The Smiley Smile Message Board

... with some interesting content concerning C50.

http://music-illuminati.com/interview-mike-love/ (http://music-illuminati.com/interview-mike-love/)

I've never read an article where Mike took the time to actually point out all of the hits that he helped write, how he got ripped off, how drugs ruined the Wilson brothers, and how Brian has a lot of mental issues. Oh yeah, actually he's done that in all of them, hasn't he?

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the same old, same old out of that camp.  Mike Love promoting what he's currently doing, taking some light handed shots at "Camp Brian" while being careful not to take shots at Brian Wilson himself.  Gives us his version of "Beach Boys History" and as "Mr. Verlander" correctly notes Mike once again makes a point to reference how he was basically screwed blue by Murray Wilson which is a legitimate gripe of his which has fallen on the ears of the diehards for years but still may be unfamiliar to the casuals.  In terms of any real insight as to why things are the way they are right now with both camps?  Not much to see here if you are looking for anything beyond "finite set of dates/I love my cousin but don't like the hoops I have to jump through to work with him" story he's been giving us since the C50 crumbled like a stale cracker.

Had to laugh, every Beach Boy was mentioned in the article, except for Al. Not even mentioned in the TM portion of the article. I would love to hear Mike's take on Nelson's comments on Stamos. Hopefully, that gets addressed in Mike's next interview.

"I came up with all the words and the chorus: “I’m pickin’ up good vibrations / She’s giving me excitations”.

Really? I had no idea... ::)

     He said the word "cousin" 11 times in this interview. He said the word "Brian" 12 times in this interview. Wow.

Difference is, this time he says there was an agreement on an end date that everyone, er,  agreed to and signed off. Now, if that's not the case, then it's a very, very silly thing to say, not to mention being actionable. And as we know, The Beach Boys are possibly the most litigious rock band in history.  ;D

Well... Brian is his cousin after all.  :)

"I came up with all the words and the chorus: “I’m pickin’ up good vibrations / She’s giving me excitations”. But also, I wrote all the words to “California Girls” and “Fun, Fun, Fun”, and “I Get Around”. So there’s several contributions. And Help Me Rhonda".

I had no idea he wrote all the words to those. It gets better every interview. Too bad nobody has a clue exactly what he did write.

Marharishi. Very few cared in 1968, even fewer care now.  The Marharishi was a big flop for the band, remember Mike?

Same ol' self-gratification, different day.

Exactly Mikie, Mike has been giving the same interview as long as he has been singing the hits.

 Yeah, I have to say there was precisely ZERO in terms of new information in that article. In fact, it was almost word-for-word what he has said in every interview. Seriously. I get it. He’s on the defensive when it comes to C50, and he has his “prepared” go-to statement memorized at this stage. But seriously, if you can’t or won’t go into any detail, then perhaps it’s better to demur and, when floated a question as innocuous as simply asking for reflections on the tour, simply say it was a good time and leave it at that.

The only new thing in the interview is framing Brian’s statement that he “felt like” it was being fired as a “false” statement. How could how Brian *felt* be a false statement? I think Mike is conflating the media fuss (which did incorrectly state Brian had been “fired”) with Brian’s actual statement. I believe Brian’s statement actually referenced that he had not actually been fired, which was why he was saying it “felt like” being fired. That was the whole point of saying it that way.

And seriously, why do we need to hear about the songwriting lawsuit nearly 20 years after the lawsuit was settled and Mike’s name was put on those songs? For the last 20 years, every CD, sheet music book, and everything else has Mike’s name on it. There doesn’t seem to be any perception left that Mike didn’t co-write those songs (apart from perhaps a few anecdotal disputes like “WIBN”).

Pretty much any interview Mike has done lately has seemed to follow the exact same pattern: softball questions about BB era/image/surf/car/culture, etc., then TM/Maharashi/I knew the Beatles for five minutes in 1968, then a reference (disturbingly sometimes not particularly prompted) to all the drugs the Wilsons did, then discussion of the songwriting lawsuit, then the same non-answer paragraph about the demise of C50 (Set end date, “going back to the way it has been for years”, usually a specific reference to extended the tour from 50 to 73 shows (see? I didn’t cancel the tour! I extended it!)), and some promo fluff about whatever show the article is probably promoting.

This patterned, canned interview response pattern is not new or unique, I realize that. This reads quite a bit like a typical McCartney interview (Beatles coming to America, John telling him to keep the line in “Hey Jude”, “Yesterday” started as “Scrambled Eggs”, etc.).

It’s pretty clear we aren’t going to get a full account of C50, at least not in one of these interviews. We get the same defensive, non-answer response simply when the interview asks for “reflections” on the tour. I’m not sure if actually asking a substantive, challenging question about C50 would result in a better or worse sort of response.

I hope someone can get Mike for an interview where it doesn’t come across so defensive and insecure, and rooted in dragging other members down for things that happened years ago.

Maybe at least Al is happy he got out of that interview relatively unscathed.  :lol

Sorry, Mike, but the last thing I listen for in a Beach Boys song is lyrics.  I listen to the Beach Boys for the music and harmony, not the lyrics (most of which I find corny and sophomore).  I'm the last person Mike is going to impress with all the lyrics talk.

Mike has been saying all along, as far as I can remember, that there was an “agreed upon” end date. Nobody has ever disputed that. That’s how tours and contracts with promoters work. You sign on for a tour and set a scheduled end date. Of course everybody agreed upon an end date.

An agreed-upon end date has nothing to do with scheduling more shows. Nobody has ever claimed Mike canceled the reunion tour while it still had dates scheduled. He simply did not want to do any additional dates, while some of the others did, apparently with the motivation of actual tangible offers from promoters.  

I don’t think the suggestion is that everybody signed an agreement that stated “no more shows together ever, forever, for all time, after show #73.”

As I said, nothing new in this article at all. We’re literally talking about an alternate wording of the same “set end date” stuff we’ve been getting all along.

He doesn't explain the problems that cropped up during the C50 tour, which is what a lot of us fans want to know about.  Sure they had a deal for only 50 shows, but it could have been modified for even more shows than 73 and new recordings. 

To be fair, the lyrics to 'California Girls', 'Fun Fun Fun', and 'I Get Around' were fresh and clever in the context of the pop music being made in 1964 and the 1st half of 1965. I don't blame Mike for being proud of those.

True.

Exactly. He's still insecure about it for some reason. He's really holding onto it for dear life. The publishing dollars will continue to roll in the rest of his life and he's still driving the issue home.

Murry died in 1973. I always wondered why Mike waited until 1992 to go to court over the lyrics he [supposedly] wrote. I know Mike didn't ask for a lot and Brian's lawyers f***ed up and Mike ended up getting more. But it's unfortunate that Murry wasn't around to justify/defend and that Brian folded like a wet noodle in court. If Mike deserved all of the credits, then more power to him. But in court and affidavits it was his word against..............nobody's.

Plus Gary Usher and Roger Christian had died.

I think Nick Venet came to court and testified against Mike.

Maybe we hear about it again because:

"JM: Are there any parts of the history of The Beach Boys that you feel are generally misunderstood, and you might want to help clear up the record on?"

"JM: You mentioned that it’s the fiftieth anniversary of “Fun, Fun, Fun”. I know you wrote the lyrics to that one, and you helped to write a lot of The Beach Boys songs. Are there any specific contributions to The Beach Boys’ music that you’re most proud of?"

"JM: I don’t know if you would use this terminology, borrowed from a Beach Boys song, but are there “heroes” and “villains” in the Beach Boys saga? I think maybe the villains were the drugs, right?"

Just a guess.

"It's life JM, but not as we know it."  ;D

Cam, we hear about it almost every interview with Mike.  Especially long ones. Coincidence that the interviewers ask the same question or allude to the subject. Talk about a softball question. "Here Mike, knock this one over the fence".

Someone should ask him about his cutlery.

"Thank f*** he didn't mention me!"

Still Mikie it is always a different interviewer but asking the same questions. I guess these guys could pull some bs answer out of their butts just for giggles.

Funny he didn't mention writing the words to Ten Little Indians, Chug-a-Lug and The Shift........

 :p

Brian and his wife Melinda sued Jerome Billet, the court-appointed conservator for Brian at the time of the suit, and said that Billett was the one who refused to settle the lawsuit out of court and in fact, the lawyers defending Brian against Mike suborned perjury. At least one of Brian's witnesses was paid a bribe, according to Brian's own lawsuit. It didn't specify who they paid off, but since Brian had so few people testifying on his behalf, I wonder who it was who got a pay-off.

Maybe he did:"Maybe not everything, but a significant amount of the more popular songs that I contributed to."

As Dieter (the Mike Myers character) used to say on SNL:  "Your story has become tiresome."    In other words, just give it a rest already "Mr. Positivity" - please!   
Love this groups music, have since I first heard it as a child and always will - but boy do I have to keep the personalities out of it most of the time, because they rarely ever fail to make me go, "Plllffftt!"    The best thing they could all do at this point is retire, go away, stop opening their mouths (to speak, anyway), cut Stamos free to go write his own damn songs.   Like The Who, this band has long made a mockery of its once magnificent self.   The list of "Ugh" moments is long and wearying for a fan to bear upon their shoulders.   

I'm weary, need a nap I think...... :old

Disappointed! When I saw the thread I thought this was going to be the promised interview by AGD, conducted by AGD, with Mike Love.

Instead, we get the same old ego inflated Mike remarks and Beatle references.

As to the C50, Mike says they agreed to a number of shows, then they all agreed to add more. Then he clearly says more were proposed but, he, Mike, said enough. Case closed.

I also think it's kind of weird that he lumped Carl's smoking in with drug and alcohol abuse. Don't get me wrong, smoking is horrendous for one's health. But in the context of discussing things that adversely impacted the group, that's kind of weird to mention.

I also think it's kind of funny that he completely misses the point of the question about the public domain-related releases.  :lol

Mike has said before though that he blames smoking for Carl`s demise so not really weird to mention if he feels that way.

The thing is, Carl's smoking adversely affected Carl. Yes, it impacted the group as well because he was gone. But I think it's just extra judgment on Carl that is unneeded. I've never smoked in my life, but I've known people who have smoked, had lung cancer, and died from it. Most know they brought it on themselves. The guilt is plentiful without anyone else having to point it out. Carl paid the absolute ultimate price. To pass judgment on the guy over 16 years after his death just seems odd, especially when brought up in the midst of discussing how drug and alcohol abuse directly impacted the band for years while the abuse was occurring. To say nothing of the fact that it really doesn't need to be pointed out at this stage that smoking causes lung cancer.

The comment just struck me as hugely judgmental (and stating the obvious), especially in the midst of touting one's clean living and meditation, etc.

I doubt it was intended as a judgment having read Mike talking about it in the past. More an expression of sorrow/frustration that it caused Carl`s passing (in Mike`s eyes). If anything maybe a judgment against tobacco...

Mike over does it with the Wilson addiction stuff that he spouts in all of his interviews, but I rarely see him bring it up on his own. Like this time, he is always asked about it. I will say that as a smoker for 40 plus years, the addiction factor is just as bad if not worse than alcohol or drugs. While the latter two have never hooked me, I have had a hell of a time kicking the smokes. Nicotine is a real addiction and smoking takes many years before it rears it's ugly head and takes it toll on a person's health.

He got one question that left an opening for an enlightening answer with pretty wide ranging possibilities,  from his band mates to all sorts of things.


JM: Do you think that there are any “heroes” in the history of The Beach Boys?



Could have been worse I suppose and given Stamos another plug!

I can't not listen to the lyrics, which is a large part of why I cringe at "Summer Of Love" and "The Private Life Of Bill And Sue".

Mike, what inspired you to write "Hey Little Tomboy?"   

The same thing that inspired Mike to write God Only Knows presumably...

As did Tony Asher, most amusingly, but I won't believe for a nano-second that he took a bribe.

It is indeed of course difficult to determine one’s motivation for bringing something like that up. To me, simply even bringing it up is a rather judgmental move, whether it was intended or not. Especially, as I mentioned, when specifically contrasted against “Well, *I* never did drugs.”

Bringing up “Carl started smoking when he was young and then got lung cancer” just reminds me of like a parent talking to their adult kids and bringing up all the mistakes they made years ago. What’s the point? I think in this case it’s a thing that reflects negatively on someone else to contrast against oneself.

