The Smiley Smile Message Board

So after "Goin' To The Beach" has come out, I decided to have a look at the video from the "Goin' Platinum"  special where Brian and Mike are at the piano working on the song. And there's Brian, taking a genuine interest in this piece of sh*t Mike brought to the table, but trying to make the best of it. So Brian plays it on the piano, trying to add some interesting left hand parts. He then asks Mike if he liked it or something like that, and Mike's reply is to go "yeah, sure, whatever" or the equivalent of that. And we wonder why Brian largely doesn't wanna write with Mike.

To me, it seems quite possible to me that a main reason Brian might not wanna write with Mike, at least together in a room, is that Mike really has nothing to contribute. He doesn't really play an instrument, seems to have no interest in possible variations on the bass line or the chord progression, and basically seemed indifferent to anything Brian was trying to do to make the song better in that video. Why would Brian wanna put himself back in that situation?

So what I think Brian looks for in a collaborator these days (and pretty much since Tony Asher) is somebody who knows how to make music, someone he can bounce ideas off. People like the aforementioned Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Tandyn Almer, Andy Paley, and yes, even Joe Thomas. So yeah, sometimes he's used just lyric writers, but usually I think he's looking for more.

Plus, Joe Thomas has a full, rich mane of Jim Belushi Chicago Guy hair that he likes to run his fingers through while collaborating. Mike has hats, and hats make Brian uncomfortable indoors. "You wanna maybe take your hat off, Mike? We're alone in a room." "I'm ok, Cousin Brian." "Uhhh..."

DELETED FOR SAFETY REASONS

(http://www.bellflower.org/images/mike_love.jpg)
(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/beach-boys-mike-love-tambourine-man-robert-rodvik.jpg)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(http://beatlephotoblog.com/photos/2011/08/1118.jpg)

Also, we must never forget that one time he used a guitar as a cane.

(http://www.beachboys.com/nascar.jpg)

I also noticed that part and always thought to myself 'geez this guy isn't even close to being a musician. talk about being a free rider your whole life'

People may praise Mike for his 1962-1965 lyrics + a few bits and bops after that, but even in that 1962-65 period it is obvious that in their 'collaborations' Brian wrote the the chords, the vocal melody and probably also the theme for the song. I can imagine Brian did 80% of the work without Mike and then for the last finish Brian would bounce ideas on what specific lyrics they used (and Mike did well in helping with those lyrics).

whenever I think SIP was the last truly aweful thing Mike did to this band's legacy a wild 'Beach Boys Salute Nascar' appears out of nowhere.

LOL especially at Lowbacca's post.  :lol

But I must say, are vocalists not musicians? Pretty sure there are a host of singers who would beg to differ.

I don't know if it's a good idea to make any overlaying judgements regarding Mike or Brian's behavior/interest/etc etc, based upon a piece of footage from 1979 or 1980 of all years!!!!

Think about it....

Just sayin'....

Dito. There's more to Mike than meets the eye, I guess. I think Brian is fully aware of his cousin's contribution and his value as a collaborator. It's a shame it doesn't work out anymore.

Possibly. But this is when Brian himself was presumed to be a bit more uninterested in The Beach Boys and working on their material in the studio. And not only is he involved, but he is working on a song Mike Love brought in. And he's trying to help Mike improve it. And Mike responds to Brian's suggestions with a "yeah, sure, whatever" type shrug. And actually, until the reunion, I'm pretty sure the KTSA era was the last time they really got together and wrote, besides "Baywatch Nights" from 1995. And I guess "Male Ego", maybe.

But regardless of when it happened, I'm sure Brian takes account of his experiences with Mike throughout the years. And I highly doubt that this was the only time Mike acted flippantly to Brian's musical suggestions over the years, especially as this was on camera, and one would think they were putting on their best behavior.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Mike wrote some great lyrics. But at the same time, when the man has the cojones to compare himself to Paul McCartney, well that kinda gets me going. John and Paul wrote great stuff together surely. And bounced many ideas off of each other. But they also wrote a whole lot of great stuff independently. How many undeniable classics has Mike Love done without Brian Wilson (and no, "Kokomo" doesn't count since, well.....the actual song itself was written by John Phillips and there woulda been no need for Mike's "hook" without it)? He's got "Big Sur" if we're being generous. And what else? He's nowhere close to being Lennon or McCartney. Artistically, I'd  probably rate him a bit higher than Roger Daltrey because he wrote lyrics to a nice chunk of great stuff. But at the same time, it seems Daltrey is much more willing to admit what he owes to Townshend than Love is willing to admit what he owes to Wilson. But overall, they are what they are. Great frontmen for two great bands who were spearheaded by a leader who was not them.

You might be loading too much on your interpretation of a single event. Edit: I meant that for jim not pinder. Back to my nap.

This coming from the guy who denied Mike had leadership of the group artistically from during the late '80s and early '90s despite all available evidence. You twist every fact to fit your own agenda. So if I draw my own interpretation of a televised event, I think that's valid. I didn't say it was the truth. However, I think it quite possibly could be part and parcel of the guys relationship leading up to today, and why Brian has no interest in working with somebody who has no real interest in expressing himself, but would rather just see dollar signs.

And despite it all, I think it just needs to be pointed out around here that artistically, especially in the past 30 years, Mike Love has been pathetic. Regardless of playing "Duke of Earl" in concert or what happened with C50, the man spearheaded the most embarrassing music of the bands career. And despite what a great frontman he was/is, or anything else good or bad that has happened, it is his attention to his misguided view of "commerciality" and his view that what the public wants from The Beach Boys studio-wise is nostalgic retreads, without paying attention to the fact that what made the old music great was not just the topic, or even the style, it was talent and the inspiration of the creator(s).

But let's be fair: this isn't footage from the writing of some legendary song like Good Vibrations. These guys were tired and worked to death and Brian's just banging out some chords. Just because he's Brian Wilson doesn't mean Mike has to gape in awe over anything/everything he paws out on the piano. He didn't scold Brian or say his contributions sucked. We shouldn't be so quick to infer too much from a mere moment caught on film.

And need it be repeated that Daltry being so publicly gracious to Townsend is also coming from a guy who's also beat the sh*t out of Pete? We don't see Mike doing THAT in the clip, do we?

+3,904

First off, I'm not saying Mike had to genuflect to Brian when he was making that part. But possibly showing some kind of interest into what this guy was trying to do to help his own fucking song woulda been more appropriate, dontcha think? And your inference that they were "tired" and "worked to death" is much more ridiculous than me inferring that Mike seemed uninterested. They looked pretty up and at it in that clip, no signs of being tired or overworked. Quite the opposite actually.

And about Daltrey hitting Pete....well, if there was a guy who was running over to hit you over the head with his guitar you might put your fist in his face too.

And no, Mike didn't beat up Brian. He left that to his brother to do.

I think I'll remove myself from this convo now since your position seems to be coming from complete irrational hatred of Mike.

Maybe Mike thought Brian could do better. I've acted much the same way under similar songwriting circumstances as have many people....

OR...... maybe Brian just hates Mike as much as you and takes every utterance, facial expression, action as badly as all the other Mike haters.

Not commenting on the rest of your post (which raises some interesting interpretations), but that is a massive statement to make when you think about it.

can you post a link to this Goin' Platinum clip?

I think it's being slightly misinterpreted, in the same way that Carl's facial expressions (when trying to figure out a harmony) were said to be him "making faces at how bad the song is". When Brian asks Mike if he likes the background harmony Mike laughs and says "Yeah! Sure!". I don't think there's anything wrong with this. YES, he could've been a LITTLE more enthusiastic, but I think Mike would've liked anything that Brian came up with, and was excited to get him in on the song. So, it's like he's saying.. "Yeah, of course!".

Here's the footage in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_3ZlgzFqz8

Before I get to my main point.... I think you're putting to much weight on that rather brief 1980 clip, which was a staged songwriting "example" of how Brian and Mike work. It was more for entertainment value than informational purposes. If we start assuming too much from staged clips like this, we'll have to dismiss most of the Beautiful Dreamer documentary (which I've already done anyway).

What does Brian look for in a collaborator today and why doesn't Mike fit that description? To me it's simple and I don't care how many people it offends. For a long, long time, but especially in his solo career, I think it is important for Brian to collaborate with people who are going to - not just help him start or finish a song - but write, arrange, and produce a large part of the song.

In Brian's heyday, there was a clear cut distinction. Brian was responsible for the music, and the lyricists were responsible for the concepts and words. Of course it wasn't always absolute, and of course Brian's early collaborators offered the occasional riff, melody, or arrangement. But, overall - largely overall - Brian's collaborators were mainly lyricists. Mike Love, Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, and Jack Reiley did not write much music. The stories are legendary how Brian would have ideas WHEN he came into the studio, he had the WHOLE song in his head, he TAUGHT the musicians certain parts; he was in charge, in control, the driving force. The lyricists wrote words.

I think that writing concept and the percentage of what Brian wrote and what his collaborators wrote gradually changed. Take "Sweet Mountain" for example. That was David Sandler's song, but Brian got/gets most of the credit for it. How much of "Sail On Sailor" did Brian write, arrange, or produce? Moving ahead to Brian's solo career, and starting specifically with his 1988 solo album, there are collaborators and producers and lyricists all over the place. Why?

Well, I already theorized why. And, because of that, Brian's needs more from a collaborator than Mike Love has to offer. Sure, as has been stated ad nauseum, Mike Love isn't a musician, producer, arranger; some would even go as far as saying that Mike isn't even an artist. And that finally caught up with Mike in his songwriting relationship with Brian because Brian needs more from a collaborator. Much more. Much more than lyrics. He needs collaborators to write parts of the songs. If Brian and hisdoctorandwifeandmanagers are seeking collaborators to work with Brian - today - Mike Love ain't at the top of that list. Lindsey Buckingham, Jeff Lynne, Andy Paley, Scott Bennett, Jim Peterik, Joe Thomas, and Jeff Beck were. They wrote music.

Do you think Brian is worthy of his being the sole author of Good Kind of Love ?

Ah yes. My old favorite. That I must hate Mike because I think he is artistically bankrupt. And because I think he's a money grubber.

Now I hate to get into a dick measuring contest, but I'll say this. I enjoy a great deal of Mike Love's work. I even own that fucking Catch a Wave CD he did in the '90s with Adrian Baker. Shoot, I'd even get Summertime Cruisin' if I could find it. I enjoy listening to his voice. Even if it is weaker these days.

But like some on this board these days, I really do think that the amount of apologetics for Mike these days is ridiculous. I used to think it was pretty obvious to everyone on here that Mike Love was artistically bankrupt for much of the past 30 years. Are there really people out there who are gonna defend tripe like "Still Surfin'"? Or playing "Duke of Earl" live?

