The Smiley Smile Message Board

Older interview with a few cringe moments.

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/08/17/because-i-sing-better-get-more-chicks-the-beach-boys-mike-love-on-his-rivalry-with-mick-jagger/

More than four decades after the Beach Boys battled with the Rolling Stones for paisley-era chart primacy, Mike Love says there remains a friendly — well, maybe not even friendly — rivalry between himself and Mick Jagger.

“We respect each other,” Love says in this newly uploaded Q&A with Louise Palanker, “but there’s a certain built-in macho, cavalier disregard for each other — an affected pose.”

On paper at least, there’s no contest.

Along the way, Love and Co. have moved more than 100 million records. The Stones, meanwhile, are said to have sold twice that. Jagger’s best-selling album ever was the 12-times platinum Rolling Stones hits set Hot Rocks 1964–1971, while the Beach Boys’ Endless Summer compilation went three-times platinum. Heck, there was even a faithful rendition of “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” on 1973′s The Beach Boys in Concert.

But, it’s not about record sales, or cover tunes. Not this time.

Pressed, Love says: “No, it’s not jealousy. You think he’s jealous of me? Why? Because I sing better? Get more chicks?”

No, it's true. Mick has a severe case of baseball cap envy.

"Heck, there was even a faithful rendition of “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” on 1973′s The Beach Boys in Concert".

No there wasn't. It was recorded but not included on the release.

There is not a single thing Mike Love can do on a Mick Jagger level.

Freejack would've been a gamechanger with Mike Love in that role.

(http://johnkennethmuir.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/freejack4.jpg)

‍

Namely looking and sounding totally disgusting at all times while also being a part of the 2nd most utterly "meh" band to ever be considered legendary by the general public.

IN MY OPINION

But yes, I'll agree, on those counts, ol' Mick's got Myk beat.

IN MY OPINION

The Stones are a good singles band. That's about it. Never particularly 'got' them really...

Still, Mike is being as embarrassing and un-self aware as always. Buttock-clenchingly cringey.

I sincerely doubt that Mike had more chicks than Mick Jagger. :lol Or that there ever was a moment in time when Mike was a better singer.

I'll grant that Mick is better in most things, but singer? Though, in rock and roll singing is never a perquisite for greatness. Dylan is also proof of that. My opinion only. Not looking to get into a pissing match about it.

I think Mike is definitely a better singer, but that's all he's got on Mick.

  Seriously, has Mick Jagger ever discussed Mike Love in any public forum?

mYke has Mick on several core issues:

1. Over the years, mYke has accumulated scores of headgear items-hats(with giant feathers), colorful turbans, etc.
2. He balded and stayed bald while Mick is lagging far behind in losing his hair.
3. mYke has performed wearing JC Penny, 300 count cotton sheets covered with white terrycloth robes and sandals, while Mick just wears everyday rockstar get ups.
4. mYke has also far outdistanced Mick on being a better speechwriter and delivering those speeches. Still waiting for Mick's contribution.
5. mYke's head swells to the size of a giant watermelon when he's mentioned in the same sentence as Mick. Mick still can't make his head do that when he's mentioned in the same sentence with mYke Luhv. C'mon Mick, get with it. :p

Way incorrect. Mike's easily a better singer. All those lines he had in the harmony stack. Sorry, but he did a lot of tough singing down low and was perfect. His range and ability is much larger than Jagger's.

Apples and oranges.  Mike couldn't do Mick, and Mick couldn't do Mike.  Both great at what they did. 

That at any rate, yes.

"We respect each other, but there’s a certain built-in macho, cavalier disregard for each other — an affected pose.”

Ok, this degree of self-delusion is amusing and everything, but it has had a real, deleterious effect : this Mike egomania is one of the main reasons the Beach Boys have recently broken up. "Jagger is jealous of me because of all the Hooters waitresses I bang; I'm McCartney to Brian's Lennon."