It just struck me as a weird, judgmental comment (the comment striking me as both inherently judgmental by its nature, as well as judgmental in its context) about someone who very clearly paid the price for that mistake.

The interview was predictable from beginning to end. It told us nothing new, including about the C50.

The usual rant against the Wilsons for using drugs.  Wasn't Mike supposed to have gone temporarily crazy once and ended up in a straitjacket? I've never read a Brian interview in which this has been mentioned.  Had it been the other way round, no doubt it would be mentioned every single time.

Just once I'd like to see Mike acknowledge that the biggest factor in the band's struggle was mental illness and family dysfunction which led to drug abuse by the Wilsons. By simplifying things to "They did drugs and I didn't" he comes across as judgmental, unsympathetic and self righteous.  Maybe that's really how he sees things…. if drugs hadn't come along, we'd all be so happy today. But, Brian's problems would have likely occurred with or without the drugs, and the group would still have struggled to stay afloat in the face of depression and other addictive behaviors that come with that territory.

Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

I'm going to guess that Mike has the complicated and conflicted feelings that many of us have when loved ones struggle with addiction and self-harm.

I think a certain part of Beach Boys fandom shares those conflicted feelings.  Every time I see a subject line titled "New Mike Interview" I get pissed even before I read it because I can almost type his responses word for word and I know he'll harangue on the Wilson drug abuse.

That said, I don't blame him for the continued grudge because their drug use pisses me off too.   Mike stayed clean (so far as I'm aware) and some credit is due there.  I don't mean to be disingenuous, but too many Beach Boys fans make excuses for the Wilsons' ridiculous behavior.  Abused by Murry, self-medicating, mental illness, blah blah.  Cry me a river.  Brian needlessly screwed up what I consider the best voice I've had the pleasure to hear-- while poaching his brain.  Dennis seems to have had a death wish.  Can you imagine the decades full of wonderful music we might have, had these two in particular not screwed themselves over?  I know, I know-- we just LOVE Denny's scratchy voice and Smile might have never happened if Brian wasn't tripping.  It's still a tragedy.  And if I, a budding fan, is hacked off about it, I certainly don't blame Mike.  Mike's a vindictive SOB but if I were him, I'd feel pretty justified in reminding the world about the Wilsons' implosion.

What's funny about the above take is that, if I needed to choose sides in the BB Civil War, my allegiance would be with Brian's camp.

Compassion, ladies and gentlemen. Compassion.

Exactly what do you think a man over 70 years old that has been doing the same thing for the past 52 years is going to have to say that is new and surprising? Interviewing any of these guys is pretty much pointless. You will always get the same information, same responses, same recall.

There are a huge number of musicians from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and beyond who abused drugs. And yet 90-plus percent of them have nothing like Brian's problems. Look at Crosby. Look at Bowie. Look at Clapton.

The reason is because Brian has mental illness -- it runs in his family (documented in the Timothy White book). It would have likely shown up if he had never touched a single illegal substance. And if you think mental illnesses are an "excuse," I would doubt you have much experience with people dealing with them. They can be utterly incapacitating.

Once he was ill, Brian did indeed turn to illegal drugs to self medicate (bringing himself up with coke and bringing himself down with heroin or alcohol). But did they actually damage him for decades to come? Most unlikely.

The modern Brian's eccentricities are a mixture of damage done by Landy's prescription drug regimen and his current medication, along with the pre-exisiting illness and his overall oddity. Street drugs are a red herring, in my opinion.

Brian has a brain disease. People in his family, the people who knew him in the 60s, don't want to believe it. They come from a generation that heavily stigmatized mental illness and saw it as a personal failing. Brian himself often sees it that way. So Mike adopts that line -- Brian is a genius who frittered it all away.

But I actually think the competing narrative -- Leaf-ian as it may be -- is more accurate. Brian is a tremendously brave man. He has persevered through obstacles we can only imagine. And he has survived, and is still capable of being creative. In my mind, that's a triumph of sheer will (and modern psychiatric medicine) over the tyranny of chance and bad genes.

I have heard many a fan excuse Brian's early drug abuse as an attempt to self-medicate the mental illness/Murry abuses.  I admire the man for having survived those illnesses and abuses.  Those are separate things that were not his will or choice.  But the drug use and whatever consequences they might have had on his health, his mind, and the band are on him alone.

The problem with saying this is it oversimplifies the issue severely. If it’s as clear cut as “it’s Brian’s fault, end of story”, then it’s fine to take that position, but then with no nuance left to discuss, there’s nothing left to talk about. You don’t have anyone else on the “other side” of the issue claiming it’s not Brian’s fault at all, and it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s more complicated, and those vague aspects and complicated nuances are what fuel a continued discussion that’s actually worth having.

More to the point, why does blame need to be ascribed at this point? I think that’s the only reason this stuff comes up anymore. Even if one can’t “get over” this or that, one can at least just stop fixating on it. I think it’s fascinating to see whom in the band continues to bring all that stuff up, and who continues to specifically assign blame to people or events.

I've said it before- Mike's a vindictive, perpetually defensive jerk who can't get it thru his thick skull that the fans would give anything for the dust to finally settle and the invective between the camps finally cease.  Where I agree with Mike and even sympathize is his bringing up the drug thing.  I have compassion for the mental illness.  I have no compassion for the drugs.  That's my moral stance.  My selfish stance comes from an angry perspective.  It's rude, dispassionate, and frankly shallow.  It's that I was personally robbed of the enjoyment of several more decades of great BB/BW output due in no small part to a few of of them turning to drugs. 

It doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night.  I don't fixate on it.  But I will express my opinion on it when the subject arises. 

I read an interview with the MASH TV show actor Alan Alda where he discussed his mentally ill mother. He said he knew it was a brain disease,  that he read and researched everything on mental illness and knew that his mother couldn't help the way her illness made her act. But even knowing that, Alan said he still had a lot of anger towards his mother, and that the rational knowledge of her sickness couldn't eliminate his irrational dislike and anger for the way his mother behaved towards her family due to the illness. It's easier for people outside, who don't have to deal with it, to be able to have complete compassion.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here. Wasn't somebody bitching that he doesn't do it, then when I prove that he does, now someone else bitches that he does. Which is it? See, this is the problem, Mike can never please anyone with what he says. This place frustrates me at times. I just want to be a fan of the band, yet I am always having to defend band members and take sides. This place drives me crazy sometimes. Oh, am I allowed to call myself driven crazy?

I wasn’t speaking so much to discussing how Murry impacted the Wilson’s later actions, or anything like that. I’m saying that the manner in which all of that was brought up was just a bit resounding ball of negative crap. As I’ve said, it’s not beyond the pale as far as a topic worth discussing. But interviews like this aren’t a discussion or a detailed, understanding case of delving into any intricacies. It’s the same litany of negative things, the same complaints, and a case of “correcting” misperceptions that barely exist anymore, if they exist at all. Nobody whose opinion matters doesn’t recognize the negative aspects of Murry, or of Mike not getting songwriting credit. My point is that these conditions don’t exist anymore, and even if belatedly, have been corrected.

Who still cares about or brings up the songwriting case? There’s only one guy, and he’s the guy who *won* the freaking case twenty years ago.

Also, how about we get on the stupid ass interviewers who ask these same questions over and over again. These are all stock answers for Mike. Maybe some interesting questions will yield more interesting answers.

Very true. It's a bummer we've had so few substantive interviews with these guys.

This is another completely innocuous interview that people have chosen to slate. Nothing to see here.

[/quote]
Also, how about we get on the stupid ass interviewers who ask these same questions over and over again. These are all stock answers for Mike. Maybe some interesting questions will yield more interesting answers.
[/quote]

Q: I understand addiction looms large in the Beach Boys' story.  Is it true you are addicted to baseball hats?

Q: Does Bruce Johnston have a set end date?

Q: Is it true that Brian Wilson is your cousin?  Why do you not mention it?

Exactly. A given person's feelings are never, ever "false".  There needs to be a modicum of acknowledgement. And this is the exact reason why it's so frustrating for me to try and sympathize with Mike. I wonder if he'd ever be willing to sit down and do an on-camera interview with a reporter of prestige who would actually ask him a question like this. He'd probably walk off, because there's no rational way to defend saying/implying something like that, when it's examined under a microscope.

Using Mike’s logic (Mike basically saying “I call no changeees!”), Mike never ever has the right to complain about Murry or the bad deals he was handed years ago… because he (Mike) himself agreed to something at one time – so regardless of whether or not there were regrets about having done so later on, Mike has no right to feel screwed over or hurt.  Crazy talk. Things can't be simplified the way he tries to do.

You are right. We all know Brian knows he was not fired. He was laid-off along with Al and Dave.

It's boring and arrogant like every Mike interview

That was my point too. They only have one life so if they get asked about the same things we are going to hear the same things. Brian talks about the same things over and over too because he is asked. He is always lamenting his drug abuse too. Geez, get over it.

Why is Mike is miserable?


He has 50 million dollars from a lifetime of hard work and a loving family/friends.

Is he? I thought he was Mister Positivity. ;)

The issue of getting the same answers to the same or similar questions is something I mentioned in another thread. In the case of Mike's various interviews, a lot of these are done when he's coming to an area and a promotional interview is arranged through the local press by the PR staff working for the tour. Often the interviewer is given a set of topics to discuss, which means the answers can always come around to promoting the event and selling more tickets. It's just the way it is done and has been done for decades. It's done by many major artists who simply don't sit down for the in-depth, long interviews that we might want to read.

And the kind of information that gets printed is pretty controlled, so you get repetition and stock answers across the board, no matter who it is.

One of the other untold aspects which i think we all hope is a rare thing but which actually may not be depending on the people involved is that an interviewer who gets the assignment might get a backlash if something negative or "off limits" makes the published version. In many cases they're acting in a promotional role and they simply cannot or will not ask the tough questions.

It might explain how it seems repetitive when most of Mike's interviews are done in a promotional capacity, and short on anything new other than trying to hype the upcoming appearance.

At the same time, and speaking in my own opinion here, I don't see the benefit or the advantage of bringing up drug use and all the other elements we almost expect to read at this point when he's promoting shows and trying to sell more tickets. At that point I can see where some fans reading it might react negatively, especially since it has been a common theme for years now in these interviews, and ultimately it really has nothing to do with getting people excited for an upcoming concert.

The old song: "Accentuate The Positive". It plays better in the press and among fans.

I`m not sure the questions are quite that controlled. Sure they want to promote the touring but Mike is still asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. from time to time.

When he was promoting the Hyde Park appearance last year, for example, he was asked: `You once said The Rolling Stones were too chickensh*t to get on the same stage as The Beach Boys. Does that mean JLS are braver than The Rolling Stones?`  :)

I used to always take Brian's side (or the Brian group side) in these things, but I've learned that I just don't know enough to have an informed opinion. I do applaud Mike for trying to work in some new songs. My main wish is Mike would write more and not try to write what he thinks would be commercially viable, but write about what he cares about, even if it is stuff like TM that I personally have no interest in.

That's also what interests me most with Brian-that he is writing and recording new material on a decently regular basis, even if some of it is cover albums.

If the questions are asked they get answered. If it is unpleasant stuff, it is still the answer. They could could be evasive or unresponsive or lie or all three. The problem is not the answers, it is the questions imo.

Do you accept that many of these questions, not specifically where Mike is involved but across the board with musicians promoting stuff in general, have been either suggested or even screened before the interview, and then beyond that in some cases reviewed before they get published? There are some things which are, simply put, "off limits" compared to what the person being interviewed wants to promote or wants to say.

This ties in specifically to issues of Facebook and Twitter messages from various public figures that get them into trouble. When they're not controlled, when they're not scripted to some degree, when they're not "on message", when they're not filtered, they get into all kinds of trouble by what they say off the cuff.

And when that hurts their income, their marketability, or their image, it can explain why these 15 minute interview junkets while promoting something are more controlled both before and after.

But Mike does get asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. occasionally so they are not that controlled surely.

I don't want to specifically point to Mike and his interviews with what I said earlier, but take a look through those interviews where he was asked about those specific points: Does it feel like he had or even still has a standard set of replies to them? I don't think those would be off-limits anyway, he's been asked about them in much the same way for the better part of the last 25 years or so!

What would be off limits then? A genuine question... Mike obviously has developed set answers to many questions because he is so used to being interviewed now.

