The Smiley Smile Message Board

From Mike's Facebook page:

When I think of Nelson Mandela the thought of Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind. Gandhi liberated his people with his non-violent activism. Non-violent in Sanskrit is “AHIMSA”, a term meaning “Do not injure”.

Nelson Mandela on the other hand expressed his beliefs in a more militant approach. He paid for it dearly with imprisonment. However, upon his release he freed a nation and its people from the onerous rule of apartheid.

The thing about Mandela that is remarkable is how in spite of years of confinement, instead of evoking bitterness, which would have been entirely understandable, Nelson Mandela instead came to the realization that it was the disease of racism that he hated, not the Caucasian race. Mandela forged a collaborative relationship with President F.W. De Klerk which resulted in spectacular change and social progress. This change was the positive result of working together to overcome differences.

Mandela went from Incarceration to Inauguration. Four years after his release, he was elected the President of South Africa with a great majority of votes. His relations with the white minority went a long way towards healing the scars of a troubled society.

The thing that resonated so clearly from the heart of Nelson Mandela was the incredible power of positivity. To maintain that level of positivity and overcome the wounds of segregation was, and is, a monumental contribution to humanity.

Mandela showed by example the enormous power and potential of positivity. He leaves a great legacy and lesson to the world. Rest in Peace Madiba, your positivity lives on!

ML

I like it. Seems very well thought out and measured – and I smiled at the very Mike-like "Mr Positivity" line.

(I like also the fact that he resisted the temptation to rhyme "incarceration" "and "inauguration"with "excitation" and "vibration"!)

 :-D My thoughts exactly! But yeah, such a nice and heartfelt post. That's the Mike who wrote Big Sur, the Mike I love best.

There's a bunch of very beautiful posts by Mike on his facebook account. A recent one on Thanksgiving is outstanding. His prose is simple, direct, concise and yet elegant and beautiful.

I would buy a book written by this man.

Isn't Mike writing his autobiography at the moment? Or is he waiting for Brian's new supposedly real autobiography to appear so he can sue for co-writing credits? ;D

Didn't the Beach Boys notoriously play Sun City in 1981? I'm not saying it's implausible that he simply feels much more stongly about the issue of apartheid some 32 years later, but it appears that at least some or enough members of the group were not against apartheid at least to the degree that they felt it was okay to book gigs at Sun City even though it was known as a controversial thing to do. Interesting stuff.

Mike can be an eloquent enough guy. That eloquence is even more frustrating when it is undermined by simply not addressing some larger burning issue (e.g. his "end of tour" LA Times statement from last year, which was well-written and kind to the other band members, yet partially ignored the issue of how some of the band wanted to stay together while he didn't).

The artists who played the venue were never told Sun City was in South Africa

And, of course, The BBs simply used their transporter to get there, instead of having to fly to SOUTH AFRICA...

Not only did the BBs notoriously play Sun City in 1981, but I read a 1981 Mike Love quote in the recently-published BBs In Concert book, where he said something to the effect of "the UN can screw themselves... it's [the gig is] good money", which may be the most crass thing ML has ever said, and almost made me ashamed to be a fan of the band when I read it. One can debate the band's right to having played those shows, and I have issue with any member of the band having played those shows...but the ML quote is sickeningly insensitive and devoid of a smidgen of empathy. It seems to imply a "f*ck off" to the anti-apartheid cause in the name of $$.

Now, maybe ML has had a positive change of tune in 32 years (and I realize the entire band did in fact play those shows, but ML was the only one who made such a shockingly crass public quote about the matter). If so, he needs to own up to having had a change of tune, instead of sweeping history under the rug. Either that, or he should simply shut up and not say anything at this time.

It's a major, major facepalm as a fan.  
And sorry Kokomaoists, this is not defensible.
I assume he hopes that people simply forgot that quote ever happened?  

I won't defend Mike's quote, but I will point out that Paul Simon was accused oh having breached the UN boycott when he. Was making Graceland..

That is a horrifying and very mercenary quote from Mike Love. Hopefully he was hiding the fact he was bankrupt and needed the money badly.


I feel if he wrote such a long tribute to Nelson Mandela, maybe he was seeking forgiveness and redemption in his own way.

