The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.fsunews.com/story/life/2015/05/06/beach-boys-tallahassee/70896652/ (http://www.fsunews.com/story/life/2015/05/06/beach-boys-tallahassee/70896652/)

New Mike interview. Last question, he is asked "Lastly, do you have any words of wisdom for young, aspiring musicians?" and of course he has to turn it into boasting about his own supposed accomplishments. I totally understand that Mike was gifted lyrically, but conceptually? Surfing was Dennis's idea, Pet Sounds, Smile, Wild Honey, Friends were definitely Brian. Is there any evidence that Mike was a dominant creative force when it came to conceptual ideas about the music?

I'd say after Love You he was pretty much the top dog as far as the band's creative direction in the studio was concerned.

And that's when the quality went to hell. >:D

I didn't read anything there that was braggadocious. Nothing even considered cocky. Pretty tame in my estimation, and true.

As far as his collaborations with Brian, Michael's not saying anything out of the ordinary. Brian was melancholy. Michael was Mr. Positivity. It's not like he was sitting on an uncomfortable seat or anything.

Just odd that he thinks conceptually he was the dominant force in that relationship, considering that Dennis came up with the surfing idea, not sure who thought of the car idea - but I was under the impression it was more of a Gary Usher influence. The more sentimental output from Mike and Brian was obviously more of a Brian idea (Today! album). I'm not at all disputing his outstanding lyrical contribution, but from my point of view, conceptually Mike wasn't at all the dominant force.

We weren't there. I'll take Michael or Brian at their words.

You don't think Mike came up with concept of the lyrics he wrote?

LMAO

Agreed.  

Consistent with being a lyricist.  

Melody - Brian

Lyrics - Mike

Did I miss something in that article? Where did he say he was the dominant force? He called Brian a great arranger and composer, and only that he was a better lyricist than Brian. Even Brian would likely agree with that.

I'm saying others came up with the concepts of surfing, the love songs. He wrote brilliant lyrics for the concepts. At a certain level I'm sure he was very conceptually involved, but dominant creative force in that arena? I doubt it.

"He was a gifted arranger and composer of music, but lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

I totally agree that Mike is one of the most talented lyricists, no arguments there. In regards to conceptual content I have to disagree.

He also said conceptually, as well.

Edit

Rab got it

Mike is just too hungry to claim credit where it is not due. He should be proud of what he did in reality and not brag about being BW's equal. Nobody is.

What others (besides Dennis one time) came up with the lyric concepts in his collaborations with Brian?

I don't think Michael has ever argued that he is Brian's equal. Brian's biggest fan is Michael.

Brian always says that he composes first, lyrics later. If Mike has full control over the lyric, then he has conceptual control. He is deciding what the song will be about. I think that is all he means.

Brian himself, for one.

Put less pretentiously:

"When we worked together, I wrote most of the lyrics". True. 

"I also had most of the ideas about subject matter". Questionable.

The other problem here is the implication that Mike had an artistic vision, which he was able to express when he "found" his cousin:

"You too can be a successful songwriter if you do what I did. If you don't have an amazingly talented cousin who wants to start a band and write songs with you, find someone like that."

It's like Steve Martin's old joke: You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! How is that possible? First, get a million dollars. Second, ....

What's pretentious about those remarks?

Mike being a dominant force in his relationship with Brian seems accurate enough.

It's an incredibly outrageous statement.

Mike has nearly finished rewriting the band's history in his image. It's not enough that he gets to be the lyricist to some of Brian's most successful songs, and the band's onstage front man. He has to now believe he was the band's dominant creative force.

That will be the mission statement of the book, mark my words. It's nuts.

@Wirestone, spot on.

The compliment of Brian had to be followed by a "but". But of course.
And since when should the term "always" be used like it was in that article? Often at best.

Wirestone on point!

Mike probably latched on to this idea of what the Beach Boys mean conceptually because Brian called Mike a "conceptual genius" multiple times during promotion for the C50 tour. 

Well that was legitimately sweet of him. I'm sure he knows how much Mike feels like he's in Brian's own shadow, so he was trying to do a genuinely nice thing and boost Mike a bit. A typically selfless thing that Brian does. Nice to see how Mike returned the favor by refusing to rethink the set end date.

Absolutely!  :o :o

myKe luHv is a fan of myKe luHv. End of story.