Last year he was asked a lot about C50 and one of his responses of, `you sound like you are hung up on that tour` to the interviewer didn`t suggest that the questions had exactly been all vetted in advance.

Obviously, as I`ve said, they do want to promote the touring and doubtless Mike`s management makes that clear to the interviewer in advance. But if they were going to be controlling the questions then I would expect them to be vetoing plenty of stuff that does get asked.

I don't know if there's a difference between print and radio. I can tell you from my experience interviewing Mike on the radio that no questions were vetted by management first. They didn't even ask about what I planned to ask. Same with Brian actually.

Consider that so many of Mike's interviews that get clipped and posted here as a "new interview" tend to come from these promotional junkets when he's promoting a concert in the area. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I don't know what your area has, but many in the US have newspapers which put an insert in the Thursday or Friday editions usually called "Weekender" or something similar. They list all the events, concerts, food fairs, whatever...and they often have interviews with artists playing the major venues that week in the area.

The interviews usually play to the lowest common denominator, and I don't mean that as a knock or anything, but it's far from the questions or information those artists' fans might want to read. And it's often information which the fan base knows - the fan base which has already bought tickets - and it's information that's usually been hashed out many times. Sometimes not.

Now consider Beach Boys concerts this summer. I *do* blame some of the interviewers for simply being lazy or not researching the band, but I mostly blame the whole system of interviews promoting concert events. They're not for the fans who already have tickets, they're for casual fans or even non-fans looking for something cool to do on Friday night.

In other words, lowest common denominator for the readership they're targeting.

For BB's fans, we don't need to read another version of how Mike wrote those lyrics in a car on the way to the studio. But at the same time, how many casual fans would care at all if Mike were asked something about Craig Vincent Smith and "Salesman" or memories of touring with the Buffalo Springfield? The interviews don't go there.

My own take: Someone posted an interview Mike gave leading up to the July 5th Jones Beach show, the one where Al wasn't there. I would have liked to read at least a question about why Al wasn't there. It's as if Al was never even billed to play that show, and we know some fans bought tickets because having Al and David there was a bigger draw than the average package show.

But not a word about Al. I understand that, though - Most readers browsing for that kind of interview might not care. And do we think we'd get anything resembling a straight, definitive answer if Mike were asked point blank "What happened with Al?". We'd get a political-style brush-off, or a simple reply far short of info we all were curious about.

So there is a disconnect. There are lazy interviewers who don't know much about Beach Boys history enough to ask the deeper questions. And there is a system of promoting shows where such questions simply aren't asked, aren't really on the agenda, or simply don't make the final cut for whatever reason.

That's specific to Mike and his Beach Boys related promotional interviews. What I said earlier covers a majority of artists doing these regional promotions.

It depends on the station, the outlet, and the artist. Most if not all interviews you see on the late night talk shows are worked out and even rehearsed in advance of what we see on the broadcast. There are situations where the writers and producers have even "punched up" a guest's story by adding elements or lines to make it more funny for the air. When I heard that, I was disillusioned by the whole thing and after Carson left the air my interest in late night shows dropped considerably.

There are situations where the questions are either suggested or sent in advance for these promotional things. Not all of them, not every one, but if a movie company for example sends some actor to some random major-market place called KISS 106 or something, on a wacky/zany morning show kind of deal to promote a new film, they expect at least some talk of the actual film. And if that same guy got busted with a hooker in the Village 25 years ago, and is now out promoting a family comedy, don;t you think the hooker talk would be made off-limits before the show? Or would the show hosts risk offending the guy and having him walk out if they asked him "So what happened with that hooker you got busted with?" after he just got done promoting a family comedy?  ;D

All i can suggest is it depends on the medium, the people involved, and other variables when these things happen.

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

Has anyone asked him about Al since July 5th?

I completely agree that these interviews are going to cover just the basics for their readership.

Not that I've seen and I wish someone would. I also wish they would dig harder about how the end of C50 was such a cluster F.

That's another great example! It's been two years since that happened. Has it been asked or answered beyond a basic mention of that tour? Even in that specific case mentioned above, where Mike replied to the interviewer by saying they were hung up on that tour or something, do you think we'd get more than a brush-off answer? I wish we would. I also wish someone would ask!

It's the lack of asking that kind of question about C50 that makes reading another variation on the drugs-writing with my cousin-California Girls lyrics topics and answers seem so banal. But then again I'm - we're - fans and the interviews Mike seems to give most often aren't designed for us.

Keep in mind that we read ALL the interviews and follow EVERYTHING the band does.  For many people, the casual fan or perhaps not even a real fan at all, they may only see the one interview when the band is coming to their town, or similar situation, so it doesn't seem so repetitive and old news like it does to us. But it would be nice if a) Mike weren't asked the same questions over and over, or given the opening, and b) when he is, he chose to say "asked and answered, nothing new to say".

Gosh guys, I wish we had somebody on this board who has or was going to interview Mike...hmm...shoot....wait....

it's a guy named ANDREW G. DOE!

I don't know if it would work, but wouldn't it be swell if we all (with Andrew) came up with an interesting list of questions and got Andrew to ask those? And maybe a similar interview for Bruce? Eh? Anybody??

A question I would like asked of ML, why don't you and Al Jardine get along?

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, butv rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses". Mike's own addiction (TM) is indeed much less harmful to the body.

November.

Kinda. My impression was, don't hold your breath.

Agreed, the same sort of complicated feelings and regrets everybody else has in these situations.

You're not naive. I totally agree with you. While I do think Mike Love had an overall happy career and life, I also feel that there is an underlying sadness to him, and that is based on what happened to The Beach Boys, specifically what and who was lost. The song title/line, "God please let us go on this way" comes to mind. You know how Mike can become locked into specific time periods and styles. I often get the feeling that Mike wishes that the 1964 lineup would've stayed intact FOREVER. Hmmm, I wonder how many fans feel the same way? But, one by one, they were lost, specifically Brian, Dennis, and Carl. Of course the reasons weren't 100% attributed to substance abuse (did Mike say substance abuse was 100% responsible?), but it played a very, very large part.

I'm surprised (actually I'm not ;)) more people aren't more sympathetic to Mike's feelings about that subject, because many times I feel the same way. I'll think, "Damn, one of my favorite groups, and they could've made NEW music for 60 years, but one member dies at 39, another at 51, and another stopped geniusing around a long, long time ago. Such a tragedy." Feeling sorry for myself? Yeah. Selfish feelings? Hell yeah. But normal. And then, like Mike, I'll think, "If only they didn't...."

my personal take:
with dennis and carl gone there was no longer anyone to unite againt and just like USA and USSR their alliance faltered  ;D

I'll bet that you are not too far off the mark there. Great post!

The interviewer certainly plays a large role in how the interview goes. In most cases, the same or very similar questions are indeed being asked, and follow-up questions are not pursued. I’m not even talking about Mike Wallace-style grilling or something, but just natural follow-up questions to steer the conversation.

However, I’ve seen a pattern, particularly lately, of Mike providing near word-for-word identical responses, and not always to the same precise questions. It comes across as if he has the same half-dozen or so talking points, and he plans to run through those even if the questions don’t precisely match up. This pattern came come about for any number of reasons. Sometimes it’s simply to get through tedious interviews quickly. Sometimes it comes from defensiveness and insecurity. Sometimes it comes from deflecting the precise actual question. Sometimes it’s to convey a particular agenda. Sometimes, like McCartney, you can tell it’s simply a case of doing an interview on “autopilot.”

For instance, in that recent radio/audio interview that was posted here, Mike is asked about C50 and he immediately starts talking about his current band. It’s literally an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. That answering pattern, coupled with many of the precisely identical turns of phrase used in multiple interviews, screams “stock/scripted response” to a degree that goes beyond even classic repetitive interview subjects like Paul McCartney. The problem with McCartney interviews is about 80% the interviewers’ fault and 20% McCartney’s fault. He’ll actually answer unique and weird questions if they are posed, but he is often asked very specific repetitive questions.

I feel like with Mike, it’s about 50/50 or maybe 60% the interviewers fault, 40% his. Mike, especially lately, has a pattern of going into very stock responses, talking points essentially. Set end date, “there was a term”, “the reunion was for good for the fans”, “we’re doing what we’ve been doing”, “I was screwed on songwriting credits”, “Uncle Murry took advantage”, “the Wilsons abused drugs and alcohol”, “I meditate every day”, “We’re doing about 130 shows this year”, “I hung out with the Beatles in India in 1968”, etc. The interviewers are most definitely feeding into this pattern. But some of the stuff isn’t getting specifically asked, yet we’re getting the same answers. It’s too bad, because like McCartney, Mike has shown that he can under some circumstances do a good interview with non-stock responses. Listen to that Howard Stern interview from the 90’s. Stern did the same thing with McCartney when he finally got McCartney for an interview. Stern did the same interviewing Brian in 1998. One of the skills Stern had/has that he didn’t utilize nearly enough was to get guys like this out of their rut of answering the same questions with the same answers.

Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?

Also, briefly addressing the issues surrounding how interviewers are or aren’t told what to ask or not to ask, Edelson has mentioned in the past that he has never been told what to ask or not to ask when interviewing these guys. Certainly, whatever is an artist’s new project will be a focus point. But I sense in most cases, especially with the BB’s, it’s interviewers just being either lazy or non-confrontational. It is true, if you grill someone and ask them stuff they don’t want to discuss, your chances of getting another interview could decrease.

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html (http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html)

Some of my favorite bits from the interview:

On Brian's '88 solo album:

Did you like his first solo album?

No.

You didn't like it?

f*** no.

Asked about the impending songwriting lawsuit (remember, this is the guy that "meditates every day"):

So what will you be doing with this?

Suing his ass to pieces because he's hiding behind his lawyers and all that kind of stuff.

Thanks a lot for posting that, that was important! :)

Is there a link to this interview?

In one of the threads earlier this year I tried to place that specific interview into context, and if it's been forgotten since I'll try to sum it up!  :)

That interview has everything to do with both *timing* and *context*. This was a classic case of catching Mike - well, possibly anyone - at one of the worst times for an interview about the Beach Boys.

When he did this interview, Brian had just won his lawsuit awarding him millions in back payments from the Murry-led Sea Of Tunes sale debacle. It was an amazing amount of money.

Trace the backstory of what happened, I won't recap that here, but Mike at this specific time felt that he was due money from Brian via that deal and the legal teams involved, and that he was also unable to reach or contact Brian directly to discuss it. It was all going through "have my lawyer call your lawyer" for specific legal reasons.

So in that Goldmine piece, you get Mike at perhaps his most angry, most bitter, most confrontational, and most unguarded. Read what he says: He's basically unloading years of baggage and perhaps pent-up anger on the Goldmine interviewer, and throwing darts wildly around all sorts of topics.

It's pure frustration, and again consider this was at one of the worst times they could have had Mike sit down for an "extensive" interview about the Beach Boys and specifically Brian. He was as angry in the interview as you'll see in any of his history of interviews.

Perhaps for PR reasons someone should have cancelled it in light of the timing.  :)

Thank you! :)

I think all of that info is found through Howie's posts. He mentioned that he discussed this with Mike when talking with him during the 2012 tour. I do not know if the discussion of Schilling, the touring production setup, etc. and whatnot ended up in any printed article/interview. I would suspect not, as it's pretty "inside baseball" sort of stuff for fans.

But he has been able to wring more information out of these guys by virtue of asking fan-oriented questions rather than softball, "asked a million times already" questions. I believe some of Howie's posts also have some insight into the process of interviewing these guys. I remember him mentioning that he was never told that a topic was "off limits", or otherwise told what to ask or not ask. He also had some interesting insights into the guys in the band and how they approach interviews and hardcore fans, etc. I remember Howie's impressions of Bruce in particular being interesting.

The interview does indeed seem to be fueled by that songwriting issue/case being a fresh issue at the time.

But it is rather interesting that Mike *still* brings it up in an interview in 2014, after it has been resolved resoundingly in his favor. Yes, he's less fired up about it now. But he still seems just as annoyed that it happened in the first place. I just find that funny in light of the same 1992 interview referencing Al getting hung up on old issues and not being to get over stuff.

The songwriting stuff in that 1992 interview isn't nearly as interesting as the fact that his being all worked up about that issue seemed to lead to offering more unvarnished opinions on other stuff having nothing to do with the songwriting lawsuit. We're unlikely to see Mike saying this about a Brian album in 2014:

In reference to the '88 album:

What didn't you like about it?

