. You really are incredibly stupid, but as you're giving me a good, no, a huge laugh, that's cool. And it's got nothing to do with my having regular contact with Bruce. Oh, I'm lovin' this. Keep digging.  ;D

And you're a misinformed asshole who, it seems, has seen his sources dry up.

Verdict on Mike?


B+, shows promise.

I think the worry in the fallout on his part in the LA Times articles of 'diluting the brand', whilst planning on doing the same low rent venues that's been his turf since the 90s is a bit rich. The Beach Boys being taken seriously is Mikes mission, and he took to it with zeal in the C50 press. And they played and carried themselves with the grace of the best American band ever during the tour. But Paul McCartney doesn't play Seaworld, yknow? Mike has no one to blame for any 'dilution' but himself at this point. I have sympathy for his love of touring outweighing 70 dates with the C50 lineup, but he can't have his cake and eat it, IMO.

Now where's my apple juice and turban...

and you are a troll who kept on after I issued a warning in the other thread. Goodbye.

I need to say something...if one of you all has a problem with someone, fine. Just don't behave like a stalker and keep following the other guy around with every f****** post and start attacking others who don't agree with your viewpoint. and for f***'s sale, if issued a warning please pay attention to it

Great summary of what I was trying to say :lol

Who shot JR? Billy C. Did! ;D

:lol

Thank you, Billy.

Both of you take it to PMs or you're going to be banned.

you're welcome Ian.

Jason you're a bit late lol. I had already warned him in other thread and he continued...

For many years, Disney/Universal and Seaworld, et al, have attempted to diversify their entertainment venues.  As far back, as the 1990's, areas of the parks, and hotels in the parks, have honored bands such as the Boys and other American institutions by having themed hotels, such one connected to music in Disneyworld and in one of the plazas, hosting bands such as The Association, The Turtles, etc., in an attempt to offer "something for every age." And it was delightful to see a picture of the Boys hung in the All Star Music hotel on Disney property.

This has often taken the sting out of taking children on a vacation "field trip" to a "kiddie park" and having only "child centered entertainment.  It has changed the dynamic of a family vacatiion.  The connection with MGM as between and among the parks is important as well as offering a menu that is "adult friendly."

Having availed myself of such a menu on many trips to visit Mickey and Minnie, with kids in tow, it is a formula that is family friendly and makes sense.  It provides entertainment for everyone and it's beyond me that anyone would find it so offensive that it is disparaged here.  

Top name entertainers have performed in all of those parks, to add a well-rounded accent to a family vacation.

I judge artists by their accomplishments, and not for their failures -- and I would rate the 1964/65 Mike Love right up their with Jerry Goffin, Hal David, and Eddie Holland as a pop lyricist of the time.

Not that his lyrics, line by line, were anything particularly wonderful. Rather, Mike had a knack for generating fresh subjects for songs, subjects that would immediately hook you into the song  -- 'Fun, Fun, Fun', 'I Get Around' 'When I Grow Up', 'California Girls' , etc. So much more original than the more generic song subjects of the day : "won't you be my girl?" "I'm glad you're my girl", "I wish you were still my girl" (not that Mike didn't occasionally resort to those more hackneyed subjects :p).

After his golden period, Mike did struggle to fashion subjects for songs that addressed the new rock audience, the hippie/counter culture crowd (his 1966-73 work). His lyrics of the period were hit-and-miss -- his misses mostly being those lyrics that strived for "relevance". His lyrics of the period sometimes came across as the equivalent of a middle-aged businessman, who in order to get laid,  grows out his sideburns and puts on a Nehru jacket.

His post-1973 lyrics have been dire. He had it,  then he lost it. But once upon a time, he did have it, and for that I honor him.

If, as is claimed, he did write the lyric to "Kiss Me, Baby", well... I genuflect in his general direction, and that's without even considering the killer vocal.

Well made points, the concept of adult entertainment is very important at these parks. Older 2nd tier groups like "the turtles" and "the association" may need to play these venues and bring enjoyment to the vistors. The BBs are "america's band" and the very top of US rock bands, should play the best venues available with the full group. These guys are legends and should carry themselves like it.  

Why?
There's a venue that will pay the band their fee, and an audience that want to see them. Who is harmed by Mike & Bruce playing those venues?

Small hole in your theory: 2012 was the first time in 16 years that 'the full group' played together. Prior to that, 'the full group' hasn't gigged on a regular basis since spring 1965. Brian was usually the missing element, even in the late 70s.

Brian wants to tour with the BBs this time unlike the late 1970s tours. In 1964 with Brian they played the TAMI show and other classic shows, in 2012 with Brian they had their best tour since the 1993 box set tour or even the early 1970s tours. Brian wants to be a BB again, what is wrong with that?

I mention those bands who are "junior" to the Boys, but in almost baby boomer dynamic, and younger baby boomers, in fact because I saw them in Disneyworld with my kids.  They do have similar and larger names, as the venue dynamics have changed over time.  This takes on an "elitist" tone.  America has many faces, venues and fans are fans.  Many of those fans, even in other parts of the globe were not able to see the Band, for c50.  Kids under 18 are usually banned from adult venues.  This "democratizes" entertainment, as it were.  

Making the venue the "star" rather than the music, is a distractor, given that they have played at colleges, prisons, hospitals, the Ellipse, fairs and church halls, etc.  While those C50 venues were impressive, it didn't change the performance delivery.  They play with as much enthusiasm and professionalism at smaller venues.  

I've seen Brian and Al at smaller venues and they have put on spectacular shows, so I guess I'm not getting this whole elitist venue thing, that would foreclose familiies, and do little more than "snob zone" the Band.  It seems a narrow view for such broad minded music.  Only an effortless performance cheapens the music.  I haven't seen that.

This isn't a solid fact, though. It's an opinion that is held by many people. The Beach Boys are obviously one of my favorite groups but I wouldn't consider them one of the top US rock bands, or even a "rock band". They have name recognition, many hits, and a long career. They are respected by many, but do we as fans always have to claim they are better than what venue they are playing? So, Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys play Seaworld, people make jokes, it's all good. They choose to play that venue, I'm sure they aren't ashamed of it. They make money, they please the crowd, they go home.

What's wrong with that is that the band as a group don't want to work together. The proof of this is relatively simple: if all five of them (or even just the three BRI members) wanted to work together, they would be.
Given that they're not, that means at least one band member does not want to work with at least one of the others. Even assuming your hypothesis is correct, and Brian does want to work with the others, why should that wish outweigh the wish of the other members?