And back to my main point, it isn't quite that I think Mike didn't respect Brian's work to make a piece of trash like "Goin' To The Beach" a better song. It is the fact that I'm pretty sure he just doesn't care. He's not a musician. He likely doesn't care about chord progressions or basslines. He cares about how many records it well sell. And that's his prerogative. But I think that kinda attitude is probably why Brian only occasionally wanted to work with him. And would rather just mail him tracks to write over. Or have him come to the studio and listen, and then have him go off to write. Because Mike is pretty much useless when it comes to the actual music. That to me, makes total sense. Why are you gonna have a guy sitting next to you at the piano if he can't really contribute. You might as well do your thing, and have him do his part when the time comes. But obviously that just wasn't gonna work for Mike. He wanted to "sit in a room together". Gag me.

‍

I'm sorry but "hate" is not too strong a word at all in this case. It's practically steaming out of the monitor......

And not everyone agrees on Mike being "creatively bankrupt" ( a term tossed around like an actual legal definition) for however many decades, and if you don't like it, at least accept it.

All of the above, with some emphasis on Landy. I thought Brian retained a lot of "it" - his creativity, his songwriting chops - right up to 1981. But, after Brian re-emerged with/from Landy in 1983, neither he or his creativity was ever the same.

The one theory that I never bought into was the theory that Brian didn't care or wasn't interested or actually tried to sabotage things. I don't think Brian would feel that way about the music he was creating. I think he respects the art too much to not care. I think Brian's songwriting issues are much deeper than that.

Well put.

And Sweetdudejim, sorry to get annoying, but I just want to reiterate that there are some genuine Mike fans out there. That's all. Maybe we have awful taste or maybe we just find the yin/yang fascinating. Sorta like if Stanley Kubrick and Ed Wood had to direct movies together or something....

As an aside: I went on a date a few weeks ago with a rather charming woman who was Landy's personal assistant during his Brian years...... Should I go out with her again to get some good dirt?  >:D

And I interpret it a third way. When you were a kid did you ever hear a conversation like this:

Kid #1: What's 5 times 4?
Kid #2: That's so easy!
Kid #1: What is it?
Kid #2: 25!
Kid #1: No! It's 20!
Kid #2: Okay, well, whatever.

It seems to me that that's precisely the exchange we are looking at in this clip. Brian has corrected Mike about something and Mike has dealt with being wrong by acting as if now the answer or the question doesn't matter.

Wasn`t Brian interested in writing with Mike for That Lucky Old Sun?

He didn`t want to write in the same room but that isn`t only with Mike. Tony Asher has said that when they wrote songs in the 90s Brian would just send him a tune for him to add words to. Brian doesn`t write songs in the way he used to.

I'd say another date is in order, along with trying to convince her to write a book.

Although I agree with the majority of negativity that surrounds Mike Love, I think this particular incident is blown out of proportion. First of all, when Mike made that comment, I always interpreted it more like "yeah, sure, whatever man. You're the expert in this area not me. Do your thing!" I didn't think it was very condescending. It may have been semi-encouraging. Kind of like Mike deferring to Brian's direction on specific musical ideas.

As others have said, this was also when the band was really tired and working on retread ideas. And Brian wasn't in great physical or mental shape. I agree with criticism of Mike most of the time. But in this instance it seems a little bit overblown.

Nah Pinder, I totally enjoy the back and forth. And I have to say, I am very surprised to hear if there is really anybody that truly enjoys Summer In Paradise. I really am. I'm not making fun at all. I just can't see any self respecting music fan liking it. And this is coming from a guy (me) who actually thinks Still Cruisin' is a pretty good album. The only thing I don't like on it is "Wipe Out". But I really just don't think Mike Love cares one iota about "art" or even just the music, straight up. I almost feel like everything he does is just about further what is his perception of Beach Boys, Inc. I might be totally wrong, but it just seems to me that everything he's done since at least "Kokomo", but maybe as early as KTSA is just about pushing what his one dimensional vision of The Beach Boys. And that's a shame. Because he was a good lyricist. Not one of the best, but very, very good. And now he can't write a lyric without referencing "good vibrations" or having "fun, fun, fun." And that's disappointing to me.

I'm sure the charming woman is very nice, and you aren't specific as to whether Landy's personal assistant was in Brian's presence, but Brian was "in the course of treatment" and that time and information should be privileged and confidential.
Notwithstanding Landy reportedly unscrupulous practices.  Please don't press her for info.  It would fall under doctor-patient relationship.  

Mike has spent decades trying to live up to the success of "endless summer". In the process, he has turned himself in a hack and forgotten what made the BBs popular. It was the production and the emotional weight behind the songs, not surfing, the beach, and cars.

I like every song on Summer In Paradise except "Summer Of Love" and "Surfin". Mike Love Love and Terry Melcher wrote some good songs for that album, and it's one of Carl's best albums vocally. I wish Brian would've contributed 4-5 songs; he wasn't doing much of anything else.

yeah, that's what I was thinking and why I didn't press for THOSE kinds of details.... All I really got was that some guy almost ran her off the road during a lunch run once and Landy would not let it go that she should "sue the blankety-blank guy"! .... And that Carl was a sweetheart.

‍

Here's what I see in that video:  The guys are in the moment, Brian says "hows 'bout that, Michael Edward?" and Mike says "yeah, sure" in a supportive-enough tone, and then Carl sits in and begins to work out his harmony part.  This is no different from any number of times, for example, my buddy Joe and I have been working out parts for one of our numbers.  The juices get flowing, a good idea is acknowledged, and then you quickly move on, as to keep striking while the iron is hot.

I imagine there could be any number of things keeping these two from writing alone in a room together, but as far as I can tell, what was witnessed in that video just ain't it.

I take anti-depressants and they have no effect on my creativity. I realize what Brian is on is probably far more potent than why I take, but creativity is linked more to how an individual sees the world, how their brain works, etc. than it is a quantifiable substance that can "dry up." Also, songwriting is most of all a skill  that stays with a person as long as they don't let it go away... If Brian is no longer creative it's more likely because he no longer has a grip on the songwriting process because of his lack of prolific songwriting for the past several decades

That's not the way I remember it. The question was if Mike had leadership of the band from 1973 through 1998 and it was only shown Mike had a little leadership for mainly/mostly a couple/few years and the rest was conjecture and denial about the leadership the rest of the band had during most of that period.

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to disagree.

Not trying to be mean, but how could you possibly know that? Saying that a drug has no effect on your creativity when what that drug does is alter your brain chemistry (my layman's understanding) is confusing.

Well I don't know,  but it hasn't stopped me from writing songs. Good ones too.  I doubt psychiatric drugs are ultimately what has stalled Brian's creativity... it's more likely things other things in his life.

3 good songs ("Lahaina Aloha","Island Fever","Strange Things Happen") and 2 ok ones let down by some didactic lyrics (title track, "Still Surfin"). And agreed, the rest of the cuts aren't dreadful either, with the 2 exceptions you've noted. I don't get why this lp is so hated.

But, what I don't also get is :I would put Brian's post '81 oeuvre up against his '74-'81 work anyday. Lots of songs better than those written by Love/Melcher, and some songs as good as any he's ever written. He's still got his songwriting chops.

Now, if you were to say that Brian has lost his producing/arranging chops, I would agree. I don't think that has anything to do with Landry or medication though. 'Smile' broke something within him. Up to then he was a producing/arranging genius, afterwards despite some moments of brilliance he's but a shadow of his former self.

I think most of Love You has great arrangements. I hope that's the moment of brilliance you're talking about...

I'm pickin' up Good Vibrations, Sunkist orange flavored taste sensation...

Not that is a great tune (if you ask Mr. Love). In the words of Joe Pesci's character in Casino, "all about the dollars with those guys...all about the dollars."

Hey, I've said it before - Mike has been creatively bank-oh for quite some time, and that in fact is why Brian would rather not work with him. The yin really isn't there for the yang. And if you disagree, then you must think that his pedestrian work on Mike Love Not War is deep stuff. I don't - downloaded it once off of a blog, listened to it a couple times, and then deleted it. Bland-oh.

Having said that, in regards to the video in question, I don't really see any friction there between Brian and Mike. In fact, it seemed a rather pedestrian wood shedding of a tune in progress. Hell, it was positively convivial in the studio that day; have you ever heard studio dialogue between the boys back in the hey day of Summer Days and Today? They used to bust balls constantly. Check out the stuff on the SOT boots. I'm sure that each of them quickly developed a thick layer of skin over the years.

I think in all of this we should remember how long these guys have been making music.  How many great songwriters can still write, or can be bothered writing great music after 50 years?  Brian, in particular has earned the right to relax and enjoy listening to music without any pressure to compose.  Very often, in my own experience, it's easier to write a song when all is not well.  You either write about the problem or write about the solution or 'escape'.  Brian seems content in his private life, therefore might not have much desire to sit and write.  That said, I still think he can come up with catchy tunes and chord progressions if he felt like it.  However, at his age, it's possible he doesn't have the concentration span to see it through.  Hence the reason somebody like Scott Bennett is needed.  Even if Brian had no mental health issues, or had never touched drugs in his life do we still think he would be writing any more than he has over the last few years?

+1

Hell, yeah, another date is in order ! Get all the dirt and report back. As the "good doctor" is no longer with us, he can't sue for any breach of confidentiality.... >:D

Mike just needs to step up his game a little bit to get Cousin Brian back in the fold.  Check this out:

Bow bow bow bow oop
Ahh ooo oohh waaa oooo

Bow bow bow bow oop
Ahh ooo oohh waaa oooo

The other night I was playing your songs
Hadn't sang them for oh so long (Bruce: Well since last Tuesday anyhow!)
Took me back Brian to those times from afar
When we sang all night about surf and cars

Could we ever get it back
Getcha back Brian
Gonna getcha back getcha back
Getcha back getcha back Brian
Gonna getcha back getcha back
Can I ever getcha back

I'm getting tired of not doing things right
Ending celebrations and starting new fights
And though people come from near and far
To see me with Stamos the movie star
But no matter how many tours we do
Without Cousin Brian the fans are blue
So if you leave Foskett and I leave Totten*
Can we ever get it back again?

Getcha back getcha back Brian
Gonna getcha back getcha back
Getcha back getcha back Brian
Gonna getcha back getcha back
Can I ever getcha back

Bow bow bow oop

Bow bow bow oop

(Getcha back) We'll Go Surfin'
(Getcha back) Making The Scene
(Getcha back) With Good Old Brucie
(Getcha back) And Al Jardine

(Getcha back) Endless Summer
(Getcha back) No More Bummers
(Getcha back) As long as Stamos
(Getcha back) Can still be our drummer

(Getcha back) We'll write some new songs
(Getcha back) the fans will remember
(Getcha back) Good Vibrations
(Getcha back) Until September

* Just innocent rhymes.  I am in now way insinuating that Foskett or Totten caused the C50 to end.  They are both tops in my books.

Actually, it WAS surfing, the beach, and cars that made them popular. In the first place, anyway.

Well, sort of. But lots of people jumped on the bandwagon of making surfing, beach and car songs during that period and were nowhere near as successful as The Beach Boys. Part of what set The Beach Boys apart was the caliber of the songs.