First of all the lyrics. Second of all the arrangements weren't commercial enough. Third of all it sounded like sh*t compared to what he could sound like.

If that's how Mike really feels about something, I do truly want to know it. It's extremely refreshing. And yes, it's also fun to read this commentary from the guy who, in the same year, spearheaded the "Summer in Paradise" album. We can then weigh the opinions on lyrics, arrangements, and commerciality accordingly.

This is an interesting observation, and consider tying it in to a more recent interview (which has been posted on the board and discussed, if anyone could find it and copy-paste for reference) where Mike seems to be talking down "That's Why God Made The Radio". Without reading it directly, if I remember the interviewer in that case even pushed back a little bit at Mike and suggested it had made the charts at #3 or something.

I mention that because my feelings at the time were surprise and disappointment to read what felt like Mike downing the album which had actually been successful if we judge it by a top-5 chart appearance when a new Beach Boys album probably wouldn't be expected to go beyond the niche market!

But consider Mike in that interview is saying similar things, or giving similar "reasons" or even validations for his opinions on why and how the album could have been more successful.

And there is a common theme or themes at work, from this 1992 commentary on the solo BW album to his thoughts on TWGMTR and its commercial viability.

He may not say exactly the same words, but the sentiment is basically the same from 1992 to 2012-2013, right? If...then... regarding commercial viability and the like, that kind of thing. Interesting.

I think it was Mike who mentioned it getting to number 3. Something like, `It got to number 3 which isn`t bad but to have an album that stays on the charts you need a hit single.`

Obviously having a hit single at that point in their career was never a likely possibility.

Does anyone have any idea roughly how many TWGMTR has sold though btw?

Mike does want to discuss his writing credits, but no one ever seems to ask him how, at the time,  it all went down.

Things I'd like to know :

1) While writing the lyrics to 'California Girls', did he know that he might not receive a credit?
2) Did someone take him aside and tell him he wouldn't be getting a credit before the song was released, or did he find out when he 1st looked at the record label?
3) Did he complain? Why, after not receiving credit for 'I Get Around', did he not insure that  his 'California Girls' contribution would be acknowledged?
4) Why did he get co-writing credit on some songs and not on others?

It's a fascinating subject, and one Mike does not seem reluctant to talk about.  Why the lack of details?

There was a time, somewhere along the line, that Al must have Realllllllllllllllllly gotten under Mike's skin.  To the point where he cannot stand that motherfucker.  Dennis screwed Mike's daughter and he STILL can find 1 or 2 halfway decent things to say about Dennis.  He won't even mention Al's name! 

BTW, by commenting on how Dave was fired, unfairly, by Murray... he's KIND OF talking sh*t about Al.  LOL

It's amazing. 

Carl had his own issues with alcohol/drugs but of course it wasn't on the level of his brothers... to Mike who views himself as really straight edge, he sees all 3 of them as druggies, at least in the late 60's. 

I think people get way too worked up over what Mike says.  It's just his opinion, he could be completely wrong.  He's not saying he didn't like his cousins, he's just saying he didn't like that they did drugs.  Your opinion may be different, that's just his.  I think he loves all 3 of them as much as he possibly can, what else do people want from him?  He's 74, he's not going to change, that's the best he's got.  He didn't like that they took drugs, and if an interviewer says "Tell me something bad" he's going to go to "My cousins did drugs" over and over again.  He thinks that's really bad and they hurt the band by doing it.... and he's pretty much right.  It just sounds like sh*t to say it out loud, over and over again. 

I found it really interesting how Mike gave Brian a pass on the songwriting stuff.  He said something to the effect of, at the time Brian was pretty incapable of standing up to his father. 

I know everybody sees this stuff differently, but in his own way, I see nothing but love and respect coming from Mike, towards Brian.  He never has a bad word to say about Brian, he obviously can't stand Brian's entourage... but he puts Brian over, over and over again in every interview.  Even earlier, the guy asks him what he wrote that he's proud of, and yes he bragged about his lyrics, but made certain to mention how great Brian was and that Brian wrote the music, etc. like he always does. 

I know people can look at it, and see Mike saying negative things, but you can also look at it and see all the positive things he's saying.  It's just his way of doing it is backhanded.  Coming from him, those are HUGE compliments he pays Brian in these interviews. 

Round the end of that summer, Bruce told us in Sydney that it had sold about 180,000 copies.  Which compares well with Sunflower, but isn't exactly gold...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Nowadays this is a good selling album...

But maybe Mike is still thinking of the days when even non-hit albums sold a lot more. Didn`t BW88 shift twice as many copies back in the day?

I think Mike would only be truly happy with Adele like numbers these days. Or how Lorde is the thing right now. What he doesn't realize is that this doesn't happen anymore for legacy artists. Shoot, it doesn't even happen for '90s artists for the most part. Pearl Jam isn't gonna have new hit singles. Neither is Foo Fighters.

A good outing for a classic artist or band, is a top ten showing for the album in the first week, and hope to stick around for a while after that. Paul McCartney usually sneaks into the top ten still. Bob Dylan has actually managed to get to number one, which is really funny because he is about as uncommercial as it gets these days. With his croaking rasp he's definitely not appealing to the Justin Beiber market or whoever. Shoot, it probably doesn't appeal to even a lot of fans of "Like A Rolling Stone" and Blonde and Blonde. But guess what? He's Bob Dylan and he keeps making outstanding albums, and he realized around late 1965 after diminishing returns on his singles that he was an album guy and made his albums great. And it's paid off.

So really, Mike should be very, very proud that 50 years into The Beach Boys career that they had a number three album in 2012, with NEW material, and not old hits!

And let's be honest, if somehow he got to make a Beach Boys album without Brian and THAT went to number three? Or if somehow all the stars aligned and he had a solo album get in the top ten? We would never, ever hear the end of it. Mike just has sour grapes about the reunion because he's used to being the boss, and he wasn't the boss in 2012.

I’m very pragmatic about what Mike says and how he says it. I don’t think he should say something else. Rather, I’m perplexed by the apparent attitude that Mike and/or a small number of fans sometimes have, along the lines of “why do people think he sounds like a dick sometimes?” That’s what astonishes me. Objectively, he says a number of things that sound that way. That it comes across that way to some, or that some point this out, is simply a reaction to what Mike says. We can argue that we shouldn’t react, but that’s kind of the point of a discussion board I think.

We as fans know more of the back story than an average person, so we discuss and parse and figure out some stuff that sounds dick-ish but is actually understandable given the band’s history (e.g. frustration with and arguably judgment towards drug and alcohol abuse), and perhaps some other stuff will still sound completely devoid of logic or reasoning or just sounds disagreeable on its face (e.g. most of the stuff he has said about the demise of C50).

There is also the separate issue of the interviews being repetitive, and I think interviewers are partly to blame. I think it’s also quite clear that Mike has stock, go-to answers ready and he doesn’t seem inclined to stray for those even if the questions don’t quite fit those answers. That’s not so much objectionable or disagreeable, that’s just kind of annoying from the fan perspective of simply wanting to read something we haven’t already read.

Someone needs send off a fax or e-mail to those guys with sales numbers for “Summer in Paradise.”

I don’t recall a bunch of self-deprecating stuff from Mike on the massive failure of that album.

My guess is that if TWGMTR had featured writing on all the tracks from Mike and had been written and recorded the way he wanted, and if he had felt great about all the aspects of the reunion, he would have been gushing about how amazing a #3 chart placement was, how it was the best album charting they had had in decades, etc.

You may be onto something. This theory is supported by Mike’s comments in the one interview about the album needing a hit single. That showed a massive lack of understanding of how the charts work these days, both functionally and in terms of what type of music and what era of bands still have “hit singles.”

To me it just proves my point. Howie knows how to do it: same ol' for the wide base, new for the micro base. The same answers to the same questions are always going to be the same and sound the same. The questions are the thing.

Here are some "different" q&a's with Mike.

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-you-should-know-about-mike-love

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-remembers-the-beatles

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-and-alan-jardine-discuss-holland-esq-s-100th-edition

They're almost like "zing" one-liners. Seems there's no more meat there than any of the others we've seen. 

Well, there was no promise of meat…not even potatoes.

Tru dat.  and I guess you didn't promise interviews either.
What they seem to be is single questions taken from one lengthy interview and parsed out over a period of time, to make them each seem fresh

David, serious question here as you know the guys pretty well. Do you think any of them would seriously sit down and answer the questions that refer to the 1998 fracture and what has been going down between them since the end of C73? I mean the nitty gritty stuff, not the short answer stuff that we have gotten over the years.

C73?!
Im gonna go out on a limb and guarantee there will be no C73 tour...

You're talking about a period when Carl died…and that is something I personally don't like to revisit. 

David, I believe he's referring to the period after Carl died in 1998. The year Mike essentially kicked Al out of the band.

All that stuff appears in the pages of ESQ. 

Exactly, thanks Mikie. And also after C50 or C73 since Mike says they did 73 reunion shows in 2012.

When I look back to 1998 in terms of music, I enjoy the "Endless Harmony" DVD / CD, and even moments on Bruce's "Symphonic Sounds" disc.   

I know I'm a broken record here, but it is about the music for me.

I was thinking C73 meant 73 years of the Beach.Boys, and i cant picture them on stage in their 90s. 'Uh let's take an intermission while the nurse changes Bruce'

Thanks for posting these links again and if people aren`t satisfied with these answers, particularly the comments about the Holland album and Mike`s sense of humour, then I don`t think they will be satisfied with any interview that these guys give really.

Just as likely to be an intermission while Jeff changes Mike and Bruce....

Lengthy conversations / interviews are in each issue of ESQ. 

Mike, what do you recommend in the way of cutlery sets for the single man?

C50 has always referred to the tour of 2012. C73 is a construct of your own and refers to... well, nothing at all, actually.  ;D

Jesus, you guys are picky. I only used it because Mike in this past interview talked about the 50 shows being expanded to 73. C50 really is inaccurate. It is not just a couple show difference, it is 23 shows. Maybe it is time to call it what it actually was, not what it was actually supposed to be.

The 50 in C50 had nothing to do with the number of shows, and everything to do with the number of years. Seriously, if you don't recall/can't grasp that, maybe you should consider some kind of companion. #humor

Honestly, no I did not know that. I thought it meant "Concerts 50". I know the original meaning for the reunion tour was 50 years, 50 shows, but I thought that it was something we fans made up, as I have never seen the Beach Boys use the actual term for any album or DVD releases.

(http://oi58.tinypic.com/2vijcpf.jpg)

OK, call me embarrassed!

David does it right. Good questions = good answers

Hi everyone - I've enjoyed reading the various comments on this thread.  I happen to be the person who did the interview that launched this discussion, and I thought you might like to get my perspective.

First, a bit of background.  The interview was done for a preview article for the Beach Boys show at the Ventura County Fair for a Santa Barbara-based online newspaper called noozhawk.com.  The interview was set up at my initiative, and I'm guessing that Mike agreed to do it because of his Santa Barbara connection.  To my knowledge, none of the other area newspapers did an interview with him for this show, and it wouldn't have happened had I not navigated my way to the right people to contact.  My preview article on noozhawk.com included what I judged to be the parts of the interview that would be of broadest interest to the local readership, but as I typically do, I posted the full thing on my own website.  In fact, you might enjoy some of the other interviews posted there - http://music-illuminati.com/category/features/interviews

I didn't receive any suggested questions or list of "forbidden topics" from the band's management, PR firm, or Mike himself.  In fact, in the almost 150 interviews I've done, I don't ever recall receiving anything like this, apart from a gentle "It'd be nice if you mentioned the new album...", etc, which didn't happen in this case.  Maybe I'll kick myself someday for not asking Mike any "tough questions" while I had his ear, but remember, this was for a concert preview article for a county fair.  To me, that doesn't seem like the time to go 60 Minutes on somebody.  Note that there was no promise or expectation of anything for doing this, say free tickets or a signed copy of Smile  :)

OK, my questions, apparently like those of many other interviewers, were admittedly kind of obvious, but I honestly think that these are the sorts of things that the general public wants to know.  Bear in mind that the vast majority of the people reading such a preview article have probably never read an interview with Mike Love before. 