What is wrong is one of the members is touring a group that pales in comparison to the C50 lineup at venues that don't deserve the BBs name.  While the rest don't use it for those purposes and want to revitalize the group and give the BBs one last go as a touring/recording act. If Brian wants to be BB, he has a right because he penned the music behind the lyrics Mike sings.

No, he doesn't have the right. He gave that up when he, as part of BRI, wrote up the licensing agreement.

You've yet to give a coherent reason as to *why* those venues don't deserve to have the band playing there.
If the other band members don't want Mike touring, why haven't they stopped him? The Beach Boys have already had 'one last go as a touring/recording act'. It was last year.
And Brian stepped away from being a touring Beach Boy pretty much from the very beginning, and spent most of the last decade and a half publicly saying he wanted nothing to do with the band. Yet you're arguing that Mike should give up doing a job he enjoys, give up working with the band he's been working with for years, and completely change his entire lifestyle to accomodate the whims of someone who is notoriously unreliable?

Am I missing something here ? I thought that's exactly what they did last year - #3 critically acclaimed album, 73-date tour that got rave reviews.

My reason is this, the venues Mike and Bruce play are low rent (county fairs, rodeos, and car shows) compared to the great venues they play in the UK. Plus Brian has been more reliable the last decade and hasn't backed out of touring. When I saw Brian with the BBs, he wasn't bored like his solo shows and gave his all like he wanted to be there.

Why quit at that then, Brian was clearly loving the success of the album and touring.

And? What, exactly, is *actually wrong* with playing those venues? There are people there who want to see the band, they play there, the audience enjoy themselves, the band get paid and (hopefully) enjoy themselves too, Nobody gets hurt. I can't see how that is in any way a bad thing. I wouldn't be especially interested in seeing one of their county fair type shows myself (though for the low ticket prices for those shows I'd definitely go) but a lot of people are, and I can't see that there's anything wrong with performing for those people.

Evidently not enough to press the point beyond the LA Times response. OK, maybe wheels are in motion behind the scenes, but scheduling a show in July - and I know, a sample of one is hardly sufficient - indicates that no summer touring is planed for the whole band. We'll see, but I for one strongly doubt it.

The point of 'one last go' is that it's the *last*, Doing more after that is sort of a contradiction of that word 'last', isn't it?

And yes, maybe Brian *was* enjoying the tour. But he *is not the only person involved*.  Even assuming your suppositions about what Brian does and does not want are correct, why should Brian's wishes override those of everyone else involved?

Common fallacy being perpetrated here - The Beach Boys also played such 'low rent' venues right up to Carl's passing. It's not solely an M&B phenomenon. More to the point, M&B don't play such places exclusively. I saw them in Lancaster's American Music Theater in 2005. Hardly low rent. Check Eric's setlist archive, you might be surprised... but probably not as it strikes me you're arguing your point from an anti-Mike soapbox. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.

Edit: here's some 1997 BB shows...

July
  5 - Eagle Crest Aerodrome, Lewes DE
19 - A & P Tennis Tournament, Mahwah NJ

August
21 - Syracuse State Fairgrounds, Syracuse NY
23 - Jones Beach NY
24 - Jones Beach NY

'Cuz it ain't all about Brian?

He is willing and able to be a BB again, which hasn't happened in decades. He helped make the group famous with his hard work back in the 1960s, shouldn't he have a say about the future.

I'm not taking sides or wading into this one, but I did want to add this bit of information regarding Sea World, because having been there myself as a little kid when the highlights included "Shamu" the whale and a water skier dressed as Batman or something jumping a ramp while being towed by a speedboat, it didn't immediately seem like the spot for a band to gig.

But it's part of a "season" promotion to get people into the park during a slower time of year, this copied from their website:

Bands, Brew & BBQ
SeaWorld partners with favorite local restaurants to bring sizzling BBQ and an array of thirst-quenching beer in an amazing atmosphere. And of course, incredible concerts with top artists in classic rock and country music. Bands, Brew & BBQ is included with park admission.

Enjoy Bands, Brew & BBQ February 9th - March 17th, 2013.
    Saturday, February 9              Chris Young with Jerrod Niemann
    Sunday, February 10              Merle Haggard
    Saturday, February 16            The Beach Boys
    Sunday, February 17              Styx
    Saturday, February 23            Big & Rich
    Sunday, February 24              Third Eye Blind
    Saturday, March 2                  Daryl Hall & John Oates
    Sunday, March 3                    Darius Rucker and Uncle Kracker
    Saturday, March 9                  Michael McDonald
    Sunday, March 10                  Josh Turner
    Saturday, March 16                TBD
    Sunday, March 17                  Sheryl Crow


Depending on the cost of course, I'd weigh it like this: Brew=85%, Bands=10%, BBQ=5% (any hack backyard cook can do good BBQ in 2013... ;D ) Of course we don't know what kind of brew they're serving, so I might revise the equation accordingly if it's something like Bud, Coors, or Pabst on tap.


I'd laugh if the March 16th "TBD" show turns out to be Brian, David, and Al!

You can say the same about Mike.

He does have a say -- he owns 1/4 of BRI. He just doesn't get to be a dictator and override the other board members -- even assuming he wants to.

Many of those "low rent" venues are actually resort area venues, that regularly host low renters such as Darius Rucker, Chicago, etc.  They are in pretty elite company.  I'm trying to figure out and know what you are talking about while watching the Inauguration.

Brian has shown enthusiasm in his solo shows.  The "group" needs to arrive at a consensus.  This might be a hybrid situation.  They are all adults and can make this decision without fan input, I think.  JMHO

Of course... as one-quarter of Brother Records Inc. You're saying that Mike shouldn't have sole say over what happens, but apparently think that Brian should, purely because he is Brian Wilson. BRI don't work that way.

I liked his Manet period the best:

http://fridaynightboys300.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/edouard-manet-at-royal-academy.html

I'm more than a little curious to know how difficult Brian and "his people" are to deal with.   

It doesn't but Brian would probably have Al and Carl's estate on his side if needed.

Oh, that'd be so awesomely funny, but that would also pretty much state the band is finished.

Well, Brian did have Carl's estate on his side the last time he voted. When he voted to give the rights to Mike Love. Brian wanted the $ that Mike's willingness to tour 100+ dates a year brought to his personal coffers. Whether that's changed is a matter of when and if the rights come up for a vote again. Carl's estate might still vote with Mike if it did come down to Mike versus Brian, because Carl's heirs no doubt like getting money that's both greater and more reliable than depending on Brian touring with the Beach Boys. Brian requires more expenses (demands a larger band, wants his own tour bus), and there's little chance he would make as many dates as Mike usually does.  