For a band to continue long-term, the members need to know and accept their roles within the band. Mike used to know his role -- frontman, occasional lead singer, occasional writer. I don't know why he's so intent on making this power-grab ("no more records unless me and Brian write all the songs together from scratch") so late in his career.

And therein lies the source of Mike's frustration. Theirs was a love that could never be.

  What frustrates me is Mike's never ending quest for self-validation by comparing his role in the band to that of other pop/rock stars. (Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Johnny Rotten) Isn't being Mike Love, the frontman/singer/lyricist of The Beach Boys a unique role unto itself???

Mick and Mike kinda have only one tone of singing, though they both have tenderer moments. and they've both been involved in writing some very good stuff...also some very sh*t stuff. Mick fucking himself with his solo career is about as bad as Summer In Paradise, but atleast Mick didn't release his stuff under the Rolling Stones name. Imagine the tracks on Looking Back With Love also released as a Beach Boys album :D

  Ever listen to BEGGAR'S BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, or EXILE ON MAIN ST? Probably the best series of ALBUMS ever released by any rock band! 

 The Stones' output since, oh, 1986, is very generic, yes. "McStones" would be a descriptive term.   

Thanks for starting this thread.  I haven't listened to much Rolling Stones music lately.  I never was much of a fan of the stuff they did after Mick Taylor left, but I used to listen to a lot of Stones 'back in the day'.  This thread inspired me to listen to some of that stuff...Under My Thumb, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Play With Fire, Get Off My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, and of course My Obsession.  Nobody could have sung those songs better than Mick Jagger.  And of course it goes the other way, too.  Nobody could have sung Fun Fun Fun, or California Girls, or any of those classic Mike Love baritone lines in the harmony stack as perfectly as Mike Love. 

Anyway, thanks for prompting me to listen to some great old Rolling Stones music.  Made my morning.  Cheers. 

They were primarily a singles band in the beginning, but Sticky Fingers is still one of my all time favorite albums by anyone.

Very true on both counts.

When it comes to the quantity of women over the years, Mike can't hold Mick's jock.

Hell, Mike couldn't hold Dennis Wilson's jock in the womanizing department.

Mike would probably say "Quality over quantity"
You should ask if you meet him tough

"All right, I'm only five foot ten. All right my posture is bad, all right I slump in my chair. But I've had more women than either of you two! I've had half bloody Norway, that's what I've had!"

. . or Rocky Pamplin's, presumably. ;D

Does "Quality over quantity" sound to you as something Mike Love would say, in any context? ^^

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22mike+love%22+%22small+penis%22&word2=%22mick+jagger%22+%22small+penis%22

That's because of what Keith wrote in his book.

K FINE FUN RUINED

To make amends I used my precious leisure time to craft a title image for the thread at hand:

(http://oi40.tinypic.com/v6oldl.jpg)

Fan of both groups and actually I see them both in the same way. They dominate their groups, but the respective Brian's were better.

I guess you and I have different "preferences".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ

Say what you will about that video, it's Bowie and Jagger together and that's fucking awesome.

To be fair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBFsJk6PWu0

That does kinda prove me wrong, since Mike is doing lame and cheesy on a level way beyond Mick's lame and cheesy.

Mike Love genuinely acted gay throughout much of his performing career, particularly in 1976. Kind of uncomfortable to watch him go limp-wristed, hand-on-hip in his ass-huggingly tight pants. Not sure what he was thinking. Mick never gave off gay vibes, despite his mincing stage presence.

You don't think for a minute that “No, it’s not jealousy. You think he’s jealous of me? Why? Because I sing better? Get more chicks?” means Mike thinks he's a better singer or has had more chicks? Or do you? Mike is obviously making fun of the interviewer's silly question whether Mick may be jealous of Mike, and at his own expense: Mike actually insinuates Mick is the better singer and more successful with the girls using irony, he's basically saying "What should Mick Jagger envy me for?"

Hate to break it to you, but

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/07/mick-jagger-david-bowie-gay-affair-alleged-in-new-book/

Actually, I think this is pretty old news. 