No, it was carburetors, man! That's what life is all about!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8q2ejKAsHg

What's wrong with Mike/Bruce holding down THAT aspect of The beach Boys legacy? Brian, Al, and Dave can hold down the "high art" end, so all is well really... Is Mike really to blame for the lack of balance?

And the harmonies, likable and distinct voices, and likeable and distinct personalities..... and Dennis

There's nothing wrong with it. SMiLE Brian seems to have an intense dislike for Mike, though - which is fine, but it's foolish to think The Beach Boys would have gotten to Pet Sounds without Surfin.

It all has a place in the legacy. It's a bit like the crawl before walking analogy.  Brian took those steps very quickly but Surfin' and the early stuff were still the first steps.  I love something about every era of the Beach Boys career.  Even the much maligned SIP has it's moments!  The thing that made/make them stand out are the quality of the music, harmonies and production.  Lyrically they could make any topic sound good, even a song about root beer or a shift!

Agreed..... But look at it this way: if you are a hater of Mike, he's the definition of a gift that keeps on giving...

Exactly, the stuff on ES is what made them popular.

The only time I met Mike I was worried he was going to have me escorted away from the side of the backstage area based on the impression I had of him from reading stuff. He was with Bruce whom I had already met (and he was a cool guy the whole time) a few years earlier.  So I asked them to sign my Beach Boys cap.  Mike asked where I had got it and posed for a photo with Bruce.  Turned out to be a really nice encounter.  In a lot of people's eyes just when he seems to be turning opinion in his favour he does something and becomes the villain again!

I think those preconceived notions we all have/had about Mike are mostly the problem and color everything about Mike.

I don't hate Mike for what he's done. I just hate Mike.

lame.

Everybody has preconceived notions about anybody and everything Cam. Ultimately it is Mike's fault people think he's a jackass. Nobody forced him to talk sh*t about the SMiLE material in that early '90s interview. Nobody forced him to declare it "Brian's ego music". Nobody forced him to act like he did at the Rock 'N Roll Hall. Nobody has forced him to take issue with Van Dyke Parks (just as nobody is forcing Van Dyke to still pout about Mike). He also admitted in late 2012 and early 2013 that he did his part with C50 but that he'd went his separate way now. So I think that can be held against him too. He also was the driving force behind Summer In Paradise and Stars & Stripes. So people have quite a bit of reason to be skeptical of the guy. Sorry.

Now if people are holding him guilty for the end of SMiLE, well maybe that's unfair. Or holding him guilty for Brian not participating as much, that's probably a bit of a stretch too. But as I just wrote above, Mike has done quite a few things to upset both Beach Boys fanatics and just rock 'n roll fans in general. So yeah.

Mike stands out as an asshole for about 5 minutes until you begin to examine the behavior of a lot of our rock n roll "heroes" ......

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TOanHnV6u84/Uea3mwzFexI/AAAAAAAAAQQ/fFVXh6Qbyd4/s1600/Mike+Love.png)

"Hi, I'm Mike Love. Summer's here, and that means fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun for all the California girls who like to 'get around,' as they say. That's why it pains me so much to still see all the misinformation and bad vibrations going around after the end of our 50th Anniversary tour. It was always a temporary one-time event only to be one-time replicated 73 or 75 times. We're back to doing what we love best, I'm touring with Bruce and Cousin Brian is off doing his thing and Al Jardine I never mention in interviews because I hate him so much... David Marks never even comes up in conversation so I don't have to explain why they were politely rejected from my band, The Beach Boys.  I mean, it's easier to blame Cousin Brian because of all the stories about him not being all there. But I'd still love to write with him in a room on my terms in some hazy hypothetical future without him being in his comfort zone and all of his collaborators around because I like him off-balance and uncomfortable while I fix him with my soulless Mike Love death stare... that the Maharishi taught me while I was in India with THE BEATLES."

(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab78/The14weed/The%20Beatles%20in%20India/4-1.jpg)

"Everything is good and I'm looking forward to the future, que sera shall be whatever is the whole of it's sum and parts, sera. Surf's up! Be sure to look for my new album, Mike Love Not War soon on iTunes and Amazon and Facetwitter. Christian Love sounds just like Carl Wilson and Scott Totten sounds exactly, and I mean exactly just like everybody else. See you in Biloxi this weekend, which we love because the spirit of endless summer lives on there in the casinos and inside the slot machines."

(http://eyeofthefish.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMOKING-ATLANTIC-CITY-CASINO.jpg)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4el8nsje91qihztbo1_500.gif)

While I've never been the biggest fan of Mike Love's behind the scenes antics, I think that Brian feeds off of Mike's approval as much as Mike feeds off of Brian's creativity.  I think that may have been a big factor in the success of the C50 tour.

The thing about Mike is, all his history aside, he comes across as an asshole whenever he opens his mouth. I mean, would this guy enjoy the company of others if he wasn't the cousing of Brian Wilson? Would he be ignored as the shameless selfpromoter and narcissict he really is? I think so. If Mike was not a part of rock legendry, he would quite possibly be the disliked neighbour or difficult colleague to work with. He just strikes me as someone I would never want to have anything to do with on a personal level. Maybe that's why even his family can't stand him and he's now with wife no.4 or 5. Clearly this guy has social issues and people should be aware of it as much as being aware of Brian's mental illness. But Brian is the 'damaged genius' and Mike is just his asshole cousin. I feel sorry for him being such a prat when he has every reason not to.

And you'd want Lou Reed or GG Allen as your neighbor?

It's not really that he's an asshole.

It's as I said earlier, he's not content that he was the frontman of The Beach Boys. He has to try to exaggerate his importance, like comparing himself to Paul McCartney. I mean, come on. He's nowhere close, and it's embarrassing for fans of him and The Beach Boys that he even does that To keep with my Who thing, even though John Entwistle wrote the second most in the who, he never said he was their "Paul McCartney". Keith Richards never says, "oh man, me and Mick are like tougher version of Lennon and McCartney". Why does Mike always have to try to exaggerate his importance? He should be extremely proud that he wrote a decent amount of classic songs and that he sung on some of the most cherished material of the twentieth century.

Brian said before the 90s that SMiLE had been his selfish, self centered music which he ended up not liking which is why he shelved it. Mike was just paraphrasing Brian's earlier statements. Not everybody considers Mike's Hall of Fame speech an embarrassment. Take issue with VDP? He has always said he likes VDP, thinks he is brilliant. He did want to understand VDP's lyrics since he was singing them in his band on their album. That is an asshole move? To want to understand the lyrics you are supposed to interpret? Would Sinatra be a dick for wanting to understand a lyric? Again not everybody thinks SIP or S&S reflects a character defect. To my mind they all sort of reflect misplaced sentiment. We disagree.

He says it because of 20+ years (at least) of people bashing him..... I think we can all trace it back to when/where it started.... Entwisle got praised to high heaven even through we know Townsend annoyed him for not bringing on more of his songs etc etc.... There are Mike worthy quotes from the man that are easy to find. Yet it wouldn't make a difference because he could say anything and still be considered cool.

I like all the music from 1961-1973, its just Mike's one dimensional portrait of that era that annoys me.

The stuff is private "as to Brian," and, generally protected. Landy was not the patient.  Generally, it extends to the staff, as well.  Courts get involved when there is a compelling reason for disclosure. I'll go on a limb and suggest, "dates" aren't privileged to obtain treatment info.   ;)

Pinder is correct. 

Funny that you guys still won't touch the fact that Mike compares himself to Paul McCartney. Probably cuz even Cam Mott knows that that is either the sign of a hugely overinflated ego or somebody who is just so unsure of their place in history that they have to pump themselves up. Pretty sad.

And Cam and Pinder, please let us know which are your favorite tunes from Stars & Stripes! And how great "Summer Of Love" is! Not embarrassing at all.

Summer of Love is a guilty please of all pleasures and grade A kitsch joy!

Not kidding. I love it.

Mike is comparable to Sir Paul in that he is the other top power (like it or not) in his own band and is the most hated by fans of his band, just like Paul.

As for Stars N Stripes: meh!

But didn't Fogerty just release basically the same thing to all kinds of high fives and back slapping?

The people he works with don`t seem to feel like that. The current band have been in place for several years and I have never heard of any problems.

Could it be so ironic that Brian doesn't wanna write with Mike because Mike's the guy who did Summer In Paradise?  :p

It's not one-dimensional, though. You've probably seen/read as many interviews with Mike as I have - most likely more - and he talks about Brian's compositional feats in the early days - not just the car stuff, but "Surfer Girl", "In My Room".....and especially "The Warmth of The Sun". He seems to acknowledge the more somber, reflective tunes like "Kiss Me Baby", and he's come around to Pet Sounds and parts of SMiLE (particullarly "Wonderful"). Maybe that part is just for the media, and maybe because he's tired of being cast as a shallow, money-grabbing frontman. It's not entirely true.

You have to remember that here's this guy who has performed for millions and sees the joy on people's faces when he does the popular hits. You know why? It made them famous, it made them rich, it made people happy. So, this guy has every right to play up the fun-in-the-sun material. It doesn't make him a douche to realize what the majority of his fanbase want, and the cater to them.

Paul is nowhere close to as hated as Mike Love. In fact, most people love Sir Paul. There are some people who have canonized Lennon that still draw those stupid comparisons of Macca and Lennon where Lennon was the genius and Paul did nothing.

But the difference between Paul and Mike is that, well, PAUL ACTUALLY WRITES SONGS! A whole shitload of classics and hits without John Lennon. How many classics did Mike do without Brian? And as I said earlier, "Kokomo" doesn't count, as it was John Phillips song that Mike added a hook to.

So overall, Mike is nowhere close to McCartney and his head in his ass if he truly thinks he is anywhere close to him. He should be happy with how he's perceived and work on that instead of trying to act like he did anything more than what he did (i.e. wrote a few nice lyrics to songs that Brian largely composed and also is a great lead singer).

I don't think anyone, even Mike himself is trying to say he's as good as Sir Paul! But there are comparisons that work.

Once again, it just seems to be hatred driving logic here.....

It's not hatred. It's an out of bounds ego that compares oneself to the most successful musician of the 20th and 21st century. And he did compare. In that article from earlier in the month he did. It's right there. To compare his perceived lack of respect to that of McCartney is just so off base. He wrote a few lyrics, that's as far as his "art" goes. Paul's goes much further.

Most people don't compare themselves to Paul McCartney because they are aware they are nowhere close to his talent or success. Mick and Keef don't compare themselves to him. Townshend doesn't. Elton John doesn't. Mike Love does. Why is he so damn insecure?

Elton John also said Keith Richards is pathetic and looks like a monkey with arthritis out there trying to look young. And Keith calls Mick Brenda and says he has a small wee wee.

I could go on....

Egomainiacs have one thing in common-they're insecure. mYke definitely possesses illusions of grandeur. In other words, he's f***ed up mentally.