It's also debatable if the Beach Boys could sustain a career of touring large venues. They're not exactly the Eagles or Bon Jovi in terms of popularity.  As fdp pointed out, the Beach Boys with Mike do play some expensive venues. I don't know where people get the idea they only play tiny little shows and fairs. Their gigs vary in size and venues, and some of the places they play they get ticket prices of over $50. Not to mention they play some very lucrative private gigs for corporations and rich peoples' birthday parties.

Carl's estate, definitely. With Al, I guess it might depend on what day you catch him on! The fact that Brian has not pushed the issue, though, probably has to do with what KK just posted.

If Brian has Al and Carl's estate on his side when needed, then that would mean he gets what he wants from BRI, since their three votes could always overrule Mike's one.  Which means that he must not currently want to amend the agreement allowing Mike to tour without him, because he, Al, and Carl's estate haven't moved to change it.

There you go using facts and logic. Don't you know that Evil Mike Love outvoted the others 1-3 so he could play county fairs for the rest of his life just to make Brian cry? He doesn't even have the legal right to tour as the Beach Boys on his own at all -- he just lies to the others and tells them the show starts three hours later than it does, so Al, Brian and David keep showing up at eleven p.m. to shows and playing to an empty hall, wondering why there's no audience. He's a bad, bad man, and must be punished, obviously.

Just imagine if Mike claimed he would abide by BRI's license requirements and then wouldn't and didn't and wrote up his own license with him as the sole signator giving himself a much lower license fee rate then he had agreed to and took off booking concerts using the licensed trademark and sued his bandmate over it to boot. Be just like that jerk, right?

Would it not make sense that the "estate" vote would go to whichever faction looked to have the best chance of bringing in the most money to the collective coffers? Do the people controlling the "estate" vote have any loyalties other than income? It would also be interesting to know if the so called "Love License" can be revoked at any time assuming the votes are there. My guess is that if BW really wanted to fire up a show and go touring as the Beachboys he would figure out a way to do so.

I don't know what the term of the license agreement is but according to court records it is decided by a majority vote. It did not seem that Carl's estate was bound by anything but their conscience/good sense. In the past Brian and Carl's Estate has wanted Mike to have the license. They were willing let Al have a license also but Al couldn't play nice and so they voted him off the license. If Brian wanted it I imagine he could get it some how but it seems to me Brian still wants Mike to have it and the responsibility even if he disagree with Mike over this and that but not enough to do anything about it.

Can't imagine anyone doing that...

My quote had the phrase "if needed" in it, Just tar and feather me as a "brianista" already.

If Brian Wilson was NOT receiving a large monetary deposit electronically transferred into his checking account every time Mike & Bruce performed a concert, do you think HE would think twice about re-visiting the licensing issue?

duquephart raised a good question about Dennis's and Carl's estate votes. Go with me on this...What if Dennis was alive today, semi-retired, only occasionally dabbling in music, and Carl was also semi-retired, not performing, just doing the occasional session work. How do you think Dennis and Carl would vote if they would each receive a check for every show that Mike & Bruce played? It's tempting to answer with your gut reaction, but think about it.

I don't know what they would do because they died far too soon and this whole BRI deal might have never happened because things might have been totally different.

You've also been arguing that it *is* needed, because apparently Brian is desperate to perform with the Beach Boys again. And yet you've also been arguing that despite the 'facts' that Brian would have those votes if he needed them, and that he does need them, Mike's still going against Brian's wishes. The only logical way to reconcile these positions is to assume that Mike can outvote the other board members 1-3.

Of course, even if Brian *did* desperately want to tour with the Beach Boys, and the rest of the board voted with him, what do people think would happen if Mike simply said "Well, I'm not touring with the others. Take my license away if you want, but I'm simply not going to do it. I don't want to work with those people" ? Are you really arguing that he should be forced to tour with the others against his will?

If he wants to tour solo without the others,he can't use the BBs name. Neither could any of the other members.

Exactly.

I know, right?

The other's had their chance to have the license already. Brian and Carl's estate wanted Mike to have an exclusive license from the beginning. Al made a stink and Carl's Estate convinced Brian to give Brian and Al non-exclusive licenses. Brian never did anything with his. Al shot himself in the foot and got his voted away by Brian and Carl's estate who wanted Mike to have an exclusive license. Despite all the windbagging in the press, it looks to me like they still want Mike to have the license.

I think we've been over this before, but he can.  It's part of a BRI agreement that Brian voted for.

No, he can't - Mike's license is exclusive, as stated below. And Brian - or Brian's representative - voted for this state of affairs. Monetary concerns aside, Brian summed up his position on this quite nicely in an interview some years ago when pressed on the then-current touring scenario: "Well, Mike & Bruce are The Beach Boys, and Alan is Alan Jardine... but I'm Brian Wilson !"

You can almost see the big grin.  ;D

I meant by that statement thats how things SHOULD be. But I am done fighting this in this thread for now.

FTFY.  ;D

How come you can edit other people's posts while runnersdialzero nearly got banned over it?

'Cause I'm not doing it with the intent of altering the meaning ?  I'm also far from being the first person to do it like that.

Really, there is nothing to fight about. How we feel about this doesn't matter. It is a business decision that BRI has agreed to, and it is how it is going to be, whether we like it or not.

Fair enough, smile-holland seemed pretty ironclad about it to RDZ.

SMiLE Brian - you are a very passionate fan!  Sure could have used your commitment in the late 60's and early 70's!  What happened in the BB family, was very sad indeed and those members are incapable of replacement.  As a fan, I feel very proud of the way Brian carried on so courageously after he lost his brothers and embarked on a solo career. The governing board, by its design, that was the vision for the business, and not a fan department. It kept the music alive, for the emerging generations to embrace.  Going back to those early days, the fledgling Bands, all had to start from Ground Zero, without Carl.  In their own way, each has honored one another.

Venues are tricky and putting these shows together is an enormous effort.  What is important is that filling a venue, even a small one is more advantageous to half-filling a more prestigious one.  The reviewers can call it a "sell out." The organizers can call it a business success and "re-invite" a band or whatever event it is, for another performance.  Even funky old theaters which were the top shelf in their heydays can be a grand venue.  Some of the most enthusiastic shows I've seen have happened with an electric crowd, in a less than fancy venue.  

Frankly, I look at this differently, having seen all them in many venues, over time, and I do see them back together, in the future, after working in whichever formula they designate.  I feel this way, because they still have more to offer creatively and the bonds are still strong.  Often in school, when you have twins or triplets, they are sent to different classrooms so they can grow independently, and at the end of the school day, they can compare notes, and re-bond, better for the temporary separation, but with the synergy intact. That might sound like a crazy analogy, but they are mostly family, either genetically, or from being band mates for so long and I taught school for a long time.