It wasn't just Mike performing, the rest of the guys were there too. If bands started refusing to play countries they didn't agree with politically, a lot of groups would find themselves with very few countries left to play in. Why deny EVERYBODY from seeing you perform - that solves nothing.

I know it was the entire band who played, and I said in my post that I have issue with all of them having performed there.
But that quote, which was so over the top in its crassness and insensitivity, was, as far as I know, attributed to the Lovester.
 

It's a good thing that 1981 performance was a Mike Love SOLO performance, that no other Beach Boys made the trip, that no other Beach Boys performed, and that no other Beach Boys accepted a check for the concert. And, it's good to know that actions don't speak louder than words, that the other Beach Boys couldn't possibly feel the same way as Mike, being they didn't accept their $$$$$$$$ for the performance. We know that Brian and Dennis were touring because they loved playing those oldies but goodies....

The other Beach Boys did do the trip, play the show, and cash the checks. And personally, I don't condone that they did those things.  I personally think it was lame and wrong for them to do. All of them. And I said this in my original post.

But the über crass, despicable quote was Mike's.  The quote is a whole other level of awful.

Mike could have shown more tact with what he said but I still stand by the band's right to play wherever they have fans willing to pay to see them. Queen took a dumper truckload of sh*t for playing those places around the same time. Brian May basically said (to paraphrase) 'we are apolitical and there are hundreds of 1000's of people there who want to come to our concerts'.

Since it was 1981, was Carl at that show? And was Brian there? If Carl wasn't there, did he comment on the BBs playing there? I doubt it.

No, the quote is NOT "a whole other level". It is on the same level as performing the concert, and you're not grasping that point. The other Beach Boys performing the concert and cashing their check is a perfect example of actions speaking louder than words. The other Beach Boys did it for the money, too, they just didn't say it, as Mike did. This is yet another, yes another, example of the other Beach Boys being at the same level on the "asshole meter" as Mike - but some fans being UNABLE to admit it.

And of course, we can't be sure that the other band members didn't say anything similar, only that they weren't quoted. 

Tact about a situation (or lack thereof) makes a difference to me, and to others too, I'm sure. The quote not only showed zero tact, it was hostile and mean-spirited. Granted, I don't know the context of the interview, having only heard the quote itself. But regardless of context, I find the quote truly disgusting.

Yes, actions are louder than words. But openly hostile, tactless words said in that manner,  about a very sensitive topic, made it much worse in my eyes. 

Did they all (the entire band) play the show simply just for the money? Presumably, yes.  But unless the other bandmembers at the time made any kind of public comment(s) about playing the show, we can't know their own justifications for why they played the show, such as if they adopted an apolitical stance, wanted to reach other fans in a place that would never otherwise get to see them play, etc. Yes, that may merely be a "nicer way" of dressing up their actions of simply wanting the cash.

I assume the band, in their internal discussions about whether they would accept a show offer in South Africa, said to themselves, "well, we need the money, so screw it, let's just play there regardless of the political climate". But I contend it is quite another level on the "asshole meter" for Mike to openly make it known, in the way that he did, that he gives no semblance whatsoever of a f*ck, and degrading the UN in such a manner. If he had said something far more nuanced and tactful at the time, I wouldn't be nearly as bugged about him (or probably his publicist) having the gall to write a facebook post about Mandela.

And if any other bandmember at the time had said something to a reporter with the same disgusting level of crassness about the situation, and then had the balls to write a rosy Mandela post on facebook today, I'd be just as critical of them. Not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but Mike defenders need to realize that the people who have issue with some of his actions would have the same issue if the actions were in fact duplicated by anyone else in the band.

Agreed, Mike gets himself into these bad situations when he runs his mouth for better or worse.

http://surfermoon.com/blogs/?p=53

The second main contact the Beach Boys had with South Africa was far less happy. They played in Sun City in 1981- Sun City was then part of the notionally independent state of Bophuthatswana (say that very fast :) ) and part of the masterplan to move most of the blacks in South Africa to areas that would become supposedly separate countries. This was in contravention of the United Nations boycott and hardly endeared the band as sensitive to current geopolitics. Carl was on a break from the band, but Brian was there- I have no first hand accounts on how the concerts went but assume they weren’t brilliant.