I love Mike and think he's the much better singer (and I'm a huge Stones fan) but I honestly don't think Mick would even know who Mike Love was until you reminded him and even then he'd sit there for a moment trying to get a mental picture of the guy! You'd probably have to show him an album cover before he'd finally go "Oh yeah"

All I have to say is Mick is much cuter than Mike... Mike looked middle aged even in 1964

But I'll bet Mike's gotten more "chicks" in the last 15 YEARS than Mick's ever gotten!!!

Think about it: Mike basically tours all year round, every year. If he pulls even just one lass via each gig, he's got Mick beat!

So it's a bad thing to give off gay vibes? It makes you "uncomfortable"? Mick is better because he has never given off gay vibes? Is this in any way an appropriate comment?

I always thought Mick was Bi-sexual, at least as of the early 70s. Though, I also understood that what he did on stage was an act. Also, why is it that because Gay people have come out of the closet, that every single person is supposed to just welcome them, no questions asked? There was a reason why they were in the closet and many of those reasons are still alive. Like everything, it takes time for total acceptance. There are going to be people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. There are some who will never accept it. It is human nature.

Isn't Mike being very tongue in chick, a variation of his old favourites "jokes that bomb"? Jesus, the guy HAS a sense of humour...

WHAT??!?

I think you mean "Tongue in cheek", don't you? :lol

LOL, yeah, "tongue in cheeck". Let's leave our fantasies about Mike's carnal adventures in the road for a specific thread.

Yep, no better illustration of having a sense of humour than loving the ol' jokes that bomb routine.

Doesn't mean that others shouldn't call out intolerance when they see it, just because intolerance may be "human nature."

LOL Just a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Where did anyone say every single person should accept them? No one should ever think that. There will always be people who are obtuse.

Just above your post, there. My question is, if someone is uncomfortable with "gay vibes" is it their right to do so? I believe that no one should be called out for anything. As long as no ones rights are violated, people should have a right to feel as they choose.

Strange way of using the word "right." Do I have the right to blink?

I always feel like I have to tread very lightly with you. You make me uncomfortable posting with you. Like I cannot be myself and state how I feel because you take almost everything out of context or correct how I should think or what I should say. So, I should have said Rights, as in Civil Rights. You have arguments with many people in here, so I assume you do this with your friends & family too. Must be awful for them, because it is awful for me. It's terrible to say, but anytime I post in here, you are the only person who I pray does not respond to my posts. Sorry for feeling that way, but thought you should know.


My Apologies to everyone for going off topic.

You should just delete it, no need for personal attacks like that on a sandbox-bound thread.

Let's get this back on topic...

JAGGER-OFF! FIGHT!

(http://thebuddharats.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pimp1.jpg)(http://newlinelori.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/win720608-fp.jpg)

I doubt you would be saying that if the topic was race or gender or religion or a host of other matters. If, however, you want to mount a defense of people's private feelings of racism, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, it is awful being related to me. I guess insinuating that is on par with questioning your use of the word rights, eh? Don't worry, I won't respond to your points further.

Bye all.

Thanks you!

Come on ladies, if you had to do the nasty with either of these guys who would you pick?

So drbeachboy is a homophobe?

Seems so. I guess my quote under my avatar will change to "Homophobe, since 8/20/2013", similar to AGD's. I have a brother and two sisters who are Gay & Lesbian, so I know full well what all three had to go through just to gain acceptance within the family, not to mention what they went through in the outside world. They have gone through a lot to be accepted. For them, it's taken 40 plus years to get where we are today. The acceptance we have today did not happen overnight.

Not anything wrong with giving off gay vibes at all. Mike's stage presence is/was cringe-worthy because he's always spouting off how he's been with so many chicks, and (from what I've read about him before transcendental meditation) was a violent guy always trying to prove how tough he is. It comes off as awkward and not very self-aware. Mick seemed confident in his stage presence. Please don't read things into my comment that aren't there, thank you.  :)

I admit I phrased myself poorly. I should have just said Mike looked creepy as hell. How's that?