The "special occasion" theme of the 50th really worked for them, I think.  And there are many more "special commemorations" historically they might choose to celebrate.  My personal plan is to continue to enjoy the music, in whatever venue, or formula they offer, as it has always worked for me, in the past.  

Most of us have strong opinions about stuff, and it comes from a sincere place.  But the "big picture" of what is going to work for "everyone" involved is what "they"have to work out ultimately.   I think it will all work out.   ;)

I think it might gnaw at some fans on either side when the issue of Mike doing all the live work and touring his ass off, i.e. "working" while Brian and everyone else reaps the financial benefits can be easily explained and (mercifully) put to rest by saying "He agreed to it" under the BRI legal agreement. Yet that same explanation is also used to answer whenever someone mentions Brian or Al touring or not touring in any way as "The Beach Boys", and why they should or shouldn't have the right to do so - They agreed to it, end of story.

My point is, the notion that Mike is working hard while Brian and Al collect from that "work" for sitting at home and touring on the side under their own names is as silly to me as trying to say Al has a right to tour under the name "The Beach Boys" after signing away that right - with conditions - to Mike Love.

So anyone who tries to suggest one member working hard while the others are loafing, just say "He agreed to it."

And I'm also wondering what the future stipulations of these agreements might be, suggesting these men will not be around forever and where will the legacy of the name be placed? Who if anyone will get the rights? Children, grandchildren, backing musicians? Look at the example of touring big bands like "The Glen Miller Orchestra" who own rights to the name and the original book of songs some 6 or 7 decades after the original name passed away.

I don't know that Mike looks on it as 'work' per se. Consider:

It gets him around the world in some comfort...

It keeps him fitter than most 71 year olds...

It makes a huge number of folk very happy for a few hours...

He gets to sing some of the best pop songs ever written.

And in the bargain, his cousins and a former band-mate also profit. If it was Brian doing all this, hell, the Blooies would have him up for the Nobel Prize for Sheer Awesomeness.

While I agree with what you're saying, I also think it is moving FROM "He agreed to it" TO "He can change it". Here's one of the oldest cliches in the book - actions speak louder than words. So, we have quotes from Brian and Al about what they would like to do. We can debate the sincerity of the quotes and how long they stand by the quotes - meaning that Brian has been known to change his mind. :-D

I think the debate is now in the "WHAT are they doing about it" stage.

The conditions etc. were all set and agreed to by all members in 1993. They agreed to it. [runs]

Right! They all agreed to it, for sure.  ;D

Any thoughts on what may be in that agreement going forward, as in where the rights to tour or play under that name might fall as various members get older and stop touring?

Was (future) licensing of the brand anticipated in 1993? And, at least insofar as the licensing "agreement", I would imagine that agreeing to anything is not the same as getting outvoted.

Apparently. Not a license to one holder though I presume. The payment structure for/from touring was set at the same time.

I presume the license may go to the offspring when none of the principals wish to tour anymore. I'm guessing the license will be Mike's until Mike desires it no more.

Sorry, I was confused.  I thought that the "he" in SMiLE Brian's sentence referred to ML.

It is an interesting question to consider because all parties have children, relatives, etc who have been on stage in the past year singing their fathers' and uncles' work. You had Carl's family, Brian's family, Al's family, Mike's family, various combinations and stage names, side projects, whatever...and it will definitely be an issue when the time comes as to who - if anyone - will assume the trademarked name once Mike is not using it to tour.

Unless specifics are already on paper and filed at a courthouse somewhere, you may have a dozen or more Wilsons, Loves, and Jardines who would benefit financially if they are the ones who can use "The Beach Boys" to market a concert after the original members can no longer be on the road. And it would all but suck to see a dozen or more outfits calling themselves "Beach Boys" and playing music that could range from good to poor. I doubt the latter can happen under any kind of legal agreement, but who knows.

I did mean Mike Love.  ;D

I say take the  C50 band and build from there.

A few posts ago you were complaining about a band with only two of the Beach Boys touring as the Beach Boys, now you want a band with *none* of the Beach Boys in to tour under that name?

GF meant once all the guys stop touring.

You forgot to mention that he also gets to sleep with hundreds of girls less than half his age.

A few years ago, I started a similar topic

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,8284.0.html

This is a good one to print up and read through. Lots of juicy arguments, but also a great read. I may do the same with this one to see how much things have changed in 3 years. Personally, I was a defender of Mike's for the most part, but that changed last fall when he decided not to keep the group together. At least what I have read, Al and Brian wanted to keep it together. That sort of put him back on my naughty list.

I know Mike has the legal right. In the mid 70s, Mike pushed for what most fans wanted which was more oldies, and more money. Even when it be in bad taste, such appearences on Bay Watch, Full House and Home Improvement is what a lot of people wanted the Beach Boys to be. Same with Kokamo, and that 90s country album. Maybe his hall of fame speach was a jerk moment, or a bad ass rock n roll moment depending on your perspective. He even added more deep cuts to his set list (perhaps seeing that Brian's audience showed there was a strong fan base for it?) The reunion setlist was great, that Mike himself apparently was in charge of and likely took ideas from the other guys. He seemed like the ultimate team guy. Then he did what was best for him in spite of everyone else.

If he brings the guys back for another summer tour, I may lighten up on this as well. But right now his stock is down in my eyes.

Well, ya know, when someone calls someone else incredibly stupid, they should expect to be called the same or worse back.... and should be able to handle it .... It's only fair....

When someone keeps insisting I only have one source - Bruce - and that said source has dried up when neither is the case, then yes, I think calling them incredibly stupid is entirely in order. Because they are. I might be many questionable things, but a liar isn't one of them.

And I can handle it - the troll & stalker comments weren't mine.

Yeah, he started the whole thing, right out of the gate. And kept on going. And that's ME saying that.

Word.

That guy was a jerk, plain and simple.

In any case he is gone and let's leave it at that. No sense dwelling on it.

Something in this thread that SMiLE Brian and I both agree on, at last! ;)

:grouphug

I took it as he meant Bruce's shorts from 1981 were all dried up from being washed 100,000 too many times... My bad.

This is pure speculation on my part but maybe Mike's reasons for not wanting to continue reunion were not just financial? Maybe he and Al have not completely buried the hatchet? Maybe they just agreed to put their differences aside for a short term working relationship?
As for Mike and Brian - yes I've no doubt they love each other but they seem to be able to love each other better 'from afar'. If everybody was on their best behaviour for the start of the tour who's to say that maybe as time wore on small personality 'niggles' didn't begin to rear their heads?

There was a reason these people spent the best part of 20 years away from each other professionally.