I actually agree with you..... Most rock stars are as you describe. Even if they keep their mouths shut....

Didn't Brian used to go around telling Karen Lamm she should be with HIM rather than Dennis?

Now THAT takes illusions of grandeur!!!!!

You've gone with interpretations that are critical of Mike for some reason but you're not Mike. Mike is also a coauthor in one of the top Pop coauthor teams of Time so far, as is McCartney. It's not a stretch at all.

What does our opinion matter. I'm not a particular fan of SIP, I like it better than some others do and I like it less than some others do. I kind of enjoy S&S, I especially like Tammy Wynette and Willie Nelson and I'm not a Country fan. My opinions don't change anything.

oops! Forgot you were right next to him when he allegedly said that. ::)

Exactly! So why not just have fun with it?? Mike is hilarious! I can see what everyone's saying but his contributions to history speak for themselves and he's a damn good singer/frontman. Let the guy be crazy.

Then why post here??

yeah, good question..... Hmmmmmm  ::)

Except that Paul wrote music. And even wrote a great deal of Lennon/McCartney songs all by himself and has the guts to tour on his own name. Lennon and McCartney were a songwriting team for all the '60s and every original Beatles hit besides one is by that team. Whereas only a handful of Beach Boys hits are Wilson/Love. Mike was a guy that Brian went to now and again to write with him. But not his songwriting partner in anybodies mind by Mike's. There are quite a few Wilson/Christian, Wilson/Usher, Wilson/Asher, and Wilson/Parks classics. All this during the time of the Wilson/Love "dynasty".

Why not?

Once again: no one is saying Mike is as good as Sir Paul! But Mike IS good! He also wrote hooks and vocal melodies for massive earth shaking hits. This is more than most people accomplish in a hundred lifetimes.... Go tell Bernie Taupin he's trash because he doesn't write music.

OK, is all of that what Mike claimed was their similarity? It still leaves a legitimate no stretch comparison between them. Mike and Brian's successful  co-authorships far out distance any other Brian co-authorship by multiples. Success being defined by the standard used by the industry measured by sales and chart position. You were accusing me of denial earlier right? Or did I remember that wrong?

Keep goin' Pinder, you'll convince someone someday.

Once again I'm not. And Bernie Taupin has also been with Elton John (besides just a few years) for like 45 years. He's his lyrical guy.

And Mike is good. Even great. A great singer, and decent to good lyricist. But he's no McCartney. He's no Taupin. He's Mike Love, but that never seems to be enough for him. Always has to namecheck The Beatles or some list from 1966. Me personally? I think The Beach Boys are pretty great. And I don't care that Mike suggested lyrics to "Back in the USSR". I care more that he wrote the lyrics to "California Girls". Or "Aren't You Glad". But I'm not sure he gets that is enough.

So let me get this straight then I'll leave it alone...."Wilson/Love" is equal to "Lennon/McCartney"? Really?

In ways and not in other ways. Did Mike say they are "equal"?

Not equal to, but superior to

There are quite a few instances in which mYke luHv eclipsed Paul:

He had more wives
He had more rings
He does the "chicken" dance
He wore a turban
He lost his hair ALOT quicker than Paul
He sued his writing partner twice
He tells jokes that are far cornier that Paul's
He looks more like Clarabell than Paul does
He has way more hats than Paul does
He talks on stage about important sh*t than Paul does.
And HE doesn't have to play any of those silly instruments that Paul does.
 ;)

Good points, but didn't Paul take legal action so that certain songs now read "McCartney/Lennon"?

Kurt Cobain also after Nevermind blew up, took legal action to have Krist/Dave removed  from any writing credits they'd previously held..... But Mike's the biggest asshole in the world because he compares himself in whatever way to Sir Paul?? Big deal.

Just sayin' :angel:

Mike probably has a low self esteem because he's always made out to be a worthless villain.

Nope, never happened. He did switch the credit on Wings Over America and Back in the US though. But no, he never sued. He sued to get out of Apple though, but that was because Allen Klein dicked them over but Paul was the only one to see it.

No.  He got some criticism for doing that on his live album "Back in the US," some of it from Yoko Ono but it was never a legal issue.  Changing the order of names in writing credits doesn't change how much credit a person gets.  Though later on, Paul admitted that the credit "Lennon-McCartney" should remain the way it is and that it's become a trademark of sorts.

Well, he did say Ringo's always looking for a handout and he apparently pinned down Denny Laine backstage once and held a knife to his throat.

Was that Paul or Allen Klein? Somehow I can't see him holding a knife to anybody. The Ringo comment sounds like something Paul might say. In his defense, Ringo did do a pretty good job of drinking and snorting his money away in the mid 1980's.

You would too if you were hanging around Keith Moon and Harry Nilsson!!!!!!!!

I'm nearly positive there has never been a story about Paul ever holding a knife to anybody's throat. I've heard stuff about Jimmy McCullough, member of Wings, who refused to go back onstage for an encore. And I think Paul admitted maybe giving him a punch. But a knife? Very doubtful. A claim like that would definitely warrant a source.

Yeah, I think it was Jimmy McCullough. I'll dig for the source.

I'll I'm saying is it's a bit hypocritical to bash Mike for any/every little thing to the point of white hot hatred while accepting every sort of behavior from other rock stars.

To those asking questions, I'm pretty sure Pinder was joking.  Neither of these things ever happened.

How about when his band was just about to start it's set and his Mellotron fell over and it's tapes went spilling everywhere?

Oh, wait! ..... That was me  :o

All of the Mike haters really need to read a Beatles book called You Never Give Me Your Money. It focuses on the last year or two that they were together and up to the present day. It goes into a lot of detail of the various lawsuits and all of the fighting  that went on between each member of the group after the break up. It goes into all of the petty "he said-she said" bullshit, and all of the combinations of who went up against who, etc. Mike Love has nothing on what these guys did to each other! As a Beatles fan, I actually found it quite depressing and downright disgusting to learn about the lengths they went to hate each other.

Paul and John's personalities were too different from the Beach Boys to compare them. Far, far more outgoing and confident in themselves (perhaps why America fell in love with it since confidence appears to be valued far more in American society than in Britain imo).

Brian was very bashful and didn't have the persona for his success as Paul and John did. Mike however had all of it, yet little of the talent which could justify it.

This is correct, but I don't see how defending Mike should involve bashing Macca? From what I hear Macca was difficult dude to deal with at times and the final conflict that broke up The Beatles was mainly on him from what I gather.

Does not justify why Mike is asshole.

No one's bashing Paul. I love Paul but he's a human being just like anyone else.

He's only being brought up because of the sheer outrage and violent anger Mike's generated by making some piddling comparison, and the only point I'm trying to make is that all the things that supposedly make Mike such a massive asshole are hardly unique (or even very noteworthy) when talking about rock n roll and rock stars.... I love how it's an issue people basically avoid. All they can do is toss more insults at Mike.

The single most irritating word on this board. A convenient way to lump all those who disagree with you into a mindless group, whilst single-handedly making any valid arguments they may have appear vapid and unreasonable.

Mods, can we arrange for those who use this word to be publically flogged or something? It really is most annoying

Laughable.

Problem is, the Mike haters seem to think their opinion of the man is some accepted fact that cannot be challenged, and any/all attempts to reason with this opinion is met with nothing but more insults and anger .... I don't know why it can't be understood that some fans really like the guy and his work. Even the stuff you think is beyond content. I you accepted this fact, there would be little motivation to slam the guy left and right because you'd understand and accept that some people feel about him the way you do about your (our) precious Brian.... I've tried other words to describe Mike dislike, but when it always boils down to very ugly drivel about the guy, there's no other term that will do than Mike haters.... And no moderators are going to police language unless it's profanity! If you want to try and make the words "Mike" and "Love" used concurrent of each other tantamount to profanity:  go for it.

By the way: I'm sure there are other message boards for those with flogging fetishes.

Funny thing is, that's how the "Mike lovers" come across to those of a contrary opinion. Strange eh?

Personally though, I take the middle ground.

He's a d*ckhead, but he's our d*ckhead

It wasn't meant as an insult to anybody in particular here. It was just an easy way to refer to some Beach Boys "fans" who, well, truly hate the man. There are certain people who take their dislike of Mike way to far. Like oldsurferdude. That kind of "dislike"(I guess I can't say hate, huh?) of a person is unhealthy. The phrase "Mike haters" wasn't meant for you, Pinder, or anybody else taking part in this thread at the moment. I apologize if you took it the wrong way.

I still think its bizarre that on a Beach Boys board it should still be considered noteworthy if people have positive things to say about all of the band members.

That was shown a few days ago where a few people saying they quite like Goin to the Beach led to one poster claiming that this was evidence that Pet Sounds will be forgotten in a few years. That sort of irrational dislike for the Lovester is just odd.

Where is this quote?

He has people who do that sort of thing for him

Wow! 5 more pages of the same old junk. Didn't we just do twenty-some-odd pages of this BS last month?

By my count, he sued Brian Wilson three times.  One was 100% legitimate, one was 95% legitimate, and the third was 0% legitimate.

I'm trying to remember but in the case where Mike Love sued Brian Wilson over those infamous song credits, didn't he first try to approach Wilson privately and try to work out a settlement without having to take him to court?  I believe Mike Love only went to court when he and Wilson couldn't work out an equatable settlement between the two of them as to what Mike was actually owed for his songwriting contributions.

I'm not sure about the details of the case, but that's the one I was referring to as 95% legitimate, since it's generally accepted that ML did not contribute enough to "Wouldn't it Be Nice" to merit the songwriting credit that he got as a result of the case, but that the main effect was that it awarded him lots of songwriting credits that he actually deserves.

As I remember the suit was expected to possibly amount to millions of dollars. Mike offered to settle for his due credit and $750,000. Brian's team hadn't taken it. Brian admitted in court Mike was owed credit and money.  The jury found in favor of Mike and set the formula for the amount of credit Mike would get on which songs and the compensation in the millions.

Do you think Mike deserves credit for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" Cam?

I don't know what credit Mike claimed and as far as I know what credit Mike supposedly claimed or is entitled to is just fan conjecture. I didn't hear the evidence but the jury did and they awarded credit.

Fans really get hung up on the WIBN credit. If one feels Mike doesn't deserve any credit for WIBN, maybe you could consider calling it equal for 30+ years of being cheated. Just a thought. If Mike had been a partner in the publishing and he and Murry [IF Murry was involved in the under-reporting] cheated Brian for 30+ years [with only Mike as a coauthor profiting from under reported co-authorship] and Brian finally won his day in court, would we be carping over whether he deserved what he got on one song?

It was just a question. Don't know why you had to write that whole long essay. Do you doubt Tony Asher's claims that Mike had f***-all to do with the song?

What it seems like to me is that it is impossible for you to acknowledge that Mike Love has ever acted improperly, claimed credit that he may not have deserved, beat his wife, or anything else.

I can acknowledge Brian has screwed up quite a bit, trying to give heroin to his child, asking his kids bus driver for a cigarette, etc.