I personally like to keep my interview questions somewhat open and vague, so that the interviewee can take them where they want to go.  This keeps them talking, and often seems to help them to actually enjoy doing their thousandth+ interview.  The more detailed or obscure a question is, the more likely the interviewee is to give a rather uninteresting question like "Yes" or "No" or "What was the question again?"  I also think that this approach helps to keep the focus on them rather than me coming across as trying to display "superior knowledge" to the general readership, or something like that.

Remember also that the interviewee is going into this with the understanding that the interview is being done to promote their upcoming concert/release.  A few times I have gotten carried away with other lines of questioning - asking Alan Parsons too many questions about Pink Floyd, or asking Don Felder too many questions about The Eagles - and they politely asked for the focus to shift to their upcoming show.  This is a bit awkward when it happens, but fortunately in those cases I was able to quickly get back "on track".

There is no doubt a time and a place for tough questions, and there are no doubt plenty of people who are better informed about The Beach Boys and Mike Love - and better at instantly coming up with good follow-up questions - than myself.  Personally, I would enjoy reading such an interview, but I wouldn't expect to find it in such a preview article.

When I transcribed the interview, I did notice that Mike didn't mention Al Jardine at all, which I thought was interesting.  Also, I was surprised that he apparently isn't too concerned about the recordings released because of the European Union copyright law.

OK, I've rambled on long enough.  I'm happy to hear your feedback, even if it's on the negative side.  And, BTW, I have tried to set up an interview with Brian Wilson several times in the past when he was doing something in the Santa Barbara area, with no luck.  If one ever comes through, maybe I'll ask you guys what you really want to know, and then I'll try to figure out how to fit it in...

Oh, one more thing.  You might (or might not) get a chuckle out of the following question I asked of Blag Dahlia, singer for the punk rock band The Dwarves, who happened to be performing on the same night as a previous Beach Boys concert in the area:

JM: The Beach Boys will be playing that same night in Santa Ynez, which is close enough that some Santa Barbarans will make the trip. What would you say to someone who is trying to decide if they should go to The Dwarves or The Beach Boys?

BD: They might be a better band, but we draw the line at huffing tape head cleaner and f***ing the Manson girls.

For the record, I went to see The Dwarves that night.  Hey, I'd never seen them before!

- Jeff

Thanks very much for your input!  I found it very interesting, and this element in particular:


For reference, here's the question and non-answer:


I thought this was a great example of an interesting question being posed to a Beach Boy.  I have so far managed to avoid any questions being posed to any of the living band members on their opinions of the Big Beat 1963 and related topics (and do forgive me if I've missed a major scoop on this topic, Smiley Smilers, as I don't spend my every living moment on here), and I think it's a fascinating line of discussion, not just for what's already been released but also given the things that are going to be released down the line, assuming no change in EU law.  And so I found it somewhat disappointing that Mike Love apparently has no interest in the topic whatsoever and prefers to burble about various unrelated topics.

It's why I simply can't understand Cam Mott's perspective on the matter:



... because here, in the very interview that started the thread, is an example of a good question that yielded a thoroughly useless answer containing nothing relevant.

So you think one example from one interview makes my general perspective un-understandable?

Do you disagree with my perspective that David Beard does it right and that good questions = good answers or are you saying you do not understand my perspective there either. Help me understand your perspective.

Mike may be only dimly aware of those iTunes releases.  He may not have much to say about them, or nothing. Which is reflected in his answer.

Thanks for this informative post and for asking Blag Dahlia that question.  :-D

Well, my perspective in this particular instance is that I'm interested in the Big Beat 1963, the copyright issues surrounding it, and the various living Beach Boys' opinions surrounding the release of this material.  Especially since various members of the band have reportedly had (perhaps historical) issues surrounding the release of otherwise unavailable material.  I thought it was an interesting question to ask, and I'd be equally interested to see Brian, Al or Dave asked the same question.  Maybe none of them have thought about it.  Maybe they should be thinking about it.  Maybe it doesn't matter to anyone but me.

But on a wider note, it isn't just one example.  I just pounced upon this example because it was pertinent to the topic of the thread, i.e. the interview that started it.  Mike is not an interviewer's dream, and he is far from being alone among Beach Boys in this respect.

Mike was asked a question for which he didn't have an answer and to you that negates my perspective that good questions makes good answers. I guess we will just disagree.

What about my perspective on how well David does it, do you not understand it either because of this one example?

Mike doesn't decide what copyright law is in England.  I imagine he doesn't spend too many brain cells analyzing the pros and cons of the situation when he's got all those beach balls to blow up and cheerleaders to audition. 

It's certainly possible that David gets good answers out of Mike because he asks good questions.  But then again, maybe David gets good answers out of Mike because Mike knows who David is and is more comfortable talking to him than to someone he's never encountered before.  Or maybe David gets good answers out of Mike because Mike knows that ESQ isn't going to selectively quote or misrepresent him, so he feels able to let his guard down.  Or maybe David just sends him some free hats or something, I don't know.  The point is that there are lots of variables here, and to boil it down to "good questions = good answers" is simplistic.  It also shifts all of the responsibility for how an interview turns out onto the shoulders of the interviewer, which is no more of a reasonable position than plonking all responsibility down on Mike.  It's a two-sided conversation and both parties carry some responsibility for bringing something good to the table.

We will disagree on it all then.

This Mike interview was just published in my local paper, it's pretty much the same stuff as always, but there's some bits about Brian at the end that people may find interesting: http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html#incart_river

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

I found Mike's comment about BW current use of medication unnecessary and a little offensive.  Let it go man.

The interviewer says GV was the first single to sell over a million copies; on the first Concert album in Sacramento, Mike introduces 'I Get Around' by saying it "sold over a million copies for us and was #1 in the nation!" Wonder where the interviewer got that. Small point, just makes me curious what the numbers were for each on their initial release (yes, I know, I could look it up, nobody needs to answer it here).

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Feels like a "here we go again" situation with some of that MassLive interview.

Very true, he does that make distinction when discussing a lot of these things. But there's a point at which when you blame all the people "around" someone, and then state that that someone is "controlled and still medicated", and imply a correlation between the "street drugs" he used to take and the prescribed drugs he *currently* takes, that's a pretty strong litany of negative reflections of that person. Does Mike even know what specific medications Brian is taking? And why is he framing this "medicated" state in a negative light, but then still saying he would work with Brian if it was one-on-one?

And could someone send a memo to Mike and let him know that not much of anybody I know, even staunch John Lennon fans, are going around saying "John Lennon was the real powerhouse of the Beatles." Nobody is saying Paul McCartney or Harrison are "chopped liver" (another line Mike has used in previous interviews, by the way), nor is the Wilson/Love relationship creatively substantially similar to the Lennon/McCartney relationship.

Also, once again, when asked about what people don't know about *Mike*, he quickly mentions how the Wilson brothers did drugs. Why is he that fixated on this, especially now?

I also find it amusing that they all put aside "individual pursuits" to do the reunion tour. In this scenario, his "individual pursuit" is touring as "The Beach Boys."  :lol

Brian uses the people around him to control who he interacts with. It is his choice.

He has a complicated life, but he's no vegetable, and when he wants stuff he generally makes it known.

And as for "his people" -- once again, who are they? You have Melinda, who is his wife and who might be expected to take an interest (and is far from the only rock star spouse to manage her husband's career). And then you have ... hmm ...

Well, there's Jean Seivers, who is his publicist.

David Leaf isn't there.

Joe Thomas is there, but I doubt he wants to stick around for years and years. He's also not working in the studio with Brian these days, either.

So, Nicko, who are the people? Are we talking about Melinda? And if that's the case, let's just say that Brian's wife rubs some people the wrong way. It would probably be more accurate, and sound less conspiratorial.

Also worth chewing on is that even observers like Howie Edelson have mentioned that Melinda is not the only wife who was involved in the whole C50 project. His commentary as well as the commentary of others seems to indicate Brian may have had room to say similar things about the people "around" another person in the band.

It's perhaps worth noting that I don't believe Brian has ever commented negatively in interviews about people "around" anyone else in the band (as in wives, handlers, etc.)

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened?  :(

Do we really need another C50 disintegration thread? :thud

Yep.  :lol

I was at least making an attempt to relate it to this thread, which concerns recent interviews with Mike that, to my mind, pretty directly contradict what that December 2011 interview says.

There is always the option of not participating in the discussion if it's so objectionable. I believe there's still a button for that somewhere on this board...

Seriously, that's why I prefaced what I wrote by mentioning that my comment could well fall off into the ether without any response. I'm totally prepared for that.  8)

Why would Mike want to work with Brian when he knows that a movie and book are in the works where he's likely not going to come out very well. The movie was already written and in pre-production during the reunion, the book deal was announced shortly after. There's enough bad blood between both parties (Mike and his usual remarks, no surprise there) that I can't see how they would have wanted to stay together anyways. Didn't the Beatles break up over personal issues? It's not do-able to have two people who don't like each other, and really haven't for years, to continue working together.  I don't get the Brian-centric fans who don't even like Mike musically, who wanted the reunion to continue. Do you really enjoy hearing Mike singing with Brian? Or do you just like the spectacle of Mike being dominated by Brian? If Mike is such an asshole, in your opinion, do you really think it would have been healthy for Brian to continue to deal with him? There a million reasons why that reunion had to end, and it would have been well over by now, anyways.

I think most who wanted the reunion to continue felt like Mike was a great front man for the band (and still is), was enjoyable vocally on TWGMTR and wrote at least one decent set of lyrics for the record (Isn't It Time). The whole really was greater than the sum of the parts for much of 2012. Much was forgiven, certainly by me (I thought I was done with Mike after the nonsensical BWPS lawsuit).


I do think there's a lot of truth here, though. These are old rock stars, and this is what their relationships are like. Fraught, with years of not communicating or sniping broken up by short-lived reunions. Page and Plant anyone?

The appeal wasn't focused on Mike and Brian appearing together, the appeal was all surviving band members together performing. That's why the demand was so high, that's why more shows were added to the original plan, that's why more shows were offered beyond that, that's why people brought kids and grandkids to the shows because it was an event that transcended just having Mike and Brian on the same stage.

And these kinds of discussions will probably continue appearing as long as Mike continues to give interviews like this brand new one from MassLive. Just commenting on this yet again: I don't know why he has to "go there" time and time again with certain topics and comments, it doesn't sell more Beach Boys tickets and it probably won't win him any more fans. If there were a diplomatic kind of answer to some of these questions, perhaps that would be the better route to take.

Now what if folks here read this interview, disagree or even have another issue with something that was said, should they or should they not voice an opinion on it, if not a challenge where appropriate?

See, this is an example of what I've been saying all along.  Mike Love is his own worst enemy.

Mike always complains that he's got the "Villain" reputation in the Beach Boys saga.  It's true that public sympathy leans in Brian's favor because of his personal struggles and Mike's predilection toward lawsuits. But, instead of recognizing the need to use some finesse when discussing "Cousin Brian," he goes on record complaining about how he's "medicated" and "controlled," equates the use of "street drugs" with "prescribed drugs" (seriously! Does he really think taking medication for an illness is the same as taking LSD?), and yammers on about how Brian's people are tearing him down to build Brian up. Interestingly enough, Brian isn't the one saying this. He's clear about that point. But, in the process of pointing out what a robotic vegetable Brian apparently is, he has just torn Brian down in order to build Mike Love up. Which does nothing to improve his image or change people's opinion of him or Brian.

Mike needs to spend some time with the voices of Murry Wilson and Phil Spector in his head so he can gain a little empathy for what Brian deals with every day. But, since that won't happen, he should at least hire a good PR guy to tell him when to shut up.

As someone who covers a professional sports team for a living, "one day at a time" is code word for, "I'm not going to say anything interesting or answer this question." Mike might or might not have known at the time that there were 50 dates and that's it, but saying so unequivocally could have painted him as a bad guy, thus "one day at a time."

Agree! Mr. Positivity just can't stop himself from going negative.

Some good questions here, he doesn't dance around the C50 split. Mike gives good answers there.

Yet, when asked what people might not know about Mike Love, Mike almost immediately goes  into the Wilson brothers use of drugs. That be my question to Mike, why do you bring it up  in every interview?

 :-D

No conspiracy theory here.

The reasons why I didn`t mention Melinda by name are twofold.

Firstly because I have no idea if she is all controlling and she may be wonderful for all I know.