Maybe Mike just sensed that the 'honeymoon' period was over and it was time to bow out while the whole thing was on a high rather than to keep pushing it?

Perhaps for Mike it was enough that he got to strike "Make another decent album with Brian and tour it" off his bucket list and then felt it was time to move on? Back to business as usual.
Why should a 71 year old man be made to feel he has to do something he doesn't?

Fascinating speculation.

Al did speak about feeling a little left out during the tour. I can't find the exact interview but he was being pretty candid.

Each living Beach Boys is a drama queen to some extent. Both Dennis and Carl while not intoxicated were pretty peaceful.

Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce and David. 5 completely different personalities, all snakes in the grass. I can't imagine the backstabbing, bitching and gossiping that went on during the C50 tour..and not just from the wives.

EXACTLY. I would have loved to see the reunion tour carry on. But even if the decision to stop was *entirely* Mike's, and for no better reason than "I just don't want to do that any more", what else was he meant to do if he genuinely didn't want to do it?

The decision to stop on 9/28/12 was made at a corporate level and voted on by the executive members of BRI, two of whom then changed their minds really late in the game. In the current set-up, two votes are not enough to carry a motion. No single member of BRI can decide to do something like that.

I suspected that was the case -- I was just arguing from the "even if the worst things being said about him were, hypothetically, true" point of view.

It's so sad that we're having to discuss this issue about the tour. It should have ended on a high (which for me it did). Love him or hate him, Mike has contributed a lot to the Beach Boys world and they would not be the band they are today without him. Whilst my fave was Carl I respect that Mike shared a lot of lyrics, songs and harmonies that helped make the songs we all love. No one is perfect and we shouldn't criticise him for everything! I do not know him personally so I can't judge him!

This is obviously true. But even Mike's own statement to the LA Times seemed to suggest the lateness of the changing of minds was not the sole reason behind not continuing. He wanted to go back to his own thing, apparently whether the reunion was successful or not. I for one wish he would have simply said that rather than trying to mitigate it with a bunch of silly assertions such as the "smaller markets" desperately needing his cheaper-to-operate version of the band.

I'm really surprised that the emotional/moral/ethical, etc. has been completely removed from the argument for many defending Mike's decision to halt reunion activities. For years the fans have discussed how so many people just didn't "get" Brian's genius in the 60's, or stifled the creativity of the band in a non-measurable but  obvious way, etc. But now, with this reunion, all of a sudden we're falling back purely on legal/coporate reasoning. Those who are frowning on Mike halting more reunion activities aren't suggesting he did anything legally wrong. But he, by his own admission, turned down Brian, Al, and David's enthusiasm for continuing to keep the band together. If AGD's or anyone's hypothetical biography of the band ends with a summation of the reunion in which all is okay with the world because Mike was legally okay in rejecting keeping the band together, that would be pretty disappointing. Maybe some are overcorrecting in light of the sometimes unfair villifying of Mike in the past......

It's precisely because of the moral issues that some of us are OK with it. At least some of the band members (and none -- or very few -- of us actually know which ones, or why) don't want to perform with the others. Whatever the reasons, then *it is better for the band not to continue, than for it to continue under duress, with people forced to work with people they don't want to work with, or in situations they don't feel comfortable in*. It would be immoral to coerce these people to work together if they don't want to.

And given that, from a purely emotional perspective, I would rather have *some* of the Beach Boys continue to tour in some configuration than to have none of them tour. So if Mike and Bruce want to tour together, great! If Brian, Al and David want to perform together, great! I would *infinitely* rather that than a joyless pretence at unity.

I don't see how the Beach Boys reunion not continuing is a moral or ethical issue. No one got "screwed out of" anything. Unless you count a few fans who are mad. But we've heard it before. Even if it is a moral or ethical issue, fans arguing on that level are not going to get the Beach Boys reunited. It will either never happen or it will happen some time in another year or two or three.

As I think I noted elsewhere: whatever any of us think about Mike, good or bad (glad or sad), we always have his brothers to compare him to.

 :drumroll

I agree that more reunion stuff under duress is not good under any circumstances. But I don't think about that too much, because it would never happen. Functionally, it wouldn't work. They literally can't force each other to work together.

As for band member show don't want to work with others, all parties agree that Mike (and presumably Bruce, although he comically is never mentioned) did not want to work with Brian, Al, and David on shows that were being offered. It doesn't mean he had anything personal against those guys; Mike's reasons were either those stated in his own LA Times piece, and/or the other obvious possibilities involving money, control, etc.

But I don't personally buy into the "hey, at least Mike and Bruce are willing to tour together, so we should be thankful" reasoning in light of the fact that it was Mike that kept the entire five-piece lineup from continuing.

I also agree that it's better to have these guys touring in some configuration if they can't or won't work together. But that gets us back to the naming issue, and I think a lot of the criticism Mike gets from fans would be immediately diffused if he toured under his own name. At this point it is kind of just semantics in terms of the name they use, but I still tend to think the band's name is worth something.

If Brian, Al, and David retired and didn't want to do anything anymore, and only Mike and Bruce were left, and the only way we could see them tour is if they used the BB name, then that is the point where I would disagree that having any of them out there at all is preferable. But that's just my opinion.

The final verdict is that Mike was wrong about the Pet Sounds - Smile era. However, you can't expect much more from anyone that's not a musician or does not have an appreciation for musical influences. Hence, this is why Paul McCartney flipped for Pet Sounds as he was always trying to reinterpret his musical influences in his compositions during the 60's, just like Brian. Note also what the Wrecking Crew musicians thought of the Beach Boys compositions during 1966 - early 1967.

You're pretty much spot on. If Mike didn't wanna work with the other guys and wasn't using the name after refusing them, honestly I wouldn't be very troubled by it. People in bands don't owe it to us to stick together. If they wanna work with other people then so be it. The only problem to me is the fact that he wants to be in The Beach Boys without actually having to work with the real Beach Boys. And I just feel that's not cool. I understand that he makes more money this way and blah blah blah, but I think it comes down to ethics. And I don't think many people in similar positions to him would do the same as him. I don't think that even if he could, Roger Daltrey would go out there as "The Who" by himself (with Kenny Jones for arguments sake) without Pete Townshend. I don't think Mick Jagger would go out there with just Ron Wood and no Keith Richards. Even if these guys were in the exact same position as Mike Love, with the rights to the name or whatever, I don't think they'd do it. Cuz I'm pretty sure they understand that they are not the only essential piece to their group.

The problem is that The Beach Boys can't be compared with The Who or any other band because the situation is different. Would Mick Jagger go out on tour without Keith Richards now? No. Would he have gone out from the mid-60s onwards if Keith had retired from touring then (as Brian did)? Probably yes.