Thanks for that info!

What is the actual quote?

Not the "same level" regardless of whether one agrees with Mike's comments and/or the guys playing the gigs. Mike's comments in various interviews are *especially* open to scrutiny when we're talking about some vague "a-hole meter" concept. If a guy cuts in front of me in a line and says nothing, and then another guy cuts but turns around and says "yeah, I'm cutting in front of you, and you can go f--k yourself", then they're both a-holes but guy #2 is moreso (and I'm of the type that would be really irked by the first guy too chicken to say anything). If actions mattered and comments didn't whatsoever, then nobody would ever give interviews.

Even Mike seems to semi-acknowledge that he can be perceived as a big a-hole. I'm not sure why "the other guys in the band are a-holes too" always matters when we're talking about Mike, and that's not even getting into the fact that a very compelling argument can be made that Mike is demonstrably the "biggest a-hole" in the group.

I don't have the book in front of me, but in the comments section of Mike's facebook post, somebody posted the 1981 quote:

"It's nice money. The U.N. can go screw themselves. They never buy tickets to Beach Boys concerts."

I think some deep breaths need to be taken before forming more judgements. History shows it was a bad decision in many obvious ways to play Sun City, a decision which should be called out. But also, some context needs to be considered before making a blanket assessment of those who played there.

In 1981 the Sun City resort was in operation just over a year. There were large sums of money being offered to western artists to perform there, through booking agencies and managers. Consider the list of major acts which performed there in the early 80's. Among them, Frank Sinatra according to reports was the first artist to open the venue, giving the first major show. Other acts included Tina Turner, Elton John, Dionne Warwick, Johnny Mathis, and various stars from pop, rock, and even opera/classic genres had shows booked there.

It seemed to come to a breaking point after Queen played there around 1984. They still claim ignorance of the situation surrounding the gig. To them, it was a show for their fans in South Africa, the band members ignorant of the background and situation. Take that as you will, with a grain of salt as necessary.

But after Queen's gig, it came at a time of increased awareness and activism surrounding the entire sociopolitical situation in that area, and the backlash started to become more prominent and much louder in the mainstream media. This of course led to Little Steven Van Zandt's "Sun City" project, which dovetailed with the Artists United Against Apartheid group, organized in part with Van Zandt and which was most visible in 1985 with his album and video project, inspired by "Band Aid" and calling together a few dozen prominent musicians to contribute to the project and vocally condemn both Sun City and artists who would book shows there.

But that was most prominent around 1984 and 1985, and by prominent you could say it was an issue pushed to the forefront in the media and much more information about the situation itself was being made available.

Prior to 1984-85, could artists who were booked to play there legitimately claim ignorance, as Queen had done? That's up to those making an opinion on the matters.

But I do think context is at least worth noting, especially as a group like the Beach Boys in 1981 were booked to play Sun City along with other very notable artists...Frank Sinatra and Tina Turner, to name just two - not exactly "B-list" bookings for any venue.

So looking at it in 2013, yes there are issues to criticize and judge, no doubt. But consider too that playing there even in 1981 did not yet have the necessary stigma attached to it which it would soon rightfully earn through the efforts of those like Little Steven and the Musicians United group. They brought attention to a scene which I'd say a large majority of fans and people in the west in general did not have much knowledge about, and as an issue pretty much debated within the UN but not "mainstream" as an issue for pop culture, it wasn't on the radar of millions of people.

So how harsh should the judgement or the penance be in retrospect? Should Tina Turner receive the same assessment as the Beach Boys as Frank Sinatra as anyone else?

It was a money grab, as it most of the music business, for artists to take a heap of cash and get put up in a luxury resort to play shows. Frank Sinatra did it, the O'Jays did it...do the other acts booked there get even a sliver of benefit of the doubt that they were in fact too ignorant of the surroundings to see the gig offers as anything but another gig, a well-paid one at that?

This is just food for thought. Again, whatever quote that may be is another discussion. But i think in context there could be a different set of factors to look back and judge a gig booked in 1980 versus one booked in, say, 1987 after everyone knew exactly what was going on through the activism and the media making it a more prominent and mainstream story than it had been.