And personally, I don't think it is right to give somebody songwriting credit for a song they didn't write. It just obfuscates the truth. When I see Elvis Presley's name as a writer on some of his hits, I figure he wrote them. Then I come to find out it was just legal wrangling that got those credits. Kinda lame! All the same with a classic like "Wouldn't It Be Nice". Mike was in Japan (?) when it was composed and Asher made it quite clear that he had nothing to do with it.

I don't mind it was no bother.

I don't have any reason to disbelieve Tony Asher. Did he testify in the trial? On the other hand, I don't have any reason to disbelieve the jury's judgment.

How do you feel about a writer not getting his due credit on a song? Say if someone doubly responsible cheated them.

A lot of those lawsuit credits are sketchy, what were the song credits Mike wanted out of court before he sued Brian?

And just to be clear, anything that Mike actually wrote, he deserves credit for, obviously.

More songs than awarded as I remember.

People say sketchy but what is that based on? Mike presented evidence in court for his claims and he only claimed credit for what he contributed. As I understand it Mike didn't claim any sort of percentage credit and he didn't specify any dollar amounts for his credit. If you feel he was over credited or compensated, it would be on the jury [and Brian's team].

Does anyone know if Mike was ever actually paid the judgment, at one time years after the suit it was being claimed Mike had not been paid? Well, one guy BE claiming he had seen evidence of it anyway. Edit: actually I think the claim was Brian had not paid Mike. I'm still not clear on whether it was Brian who was responsible to pay Mike or if it was Irving Music who was supposed to pay.

Asher wasn't in the studio when the "goodnight, sleep tight" part was added. It's pretty obviously a studio ad-lib and probably not something that Asher and Wilson wrote around the piano. I'm not sure how much song-writing credit, if any, Mike deserves for that minor vocal addition. There are people who have been ripped off of songwriting credits for larger songwriting additions than that.

Minor vocal ad-lib or not, it's a part of the lyrics forever and ever. I don't think Mike's claimed to have written anymore of the song than that, but now his name's on there. Why does anyone care? And yes, lots of other people have been screwed out of credit for more and that sucks. They should maybe try and do something about it.

Was Mike being a greedy asshole for wrangling this credit? Maybe. Then again, the evidence is there on record with him singing, so why lose sleep over it?

My thing was more about seeing if it was possible for Cam to acknowledge Mike may have done wrong before. I'm not sure he's capable of it.

And about "Wouldn't It Be Nice", I'm pretty sure Tony Asher recalled something like Mike's lawyer asking him if it was possible that while Brian was away for a minute or two during their writing sessions, he may have called Mike Love to ask for help with the lyrics. Mike's lawyer actually posited that claim. And apparently Asher was so dumbfounded by that question that I'm pretty sure he said something about how it is within the realm of possibility, but that there is like no chance that this was what actually happened.

 I think I can understand why Brian might not wanna write much with Mike because Mr. Ad-Lib is a stinker!  ;D

Something interesting was that Mike probably never cared about whether or not he was seen as a cowriter.  I was watching the "Good Vibrations Tour" DVD and Mike introduces "It's OK" as a song by Brian Wilson.  I think it had to do with the anger after the Landy debacle and Brian's autobiography all but villifying him that Mike felt he deserved a little something after putting up with all that.

But why should he have to admit that? It really means little to anyone aside from Mike H____s!

I don't think Cam would deny Mike has ever done any wrong (all Beach Boys have done wrong) but rather, is it going to fill him with inner rage and ruin his experience with his favorite band? That is the question....Rock stars are hardly the most selfless people. Get over it because it's a pandora's box out there of awful behavior by many many such people, and if you're going to excuse everyone else and keep slamming Mike, it just comes off at pathalogical after a while.

Brian knew it was happening and knew it was wrong and has said so yet he just let it be and Mike had to make it right. After Mike had brought it up with Brian back in the day and Brian admitted it and promised to make it right and then didn't, I think Mike made a mistake by not sticking up for rights 30 years earlier than he did. Better late than never I guess.

I guess he should also credit the session piano player on "I'm Waiting for the Day" for co-writing that song too.

Oh yeah. It's a slippery slope when you consider how session musicians suggest riffs or leads that can make or break a memorable song.

And this has exactly what to do with Mike not writing "Wouldn't It Be Nice"? I asked nothing about any of what your brought up.

I think it`s apparent from reports on the trial that it was ludicrous that Brian`s management didn`t settle this out of court. People make a lot of what Mike`s lawyer argued about Wouldn`t it be Nice but the situation with California Girls was more preposterous. Brian had already admitted when doing live shows that Mike had co-written it but Brian`s lawyers still argued the point for several hours. That`s what lawyers are paid to do I guess.

It`s probably fortunate for Brian that his interview on youtube was not widely available at the time as Mike would surely have been given credit for Surfin USA if it had been.

I've already answered about WIBN. You wondered "if it was possible for Cam to acknowledge Mike may have done wrong before", which I did.

But the thing is, all that had to do with was Brian (or rather Murry) "wronging" Mike. You still haven't shown that you think Mike has ever done inappropriate things such as suing his cousin for a promo CD that prominently featured The Beach Boys name when he himself releases things like these that also prominently display his band's name:

(http://www.beachboys.com/nascar.jpg)

(http://www.beachboys.com/ml-catch.jpg)

This one is unacceptable to Mike though, therefore lawsuit worthy (and apparently worthy of Cam's defense):
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/BRIAN-WILSON-GOOD-VIBRATIONS-PROMO-CD-ALBUM-2004-CALIFORNIA-GIRLS-DARLIN-/17/!Bo0+V!g!2k~$(KGrHgoOKi!EjlLmEVb8BLpBSy2Hf!~~_12.JPG)

I think the disc for Brian uses images of the band and that is the difference but yes I think that suit was a 2nd mistake by Mike.

"This one is unacceptable to Mike though, therefore lawsuit worthy (and apparently worthy of Cam's defense)"

Put words in people's mouths much. So thirty years of being cheated out of millions of dollars v. an ill advised lawsuit over a free cd. I guess they are even now.

But part of the lawsuit was about misappropriation of the Beach Boys trademark.

And thank you rocknroll.

Honestly Cam, I know everybody has their faults. Brian, Mike, me, you, Phil Cohen. Everybody. But you just always seem to have defend Mike for some reason and it's just odd.

Also, I didn't bring up the fact that along with the lawsuit he also sued because of Brian's solo release of SMiLE. Couldn't just live with the fact that Brian succeeded on his own with something. Had to rain on that parade juuuuuust a little bit. Same way he sh*t's on That's Why God Made The Radio's number three chart placing. Although I get this odd feeling that if something by Mike Love without Brian Wilson went to number three , Mike would not stop bragging about it. Quite sad really.

As an observer can I say that it`s even more odd that you are so obsessed with his opinion. You demanded that he stated something negative about Mike and he did in saying that Mike`s second lawsuit was a mistake (which it obviously was as the judge agreed). Now you are saying that isn`t enough.

Maybe it`s time you moved onto OSD and try to get him to make one positive comment about Mike.  ;D

Honestly the reason I was trying to do that to Cam, is just to see if people can really be as objective as they claim. For instance, if I'm talking politics and a Republican cannot think of one good thing the Democrats have done then their opinion is obviously so incredibly biased that they are ridiculous. Same with a Democrat who can't acknowledge one good thing about the Republicans. And this board seems to be the same way. There are people that will go to any length to defend Brian and at the same time those who will make excuses for anything Mike has done.

But as he acknowledged Mike`s mistake on this issue, maybe it is time to move on.

Well, there isn't enough real and imaginary criticizing of Mike while breezing over, ignoring, or excusing the rest of the band's faults on this board so hoorah for us we pinched off another one.

The worst of Mike's detractors cherry pick his contributions from a period that was dire for most musicians from the sixties, Brian often included. The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, he did a lot more than the hook to"Kokomo", contributions that extend beyond what most people are willing to admit. I posted this example of a festival setlist where each song has a degree of involvement from the guy and you know what? It'd be an original set stronger than what 90% of bands out there could ever dream of putting together.


Looking at some of the above tracks up there, I'd say it's totally valid to say Mike was Brian's McCartney at times and I'd really like to see what they could do together again. That's Why God Made the Radio didn't really give us a solid indication of what could transpire considering Brian requested lyrics in a style which Mike's critics would automatically deride. Didn't he have a really limited schedule to write his lyrics as well? I get he dictated "Good Vibrations" on the way to the studio in '66, but you can't expect that sort of miracle 45 years down the road...

You seem really unclear on what McCartney's role was in The Beatles.

I agree, Lennon/McCartney is a bad comparison. Maybe more of a Bacharach/David or any partnership where there was a clear composer and lyricist.

Encore:
27. It's OK
28. Male Ego
29. Little Saint Nick

Great post, Quzi! When you list all the compositions like that, and there are a few more not on there, it is really eye-opening. It also gives me an idea for a new comp! :police:

Agreed.

Mike's contribution to "Wouldn't it be Nice" is nothing more than an ad-lib.  In my opinion, you are absolutely right about that.

As admittedly cool and apropos a line as "good night/sleep tight" is to WIBN, the song is a wholly-formed and complete entity without Love's one-off, and as he claims this as his only "writing" contribution to the piece, it is in no way deserving of a songwriting credit.  Period.  It just isn't.

While it's a shame it had to come to litigation, personally, I don't blame Mike one bit for asking for what was rightly his.  That said, if I had as many legitimate writing contributions to the Beach Boys canon as Mike Love does, my conscience would never allow me to accept a credit for WIBN, and other than the obvious monetary advantages of having his name attached to the composition, I cannot fathom why he would want to take credit for something he knows he had no hand in creating.

Actually, as good as the Bacharach/David comparison is, the more I think about it, the more difficult it is to compare the Wilson/Love team to other teams in pop music. Bacharach/David does explain nicely the scale in terms of how much each contributed to the overall composition. I do think most would suggest that Bacharach did most of the heavy lifting as far as the song was concerned - yes, David brought good lyrics to the table, but the real strength of the song comes from Bacharach's contributions. Furthermore, Bacharach also arranged and produced a good deal of the music too.

At the same time though, the comparison does not take account of Mike Love's role as a singer and as a frontman. For that, you might have to consider songwriting partnerships like Johnny Marr and Morrissey, John Squire and Ian Brown, or, dare I say it, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger. Yet, at the same time, those comparisons significantly de-value Brian's contributions, since his job in getting the music going (for the reasons I addressed with Bacharach above) was far more difficult than a Marr, a Squire, or a Richards. And I should add that you can't find too many big hits from The Smiths, The Stone Roses, or The Rolling Stones, that don't have a significant writing credit from Morrissey, Brown, or Jagger. And yet, in The Beach Boys, you have Surfer Girl, In My Room, Don't Worry Baby, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Sloop John B., God Only Knows, Heroes and Villains - major, enduring hits of which Mike Love was largely uninvolved in the composition. I don't think many other bands with songwriting partnerships could boast that many enduring hit songs wherein one of the members of the partnership was not involved in the actual song writing. Except, of course, for Lennon/McCartney, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...

Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn!

Mike does real well writing lyrics about Fun, Sun, Surf, Beach, Girl, Boy, Car, Drag, Sleep, G-Nite, Bay-Beh & Kokomo.

And I have enjoyed listening to those since I was a kid.

But as for WIBN he was out-of-bounds -- and that alone is a very good reason Brian should avoid "writing in a room alone" with Michael.

I think the statement was nothing but an attempt at PR anyway, fluff - because he knows good and well its never gonna happen.

Exactly. Paul McCartney was not John Lennon's lyricist. Lennon/McCartney was a songwriting partnership in which songs came from both sides. Sometimes they were written nose-to-nose, sometimes it'd be Lennon's mostly with an assist from McCartney, sometimes McCartney's mostly with an assist from Lennon. And then sometimes it might just be one or the others. For instance, "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude" are Paul's babies. Lennon is listed as co-writer just because that's how John and Paul wanted it.

Compare this to Wilson/Love. In this "partnership" the music always came from Brian. It just did. Mike "played" sax (more like two notes), but otherwise he did not have any instrumental skill. So Brian would come in with music and a melody and sometimes even a great deal of lyrics. Or if not lyrics, a topic he wanted to write about. So while Mike surely deserves credit for his lyrics, he was by and large not a melodicist. And even the one he always cites, "Good Vibrations", he just took the bass line and did the business with that one. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure "round, round, get around, I get around" was his, so anybody that comes up with that is cool in my book.

But my point is, if we are gonna compare Mike to anybody, it'd be somebody like Bernie Taupin, Elton John's lyricist. But to compare him to Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, or a whole bunch of others just doesn't make sense.

I seriously don`t think Mike was literally comparing what he did and what McCartney did. His point imo was just that while one member of a group may be lauded, it doesn`t mean that another member can`t have made a serious contribution as well.

Neither would Mr. Mott. ::)

There has to be an anti-oldsurferdude to maintain balance in the Universe.

There's a weird mindset amongst the Mike Love fans here that suggests that bringing balance will actually get us closer to the truth when in fact, that's not true.

Fair enough. But why didn't Carl, or why hasn't Al ever tried to push the fact that they in fact helped a heck of a lot too? Seems that they are/were comfortable with their place in history, whereas Mike seems to feel perpetually wronged.

First you don't need to be a Mike fan to see what is wrong with most of what is said about Mike. Getting closer to the truth is the balance.

As is the case of his out of control ego, he has an inferiority complex the size of China.

But you've excused some pretty horrendous behavior by Mike cam. I don't think that is balance.

I disagree. In fact, I think you have made some of the more bizarre comments I have seen on this board, particularly in that thread about who had control of the band. It wasn't surprising when people started to wonder whether or not you were actually putting people on. I've had several exchanges with people on this board when I attribute views to Love and the first response is typically, "You're just a Mike-hater because Mike never said that." When I provide the quotation to show that Mike, in fact, did say that, the response is typically, "You're just a Mike-hater because Mike said that 10 years ago and you can't hold him to one comment from 10 years ago." When I then show several quotations that show that the comment from 10 years ago is fairly consistent with many of his comments over a large range of years, the response is, "OK, but Dennis. But Keith Moon. But John Lennon." There is absolutely something wrong here if that is the nature of these discussions. I should actually make a sidenote and say these are the most grounded exchanges. The ones that truly leave me awestruck are when I provide the quotation from Mike and the response is to say, "Well, he's not actually saying that. What he's really saying is..." It's a real exercise in delusion that I don't witness with any other public figure outside of the political realm.

I was teasing you Jay. If I saw you being flogged I'd be first in line to try and stop 'em !

Then we agree that we disagree about all of that.

We can all happily agree that Mike is the biggest asshole in the band and some of us love/hate him more than others  ;D

No! I think the problem is: people who diss Mike and pick apart/ minimize his comtributions seem to really believe their opinion is THE opinion and they seem to have serious problems with those who disagree and those who really don't care if Mike's an asshole or not. They REALLY REALLY REALLY want everyone to be fuming and steaming with rage about it.

Or maybe the "problem" is Michael rarely gives the fan base a chance to calm down - He's the asshole that keeps on giving.  ;D

:woot :woot :woot :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :h5 :h5 :h5

Several reasons...

They obviously do have different personalities and Mike does have a big ego.

They contributed very different amounts and Carl and Al couldn`t exactly claim that they had contributed a lot to the group`s hits. (Al actually seems to have carried a lot more bitterness around though now that you mention it and has complained about numerous things)

And also Mike felt wronged because he WAS wronged. He should have been credited on some of the biggest hits ever written and wasn`t. Which is not to say he hasn`t made mistakes himself.

This thread seems to have gone off topic though and just become the typical...

To make one more off topic point...

The amazing thing to me about the songwriting lawsuit is that many people don`t seem to care about the role of Brian`s management and lawyers in this. They forced Brian to go to court which cost him a hell of a lot of money and must have been a major hassle, they fought Mike even on songs like California Girls where Brian had admitted that Mike had co-written it which is morally bankrupt and presumably they were hoping that Brian would commit perjury on the stand in order that Mike not be given that credit. Nobody seems to bothered about that though...

That's because they couldn't care less about such details even if they admit themselves that it's true.
To them, the concrete narrative is that Mike is the biggest asshole of all time and they will hang onto that opinion no matter what. It's a waste of time to even entertaine a conversation.

Pinder, I respect you a great deal and you're one of my favourite posters on here, but here I think you're a bit guilty of the kind of thing I parodied a few weeks ago on this board:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15868.msg381604.html#msg381604 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15868.msg381604.html#msg381604)

You noted above that the problem is "people who diss Mike and pick apart/ minimize his comtributions seem to really believe their opinion is THE opinion and they seem to have serious problems with those who disagree and those who really don't care if Mike's an asshole or not." The truth is, though, that I have found that there are posters who take any criticism of Mike so seriously that the person issuing the criticism must be a Mike Love hater. Here, you have a poster in this very thread who has said to you that he doesn't hate Mike Love, and you don't believe him. In that respect, as an observation, it almost always seems to me that these types of threads escalate because a Mike supporter positions someone else into a false position. It has happened to me on regular occasions on this board. It doesn't matter if I go on endlessly about how I really like Mike as a singer and as a lyricist (which I do). If I'm not on board with everything Mike has done then that makes me a hater and a Brianista, or whatever.

The fact that on a Beach Boys website people use phrases like `Mike supporter`is both amusing and tragic.

You're right - there is no good term available to describe what I'm talking about. That there is a term like Brianista but no equivalent for Mike is evident that the namecalling is overwhelmingly lobbed by the people who do, in fact, by and large take Mike's side in a lot of these discussions.

We all can take a public persona and make judgements.

I consider Brian Douglas Wilson a VERY flawed human being, a terrible brother, bandmate, cousin, father, husband, friend, a total asshole but in a passive agressive way. Borderline sociopathic.

But hell, I love his music and and don't give a sh*t if he's an asshole. I never had to work with him or live with him. I just listen to his records.

Really???

You surely are not serious.  ;D

Thank you RnR!

I think, being guilty as charged, I'm just starting to see the futility of the topic in general. I mean, I don't think there's any debate that Mike's either a great guy or a total bastard, but rather: OK, so what? Or "Yeah, but he's REALLY an asshole"! Not very fertile ground for nuanced discussion. I just find it strange that to appeal to a person's base humanity does no good in such convos. If someone really really wants to view a guy as a bastard, thry're just going to do so, and I can respect that. I think it's really the OSD's of the world that prevent the topic from getting any rest. (A statement of which I'm sure he would consider a compliment)

Point taken, Erik.

I'm still surprised anyone is ever bothered by OSD. If he were to attack someone I really admired in the way that he criticizes Mike, I would love it. I really do find him quite amusing.

He's the Tony Clifton of Smiley Smile! Hey Baaaahbbbbbb can you take a joke, BAAAAAAHBBBBBBBBBB....

OSD is also entirely a charity enterprise that supports Comic Relief, so you're a sh*t if you don't support his misspellings. it's for CHARITY.

Footnote: I'd like to remain the Alfred Jarry of the place if that's ok, as someone else said. (Failing that, Sammy Petrillo.)

Wasn't the term Brianista invented by a wife to describe her husband?

Let's say that it starts to get tiring when a thread about an unreleased Beach Boys track, which some liked and some didn't and it's all fine with that - turns into a thread about how Mike killed the band's reputation and progresiveness, how he's an asshole and would be pumping gas if not for his cousin etc.

I understand that there's a context in a thread like, say, "The Beach Boys after Endless Harmony - What Happened?". Yeah, there's a lot to discuss about Mike's actions about that. But it's just a track, why does it have to turn into a character judgement of the guy? I wish we payed more attention to the music and less to the gossip.

+1

And the thing about OSD that's different is, he didn't just read David Leaf or something and decide Mike was an asshole: but he more or less arrived at this conclusion via 40+ years of being annoyed by the guy at Beach Boys shows. Toss in all Mike's extraneous behavior, and it makes sense. I don't agree with the guy (mostly) but can understand how he feels, most certainly.

But yeah, this is how it perpetuates: a conversation gets going and then someone interjects "Mike sucks" or something, a bunch of people rise to the Lovester's defense and then a bunch of people go "but wait! look at all the awful things he's done" and it just goes on and on and on......

I think if anytime someone discussed Dennis and some random poster, without fail, interjected "Yeah, but Dennis was a cheater" it would get tiresome too.

+2, for understanding. :kiss

I think one thing we all need to keep in mind is that there really wasn't as vicious a level of animosity against him until last fall, when he decided that he wasn't going to continue on with Brian, Al and Dave for the near future. I'm sure as time goes by and C50 isn't quite as fresh in our minds, it'll go back to earlier levels, where people won't care quite as much. Although he does have a knack for egotistical and self serving comments, so I'm sure he will get our blood boiling every now and again.

are you kidding me????

All y'all need to shut up. I have spoken.

It fluctuates. Like the stock market. He's the rock n roll Bernanke. He opens his mouth, and the market dives a hundred points!

Yes, the @sshole that keeps on giving. I coined that, by the way.

BTW, can someone point me to the list of the songs where Mike was awarded co-writer's credit, as a result of the 1994 lawsuit.  I tried Google and got the usual interviews.  Did AGD post such a list?  Thanks!

What word did mYke write? :-D

OSD is like a bad SNL sketch that for some reason was kept on air for several seasons.

I'll go with that, yeah bear, post of the year!  :lol

Is it really that what annoys you so much? I think Mike's wrong to compare himself to Paul in his writing partnership with Brian, and of course he's not nearly as talented a tunesmith. So what? Many people overesteem themselves.



I think so too. At first glance at his initial post in this thread I thought this was the case with sweetdudejim too, but after what he wrote I don't think he's one of those guys Pinder means. There are people who get really annoyed when somebody says anything positive about Mike.