Mike has had the rights to the name since 1998 when another Beach Boy would have liked to have been able to use the name too. The debate about the ethics of that BRI decision are not really different now to then.

Why a "final verdict" anyway? I'm sure he's still going to amaze us in the (near) future. Regarding any kind of verdict I'd wait for his autobiography first, too. That ought to be one hell of a read.

 The "final" verdict: Mike is crazy. Not Brian crazy, or Dennis crazy, but crazy nonetheless. At his best, he was/is a great frontman, a good lyricist, and a distinctive singer. His lack of writing credits for over 20 years caused him to be underrated as a creative force in the band, much to his chagrin. And he will probably be singing Beach Boys songs until he drops.

... and after that.

I can't wait for the holographic Mike they roll out to keep bringin' What The Fans Want!

(http://www.makemezombie.com/shared/4/mmz/1301268/zombified_wb20130126022016411612.png)

Oh my God.... :lol :lol :lol

'We got braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains in mind'

Andrew G. sez "Me and Myke, we're coming to get you, oldsurferdude..........."

(http://imageshack.us/a/img268/3602/zombifiedwb201301260307.png)

Sorry Andrew, couldn't resist.

Agreed.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8328/8418356060_bbd05287cb_z.jpg)

Now I'll fill your hands
With kisses and a Tootsie Roll

Awesome

1. Great frontman
2. Great singer
3. Loving Cousin (not sure about father/husband)
4. Badass, 'my way or the highway' mentality that doesn't jive well with sensitive, delicate people. 

I commented on one of Mike's Super Bowl posts on his Facebook. He "liked" my comment. So he's cool with me.   8)

Final Verdict On Michael Love:

the person who delivered the best Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame speech ever.

That's quite something.

LOL

I still can't believe that actually happened whenever I think about it.

Personally, when you look at the BB's career, I think he was a good bass/lead singer, with a knack for coming up with catchy lyrics that kids would relate to. I don't think there's much question that this stuff went a long way to pushing the BBs career forward in the beginning when they were churning out singles like a machine. The trouble starts, with charismatic people like Mike, when suddenly things start going differently to how they think they should. He quite obviously had commercial concerns about the direction Brian wanted to go; but there's plenty of evidence that he still supported Brian (even on the Smile Sessions he sang all his parts as requested, despite what he might have thought of them).

He might have gone too far in voicing his concerns, to the point where he alienated/upset the more sensitive people around him at the time: Brian/Van. I do think it's hard sometimes, for more outspoken people, to realise exactly what their loudmouthing can do to those around them. I just think he might not have realised what he was really doing, but he probably just saw all that as being thoughtful about the band's image and commercial appeal.

I can't say I approve of what he's turned his version of the BB's into. I find his unwillingness to tour with Brian past the 50th makes me dislike him more. But he was obviously an essential ingredient for the BBs and Brian's initial rise. He contributed some great vocals on the records.

Historically, it seems that the pressure on "artistic" differences might have emanated from the record company.  Who knows?  Maybe they (the record company) went to Mike, as the co-writer and pressured him, to try to "talk to" Brian.  Wasn't Mike learning the business, in the studio?

They (the record company) were more concerned with their overseas talent than their own.  They didn't "make room" for Brian's creative and masterful work.  They appear to be the "fair weather friend" in this long history. 

And, I've read accounts where there were many (especially in hindsight) who agreed with the HOF remarks.  They did out-tour everyone.  And while disco was big, and rock music, somewhat in the trash, touring kept them out there, preserving and protecting the legacy of the music.  Touring is what they do.

Well yes, there was that as well, for definite. I've heard it said that Capitol were more concerned with milking the British invasion at this point.

So yeah, I don't think Mike is anything like as bad as what a lot of the generalizations make him out to be.

Exactly!  And they didn't have to be competitors.  They were the American distribution source.  So they were 2nd in line, (releasing Rubber Soul, if I remember correctly, one day after the European release) and threw our guys under the bus.

They were both at the top (along with the bluesy Stones, who were sort of in their own category.)

The record company should have seen the emergence of more serious and contemplative work.  It is so easy to trace the progression from the beginning.  Pet Sounds should have surprised no one.  It was getting more elaborate, sophisticated, and had long moved past, the surf/cars/girls.  They re-invented themselves, in sort of a learning curve, as they evolved.

Too bad the record company did not accept it.  It's what annoys me most, hearing all this finger pointing and the blame game. Had they (the record company) done the right thing, ab initio (from the beginning) the band, would not have had to establish BRI.  It gave them some control, and at a point, it must have been empowering, even if they lost money, there is a certain pride in David's wresting power away from Goliath.

But to look at the other side of the coin, they (the record company has a right, in terms of business, to look at the production costs, and what they can recoup.) And, it would be terribly imbalanced to look at only one dimension.  But, history can merely look to the album releases, to allow the inference of "no confidence" and that should be sufficient to approach this big picture with a modicum of fairness.  Often, true "art" is not a moneymaker until much time as elapsed.

At any rate,  the British work should never have been promoted over the "home team." Where are they now? They disbanded 40 years ago.  And, when all has been said and done, there was more in common, with creativity, and TM, than not.  Brian and Paul look like old soul mates rather than competitors.

But, the record company could not stifle that later-in-time collaboration ( Brian and Paul) on Brian's album.

In terms of music and lyrics, I like just about everything Mike did musically, lyrically, vocally and his choice of clothes before 1974. On the contrary, the opposite after 1974. Not to say everything, but most of it has been aweful IMO. But still some good.

But to be fair, Brian had a lot of awful songs himself since 1974 such as That Same Song, In My Car and Problem Child.

Brian had precisely zilch to do with "Problem Child".  :wall

Don't you think that Capitol from very early on took a kind of hands off approach to the Boys? Doesn't it seem that Brian established very early on that he wasn't going to be under the label's thumb and he got results and so from then on Brian sort of informed Capitol when and how they could jump and they hoped to be also told how high? It seems that way to me. Brian did what he wanted and he handed it in to Capitol when he wanted and Capitol was either scrambling to keep up or sitting on their hands waiting on Brian.

Yeah, I imagine being on Reprise must have been a bit of a shock - Sunflower turned down twice (was it twice?), the 'we need a single' response that Holland got, etc

Good insight.

Yeah, if Cam Mott's post/point is correct, and I believe it is, then Reprise must've been the anti-Capitol. Didn't Reprise reject almost every release during the first couple of years? Sunflower was rejected more than once, they "adjusted" Surf's Up with "Surf's Up", did Reprise feel that CATP - So Tough was so weak that they had to graft Pet Sounds to it, Holland had to be re-worked by adding "Sail On Sailor", deleting "We Got Love", and manufacturing a special 45 for "Mt. Vernon & Fairway", and In Concert was transformed from a single album to a double album with substantially different songs. It must've been a nightmare.