In retrospect, of course, the artists en masse could have rejected the offers outright, whether they came in 1980 or 1986, and those who played there should have a finger pointed at them, or at least a question asked "why?". But some context may also be required.

And ultimately, the music and live concert business itself is consumed by a desire to make hoards of money, and lots of it...whether it was the Beach Boys or Johnny Mathis or Sinatra, they ultimately all said "yes" and got the paycheck and perks. Apply the criticism appropriately.

Story from 1983

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19831026&id=kv1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7033,2009796

Whether various artists could plead ignorance is an interesting question, but while we don't have the remainder of the interview from which Mike's quote is pulled, his answer seems to indicate he had an awareness of the backlash and the UN having issues, and he was choosing to ignore it, perhaps arguably actively thumbing his nose.

Exactly - almost two years after the artists started booking there, but again was this as mainstream of an issue as it would be a year later with Little Steven? Meaning, in retrospect would the average non-politically-aware fan listening to top 40 radio in 1983 be aware of what Sun City even was if they didn't read the newspaper? Note in that article perhaps the most complete list of performers who had been paid to perform there up to the date of that news report, and consider that as part of the context.

Again, it's not right or wrong at this point in 2013 because that's been established over the past three decades. History says what's right or wrong in that fashion. History says Queen claiming ignorance when playing there in 1984 just doesn't wash with the history.

But add the Beach Boys to a long and diverse list of performers who made a shitload of money for similar gigs, some of those artists who we could argue should have known better...it's still wrong in retrospect but consider how many major artists after the Beach Boys did the same thing with even more knowledge of the place at their disposal.

And yet another Mike Love thread where people come out of the woodwork with an excuse to rag on Mike. You can tell it's real slow in the Beach Boys world when guys who haven't posted on the board in weeks to check in to see if there's a subject that they can contribute to. Sure enough. Same ol', same ol.

It's about time for Mike to say something REALLY controversial to get your hair on end.....

Likewise I'm a pretty big Sinatra fan, and talk of his performing there is rare, if it's mentioned at all. And in that Oct '83 newspaper clipping, Sinatra's management and reps fire off quotes that manage to put an even bigger foot in their collective mouths than that line from Mike, yet very rarely if ever have I seen Sinatra's reputation called into question over the issue...where we could argue his "people" had a stance that looks even worse in 2013 standards than the most negative reaction we'd have to something Mike said.

I'm just thinking out loud, it's interesting to look back especially considering how information was spread in 1983 far outside (if not primitive compared to) what we have in 2013.

1- actual quote needed

2- performing in a country is not equal to endorsing its politics. There's nothing asshole-like about it

YES, Mr Skin Flute, YES!!

To further put this into context, money-wise, that article reported Sinatra was paid 1.79 million dollars to play Sun City in 1981.

Today that would be the equivalent of paying an artist over 4.6 million dollars for a show.

That's a staggering sum of money. And the article also says Roberta Flack turned down a Sun City offer of 1.5 million in the early 80's. Roberta Flack, not necessarily an A-list concert draw, offered that much money...that's amazing. It's no secret the venue was throwing exorbitant money at these artists, including the BB's. And again, that's across the board what happens in the music biz in general. Witness how much was just paid to Britney Spears for a residence in Vegas. Crazy money.

IMO, Mike's deliberate nose-thumbing of the issue, in the crass manner that it was done, is the thing that I feel makes it worse.  It's not just him being "honest" about money being the motivating factor, it's actually actively telling an organization like the UN to screw off. How 'bout an ounce of sensitivity. Mike's quote almost reads like he's talking about something insignificant like sports teams.

If another artist who performed there in the 80s made as crass a quote, and then had the cojones to post a heartfelt Mandela loveletter on facebook today, I'd be just as incensed. 2013 Mike should just keep his mouth shut about Mandela. I suspect it's just his publicist anyway who wrote it.

One must wonder what South African native Blondie Chaplin (who'd been allegedly called the "N" word by Mike's brother) thought of the Mike's '81 quote, had Blondie heard the quote at the time.