Actually there is one: "Kokomaoist", but it is indeed rarely used. Call me a "Kokomaoist", if you like, even if I don't think that Mike is an angel or that he is anywhere as talented as Brian. But I think that Mike gets overly slammed, too.

Yeah, you're right. That does really bug me. I think Mike's been a great lyricist at  times, and he's a great lead singer. But he obviously is nowhere near Paul McCartney.


Once again, right on. I'm not anti-Mike by any means. I'm bummed that it was basically he who discontinued any future Beach Boys work, but that's his prerogative.

He hasn't discontinued any future Beach Boys work ....... Tour ended messily but if Brian called and said he wanted to make another album:" let's write some songs", Mike and his handler Bruce would be there in a flash!

And for the record: Brian/Mike were a superior writing team to Lennon/McCartney, so he can compare himself all he wants and it doesn't bother me in the least.

Ugh. Do we really have to go here again? There were offers on the table for more shows and another album (per Jon Stebbins), and Mike's return to his awesome touring band left those all on the table. Brian said he wanted to continue. As did Al. Therefore Mike discontinued any future Beach Boys work. Maybe sometime in the future they will regroup. I doubt it though.


Maybe Wilson/Love is a superior writing team to Lennon/McCartney. I personally love both. But to say a guy who has probably written a total of 10 songs by himself in his whole life is anywhere near Paul McCartney as a musician or writer is just pure insanity.

Can someone point me to this interview? I'm sure I've seen but I don't know where. Thanks.

The interview with Pinder Goes To Kokomo? Don't have one sorry.

Pinder - I'm with you on this. They were and are superior to the Mop Tops!  A  :beer for you!

Wa-wa-wa! They ought to rename this board "whiney whine" instead of "smiley smile." 

 

The interview where Mike compares himself to McCartney. Thanks.

I'll happily sit for an interview, but ONLY if it's OSD asking the questions!

The songs Brian/Mike wrote together, the songs Brian wrote with others, or alone, and the songs Carl, Dennis, Bruce, Al wrote in whatever configuration: have touched me far more deeply than anything Lennon/McCartney have ever written with the Beatles or by themselves (George gets a qualified second place to The Beach Boys with All Things Must Pass ;)) ... so I hardly think it matters how many songs Mike has written by himself (at least two of which have moved me well beyond anything Macca has ever done) or with whoever else.... It's hardly quantity over quality.... You seem to be approaching this subject as a McCartney fan more than a Mike hater, which I can dig.

It's Guardian interview where Mike basically says his plight is like Paul's. Except the problem is The Beatles fan base doesn't have nearly the same amount of dislike for Paul that a large amount of the The Beach Boys fan base has for Mike.

In his defense, I'm pretty sure Mike didn't compare himself musically to Paul. But Pinder did. And I'm discussing it with him, And I respect his opinion too. See below.


Hey man I can dig that you like stuff that Mike has done more than you like Lennon/McCartney's stuff. We are all allowed our own taste. I personally love The Beach Boys and most particularly Brian Wilson, but I also love The Beatles, and most particularly Paul McCartney.

I might help that my all time favorite Beatles song is Hey Jude and that I pretty much like every single thing Paul's done with Wings or solo!

This?

Dave Simpson: You seem very chilled today, Mike. Why have you had such a bad press in recent years?

Mike Love: I think there are a lot of fallacies about me, things that need to be rectified. I'm working on a book that will lay rest to some of them. I know what I did and didn't do. People say the Beatles were John Lennon. What is Paul McCartney? Chopped liver? But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal.

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/jul/04/beach-boys-mike-love-interview

He has done some variations of this interview recently.  The quote is near the end. In referring to Brian as Lennon, "what was McCartney,  chopped liver"?

Bingo.

People disagree with his comparison as the less favored member in a band?

"I know what I did and didn't do". Talking about songwriting I imagine. I think Paul was the most popular Beatle to the masses so I doubt he was referring to that.

AGD did post a list in another thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15868.msg381802.html#msg381802

In regard to fallacies about Mike. The Paul comparison is about favor within a band.

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

His point: "But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal."

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

Yes but he is not saying that he made an equal contribution to Paul McCartney or saying they are the same type of musicians/songwriters. Only that just because one person may get all of the attention it doesn`t mean that other people can`t also make important contributions. No big deal.

This conversation is so tired.

Who cares what happened 40 years ago? It happened. It's done.

Can we please talk about something else?

I'd like that more than just about anything else.... Trouble is, Mike will keep saying things because people will keep asking him the same damn questions forever and ever and ever....

This phrase pretty much sums it up, I think: important, but in a VERY different way. He is not as much a creative contributor as through his singing voice, and especially in his role of a frontman. Brian is way less a frontman than Lennon was.

I think giving Mike 50% importance is to much though. What if Dennis had never suggested writing about surfing?

That has very different meaning when discussing The Beatles and Lennon/McCartney credits than it does when discussing The Beach Boys and Wilson/Love ones.  Very frequently, Lennon/McCartney credits were not collaborations at all, but were written by either one or the other.  In most other cases, the song was written primarily by either Lennon or McCartney with some assistance by the other.  Therefore, it is possible to identify "And Your Bird Can Sing" as a John Lennon song and "Got To Get You Into My Life" as a Paul McCartney song, and pick a favorite (gravitate towards their creativity) based on whose songs you like better.  Furthermore, in addition to picking a favorite, it is possible to make a convincing case for either Lennon or McCartney as the more significant contributor to The Beatles based on which you prefer.

It's much harder to say that in the case of a Wilson/Love credit, which, by and large, are Brian Wilson compositions with lyrical contributions from Mike Love. While it's entirely possible to say that Mike Love or any non-Brian Wilson member is your favorite Beach Boy, unless you think that "Let the Wind Blow" is better than all of the other Wilson/Love compositions put together, it's difficult to see how you could make a case that Mike Love was a superior, or even equal, contributor to the band to Brian Wilson.

We will disagree. The Lennon/McCartney is about people's favorites in a band. Also it's not about our take, it Mike's take. He's not claiming McCartney is his equal, he's drawing a parallel. 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

I don't understand this. If you don't like what's being discussed skip to another thread. Obviously some people want to talk about it. Who are you to tell them to stop? Isn't the point of a message board like this to talk about sh*t that 99.999999% of the human population thinks has no interest in?

Is someone making you read it? Just don't read the thread dude. Easy. To me this site is a fun (and wholesome!) way to sort of veg out once in a while. And if talking about this is what some of us want to talk about, who are you to tell us not to? READ ANOTHER THREAD. EASY.

I agree that Mike certainly isn`t 50% of The Beach Boys. Brian`s role as producer, songwriter, arranger etc. more than sees to that.

How the image of the group is to the average listener or concert goer is more debatable though. It was said for many years (and probably very truthfully) that many people going to see M&B in concert thought they were seeing more than 2 Beach Boys. Since the C50 tour though it must be more well known among the public that Brian and Al are not there. Yet it doesnt seem to have affected attendances at all which is a strange one. Many seem to be happy as long as the frontman is there.

The "average listener" though is largely a construction - in any thing. When I was a kid, I might say that I somewhat fit this title. It was the 80s, I was pre-10, I knew all the Endless Summer hits, I was delighted by Kokomo. I'd say maybe the most recognizable face of the Beach Boys was Mike. I'd say the second most recognizable face was Bruce. That being said, just because I knew Bruce Johnston better than most of the Beach Boys, I wouldn't necessary give him a high percentage of importance in the overall band.

Very nicely put.

Isn't it pretty obvious that there's slightly more to it than that? Nobody would claim that "John Lennon is the Beatles" simply because they like John Lennon. They'd say it because they think John's contributions to the Beatles significantly outweigh the other members contributions in one sense or another, to the point that John Lennon made the Beatles what they were with little significant input from anyone else. Mike rightly points out that this is pretty unfair on Paul McCartney who wrote, sang and played on a significant proportion of the material and John and Paul seem reasonably close to being equals in the band (in terms of the volume and success of their respective outputs, rather than my opinion on their contributions). It's a fair point by Mike, but he makes it whilst discussing others perceptions of his role in the Beach Boys. He's drawing a parallel between John's contribution versus Paul's and Brian's versus his (Mike's). I think that's a foolish parallel to draw beacuse:

1. John and Paul roughly matched each others output in a variety of ways, but Brian and Mike didn't at all
2. It could be taken to mean that Mike considers himself to be the equal of either Brian or Paul, and he's nowhere near either of them

I suspect Mike was probably thinking just that his contributions were more significant than he's often given credit for, in the same way that Paul's contributions were more significant than those people who say that John was the Beatles give Paul credit for. On that basis there are huge grey areas in play and Mike may not be overstating anything. But it's easily open to misinterpretation, confusion or wilful misuse. And that's generally my criticism of Mike, that he says the wrong things all too often, probably sometimes with different intended meanings than the ones that are understood by the reader/listener. It's gone on for so long that some fans take anything he says in a negative light, which is incredibly sad and frustrating. But he certainly doesn't help himself a lot of the time.

Mike's on record as believing he is responsible for the band's success so obviously he must feel underappreciated.

Which comment are you talking about there?

"Ultimately I think the Beach Boys meant so much to so many people because of the positivity and that was me." - Endless Harmony doc

Endless Harmony


Edit: Rockandroll beat me to it.

Doesn't matter though. Nicko has already suggested before that I am too obsessed with that quote and that it shouldn't be considered since it was said so long ago. Regardless, it's clear that the same sentiment is at work when he makes the Lennon/McCartney comment.

Which is not the same thing at all is it. I`m not saying I agree with Mike`s comment because I think there was plenty of positivity in Brian`s music but Mike is talking about one aspect of The Beach Boys that he thinks was important. He doesn`t say that positivity was the only important thing above the harmonies, music, productions etc.

The way that doc was structured gave a few minutes to Carl, Dennis and Mike. Mike was presumably asked what he thought his contribution was and that was his answer. In other interviews Mike has said he doesn`t think he was as talented as Brian and he has thanked Brian for giving them all great lives.

All I'm saying is people are adding meaning to the quote that isn't there and then seeming to hold Mike responsible to what he didn't say. Imo.

And heeeeeeeere we go.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing. When a band means a lot to a lot of people, what do you take that to mean? Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to say that Mike is taking responsibility for the band's success because, to use his words exactly, he is really just taking responsibility for the fact that the band means so much to so many people?


Well, I don't know what Mike thinks is important or what he thinks it would mean to use the word important. Maybe he thinks that harmonies are important but he certainly doesn't think that they are what have allowed the band to mean a lot to so many people.


He's not commenting on who has the most talent. I never suggested Mike was taking credit for having all the talent in the band, did I?

You are the leading practitioner of doing that in this thread when you suggest that he's simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band. Talk about a counter-reading!

I notice that you ignore the fact that he thanked Brian for giving them all great lives...