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread, so my apologies if this has been posted, but this is as asinine as anything Mike ever did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mke9ZDNZGJE

Jeeez Ed, your link should have come with a government health warning attached to it. The second I saw the song title in my browser I screamed in terror and hit the exit button!

Creepy is accurate.

Maybe some of you all (myself included probably) should consider taking a break from this site!

It's a bit ironic that a guy trying (and maybe failing) to be funny inspires pages of people getting testy with each other... I mean, look at it: everyone's reading all this crap into whatever Mike says and however he looks.... I'd dare say Mike wins in the end because he has folk all up in arms over him 24/7. Not bad marketing at all.

In the end, big deal! It's supposed to be noteworthy that the guy who fronts a band full of total dorks isn't quite as cool as Mick Jagger? Oh really??

I can't read according to Dohkture Beechboi, but it looks as if you're actually calling brOOth and the rest of the sidemen of the M&B band dorks-n'est pas? I certainly agree with you but just sayin'. ;D

Mike was clearly channeling Mick Jagger in the 1976 tour footage but I gotta admit, I think he looks pretty cool.  Usually Mike looks super awkward standing in place and singing without an instrument.  Having the freedom to really move and jump around like that gave him an added stage presence I think.

Can you feel as you choose? I can't, I just feel, sometimes I choose to feel different from how I do, but then I still feel the way I do, not the way I choose.

"It's a damn shame." - Fantasy Mike Love

I really like Mike Love's 1970s stage presence but then I like eccentric people in general. Compare his somewhat cheesy but highly energetic mid-70s performances to the early-80s footage where he looked totally average and didn't do much except for his singing and the odd stage banter and then tell me what you prefer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uA58mO6t0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uA58mO6t0) (1983 Seattle concert).

Now you're equating "gayness" with creepiness. Wanna give it one more go?

Meaning, not being told or forced to think or feel like someone else wants you too. Seriously, you couldn't figure that out?

Nope. You're inferring. I love plenty of performers who other people make fun of for "acting gay." I just feel creeped out by Mike's stage presence for reasons I already mentioned. I am not creeped out by gay men, I am weirded out by Mike's stage presence and his lack of awareness. Judging by how he acts when he sees pictures from those times, I'm willing to assume he agrees. I feel just as weirded out when Rivers Cuomo says "yo dawg" and tries to rap. It doesn't work coming from him. Now people will say I think all white people can't rap. I give up.

Of course I got that, that's not my point, it just seemed strange to me one was supposed to be able to feel as he chooses himself, without implying any other person was involved who tells him what he should feel.

Some people it seems can't get their head around the notion that you can be tolerant of gay people and not consider them abominations of god and still not wish to see or hear them act in an overtly homosexual manner, esp when it comes to their choice of entertainment.

I feel like I'm on trial here based on some of the responses and PMs I'm getting. Do I really have to say that I voted against proposition 8, something that would ban gay marriage in MN? That I have plenty of gay friends? That some of my cousins are gay and I love them very much? I mean, I love Prince, The Beach Boys and doo-wop and I spent high school being called gay because of those interests and it didn't bother me at all because there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'm tired of getting attacked for saying that Mike "Mr. Positivity" Love acting like a flaming homosexual made me feel uncomfortable, whereas I never felt cringe-inducing embarrassment for Mick Jagger. Could I have phrased myself better? Sure.

Some people are very sensitive about this and I can understand that. I don't appreciate having my words twisted to imply that I am a bigot or a homophobe.

If you followed what was being said, you would have figured it out. The point was, was that people need to come around on their own, in their own time, after thinking a certain way all of their life.

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

Another major 60s rock artist who "affected" gay mannerisms - Ray Davies.  He did it purposely to provoke the audience and maybe amuse himself on stage.