I think the whole point, and the set of things that set this line of the discussion off, was not the act of doing the shows. That's a very interesting and debatable topic, as guitarfool's thorough and appreciated rundown indicates. It's the commentary from Mike that's being picked apart here. Doing a show in a country where you are aware of the apartheid situation may or may not be an a-hole move, that's debatable and sometimes can involve all sorts of passivity or ignorance of the part of the performers. "The UN can go screw themselves" is inflammatory, and I would imagine that, while everything is subjective, you'd probably find a good number of people, including people who agree with the sentiments, that it's a comment that is rather a-hole-ish. I'm not even offended by Mike's comments; I can objectively say many would find them inflammatory. As always, Mike can say and do whatever he wants, but he will always answer (to both fair and unfair assessments) for those comments.

Also, I think something being missed is that this is just a passing observation that it is perhaps a bit ironic that the man who wrote the nice words on Facebook about Mandela also played Sun City. Pointing that irony out doesn't have to be a big to-do, it doesn't have to be a big loaded accusation. An observation (admittedly meant to point out the irony) stating "Didn't Mike also play Sun City?" doesn't immediately mean "what an a-hole!"

I don't get it. All this discussion is on-topic, and has remained civil as far as I can tell. What could possibly be the problem? Mike (and a billion other people) post their personal comments and thoughts online, and in reaction people agree or disagree or discuss what Mike said. That's why people share their words. If Mike didn't want to share his words, he would have written in his personal journal, not on Facebook for everybody to read. If you're going to have the balls to post that after having played Sun City and told the UN to go screw themselves, that's, well, actually rather ballsy, but it's also going to open you up to valid and invalid criticism.

I for one can't wait for Mike's kind words professing his retroactive support for Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and the Coalition Against Clean Surfing Conditions.

I continue to find it ironic, after sadly closing in on twenty years on the internet, that "complaint" posts about the nature of a discussion are undeniably less on-topic, and less constructive than the discussion they complain about.

This is an interesting point, as the "bigger" someone is, the more immune they are to these types of criticisms. There obviously are no lasting (or ever any?) boycotts of Sinatra or Queen or the Beach Boys.

Most bands and artists and famous people have these awkward things from their career that can be criticized, and the more respected and admired they are, the more those things are ignored or glazed over, and that is for better or worse.

I'm just glad the BBs didn't add "Ten Little Indians" to the setlist when the played Sun City.

That would have been SO cool!!  The Bestest song on Surfin Safari, played halfway around the world in Darkest Africa

Funny, but it didn't keep Blondie from sharing a stage with old friends Brian Wilson and Al Jardine, who JOINED old Mike Love for the 1981 Sun City show. Maybe Blondie didn't know that Al and Brian played the show. No, maybe he just forgot. Nah, he probably didn't care. But, for Mike's quote, well, that's grounds for NEVER sharing a stage with him! How crass. The actual act of performing and accepting $$$$$$$$$$, that's OK. Just don't TALK about it! Sail on, sail on sailor....

 :lol

I for one, in seeing and pointing out these ironies and odd moments in the BB's career, usually have fun and laugh about it (as much as one can; and hopefully appropriate to the topic).

Has anyone here ever played a non-fan "Hey Little Tomboy?" I loathe those "reaction videos" people post on YouTube where someone shows them or plays them something shocking to get their reaction, but some "Hey Little Tomboy" reaction videos with the unsettled look on one's face would be pretty freaking funny.

I find it amusing that Mike wrote those comments on Facebook after playing Sun City and told the UN to go screw themselves, that's about it. My initial reaction didn't go beyond that. I for one am not trying to invoke a bunch of fake outrage about it. It's hilarious, and another slightly Spinal Tap-esque moments from our Boys.  :lol

I'm laughing thinking about Blondie, in preparation for his shows with Brian, Al, and Dave, poring over the 1981 Beach Boys tour itinerary and becoming enraged, culminating in an awkward backstage confrontation, with the situation being controlled by the calming presence of Joe Thomas.

I'm also picturing this interview with Brian:

Question: "Brian, remember when you played the Sun City venue in December 1981?"

Brian: "Huh?"

It is laughable, isn't it? But, the quote? NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!!!