Ironically, when Reprise finally let The Beach Boys do their thing, they (Reprise) got 15 Big Ones and Love You. That's when Reprise should've intervened! :o

Ironically, when Reprise finally let The Beach Boys do their thing, they (Reprise) got 15 Big Ones and Love You. That's when Reprise should've intervened! :o[/quote]

I think Love You is a magical, albeit eccentric, album. One of Brian's best imo. I'm glad it exists.

Some of Reprise's interventions were misguided, but often they were absolutely right: the tracklisting on Sunflower is vastly superior to the original line-up the group were offering up, and Sail on Sailor is a much better song than We Got Love (had We Got Love stayed on the album it'd have been far and away the weakest song on the album - to me, it's always seemed far more suited to CATP...) 

Not really. They passed on most of the British groups that were offered to them, including The Hollies, Gerry & The Pacemakers, Billy J Kramer, Freddie And The Dreamers, Swinging Blue Jeans....some of these groups appeared on Capitol of Canada, who obviously knew not to pass on these acts. Hell, Capitol passed on the Beatles initially, Capitol of Canada jumped on them right away.

They did get Peter & Gordon, so I guess you have to give them SOME credit....

We Got Love should have been on a studio album, Surf's Up, CATP, doesn't matter, altho' my own opinion is Surf's Up.  I've always thought of it as a strong tune and don't understand why it got shelved.

Considering it was due to be included on Holland, it may not have been written in time for CATP. Neither Ricky or Blondie were official members of the band for it to have been included on Surf's Up. There really was nowhere else to place the song, but on Holland. As it turned out, they made the right choice ditching it in favor of Sail On Sailor. Besides, the live version on In Concert is a much better arrangement than the studio version. Love the song, though.

We Got Love shouldn't have been ditched in favor of Sail On Sailor. I think it should have been included in favor of Leaving This Town. It is at least an upbeat, rocking tune, not a slow synth-solo drag. In my opinion, the only good Ricky/Blondie BB contribution.

No love for Here She Comes?

No, I actually can barely make it through that one.

Unless you have heard a better studio version than what I've heard, the sound of the studio version is quite dull. The live version rocks way more than the studio version.

I agree. It still rocks more than most of their output on that era, tho. Not that everything has to rock, but it would have been a relief from the slowness of the second side.

I love "Here She Comes". And I bet Mike Love has a hairy bum. Not my final verdict but more of an intuitive guess.

But that funky bassline...

leave him off Alex, he's a gone case.

Don't start, "Gertie". I like songs written and recorded by actual Beach Boys on my Beach Boys albums. If I want funky basslines, I'll listen to Bootsy's Rubber Band.

Bit tricky, as it wasn't written then.

alright, "I."

Not to bring this up again, but Blondie and Ricky were Beach Boys. If they were billed as such by the rest of the band, then they were legit Beach Boys. It would be different if they were just hired hands for the live shows or session musicians. Can't say it's because they weren't there long enough as they were there about the same amount of time as Dave was initially.  Can't say it's because they aren't family, because neither are Alan or Bruce. Can't say it's because they changed the sound of the band, because that is what happens much of the time when a new member joins a band. There's no good reason to exclude them.

No they are real Beach Boys to me.

I'd take Blondie and Ricky's songs over Bruce's or Al's any day.

It may be an extreme example but saying Blondie and Ricky were not proper members of The Beach Boys because they were only in the band for a couple of years is like saying Syd Barrett wasn't a proper member of Pink Floyd!!

IMO Hold On Dear Brother is Blondie's and Ricky's only song worth of comparison to Bruce's and Al's best moments. Their songs are alright, but they lack those beautiful melodic arches Bruce and Al at their best are capable of. And if I want gritty, rootsy rock, I can get a better fix from some other band.

I wouldn't mind if it didn't exist, but I'm glad you're glad it does.

Well said.

It amazes me that this subject keeps coming up over and over again these past 40 years. I guess actual facts don't matter. If one only believes that they weren't or shouldn't have been members, then that makes it so.

I do like them better than Bruce, I love Al though too.

I tried to like Ricky&Blondie in the group, but I just can't do it. They don't fit into the BBs at all with their different musical styles and songs. Carl should have really used them on a side-project or solo album.

I tend to agree. This may be seen as blasphemism, so be it. Their musical approach is just too different, I always associate them with funky rock, long, long solos and a certain lack of melody.

*ducks empty bottles hurled at him*

We are talking about 5 whole tracks (if you include the lead on Sail On Sailor) in the band's canon of released songs. Hell, I can get past the 5 worst songs from each band member. For me, no big deal in the large picture of their career. Having seen the band twice with Blondie and thrice with Ricky, they did give the band an edge that helped their live show, as they rose from the abyss of the late 60s.

73/74 concert is one of my almost daily favorites, in the car, alongside Brian's Gershwin, Smiley/Wild Honey, Symphonic Sounds, Pet Sound sessions (I guess I'm lazy for not changing them out, but, I would if I wanted something else, I suppose.) Blondie and Ricky brought something different to the table when Carl was looking though a different lens to perhaps, add a dimension that would reflect a music genre that would add to the overall sound of the band, at that time. 

So Tough is a neat little offering, with Carl and the Passions.  And, taken as a whole corpus, that era has a substantial place, I think for raising social awareness, in almost an academic context.  It was a short era, but profound. But, I think Blondie was born to sing with the Stones. And, the Boys connection was likely a road to exactly that place. 

I think Ricky and Blondie worked worked best in the touring band. They really added a certain rock and roll dynamic that brought the band back to life in front of what seemed to be an ambivalent public at the time. We Got Love is by far my favorite song from them.

Ricky has said he and Blondie didn't consider themselves Beach Boys.

Syd created Pink Floyd.

Technically not true Ian. Syd was the last member to join the band that was to become Pink Floyd when they were billed as The Tea Set.

I can't pretend that Ricky and Blondie are not as far removed as possible from what the classic perception of The Beach Boys were or that in the group's 50 year + lifespan their presence was a minor blip, but none the less they were at one time actual members.

I think they fit perfectly. Their songs were the weakest ones on the albums they were on, but I find it quite astonishing, actually, just how much Blondie's voice in particular sounds like a "Beach Boy" voice -- there's a very strong resemblance to both Carl and Al there. Certainly I think they were better vocal fits than Bruce (who's a great singer, but doesn't fit that family blend as well).

As for whether they were Beach Boys... they write, play and sing lead on three Beach Boys albums, on which they were credited as full members. Makes them Beach Boys as far as I'm concerned.