Mick has always been in touch with his "feminine" side and has unapologetically strutted about the stage and stolen dance moves from Tina Turner, even wearing a dress at the Brian Jones tribute concert at Hyde Park, and played around with gender roles in Performance.  And didn't he dabble in bisexuality as well with Bowie?

So Mike is in good company. 

You said it much better than I could. I apologize for derailing the thread.

Ray was clearly doing it as satire, as his music took a music hall type quality about it. Off stage he is of the 'bloody poofs' type.

Really? If true, how sad.

In other words, if those gay people don't act so damned gay, they won't be discriminated against. It's their choice! So bash away!

I would recommend asking some of your out gay friends if they believe their "freely chosen" behavior in public means they should be criticized or mocked. If you don't have any openly gay friends, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on this subject.

While I understand you don't believe it, and perhaps don't understand it, this post is the very definition of bigotry. It is most unwelcome.

N/a

Then you are most certainly not tolerant. It really is that simple.

Please do me a big favor, and please re-write what has been said in a non-bigotry type of way, so that some of us who don't mean to offend, won't offend. It is really tough trying to word things in this thread that someone doesn't get offended by.

Or better yet, let's have the whole thread taken down. Jason, Billy, Smile-Holland!

I should apologize for the thread derailment. At first, the comment seemed to be in extremely poor taste. Words have consequences... So choose carefully!

Maybe this discussion warrants a thread in the Sandbox, so this thread can get back to Mick/Mike bashing?

My biggest problem with Mike's mid 70s stage personae is that it already belonged to Jagger. Just be yourself, Mr. Love. You're plenty interesting as it is.

Thing is, Mr. Love can't do a damn thing about it now, 37 years later. I guess he is himself, he hasn't done anything like it in years.

Not at all. Tolerance to me means you accept a person's right to be gay, it doesn't mean you have to like it - that is also a person's right.

And as pointed out this has nothing to do with The Beach Boys. If you feel that strongly start a gay thread in the Sandbox.

Why am I imagining Basil saying that to the Major? Damn avatars.

God, move this to the sandbox already so I can stop being unspeakably disappointed in you guys. Geez, it's like seeing your friend steal a tip off a restaurant table or something. Grandma is talking about "the blacks" again!

drbeachboy, I regret in retrospect criticizing your post several pages back. I read your explanation and it made a great deal of sense.

These other two posts I just objected to are of a different type, though.

My simple point is this -- both of the recent posts, from clack and Mike's Beard, suggest that discrimination against gay people is the fault of the gay people. And what is this "overtly gay behavior" they're talking about? Is it having sex in public? I doubt it. Is it two men or two women holding hands or kissing? If that's offensive to them, then they should really ask yourself why. Why would they tell gay people that they can't do what straight people do in public every day? Is it to make the straight people feel more comfortable? And if so, why is that gay people's responsibility?

Is this behavior a man acting in a feminine manner? Is it a woman acting in a masculine manner? Not all such men or women are gay. But why should a person's gender expression open them to ridicule, anyway? Would you mock a person's accent or haircut or weight because you thought it was weird? I would hope, that if your parents raised you right, that you wouldn't.

You see, this is the pernicious thing about privilege. (And everyone really should read up on the topic, even if you disagree with the conclusions drawn.) It makes anyone who is not a white, straight male, responsible for the things that make white, straight guys uncomfortable. And at every step of the way, those who hold power will argue until their last breath that it's not them that's being unreasonable or discriminatory -- it's the people who are disturbing them, who are asking them to think and behave differently.

But -- this is the secret -- it's not that hard. Really. You simply ask, how would another person feel? Maybe the other person reading this isn't another white guy who digs chicks. Maybe this other person is a black lesbian woman. Maybe this other person is a woman, full stop. Maybe this other person is transgendered. Or disabled. And maybe all of these kinds of people like the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson, too. Maybe they would like to feel included and welcomed in the discussion. And maybe they would be discouraged by reading that someone finds them off-putting.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dr. I thought it was actually still the mid 70s  ::)

Yes, Mike has certainly grown into his skin. Now I wish he would try harder to not be himself.