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't believe you can legitimately equate the full band playing there with one of the bandmembers additionally saying a very insensitive, inflammatory super-tactless remark that makes zero bones about giving one ounce of a f*ck about anything/anybody except money. That bandmember would be doing something that's more worthy of criticism. Actions do speak louder than words, no denying that. But words like that make a notably negative difference.

I would think that 1981 Blondie would perhaps have felt the BBs playing in Sun City was questionable, but I imagine if he'd additionally read ML's 1981 crass comment, he'd have found it to have been an undeniably sh*tty thing to say. And after having been called the "N" word by ML's bro, I imagine he'd not think too highly of the Love family having much in the way of tact/sensitivity. I have no idea whether Blondie would have then in 1981, or would now in 2013, share a stage with ML... not sure if they ever had a real beef with each other.

Have a good weekend. Listen to some Christmas music! Andy Williams, Perry Como, Johnny Mathis, Sinatra, Slade!

I actually filmed my coworker listening on headphones to "Smart Girls" for the first time (played off my iPod). I should've put it on youtube.
I have a sick habit of playing bad Beach Boys songs for my coworkers (in our downtime) just to see their reactions, including classics like "Hey Little Tomboy" (extended shave-your-legs version).  

Why all the negativity?  Both Smart Girls and Hey Little Tomboy are great songs. Always taking them out of context isn't the answer.

I love those songs too (or at least HLT as a guilty pleasure)... but seeing some peoples' reactions to the "wackier" side of the BBs can be more than a bit humorous. I try to give them a bit of context too, telling them a few tidbits of info as far as where the band was at (career-wise/Landy-wise) when these were recorded. The BBs are my fave band, I'm not trying to ruin them for anyone, but they have a wacky/amusing side, the likes of which are tough to find comparison to. Mind you, I also try to tell them about the undeniably great BB songs too :)

"They're doin' it all over the world....."

 >:D

Respectively... no, yes, and not that I know of.

So is the Facebook comment the actual quote? The full quote?

Interestingly, in the "Carl Wilson - Here and Now" DVD, Gerry Beckley mentions that Carl would use the word "inappropriate" when he didn't agree with something. According to Gerry, Carl commented that The Beach Boys tour of South Africa was inappropriate.


References

Hinsche, B. (Producer/Director), & Latshaw, S. (Co-Producer). (2011). Carl Wilson - Here and now [DVD]. United States: MFM Productions.

That's the full extent of the quote, as it appears on page 268 of Jon and Ian's book. I assume it comes from a larger interview of some sort, and it is apparently sourced from the Oklahoman, and the original interviewer was Gene Triplett. I couldn't seem to come up with more in a Google search, but maybe Jon could chime in with more info if there is any.

Those are some very nice words from Mike.

We talked about Mandela today in class and half of the students didn't even know who he was...

Nobody in the third grade here knew him either

I'll cut Mike some slack.  America's treatment of apartheid as a whole was a complete mess and the US press and government were never kind to Mandela until his presidency.  He like many had a warped view of what was actually going on and remember, the Beach Boys were staunch Reagan supporters and Reagan certainly wasn't doing South Africa any favors.

I feel pretty confident in thinking that the BBs wouldn't have played those shows if Carl was in the band at the time. And if Carl was somehow convinced to have played the shows, I also doubt Mike would've ran his mouth off the way he did (as a mouthpiece for the band) so crassly in that interview. When the moral conscience of the band is away, strange things happen(ed).

It seems Gabo missed a bit of the post..

It actually ended like this

"Mandela showed by example the enormous power and potential of positivity. He leaves a great legacy and lesson to the world. Rest in Peace Madiba, your positivity lives on, positivity like when i wrote the words to Good Vibrations and I Get Around".

ML

ML makes a classy and well thought out comment on the passing of a major world figure, and people bring up something he said and did 32 years ago. And Saint Brian and the martyr Dennis were there too.

Let it go is the expression needed here. Everyone makes mistakes. Queen played there too.

I am skeptical that Mike personally writes these Facebook posts. Maybe he approves them. Seems just like PR babble to me. Course, I am wrong about something each and every day.

Again, why should you refuse to play in a country because you don't agree with it's politics? How would you feel as fans if Brian/The BB's refused to play anymore gigs in the US because they disagreed with the Obama regime?