And secondly because those that have had issues always talk about the people around Brian being difficult. Whether it was Al saying, `They won`t let me call him`, Mike`s complaints or VDP`s recent tweets, they never seem to criticize Melinda specifically. Now that maybe purely out of politeness or tact (something we all know Mike is famous for  ;) ) but as they are talking about `people` it seems only sensible for others to do the same.

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html#incart_river

What about the recent Rolling Stone report that Brian was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when you pulled the plug on the reunion tour? (Wilson told the magazine, "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended.")

I saw what Jason Fine wrote. There never was a second album planned. I find it very disappointing that this information is being perpetuated. It’s erroneous and fallacious, but I suppose that is part of human nature.




That would have been news to Brian in May 2012. Shame he didn't ask him. Mike also indicates he's in for a longer haul.





http://tbo.com/arts_music/beach-boys-celebrate--years-with-tour-stop-in-tampa-399218?referer=None&shorturl=http%3A%2F%2Ftbo.ly%2FIMf8Fy

There is no definite plan beyond their current tour but Wilson would like to record another Beach Boy album. "This time I would like to do some rock n' roll," Wilson says. "I would like it to be a bit harder and faster."

So the future looks bright since Wilson and Love have been able to look past their differences and lawsuits filed against each other.

"That's all history," Love said. "It's all forgotten about. We're looking at our present and future. I think we're going to be doing this again with Brian for a long time."





http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/482551/beach-boys-talk-another-album-together

Love adds that Capitol/EMI, the Beach Boys' label, is "completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone, so they're very open to and enthusiastic about seeing what else we can come up with."




I guess it all comes down to your definition of 'planned'.

Just saw what Pretty Funky wrote, and I got a little something as well...

Mike claims that "there never was a second album planned", but he might wanna tell that to whoever operates his Facebook (which I'm pretty sure is actually him). Because...dig this:

(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/10593180_10100700082625899_8514112924113451538_n.jpg)

So yeah, it's obvious Mike is very, very unhappy with Brian and his people. But why is he lying about stuff that is verifiable?

Also, it's interesting that he cited Jason Fine by name. I'm assuming he probably has beef with how he was portrayed in the Rolling Stone piece from 2012 and also probably has his lawyers ready on speed dial so he can "sue Brian's ass to pieces" is he says a cross word about Mike in the new autobiography.

And lastly, I am so sick of the people on here who say things like "why do you want Mike to reunite again with Brian if you hate him so much?" and that kinda stuff. What these people don't get is that yeah, a lot of us think Mike is a major egotistical asshole. I sure do. But at the same time, I recently paid twenty bucks to get the ESQ CD The Boys Of Summer just so I could have "Love Like in Fairytales" and "Cool Head, Warm Heart" legally in my collection, since I like those songs. So here's the thing guys....I think Mike's a pretty big jerk. But I also think he's a pretty great singer and occasionally a good songwriter. So get bent next time you wanna question why we'd want that jerk to reunite with Brian and Al.

Personally I would say that years of nonsensical comments from the band members means that I don`t take what they say at face value anymore... A lot of the lovey-dovey quotes from the C50 tour were obviously guff.

I can believe that there were some comments along the lines of, `It would be cool to do another album` but I would guess that the negotiations behind the C50 tour, TWGMTR and TSS were complicated. Doing all over again would have been a huge undertaking...

Whatever happened to the follow-up question? Like this last interview, the statement is made that Brian is being "controlled"...then you ask a follow-up: "Who is controlling him?"...or "What exactly are they controlling?"...

And much like happened here a lot in the past months, someone makes that charge of Brian being controlled, or of Brian's people doing this or that...the simple question is asked: "Who are these people?"...and no one seems to know.

Everyone knows Brian is under control...yet the people controlling him cannot be ID'ed. But there are managers, agents, PR staff, travel staff...the same business structure a touring musician or artist has making certain decisions and handling business the artist doesn't do, including Mike.

Another follow up:

The statement is made that "Brian's people" or a variation thereof are somehow tearing Mike down.

Simple follow-up: "Who is doing this, and where is it being done?"

***Someone please find me an interview or a public statement of recent years where Brian has spoken negatively about Mike.***


And the ultimate follow-up: "Who are your people, Mike?"

Wouldn`t the answer simply be, `his management` though? Certainly when they had the rooftop reunion that was Mike`s half-jokey comment.

Every major artist has managers, agents, and various staff. If it were a case of joking around, the one-liner reply could be "ask my managers, they tell me what I'm going to do next..." or "ask his managers...", etc. The kind of thing old-timers like George Burns or Bob Hope used to say in interviews when asked "What is your next project?", or when someone asked Jerry Lewis about Dean Martin or something similar.

Maybe I'm out of line for even bringing it up again, but why use such a loaded word as "controlled", and if that choice is made to use a word with a stronger meaning like that, is it out of line to be asked to back up such a statement with something/anything? In this case, from this interview, someone reading this on MassLive is expected to take at face value the statement about someone or anyone being "controlled"...simply because the statement has appeared in the publication?

I don`t think it would be out of line at all but I can also understand why an interviewer might think, `if he wanted to specify he would have done`.

Similarly when VDP made his `release Brian` tweet he didn`t elaborate further when he obviously could have done if he`d wanted to.

I feel the need to remind Mike Love that he is not even close to being on the level of McCartney, let alone George Harrison.

So George Harrison was on a higher level than Paul McCartney?

Mike was a key part of the reunion. He was a key part of the stage presentation, he was a welcome addition to the studio production, and he was certainly a key logistically in terms of agreeing to do the reunion. Much like those in the midst of the Stamos nonsense trying to peg anyone who doesn’t want him musically involved with the band as disliking Stamos on a personal level, it’s ridiculous to assume that those who prefer the full reunion lineup don’t like Mike’s musical contributions.

It is precisely because of his musical contributions, mixed with everybody else’s, all that “the sum is greater than the individual parts” stuff, all that stuff is true. The reunion lineup would be pointless without Mike there. That’s why people are bummed about Mike saying no to continuing the reunion. It’s not some weird rhetorical argument. Is there really much of anybody out there who is passionately, strenuously advocating for a return to the reunion lineup, who actually secretly *doesn’t* want another reunion, and really just wants something else to criticize about Mike? I don’t think so. There are plenty of other rhetorical arguments to make against him.

Sure, some fans continue to be frustrated with his attitude, or actions, or obfuscation in interviews. Knowing the unlikely nature of another reunion, I suppose pointing out these criticisms is now largely simply for sake of pointing them out and making rhetorical points. But it’s all borne out of wanting Mike with all of the Beach Boys.

I found that late 2011 Mike interview here on this board. If you go back and read that thread, you’ll see how people seem to be surprised but optimistic about how Mike sounded. I know I felt that way. Finally, the backhanded compliments and avoiding talking about certain members or bands, all of that was gone. Here was Mike, saying how Brian has “an amazing band”, and so on.

As for Brian’s movie/book, etc., to even raise that as a possible explanation for Mike not wanting to work with Brian seems a huge stretch. Even Mike isn’t making that contention. I doubt Mike has seen any of the film. I don’t think anybody even knows how far along the book is. There was not in 2012 nor is there even now a firm timeline for when these projects will be out, other than the film screening at a festival in a few months. The reunited Beach Boys could have toured TWO full years/summers after the 2012 tour prior to any Brian film coming out.

From a marketing standpoint, in terms of marketing the tour to the masses, the general idea of a “full reunited lineup” was definitely the focal point.

But Brian and Mike being on stage together was a huge deal. Mike and Bruce had of course been touring for ages together already. Dave had appeared a number of times with Mike and Bruce. Al had done some gigs with Brian. The estrangement had occurred between Brian and Mike, and Al and Mike. Those were the two pairings (other than Brian/Dave I suppose) that fans had, for the most part, not seen in ages.

To me, seeing Mike fronting a band of mostly Brian’s guys was kind of like, I dunno, seeing Spock pop up in the middle of a Star Wars movie or something.

Oh, I definitely realize that “one day at a time” means being unwilling to commit to any particulars. That response at the time was not inappropriate at all. I would imagine the other group members may have offered similar sentiments, because it would indeed be silly to speculate too much about the future.

But if you look at that comment, and then look at what Mike is saying now, I think one has to call bulls**t on one of the two comments. One of the comments seems to me to be disingenuous. Either Mike already knew he was going to go back to his own thing (and who know if bookings were already being worked on) and simply didn’t say so to avoid looking like a d**k before the tour had even begun, or what he’s saying now, that it was always only going to be that one tour and album and nothing more, is a cover story for having changed his mind and chosen not to carry on with the reunited lineup.

I think we still don’t truly know what the full intentions or plans were. Bruce was actually the only one emphatically (and, yes, as we’ve said before, strangely seemingly gleefully) stating before the tour began that there was a definite endpoint, and that the last show on the tour schedule was going to be the last show with all five members. 

Concerning Fine, I certainly hope (and would kind of assume) that he knows or has been made aware of the pitfalls (legal and otherwise) of doing a book on Brian. Ironically, at this stage, the debacle of the 1991 “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” book and the resulting lawsuits is now a part of the actual story of Brian and the group, and should probably be included in any thorough new biography on Brian. 

Back to Mike, and the contradictions between what was said before/during the reunion and after, it does indeed seem to be a case of having soured on something, or a series of things. But he’s not doing himself (or anyone else) any favors by trying to reframe or rewrite things to the point of denying they ever existed. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to simply say, “There was consideration given to another album, but I didn’t like the way it was going down, and preferred to exit and do my own thing touring.”

The sort of semantics of all of this is getting a bit silly. The “second album” thing is just like the tour thing. It’s easy to fall back on saying none of those things ever existed, because of course they didn’t. They wouldn’t exist until they did them. Nobody cancelled an in-progress album or tour. The whole idea is that there were apparently offers to do both, and other willing members, and Mike didn’t want to do it. I don’t know why he can’t bring himself to say that. Instead, we’re tied up in a bunch of repetitive, circular stuff about “we did the shows we agreed to”, and so on.

I guess I accidentally implied that with my phrasing. I certainly prefer Harrison but it wasn't my intention to say he was better. Oh well.

I`m not sure I would say that they wouldn`t exist until they actually did them. More that they wouldn`t exist until some definite plans had been made...

Now we know there were offers to continue the tour in 2012 and Capitol presumably were interested in a possible new album. But we don`t know whether there were any serious discussions about Brian doing another 50 shows in 2013 along with recording a new album. That would have been a huge undertaking for Brian and as it has taken 2 years to record the new solo album, it would have been asking a heck of a lot for him to written and recorded a new CD in a few months.

I doubt there was any serious deadline for a second album. Again, it would depend on lots of things. We know that a bunch of extra tracks were cut during the TWGMTR sessions, and adding a few more wouldn't have been difficult. According to Ray, the solo record has taken some time because Brian has been working around the schedules of the guests.

And as for 50 shows -- again, that's adding a specific number on something that had no specifics. I doubt BW would have continued on the road with the group full time. But he still managed to play 30 shows last year, and record besides.

Looking at the Facebook post from Mike, he says he's thrilled at the idea of doing another Beach Boys album with Brian. There's also a link to the item in Rolling Stone. It appears to be a reaction to the article, rather than something directly discussed with Brian. To say one is "thrilled at the idea" is different than saying "thrilled to be doing/planning" another album.  The entire reunion fell apart, of course, but it's hard to say that Brian had a whole lot of songs written specifically for it, at least not yet. For one thing, he said it would be a rock album. The album Brian is doing now is not a rock album, but is a so-called mellow album, according to both Brian and people who have heard it (nothing wrong with that, "Pet Sounds" is a mellow album).  If Brian did write those rock tunes, he may have put them in a drawer for a future project, or maybe the album would have been cover songs that Brian and Mike discussed when the reunion idea first came up, or some type of combination similar to 15 Big Ones.

Sure, there would have been no set deadline. But once we go down the route of Brian not touring full time and you have the scenario of 2 Beach Boys in the band, 4 Beach Boys in the band, 5 Beach Boys in the band etc. all within a short space of time then it shows how complicated things are with the group. The C50 tour and TWGMTR album were obviously planned well in advance and it would have been no small undertaking to have done that all over again.

A lot of comments were made by the group members during the C50 tour but there doesn`t seem to have been any indication yet there was substance behind them. All of the, `We want to keep doing this for a long time` quotes seem to be about as reliable as Brian`s, `My next album is going to be a rock and roll album`.

Jon or Howie talked about these ideas or offers, what was said?