And Bruce has said he considers himself a hired hand and is only in it for the money , but I still consider him a Beach Boy.

I agree

You had better. Otherwise, out comes that pistol for some whipping!

(http://i47.tinypic.com/33ml8vp.jpg)

:lol

I would say he has less street cred than anyone not named Shaun Cassidy, but then I remember he witnessed a shooting, so there you have it...he's the hizz-torical one.

Yeah, he didn't create The Tea Set. He created the whole artistic concept of what Pink Floyd became with his compositions, guitar playing and charisma. He is Brian Wilson, as far as the original band is concerned. Creedence Clearwater Revival sprang from a group helmed by John Fogerty's brother, but no one would say John wasn't the leader of CCR.

That's cool. As it is cool for me to agree with Ricky and Blondie on the subject of them being out of place within the Beach Boys main group construct.

Syd also named the band....

Wow, I'm surprised at the support for Blondie and Ricky. Yes, I do believe you have to consider them Beach Boys, but only "legally" or technically. The only thing that made them more of a Beach Boy than Kowalski, Carter, Meros, Hinsche, et al is that they appeared on two album covers and contributed, what, three or four songs, whereas the other backing band members didn't. If that makes you a Beach Boy, then they were IN FACT Beach Boys.

I don't think Blondie's voice fits AT ALL with the group - lead or background - and I will always wish Dennis or Carl would've sang lead on "Sail On Sailor". Blondie and Ricky's songs are even less Beach Boyish. I appreciate their songs and tolerate them, but I also wish their songs would've been replaced by other Brian or Dennis songs. I don't want to completely hammer them. I think Blondie is the best guitarist the group ever had, and I think Ricky is the best drummer they ever had.

As much as I adore Syd..... Rick Wright's organ textures/vocals and Nick's very non-pop drumming also contributed heavily to Pink Floyd's sound. And these are the elements that carried through post-Syd that still retained any esscence of the Syd fronted group....

Just my two cents.

I agree, the other members are important.

I can dig that. I do often wonder what would have happened if they stuck around. Would we still gave had 15 Big Ones?

As for the Floyd, I miss Wright's keyboard stylings on the post 75 albums. More than anything else it's that sound I loved especially the 60s ethereal organ sound

I think that Syd had such an influence over Roger, David, Rick and Nick, that the post-Syd music actually reflected Syd's spirit. There's been a few documentaries produced over the last decade or so, and I've heard/seen each member mention how Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here would not have happened without Syd's influence. He made that much of an impression on them.

And Roger was so haunted by Syd, he took a long journey just to get to sounding exactly like him (Dark Globe<>The Fletcher Memorial Home).

Me too! And this is where I really hate the amount of energy the Dave vs Roger/writing credits bullmerda has taken away from being able to appreciate the band in any cohesive way.... If the Animals album didn't have ROGER WROTE EVERYTHING plastered all over it, people might actually say Rick Wright dominated the whole thing.... That long droning section of Dogs that goes on and on and is essentially just keyboards and drums is one of my fave moments in all of Floyd. It really is hypnotic, scary, and beautiful. And that long Rhodes intro  to Sheep is amazing as well.... 

I guess we are talking about the mans character, there is no argument that BB wouldn't be the BB
without Mike so I will voice my observations.

Over the span of time Mike's actions reveal him to be um...mercenary. (follow the money)

Also while I can imagine what his fears were from Brian's creative direction change
from Surf to Smile, his actions, again based on fear of loss were no doubt pivotal in the sequence
of events that contributed to the demise of the SMiLE lp. When Brian Wilson needed all the support he could get, Mr. Love
went "Murray" on him.

I think his actions make him out to be a very selfish person...a Mean Person, as they say in the Queen's English.

So thats my verdict: Meany!

Final verdict after 50+ years on Mike Love is that in 50+ more years, and no matter how much information/discussion/consideration/soul searching takes place on the issue: we will still get posts exactly like this one.....


Not that I'm dissing Leggo My Ego's opinion..... Just pointing out that this topic seems to be a great big circle/snake eating it's own tail.

Thank you sir. At least I was trying to be nice, unlike the You Tube posts that could certainly clouds one's judgement if they believed everything they read!  :o

I couldnt help but chime with my .02 but I did try to make my post short too!  ;)

Yes, because the ramblings of a mental deficient on YouTube should be indicative of the content of someone's character...

I have yet to read a nice comment about Mike on youtube.

I've long thought that Mike's image is carefully cultivated and he gets a kick out of the negative opinions. The same way he said he gets a kick out of telling lame jokes on stage just to see the reactions he gets. I think he likes to kick the ants nest.

And yet butthurt Brianistas on the internet think they're really going to bruise his ego by posting ridiculous attacks on his character. He's worth millions, they're probably still sitting in their mothers' basements among semen-stained back issues of Crawdaddy and the Leaf toilet paper. You do the math. :)

Can you..........see me?

Oops. I was thinking 'Smart Girls'! My bad! :)

Not only can he see you, Stephen, he's actually there in the same room with you, only you can't see him...

...Amazing, ain't it?? That's the power of the Smiley Smile board, son, and don't you forget it!!! >:D

But a question: just what on earth could there possibly be in those back issues of CRAWDADDY that would induce anyone to wank off to them? More likely that when you shake 'em, some loose marijuana seeds would spill to the floor...but "semen-stained"? In fact, I can only recall one hot photo of Chaka Khan out of a six-year run of issues...

Someday I hope to understand your extreme dislike for The Flame Ian. To me, they were a tight, melodic band with some interesting arrangements. Blondie Chaplin was a triple threat with his fine vocals, guitar chops and writing ability, and Ricky Faatar was one hell of a drummer who could also write and sing. The fact they emerged from segregated South Africa to ultimately find success Stateside and in the UK only adds to my admiration for those guys.

I kind of get what you're saying about them being a poor fit as full-time Beach Boys, but do you really find nothing to like about their self-titled album for example? Certainly there was far worse music out there.



EDIT: Sorry, since posting this I've seen that you've already taken some drubbing over your position, so feel free not to answer this if the topic's already been beat to death!

I think they are very talented guys, and the story of The Flame is an inspiring one. But if their album (and contributions to The Beach Boys) are certainly inoffensive, I don't find them particularly inspired. There was far worse music out there, sure, but there was far better music as well, and for me, too much of it to go with lesser-quality efforts simply because of the Beach Boys association. There are a ton of bands from that time that sound like that, mellow major-label hippie-rock that didn't sell. But, I really do like Blondie and Ricky as sidemen.

+ 100 billion!!!!!

I can dig it. Thanks.