Apartheid went beyond politics. It can be argued by some that performing there implies support for the country's policies.  It was their choice and decision to play Sun City, yes. And in having done that  those who didn't approve of Apartheid have every right to question the integrity of not just the Beach Boys but every other act that performed at that resort.

I see what you are saying but it's quite a leap for someone to assume that just because a band is willing to tour in a segregated country that they automatically support it's apartheid policies. Mike sees himself as an entertainer first and foremost and must have felt that a Countries political situation had no bearing on his right to go there and perform to fans of the band (and yes make a buck in doing so).

Who was it said "let bygones be bygones"? Some famous fellow… let me think…

Yet, everyone who jumped up and down on his LA Times explanation last fall of why C50 ended as it did assumed without doubt that he wrote that*. Seems to be a simple rule of thumb: if it's well-considered and expressed, Mike couldn't have written it... unless it reinforces the perceived view of him, in which case, of course he did. Believe it's called "having your cake and eating it".  ;D

[* just as many assumed Brian actually penned his response: I've no doubt whatsoever that he dictated the basic thrust, read the resulting text and approved it, just as I've no doubt whatsoever he didn't physically write a word of it.]

You argue with nothing factual to add. Might as well be tweeting that you are on a bus. Having read and listened to many, many ML interviews, talked to the man, it just doesn't have the Mike tone. I have no doubt he approved it, maybe made a change or two. Could be his wife, a daughter, PR person.

Now you are going to tell me the Queen writes all her speeches. Course, you seem to love to argue about anything.  ;D

(http://franceshunter.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/indian_chief_joseph.jpg)

 :)

Strange   :old  but whatever floats your boat AGD.

Playing Sun City does not equal approving appartheid.

Playing Chekoslovakia in the late 60s did not equal approving its regime.

No it doesn't.

But additionally verbally giving the middle finger to the UN in such a 110% unempathetic manner, is a disgusting thing to have said, and colors ML's actions in a particularly negative light. I just want to know what goes through someone's mind, as a public figure, when they say something like that. What possible way could that quote have been taken to mean (either in 1981 or in 2013) other than "screw everybody, screw anybody's plight... we only care about money"? That's far worse than saying "we take an apolitical stance". It's actively saying "I GIVE NO F*CK" about people involved in a very, very sensitive situation. That's a straight up, unjustifiable pr*ck thing to say, and it borders on taunting. And it pisses me off that it can't just be universally acknowledged by BB fans as a pr*ck thing for ML to have said. Does that mean that Mike doesn't deserve to live, or that we have to discard his contributions to the BBs? No, of course not. But we can say that it was a mega, mega-sh*tty thing to say.

Find me another celebrity who said something at the time as disgustingly crass and aggressively hostile related to the South Africa situation, who then has the chutzpah to casually praise Mandela on FB 30 years later (with zero acknowledgement of said disgustingly crass quote) under the auspice of that celebrity being a kind, gentle, considerate person, and I'll eat my hat (or I'll steal one of Mike's and eat it). It's Mike's 2013 PR machine trying to paint him as a nice guy, and trying to revise history by sweeping it under the rug. Mike might be the least self-aware celeb outside of Kanye West. Now, if 2013 Mike made a semblance of acknowledgement/regret of his past quote (which I assume he would claim ignorance of, or that he has forgotten it), it wouldn't be near as bad in my eyes.

*Mandatory note for the Kokomaoists who will want to continue to defend Mike's quote by saying that everyone else (sans Carl) in the band is just a big a butthole for having played Sun City: I know that Brian also had a Mandela post on his FB page (and that he too played Sun City in 1981). And while I absolutely believe there is some degree of hypocrisy there, Brian never made it worse by saying anything crass about having played there at the time (nor would a quote like ML's 1981 quote) be in his character to have said. Lest anyone accuse me (or others agreeing with my stance) of having some "grudge" to paint Mike in a negative light:  

If Mike had NOT said such a quote at the time, and then in 2013 both him and Brian posted about Mandela, I wouldn't feel nearly as irritated against Mike about the topic... and IMO, both Brian and Mike would be in the same boat of some hypocrisy, but that we don't necessarily know all the facts about their justification/thoughts about why they played the show. Obviously, it is just a brief quote, and not some multi-page essay by 1981 Mike trying to justify why they played there - but it still is a quote that is probably very close to being at the bottom of the barrel of the worst of the worst from this band.