Absolutely. A hell of a lot of truth there.

I notice you ignored every point I raised that responded to your attempts to re-imagine what Mike actually said.

I`m not reimagining anything.

I know Mike has claimed credit for the positivity of the band and I don`t entirely agree with him there.

I know what he said in the Endless Harmony doc.

I also know that he has thanked Brian for giving them great lives.

Which indicates that he does have a massive ego and does overrate his importance but it also indicates that he does NOT see the positivity element alone as being responsible for their success and he acknowledges Brian was responsible for this.

Sorry to try to look at things from more than one source. ;)

So because he sometimes takes credit for the success of the band and sometimes doesn't, we have to base these two quotations off of other things he has said and other ways he has acted. Personally, I think the Endless Harmony doc quotation is far more reflective than just about anything else he's said. It was that rare moment where I go, "Aha! Well, that explains a lot."

The other things he has said would include the recent John Lennon/Brian Wilson one I guess.

Which as El Mole has said indicates that while one member (Brian in this case) may be considered the main man others can still have made a contribution.

Mike has commented on numerous occasions about Brian`s genius and his role in things as well of course.

Thank you ORR (and AGD).  I knew I'd seen it somewhere!

I think you're somewhat misinterpreting El Mole now, to be honest. El Mole said what is quite true that the way Mike presented his statement, he could mean that he "considers himself to be the equal of either Brian or Paul, and he's nowhere near either of them."

In fact, if one considers what he does say, I don't think that Mike is suggesting that it is fair for "one member" to "be considered the main man" at all. There's nothing in his example that suggests to me that it is fair for anyone to consider John Lennon to be the "main man" in The Beatles. And it wouldn't be.

The Beach Boys; the only band I'm aware of where unless your initials are BW;
a) no other band member may form an opinion on the band's musical or lyrical direction.
b) no other band member is allowed to take credit for their own artistic contributions.
c) no other band member may choose not to continue working in the band if they don't wish to.

And it's remarkable how simply taking Mike at his word results in the most hysterical and over-exaggerated reinterpretations of someone's position. I can play this game too:

I think it's remarkable how you are arguing that:

a) whatever Mike says goes
b) Mike has always known what is best for the band
c) no one can assess the Beach Boys popularity better than Mike

No wonder so many of you think there's such a Campaign of Hate towards Mike. Nowhere do you hear more terrible anti-Mike sentiments than the ones made up by his biggest supporters.

It's not a Campaign of Hate, it's just like... Just like if I had to read every Gosh Darn day how Brian is passive-agressive or that Denis never grew up. I've known that for decades, what's the use for reinstating every day? To feel good about myself?

Surprise, I disagree.

I didn't say he is simply talking about favorite members, in fact I discussed two points. There are fallacies. People have favorites in bands.

11 more pages of mental masturbation. Pathetic.

I'm unclear on your point, then. Do you think when someone says, "The Beatles were John Lennon" that that's just code for saying, "The Beatles had a lot of great players. I can see how some would like Paul the best. I can see how some would like George the best. Personally, my favourite is John"?

Oddly enough I don't recall saying any of the above - oh wait, that's right, I didn't.


Go start another shitty astrology thread if this one's not to your liking.

You couldn't have possibly missed the point of that, that drastically, could you have? I outright told you what I was doing in the part you chose not to quote.

This thread isn't commercial enough. You guys should consider rhyming slightly more often.

My earlier post was a sweeping statement on how many people seem to view Mike Love and how they fall over themselves to tear him a new one simply for having an opinion on the band he's been in for over 50 years.

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

The irony is that there are plenty of Lennon/McCartney credited songs where Lennon had bugger all to do with the writing and vice versa.

I think that absolutely deserved the credit that he was owed. He wrote the lyrics to those songs!

However, Lennon excluding Paul for having authorship on "Hey Jude" would be an entirely different ball of wax. Difference being, while Mike wrote the lyrics to, say, "I Get Around", Paul wrote both the music and the lyrics to "Hey Jude". Lennon had zip to do with it, except supposedly for telling Paul to keep the line about "the movement you need is on your shoulder" or whatever.

It was a sweeping statement, that in my view, does not reflect any of the arguments that are typically given. In other words, the positions I attributed to you were about as accurate as the points you brought up.

I was critical of Mike because he outright claimed that he was responsible for the success of the band. That's a criticism that I would apply to everybody and anybody, though you won't find many people who would make such a comment. This is not criticizing someone for "having an opinion" - it's criticizing the opinion itself, which in my view, is worthy of criticism. In fact, I'm surprised these sorts of comments merit anything other than sheer laughter. What irks me is when people rush in to defend them.

Yep - the fact is that songwriting credits are not as simple as the people who wrote it get the credit. Or, at least, that certainly wasn't the case in the 60s. Hell, didn't Mal Evans write most of Fixing a Hole?

It happened in the Stones quite a  bit. Brian Jones and Bill W contributed to songs uncredited. The Beatles had the opposite issue, sometimes Paul would write 100% of a song and John got 50% credit. And vice versa.

The elephant in the room is why it took Mike 30 years, on average, to speak up about his credits. The reason is Brian had sued over royalties/ownership and got a big check. So Mike smells $ and sues Brian. Thing Brian should have done is coordinated his legal actions with his songwriting partners.

and, also settle with Mike for the $750k that he was willing take before Brian's lawyers made decision to let it go to court.

I mean I said there were two points and not "simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band".

I think Mike said some people say the Beatles were John, he wonders if Paul is then "chopped liver", and people have favorites in bands.

Yup!

Mike has said that when he testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving he found out he still had rights to reclaim his copyrights Brian never did anything about.

I know what Mike said but I honestly haven't a clue as to what you are saying.

Back at ya. Oh well.

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

1. Going bald. 2. Trusting Brian to eventually do the right thing on the copyrights. 3. Viggie

True, and I agree, my analogy was flawed.  Still, wow.  No wonder Love was so PO'ed all the time.

:lol

Uh, no, he provided a couple of words.

okay I assume you were joking?   :smokin

Well, according to Mal, he had written enough that they were talking about royalties for him.

I stand by my 50% comments.....

I'm not talking about who wrote what, who's the genius, who's the asshole, who it's OK to worship, etc etc: I'm talking about public perception and simply what is on recorded proof! Mike is half of what The Beach Boys are. Sorry. Not saying he's a great guy or deserves more acclaim than Brian or anyone else, or that Carl isn't the greatest singer who ever lived. The Beach Boys are Brian and Mike!!!! Post Brian breakdown, the others stepped up to fill his spot in various ways. Mike didn't have to be the lead singer on anything and everything. No matter how advanced Pet Sounds was, when Mike comes in on the bridge (ignoring the 5.1 mix) IT'S THE BEACH BOYS! No doubt about it..... Same thing with so many other songs. Yes, it's not quite as simple as I'm making it out to be ...... yet it also is.

You got me. Except I suppose the balding thing he had no choice in.

OK, fair enough. 1a. Trying to catch up to Denny in alimony payouts.

I read that: Ah! This quote matches my pre-conceived opinion best. Now I can forget all other quotes, now I know I'm right.

It's like if you want to prove that Brian hates Van Dyke and obsess on Brian's quote that VDP is the biggest asshole in the world.

It often comes down to "Brian can do no wrong, Mike can do no right", while of course both of them do right and wrong. Mike probably does wrong more often than Brian, but he's far from being all evil.

Hey, what's wrong with mastubation?!? ;D

That's fair enough and I think I understand your point if it's just about public perception. I disagree completely though or at least I can't recognise or relate well to that public perception. Thanks for elaborating though, I do find it an interesting view-point.

If we're talking about Wouldn't it Be Nice then it's the Beach Boys from the moment you get to the multi-part "wee-ooo". I think the Beach Boys are far less identified with one or two particular individuals than many other groups, maybe because the brothers/cousins aspect was so important or maybe they just didn't have anyone with the right image and personality. I think they are more identified with both musical and familial harmony as brothers and cousins (however fractious the reality was/is). Mike was visible and prominent in the early years, but I think only Brian comes close to being an identifiable name and none of them really had an identifiable image. I think you might be right about early Mike and Brian having identifiable voices, but I think Brian's early high parts are the really distinctive elements (and actually Bruce's high parts slotted in very well in place of Brian's). Mike played a part in creating and maintaining the public perception but I don't think that that perception relates particularly to Mike more than to any other member.

I think public perception would be much more about the Beach Boys songs, vocal harmony and the surf/summer/car image they fostered rather than Mike and/or Brian. To all of their credit, the music was always the star of the show.

Well put, but I have a feeling public perception regarding The Beach Boys is: the fat crazy guy with the beard and the asshole with the baseball cap....

Ha ha! That's far too close to the truth!

I've finally rewatched the footage of Mike claiming that the reason for the Beach Boys meaning so much to people was the positivity which was him.

Well, he's obviously wrong. Without the quality of Brian's music the positivity wouldn't be so compelling.

But when Mike says that, he seems unusually upset and aggressive, as if the interviewer had just downplayed Mike's role in the success of the Boys in a way that made him really angry.

As most of us will agree, the reasons for the BBs being so good are Brian's compositions, his arrangements, the singing abilities of the band members and their vocal blend. That's what makes the music so beautiful.

But I think the point Mike tries to make here is that it might mean less to many people if the lyrics were all the lonely sea, heads you win tails I lose, or love is here today tomorrow it's gone. As Mike seems very upset here I give him the benefit of the doubt that just before Mike's claim the interviewer had done Brian's merits justice extensively and Mike wanted to get his piece of the cake by that claim. Isolated as it's edited into the documentary it makes it seem like he wants all the cake.

Of course, this is just my assumption from Mike's agressiveness when he says this phrase, he's much calmer in other segments. What do you think?

IN the 40 some odd years of my knowledge concerning the Beach Boys, that is, before I started to investigate what "Pet Sounds & Smile" was about "the crazy one" was the only BB I knew by name.

For the most part I really knew zippo about their output besides car, surf & chicks on the beach type tunes. A friend of mine in the 6th grade had "Smiley Smile" when it was released and that was the last I heard of the Beach Boys for years. I remember when "Sail On Sailor" got airplay but never knew who the band was - it sure didn't sound like Beach Boys to me.

When Endless Summer hit I looked at the record and said - Huh, so those clean-cut dudes all grew beards? Just another record in the stores that held zero interest to me at the time. Beach Boys LPs of the late 60's early 70's was stuff I flipped past in the cut-out bins.

Shoot, it wasn't that long ago I thought "Little Old Lady" or "Dead Man's Curve" were also the Beach Boys (who's Jan & Dean?)  ::)

But, as ignorant I was concerning the career of the band known as The Beach Boys -- I knew who Brian Wilson was and could even share rudimentary information about him in conversation. Definitely, he has been the main focal point whether by virtue of his contributions, his notorious actions/ history, or because the journalistic community has devoted more coverage to him. 

I would wager the name of Brian Wilson was, is and always will be the most commonly associated with the band.