Edit.

This makes me way too emotional to post rationally on. All of my basic points are in my earlier post.

Oh my god. Get off your high horse. Please. The guy was making an observation. Get over it.

You write like this all happened yesterday. Why even bother saying the "...be yourself" part? My point was that he hasn't done this for 30 plus years. Nothing more needs to be said about it. I swear this place is nuts, really, really nuts.

Jesus.

"Would you mock a person's accent or haircut  or weight because you thought it was weird?" So it's come to this? Mocking someone's bad haircut is now a hate crime? How about Bruce's shorts? No longer allowed?

Yeah, I dared to mock Mike's mannerisms that he affected for a time 40 years ago. Actually, I didn't even mock them -- I said it's not necessarily an act of bigotry to mock them. And the white straight privileged reasons for my opinion?

1) Mike is not gay, so criticizing his mannerisms -- that he freely chose to adopt --  is not mocking homosexuals. It's criticizing a decision he made.
2) There are no such thing as inherent "gay mannerisms" in the first place.  It's a style choice, and we should not be called bigots for questioning  someone's style choice.

And to be clear -- I happen to like Jagger's onstage persona. I also liked David Bowie's, and Roxy Music's, and that of some of the era's other glam rockers. Does that mean no one should ever be allowed in polite company to laugh at their makeup, costumes, mannerisms, etc. for fear of being labelled a bigot?

Before today I never even considered that Mike's look and mannerisms from this era made him look gay, I just thought he looked a dick.  ;D

Those 1980s shows where he would dance on pianos with a mic stand come to mind.... :lol

I've heard Mike Love talk about Mick Jagger several times. But not once have I heard or read Jagger mention Mike's name. Have they even met each other?

When Mick was in bed with Bowie, it was Mike he was dreaming about.

Mick and Bowie having an affair was a myth started by Bowie's crazy ex wife.  Not that they didn't fool around a lot, they definitely did, just not with each other.

Actually I was being metalurgical. When you think about it, we're all a crazy myth in the head of Bowie's ex wife.

Mick is recognised by everybody. Like him or not he is a cultural icon.

Mike is recognised by a handfew. Like him or not he is a nobody to the average music listener.



Personally I don't dislike Mike for his skill, his outfit or anything like that. I think he's a douchebag, and I've heard much to suggest Mick could be douchy as well. As others say comparing them is futile. If Mike wishes to compare himself with Mick he's treading in deep water.

Post of the Week-enjoyed your :thumbsup :happydance :rock :woot :pirate :h5 award winning post!

Meanwhile Myke laughs all the way to the bank while you laugh it up in your basement  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :P :P :P :P :hat :smokin 8) :afro :3d

What the hey you talkin' bout, boy??????? Yer goin' in the box tonite and git yer mind right, yessir, the box.

Oh, so THAT'S the other thing that goes on down there????  ;) ;)

Yeah, yeah, that's it...  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Your style choice is obviously that of an unintelligent caveman.

And you are correct, it's shameful to label someone like that a bigot. ***hole is more appropriate.

Moving on...

If you had read closely what I wrote, you would have figured out that my point has nothing to do with your main point which I did get. My point isn't about someone telling someone else what he should feel at all. Aw, it's futile anyway.

Yes, it is futile. Let's drop it, eh?

Fullheartedly agree! :)

To be honest, if I were to choose between Mike & Mick judging by their character, musicianship, overall band attitude etc., I would vote for the latter. At least, according to what I've read in the forums & on-line articles Mick appeared to be more serious & fair. However, I can't compare their voices because they're too different & related to different genres. Each has good & bad singing moments (mostly good). I like when Mick tries to imitate accents (e.g. Southern) & how Mike imitates the voices themselves (e.g. in "Monster Mash"). But at the end, without playing jury, I like & respect both of them - they're 2 of my favorite artists.

Duplicate post - my error

 Steve