For Mike's most ardent defenders: It's *okay* to sometimes acknowledge that the man acted like an unconscionable ass at certain times throughout his career.
 

C'mon CD, the RnR HOF debacle never happened.  :hat

This centurydeprived guy has got to be trolling  ::)

Mike Love actually wrote a song addressing the Sun City issue, but then decided to switch it to be about Dallas at the last minute. The original lyrics went "...and I'll never play Sun City again" thus totally denouncing their appearance there (this version confirmed on FB by someone who has heard the uncirculating demo). The rhymes he had for Sun City just weren't quite as good as his awesome new rhymes for the word Dallas -- palace & chalice, so the song got changed last minute (kind of like Bells of Paris>Bells of Winter or whatever)

I think Mike's "Cool Bread, Bad Aparteid" made his feelings clear in retrospect.

I think that once it is acknowledged that playing Sun City does not equal endorsing apartheid, coming up with a 30+ year old "screw the UN" quote from an interview almost no one knew about, and backslashing Mike for it, seems unforgiving to a degree no poster would tolerate upon themselves.

roll plymouth rock – No, I’m not trolling, just expressing my honest opinions on the matter.



Dr. Lenny – while a 32 year old quote may be “ancient history”, the fact that “almost no one knew about” the quote is of little consequence to me. It happened; the quote isn’t hearsay. Am I overanalyzing it? Perhaps. We’re on a BB message board; that’s what we nerds do – overanalyze minutia related to our favorite band. The quote was shared by well-respected BB authors (and they called it out as being “crass”, which it absolutely is) in a recently-published BB book. I have never accused Mike of “endorsing” apartheid, but I have accused him of speaking in a particularly despicable, wholly unempathetic manner about a very sensitive topic. I’m not quite sure why I (or anyone else) should be “forgiving” to the man for speaking in that manner.


As soon as I read the quote a few months ago (after reading the BB In Concert book from front to back), the crassness of it disgusted me to a pretty major degree – but... I saw no reason to start a thread about it here, because it was something in the past, unrelated to present events, albeit something that marked a low point for him, in my eyes.

It is only when Mike has a set of cojones big enough to casually mention Mandela last week on FB in a long post (presumably having long forgotten the 1981 interview/quote) that the hypocrisy got me bugged enough to mention it here.  However, I’d be somewhat forgiving if he ever owned up to it, even a smidgen. But I'm not holding my breath; owning up to past personal mistakes/regrets (at least in a public capacity) isn’t exactly one of Mike’s best-known attributes. If he tried doing so from time to time, even just a little, methinks that many people would go easier on him on a great many issues. To give Mike possible credit: maybe his 2013 FB posting is Mike's own way (without fessing up) of trying to do/say something positive to counteract his previous quote (which he currently may not exactly be proud of).  But I have no idea. My guess is that the 1981 quote is, to him, long out of sight/long out of mind.

its the beach boys dude. they are hypocritical and inconsistent. get your point. no need to go on a million giant rants about it, you made your point the first post.

Is it hypocritical to admire Mandela and object to a UN blacklist?

Excuse my ignorance but is this quote attributed to Mike on tape or is this one of those heresay deals where someone said Mike said yada yada?

I heard Mike interviewed that he never actually said, "Don't Fu@k with the formula".

Jon and Ian's book attributes the quote to a newspaper (The Oklahoman) and a specific reporter who interviewed him (Gene Triplett). That's all I know, but that's enough for me to presume it can be substantiated.

Glad you got the point. Not trying to sound like a broken record, which I'm sure I do at this point. Thing is, if people find the need to try and defend something I find especially indefensible, I feel implored to to respectfully disagree, and to say so. </rant>

sure, I bet everyone gets it by now. once, twice three times MAX. But going on and on and on is way overkill.

http://artbyshirzad.com/art-and-censorship-paul-simon-vs-artists-against-apartheid/