There would no doubt have been all sorts of logistics involved had they continued as a full group. But I think the issue, at least for some fans, is that none of those reasons (scheduling, Brian's appearances or non-appearances, recording, etc.) appear to have had anything to do with why the reunion stopped when it stopped.

I don't get any sense from the evidence at hand or Mike's own comments in interviews that he was particularly fixated on how many shows Brian might do in the future. It doesn't appear as if Brian was ever pitched an idea to do another reunion tour and then turned it down because he couldn't do that many dates. Yes, lack of ability to book 130 shows per year was very possibly a factor weighing on Mike's mind. I think Brian could have done 50 or perhaps more show in 2013. He had to do very little heavy lifting at the BB shows in 2012. He did 30 or so shows in 2013 where he sang most of the leads and fronted the show. I think he could have done 50 or maybe even 73 in 2013.

But here's the thing: I don't think Brian would have just closed out his career with the Beach Boys. It *may* be that Brian and Al would have (or still would) prefer a scenario where the "reunion" lineup was a permanent thing, perhaps recording another album or two, and doing some touring each year for several more years to round out their career. But this was unlikely and unrealistic, and I doubt anybody (except perhaps an over-optimistic if not naïve Al Jardine) thought something like that could truly come to pass.

Here's what I think would have happened if Brian had "had his way": They would have taken probably a smaller amount of large bookings for 2012. It sounds like they were getting offers for large indoor arenas. They perhaps would have gotten another album out in 2013, perhaps before but more likely after another summer tour. I'm thinking after another go-around in 2013, Brian may well have happily and cleanly handed over the reigns back to Mike. Al may or may not have had a chance to stay on. Brian then could have popped in and out from time to time.

But the structure is just not set up to do that anymore apparently, nor do their personalities allow for it. The problem is that with a normal band, they would all split off and do solo stuff. With this band, they have an awkward licensing setup that nobody apart from maybe Al seems to have enough piss and vinegar to actually do anything about.

Jon Stebbins: At least 30 more C50 shows, another studio album, a bunch more high profile TV appearances etc... But I would not term it as Mike "turning them down"...I would say the prospect of these things were left on the table because they were never negotiated beyond the offer stage due to Mike's preference to return to his normal business model.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15371.msg357621.html#msg357621

The two shows I remember mentioned was a show at Wrigley and a show at MSG. Man, those would have been great shows!

You know how sometimes we're in a thread, and everything's just been beat to DEATH over and over again, and there's nothing left to really say, everybody's already said it 10 times and it's just dragging on and on and on and good god why are we still talking about this?


That's Mike's interviews for the last 50 years.  That he even smiles and talks to people is pretty astonishing, I don't know he (or any celebrity) does it after getting asked the same questions literally thousands of times.  That he takes shortcuts and uses strawman arguments doesn't surprise me.  He's very defensive... to the point of bringing up criticism, then shooting it down; given the history of how he's been vilified (much of it his own doing, no doubt) I don't hold it against him.  I'd be proactively defensive as well. 

"Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian."

Think you'll find they are, and recently. Just slope on over to Brian's FB page. It's still being presented as fact in the press as well. Granted these are ill-informed people who can't be bothered to even use Google properly, but to the end of time, people will be saying that Brian fired Mike, just as they'll be saying it was a UFO at Roswell and that there was a second gunman in Dallas.

May want to consider an edit, being the purveyor that all facts should be correct AGD. ;D

I'd love to know the details Jon said he wasn't privy to. Seems to me there is probably a lot more to this story than we know or a lot less than we imagine.

Something to consider about what did or didn't happen around the 50th tour: There is probably a lot more that happened and was negotiated and discussed behind the scenes, deep in the inner workings of it from the band members to the musicians to the organizers and various staff that happened which hasn't been revealed or discussed in interviews and the like. So in light of the fact we may have read what could amount to less than 10% of the "full story", it's safe to say there is probably a lot more to the story.

*If* there were shows offered at venues like Wrigley Field as Cyncie mentioned in his post...for fans outside the US, the spectacle of staging a live show at Wrigley would have been a major, very high-profile gig as it's one of the most beloved and well-known baseball stadiums in America, with a huge nostalgia and 'throwback' appeal as the stadium exists in 2014 pretty much the same as it has since the 1930's - Like Fenway in Boston, people go there just to see it for the history, even if the Cubs aren't playing (In spite of the Cubs, actually, but I'm a Phillies fan so forgive me...). If Wrigley were even on the table, it would be a shame that it did not happen for whatever reasons. I'd very much like to hear the reasoning behind why an offer for Wrigley would be turned down, if one were made.

It has been noted here previously that since the final show of the tour was at Wembley on the 28th of September, an outdoor show in Chicago in October or later probably wouldn't have been a great idea.  However, if the offer was for the following summer it might have been do-able, but they'd have had to work around the Cubs schedule.

You're right - Chicago outdoors after October is a dicey proposition, we don't know when the gig would have been so that's a major missing piece. Wasn't there a legendary baseball story from either Wrigley or San Francisco where a pitcher was getting ready to deliver a pitch, a big gust of wind stirred up and actually knocked him off balance, his foot came off the mound, he got called for a balk and a run scored from 3rd? That's windy.... ;D

Seriously though, like when McCartney played Fenway they have to factor in the weather and the baseball schedules. But still, it would have been a terrific gig no matter how or when they could have pulled it off. And I guess the reasoning behind it is what I'm curious about.

(Speaking as a Philadelphia Phillies fan again) : I don't think they needed to worry at all about the Cubs playing much ball in October.  :lol


Sorry, I couldn't resist. Now the Phils are in the same boat.  ::)

Dammit, not again. :lol

From Brian's LA Times letter on the kerfuffle:

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

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

On the other hand, maybe there is a lot less to these "offers" then we imagine like not a concert but a  pre-game songs or two. Still good but...

...or maybe not.

Seriously, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden, and Wrigley? You'd *make* those shows happen, I'd think, rather than list reasons why it couldn't happen.

Another case of "what could've been" from a band that has had more than its fair share of those situations. That's me speaking as a fan...Hollywood Bowl-Beach Boys??? No-brainer.

Are they playing baseball at the Hollywood Bowl?  ;D

If this helps, I also wouldn't be worried about booking a major Philly show in October where the Phils play for the next 3-5 years or so. And that hurts me to say that, it really does.  :)

This board is amazing! NHC...Wow, thanks for the confirmation and it's great to hear from a baseball fan who doesn't just know the story but was actually there! You made this baseball fan's day today, thanks for that post.

The stories do get embellished and altered a bit over time...just look at all the reports of Philadelphia fans booing everything from Santa Claus to the Easter Bunny. I can vouch for one of those. I can also vouch for being in a stadium half full of Phillies fans booing a group of frisbee-catching Whippet dogs who were putting on a demonstration in right field between innings at a Phils game.

This is the point where the Mike and Bruce show lost my support. Up until this, I accepted that Mike's touring band were the official Beach Boys and they didn't include Brian or Al because of inter-band issues and Brian's solo career. I went to their concerts, and enjoyed them well enough, even though I knew what was missing. Mike's shows were good, but the C50 was something incredible.  In spite of Mike's touring the oldies circuit, the C50 proved that, when this group came together to play this incredible music  they actually WERE music legends who could command respect and admiration. As Mike kept saying on the C50 tour, they were bigger than the sum of their parts.  It's too bad he didn't really buy into it.  They could have stayed there and ended there. But they didn't.

Mike keeps going on about how they had a set end date for the original tour. But, when high prestige offers like these come along, a wise person would at least give them some consideration,  since they represent the opportunity to finish in style and with the honor the band deserves. But, instead, these wonderful opportunities were never even considered, because Mike needed to get back to Sea World and the State Fair.  In doing this, Mike demonstrated to me that he is short sighted. Yes, the music will always stand the test of time, and ultimately that is their true legacy. But, the performing band could have ended on a high note.  And, even if Mike wanted to go back to Sea World after participating in those options, to do these dates with the full group first and to end it well would have at least engendered some good will with the public and critics.  Instead, he now spends his interviews defending the choice by repeating his "end date" mantra (I think he does meditate on it!), and trying to convince everyone that Brian's a burned out, robotic vegetable so it couldn't be done.

This opportunity will never come again. As Joe Thomas said, it was a "missed opportunity for Brian and the guys to ride into the sunset together.”  So I consider that I saw the last Beach Boys tour in Cincinnati two years ago. Mike's band is now nothing more than a good cover band, to me.

Sorry. Weird double post. So, how's the weather where you are?

Seeing the C50 at the sold out Hollywood Bowl in June 2012 was an absolutely amazing event. With an absolute lack of hyperbole, I can honestly say the highlight of my Beach Boys fandom, and nothing else  is even close.

This is getting so g******n tedious. I finally caved in and read this interview, as I was avoiding it, figuring it was more of the same that we keep getting.  But then I read this nugget ; that Brian is controlled; this time by being given prescribed medication . So apparently some of the better doctors on the planet are in on this shadow conspiracy And that Brian's people are tearing down Mike. I will paraphrase Guitarfool....show me the recent interview or statement from Brian saying anything negative about Mike .

I believe the Beach Boys C50 played 73 dates; I went to 20-25 of them ; I cant remember all of them; all US , except the final two shows in London. Melinda Wilson attended the first 3 , I am certain; she was at the Beacon in NY for two shows there , the Hollywood Bowl and the next night; then she attended the last two nights in London.  So she attended roughly a little over 10 per cent of the C50 shows; so the other 88% or so of the C50 tour , who was "controlling" Brian and keeping him from Mike ?  Can anybody identify the "controllers" ? There was all sorts of opportunity , every night of that tour for Mike and Brian to get together ; how about at catering , every night...as I said I was at 20-25 of the C50 shows; I was in catering at all of them....so was everyone else in the band and crew....not once did I see Mike and Brian sit together , or for either of them to initiate a dialogue with each other.  Their respective dressing rooms were usually adjacent; within 15-20 feet of each other......Melinda Wilson wasn't there , so she wasn't keeping them apart; Jeff Foskett sure as hell wasn't keeping them apart....There was certainly no animosity between them , and ample opportunity to have time together, but it didn't ever happen ; at least not that I saw when I was there. There was even one last opportunity at the end of C50 in London.  Brian and Melinda held a thank you dinner for all the band and crew at an Italian restaurant in Knightsbridge. There would have been one final opportunity for Brian and Mike to sit down  and talk things out over a bowl of pasta , but unfortunately Mike and Bruce had a prior commitment and couldn't attend.....no "controllers " kept them apart there either.

I don't know what the end game is here for Mike in all these interviews with the constant rehash of Brian's long ago excessive recreational drug use ;   is it the interviewer asking the "same old" questions or is it Mike wanting to rehash it ?

If I am in Brian Wilson's chair, I am fed up hearing about my past drug issues, especially as I have not touched a recreational drug in over 35 years;

I am fed up with hearing about how my dead brothers, whom I think about every day, made poor lifestyle choices (drugs, alcohol, cigarettes)which lead to their early deaths ;

I am fed up with hearing about how controlled I am ; first by non existent handlers , and now by medicine prescribed by ,arguably some of the best doctors in the world.  

Here is how controlled Brian is.

I had dinner last Wed night with Brian and Melinda up in Beverly Glen. I called Brian and it went something like this: Me : " Hi Brian , how are you ?  Brian: "doing ok , how about you ? " Me : "Great ; I am in town , do you want to have dinner tonight ?" Brian:" yeah , great. Where do you want to go ? " Me: " You pick "  Brian:" ok , meet me at my house at 5:30 ". The three of us went to dinner in Beverly Glen; nice time. Brian was in good spirits ; we talked about the new album and upcoming tour.  All was good. They played me the final mix of "Last Song"; all in all the same kind of evening I have had with him for the last almost 20 years.  

My point ?  I find it difficult ,if not impossible, to believe that it is easier for me to see Brian Wilson than it is for Mike Love to see him . Mike has the number; 9 times out of 10 , Brian will usually answer. It's just not that complicated.

Ray is my hero!

