The Smiley Smile Message Board

Personally, I think such squabbling adds nothing to the music and what actually matters.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/nov/21/mike-love-what-to-expect-from-his-autobiography

The very first line says Mike Love owns the Beach Boys name.  So the guy's already screwing the whole thing up from the very. first. line. 

Are there any music websites that have actual journalism, that's researched, and you know, valid, honest, not trying to push whatever agenda they're down with?  I guess since it's all review based, etc. it pretty much has to be biased because it's all opinion. 

When you write something titled 'what to expect' though, it gives the illusion that it's a news piece... then it turns into a bunch of sh*t the guy made up that he thinks Mike is going to say. 

... and then, he got PAID to put it on the Guardian! 

The world has gone mad. 

I'd agree with #10.  ;D

........and 11
Zeppo

There was an earlier thread about this.

It is a poor piece of work - fan-geeky, snide, author impressed by his own wit and intelligence, and inaccurate. How did it get past the filters? Dunno.

Yet... ... ...

He isn't wrong about everything.

I'm REALLY bored of the same old shite written about Mike Love. The Guardian article is crap.

B b b b but Mike...'THEY' "won the Pulitzer Prize.  Must have been for the accuracy on the hat bit. :hat

...well alright.  :smokin

<<I'd agree with #10>>

I think AGD's comment sums up this article perfectly.

Eh. I don't see much that's really inaccurate there. The owns the name bit is in the headline, not the article, which means that someone other than the author wrote it.

And for the general public, I doubt many folks would see significant difference between "owns the name" and "has an exclusive license to the name, one of the people he licenses it from being himself, and controls it on tour."

Just like there being precious little difference between "fires Brian Wilson" and "consciously allows a contract to expire so Brian Wilson doesn't get to tour with me anymore, which he has stated publicly that he wants to keep doing."

And perhaps there isn't much daylight between "killed Smile" and "berated my mentally ill cousin about how much I hated the music he was making until, for entirely unconnected reasons, he chose to stop making it."

Just saying.  ^-^

+1

Agreed wirestone.

As Ron said it is just the author's opinions.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Right, but a non-biased opinion is impossible.

That article is pretty much a smiley smile post.

Congratulations guys, any of us could write for the guardian.

SMiLE came out in 2001? Interesting.  :P

It did?  sh*t!!!  I thought that I was on the cutting edge when I bought it. :-[  Guess not

But at least *I* didn't record Brian Wilson Presents Smile 3 years AFTER Smile was released.  Somebody should have told him.

Man!!!  You learn something everyday here. >:D

Is this from an alternate reality where Mike owns the Beach Boys and SMILE came out in 2001?  :lol

Except that he did no such thing.

I take that as a considerable and personal insult !  ;D

Sometimes I wish that Mike actually DID kill SMiLE...it would be a lot easier to take than what actually happened. 

#10 might not happen if they use a picture from when he was young, like the striped shirt era.

Also, Mike's book should come with a free 45 of the Beach Boys version of the Monster Mash.

Those may be overly harsh words for Wirestone to say, but IMO even if Mike's intentions were not ill-intended and not meant to wound/in any way, shape or form derail or change the project's direction, I don't really doubt that Brian *felt* some degree, even a little, of those feelings from his cousin at the time, and I don't believe it's appropriate to underestimate, let alone completely erase that from being a possible piece (by no means the entire piece) of the puzzle. A fragile person's interpretations of another person's probable negative energy and vibe cannot simply be dismissed as nonexistent, even if one wishes to release Mike (and any other band member(s)) from any and all responsibility.

the article was meant to be funny, good for a chuckle... which I did.

the author also points out something no one else really has: Mike's book is conveniently being released a year after Brian's, which will give him time to address anything he finds objectionable, and put the old Mike Love/American Family spin on things. some things never change...  ::)

.

Yeah, dammit, just like the book he released in 1992, a year after Brian's first autobiography. Some things don't change...  ;D

11. After killing "Smile" for effing with the formula Mike pushed the release of "Smiley Smile" cause that certainly didn't eff the formula.:O

This article doesn't even imply that Mike "killed" Smile. It didn't become a topic of discussion in this thread until Wirestone brought it up and he was not bringing it up in order to attribute a comment to the Guardian writer. So can we please dispense with the attempts at de-legitimizing a humor essay for something it doesn't even say?

Well, if for Mike Love, "the formula" meant band-oriented music with non-poetic lyrics over ornate heavily-produced songs with introspective and/or poetic verse, then him preferring Smiley Smile makes absolute perfect sense. Which is exactly the case.

One part of the formula you did not mention was commercial viability.

Smiley is about as uncommercial as anything can be.

Well, that doesn't make sense though because it is the formula for commercial viability, no? If not, what is the formula for?

I need a little bit of clarification here: I'm not quite sure what you qualify as "exactly the case" - Smiley Smile being band-oriented music with non-poetic lyrics or Mike preferring Smiley over SMiLE?

The former. Except not entirely. There are poetic lyrics on the album but none of the new songs for it contained any.

Thanks! :) Nothing to add or debate there for me.