Glad to be of service.  Should point out for accuracy's sake, and we want to be nothing if not accurate here on the Smiley Smile board, that SF has been the Giant's home for 57 seasons, but not at Candlestick since 1999. My sister and I went to the last opening day there, she made the final game, and was also on one of the neighborhood committees working to get Pacific Bell Park built (all private money but needed zoning and tax approvals or something).  She was at several luncheon meetings that included guys like Mays, Marichal, McCovey, Cepeda, just your typical Hall of Famers, and got to be on the field opening day in April 2000 with another few hundred dignitaries and volunteers. We made our first Giants game in 1959 at Seals Stadium, where the Dimaggio Bros got their start, Cepeda wins it with a walk-off homer over the left field fence to lead off the 9th, over Cincinnati. Saw your Phillies in '75 or '76, I guess, when Dick Allen was back with them. Wonder if Brian could have made it to the pros if he had learned to hit a curve ball (which he once said was his downfall)?

I was at that baseball game/concert at Candlestick in '84 (still have my dark blue BB hat) and remember it being a little breezy, but don't remember them not hearing the monitors. You have a much better memory than I do, Norm, for being an old guy!  ;D  Remember the game/concert where Reggie Jackson got up on stage with them to do Shut Down?

Ray, thanks for bringing the truth here and setting the record straight and putting all the crap to rest with common sense.

Thanks for your insight, Ray.

If M&B's "prior commitment" wasn't due to a cowardly ducking act to help Mike avoid having to actually possibly address/discuss their soon-to-be-returning-to-the-M&B-show act, I'll eat my shorts. Of course it was.  

What a damn shame.

This changes everything.

I can remember Carl looking around quizzically during some of the windy moments and gesturing toward his monitor, shaking his head and waving his arm in the wind like he couldn't hear.  Maybe he just wanted to play "Let The Wind Blow". Missed the Jackson show - Oakland, I presume?  Haven't been to an A's ball game since '75. I liked those shows at the Stick - met Les Chan and a couple of other guys at the one in '82 (one of them was named Gerry?? Lived over in Concord or Walnut Creek?? I traded some photos and things with him). Old guy!  Honestly!  ::)

Also as a diehard Phillies fan, they suck! As a matter of fact last night they won the "World Series of Suck", beating the Houston Astros in the first two games of a 3-game series. ;)

Ray, always interesting and informative to hear your POV.

In all the years you have known Brian, has he ever talked to you about his relationship with Mike? Have you ever had the impression that they spend any time together, or even speak on a regular or semi-regular basis? If Mike did what you did, and called Brian out of the blue and asked him out to dinner, what do you think Brian's reaction would be?

Good questions.  He has really not talked about his relationship with Mike, but rather talks about what he considers to be Mike's best vocals.......If I recall it was "That's Not Me" that was probably his favorite.

I don't know what would happen if Mike called him up for dinner; if he feels like going he does, and if not , he doesn't.....but having said that; all the negativity in these interviews is probably not helping the situation....this is my opinion only , not based on talking to Brian about it, because I haven't

Thanks Ray. Mike commented in his interview that they hadn't spoken since the end of the C50 tour, which is almost two years now. And, based on your observations of the C50, it sounds like they didn't talk much, if at all, during the tour. I wonder if Mike (or Brian), even try to talk to one another any more? My completely uninformed impression is that their relationship has been dead for at least the last two decades or so, and probably had been deteriorating slowly since the mid-1960s. In many ways, the end of their songwriting relationship was probably the end of their social relationship as well.

Oh yes, that's a hell of a vocal! Love it!




Re: all the Mike stuff.

First I don't buy that Brian was so much controlled by anybody that Mike couldn't even talk to him. Didn't Mike himself mention that just him, Brian and Joe Thomas were at a restaurant prior to the tour (see the Rolling Stone article)?

Second, I sometimes get the feeling Mike doesn't really understand the psychological issues that Brian had and has. It seems like he always blames everything on the drugs (and certainly they didn't do no good) and with that logic he thinks that as soon as Brian stopped doing the drugs he must be just like Brian in '63/'64. But of course depression and those things work not that way. Brian has to take medication for not losing the control. I don't know what he takes but I don't think it makes him a zombie. But maybe to Mike it still is just, well... drugs.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Al also had to change his mind and did so when he first reunited with Brian in 2006/2007. There's a different tone to him when he talks about Brian since then imo.
But we have to understand that all of them are of a time when no one talked about psychological problems such as depression. There was no real treatment for it and I don't think it was taken that seriousy either. So that might be a reason why Mike thinks everything bad (and in his view it seems that means everything that differs to 1964-Brian) is of course of drugs; illegal or prescribed.

Obviously the C50 tour should have ended in a much better way than Mike`s statement but I think the fact that Brian has played 2 shows so far this year and M&B have played stacks indicates that `The Beach Boys` was never going to end with them all riding into the sunset together...

As fans, of course it would be great if the group could always do the `sensible` thing but unfortunately they are only human.

When listening to an interview with Andrew Sandoval about The Monkees recently it reminded me of The Beach Boys. When asked about the possibility of a live album he said that they have 3 shows recorded from a recent tour but to get the remaining members to be in the same place at the same time or to release anything, even an already recorded live album, is a very difficult endeavour. With The Beach Boys it is presumably at least as complicated as evidenced by the fact that Mike and Al couldn`t even agree to play 1 show together this year...

Very good thoughts.  In fairness to all of these guys , the come from a generation where mental illness was a stigma and was pushed under the rug; additionally they were all in their late teens and early twenties when much of this took place. In Brian's case it was undiagnosed, written off as eccentricity, them misdiagnosed by the psychotic Landy, (twice), then finally addressed appropriately with the right team of doctors.

My opinion , for what it's worth , is that, as you spend time around Brian, you get to understand the stuff he is up against , and how he manages it. Your comments about Al are really on the mark; I agree that since 2006/07 Al has come more to understand Brian, and they are a lot closer.  Brian's comment on Al....."he's a good kid"....

I don't know about Mike's understanding of Brian's psychological issues; in the beginning of the tour I know Mike was very cognizant of Brian's back issues, and assisted him when he was having difficulty walking , which I thought was extremely gracious.  Mental health is an entirely different issue; I don't know that Mike knows what Brian manages daily.  Based on some of his comments , I don't think that he does; as he has quoted , if I am not mistaken, Landy's "diagnosis" of paranoid schizophrenia , as Brian's major issue...wrong .......f.....g Landy

Mike in the interview. "I find it very disappointing that this information is being perpetuated. It’s erroneous and fallacious, but I suppose that is part of human nature."

Perhaps the same should be said next time he brings up Brian being controlled.

Thanks for your always interesting comments Ray.

Can you comment on the current situation with VDP and Brian regarding VDP`s `release Brian!` tweet?

Nicko;

I have no freaking idea what VDP means in that message .

Van Dyke Parks

I know who VDP is

 :)

Sorry but I love this post.

Van Dyke has tweeted that he and Brian don't talk anymore and he doesn't seem to know why. He has said other things, sometimes deleting them later. But the release Brian thing has been tweeted a couple of times.

There was a point where All said he was unable to contact Brian for many years. He also was not allowed to speak to Brian at the Hawthorne monument dedication. Of course , it could be Brian is the one not wanting contact, but maybe he does it in such a way that it looks like someone else is the one making him do it.

Van Dyke and Brian's relationship has been fraught for decades, and I'm not sure they ever spent a lot of time together after the '60s. And Van Dyke is very aware of the business side of things. Just for example, before he agreed to help BW finish Smile, he insisted that Melinda fix his credits and publishing on the original Smile tunes. Now, this might just be a shrewd business move, but it's certainly not the action of someone who's solely interested in being Brian's friend.

Likewise, Orange Crate Art was great, but it wasn't a purely disinterested move on Van Dyke's part -- he knew he would get far more attention with a collaborative album that something he did on his own. And he didn't credit Brian for vocal arranging, which Brain did for most of the tunes on the record. He was then irked that TLOS didn't become a full-on collaboration between him and Brian.

I like Van Dyke and I sympathize with him in many respects. But he's clearly conflicted about his relationship with Brian -- and the money that could be involved -- and I'm assuming he doesn't like dealing with Melinda. And if he puts off a vibe like that, I suspect Brian is more than happy to keep his distance.

As for Al's comments, he may well have been talking about Brian's years with Landy. Or perhaps, as you say, Brian may have preferred to keep his distance and blame others. The Carlin book has plenty of examples of this from throughout Brian's career and life.

This was a long time after the Landy years.

Mike had a problem with the grammys, he had a problem with the shows, the dates, he had a problems with TWGMTR, He had problems with Brian's people, the list goes on.

I remember the picture of the thank you dinner with Mike and Bruce absent. Mike can get teary eyed and thank his "Cousin Brian" all he wants, at the end of the day he is almost certainly the one creating problems, at the end of the day he always is.

Brian and Van Dyke were friends in the 1970's. They hung out together and partied. He has said he asked Brian to be on OCA to help Brian to do music again. Van was in Brian's wedding party when he married Melinda (best man?). Van Dyke seems hurt about their recent falling out. I doubt it has anything to do with money. He had been very complimentary towards Melinda in the past.

How on Earth could Mike have faced the people at that dinner, knowing that there was so much unresolved stuff that was surely in the air? Where his motives could be questioned, where he'd have to face the music in some respect? There's no way Mike Love could have attended. These guys don't have communication skills.

To put himself in a position where he could be on the spot like that, it would have been the most awkward dinner ever for him. I cannot even imagine the mixed emotions and bittersweet ambiance must have been in the air for everyone who was at that dinner, especially knowing Mike's stunt absence doubtlessly had to be for this very reason.  Is it any wonder that Brian wasn't at the Ella Awards?  

You might be right but let's beware of making Mike the go-to bad guy for "creating problems" anytime he takes issue with ....... other problems that aren't his doing .

We've kind of been doing this for how many decades now?

At some point we have to dig a little deeper.

Those two sentences don't have much to do with each other.


He might have said that, and yet Brian had recorded one album a year or two before (Sweet Insanity) and was in the middle of writing and recording dozens of tracks with Andy Paley. Doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.


Best man was Carl, I'm fairly certain. Don't recall reading that VDP was there.


He seems bitter. And how would you know?


When she agreed to change the royalty rates and credits to Smile songs.

So, what ... other problems are we talking about, Pinder?

I don't have any problems digging deeper, so let's say what those problems are and who might be causing them.

I'll stick with vague, Manson-like hints and riddles for the moment....

Whenever someone does attempt to speak of these "other problems" around here, it's bloodshed.

yes he is

Bravo Ray!

All the world's a stage and we are just merely players.

Van Dyke Parks, Brian Wilson opportunist? Okay.

Brian's just like any other married man - doing what the wife tells him to do.

Which, like most men, is probably what he wanted.

Under the thumb and over the moon.  ;)

42 years, 2 months and 5 days in, I AWAYS pay heed to my wife. Especially when she bought me a ticket to the C50 concert for my birthday.

One day I read this sentence, and I finally GOT Brian Wilson. Paraphrasing:

"When Brian tired of the Vosse Posse, he used Mike Love to move on".

What's amazing is that Vosse never got that in the 60s, or Mike in the last 30 or 20 years. Brian is a manipulator, but folks want to be in his sphere SO MUCH that they convince themselves that Brian is being manipulated by Murry/Mike/Marilyn/Rieley/Carolyn/Landy/Leaf/Melinda.

I don't know what is going on but sometimes family finds it easier to be with and be more responsive to friends than their family that comes with baggage and history of injuring and being injured.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet.  Ray, if you're at liberty to say anything, is there a tour in the works beyond the three shows that have been announced so far?  And, I'd also like to say how great it is to read your 'insiders' perspective.  You've got me very excited for the new tunes.  Cheers!

I want to know more about Last Song.

I know Brian has done very short spurts of shows sometimes. But I still would guess that the three dates announced so far are not the only dates. It seems odd to do one show at the end of August, take a five week break, and do two more shows. I dunno if they'll precisely fill in the gap between the end of August and October, but I would imagine we'll see at least a hand full of additional shows announced at some point, perhaps in conjunction with an announcement of the album.

The usual plan no matter who the artist might be is to tour on the strength of a new release, which also promotes the new release and is almost standard practice in 2014. Which would explain a tour behind a new BW album coinciding with the release of that new album. And as mentioned here several weeks ago, the earlier shows booked seemingly non-related could be considered one-offs or even warmups to get the band in shape and get back on stage prior to the official tour. I saw Brian do a live show when everyone was talking Smile and coming just before that Smile release and tour, and he and the band didn't do anything connected to Smile, yet it was a decent show. The 50th tour could have happened as an independent thing too, but even that was connected to promoting a new album.