 :pirate :h5 :rock :thumbsup :woot :woot :happydance

As it rustles your jimmies so, more power to him. :)

Brian called Mike a "conceptual genius" on Charlie Rose in 2012. I think that Brian may agree with Mike's statement more so than most posters here.

Looks like the post got your panties in a bit of a bunch as well by just responding.  ::) ::)

I am starting to think that Mike says these things on purpose to see the reaction on smileysmile.

While Mike was a decent lryicist with some definate high points (Warmth of the Sun, The Wild Honey Album, Only With You), they are decades in the past. What concepts is he truly responsible for?

I will take the concept behind Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Today , Good Vibration s and 'Til I Die over any concept of Mike Love's.

Post of the week, Bill!!   :woot :woot

I don't doubt that Brian feels that Mike has made some great contributions. I do as well. But also remember that Brian is somebody who has said that Norbit is his favorite movie.  It doesn't seem very hard for Brian to hand out deep compliments. Regardless, it's Brian's place to say it, not Mike's to say/imply it about himself.

Sure Dennis came up with the idea to write about surfing but Mike was the one who took that idea and ran with it. He was the one who wrote the lyrics to the surfing lifestyle concept. He was also the guy who evolved writing about surfing to encapsulate the whole California teen lifestyle (girls, school, beaches, the movies, cruising) which peaked with All Summer Long and Summer Days (and Summer Nights!). Mike was clearly the dominant lyrical creative force within the band from 61-65.

No doubt about that. The statement though implies that continued afterwards,  when in actuality it didn't for some years after.

Didn't it? He is only talking about songs he wrote with Brian. Didn't that stay the same whenever they wrote together?

Yep. And regarding GV he conceived a psychodelical poem to give a Brian's initial idea about dogs barking at people and such into a boy-girl relatable song. I'm sure he feels he defined conceptually what became a massive and classic hit. And it's likely that Brian feels the same way. Til I Die doesn't count-- Brian's the only songwriter.

Considering the song already had boy-girl lyrics before Mike became involved, I doubt he was the one who transformed the initial idea into a relatable love song. Yes, he came up with incredible lyrics for the concept, but the concept was already made.

Mike has said he was given a copy of the finished track and he came up with the concept and lyrics.

A - Assertive,
S - simplistic
S - summation
H - honed
O - on
L  - less
E - effect [and a]

 L - less
 I - influential
 K - Kind [of]
 E - effort.

Funny, because the concept was already created before the backing track was complete and finalized...hence why we have Tony Asher lyrics (about good vibrations/feelings between boys and girls) sung over an early version of the track...and though Mike created FAR more beautiful lyrics, the concept was already there. This should be common knowledge to mostly everyone on this board.

Cam, is there anything you won't defend about Mike?

Those lyrics were winners.  It is hard to argue with success.  Mike has been able to distill concepts and make them "available" to the listeners, and match what Brian's melody was aiming for, translate that, and cut through the other musicians competing for radio airtime. Competition was especially vicious in 1966-67 to pull of a Number One hit.

It is too bad some on this board use so much of their energy to hate band members.  Life is short enough.  It is possible to disagree or even dislike without the full on concentrated effort to hate a person one doesn't know.  Just sayin' - and maybe Cam has a different perspective.  Isn't there room for that, here?

Just an observation.

It is Friday - have a Smiley  :beer

Those lyrics were/are winners, I'm not disputing that at all, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I'm merely trying to clear up some misinformation: Mike didn't come up with the concept for Good Vibrations. He didn't transform the idea of dogs picking up signals into boy/girl lyrics because Tony Asher had already done that. He didn't come up with the concept after he was given the final backing track because the concept had already been conceived by Brian. This has nothing to do with perspective, just facts.

And I'm not sure how discussing a claim made by Mike is considered hating on him. Unless that comment wasn't directed at me, in which case apologies.

Through the power of song, Mike Love (with three other people) took a small landlocked town in Indiana and transformed it into a tropical paradise where you can sip cocktails on moonlight nights and dance to the rhythm of steel drum bands. 

 :-D

I'm sure Mike and Bruce do pretty well in ticket sales with their version of The Beach Boys.  But I really think, if Mike were smart, he'd use a little more tact when commenting on former band members.   He might actually be able to sell more tickets if he did so, especially if Brian doesn't tour as much in the future.  Mike is getting into Gene Simmons territory where he can't seem to pay a compliment to a former band member without following it up with something negative.   

Well, I'm not sure what is being "cleared up" here. And I wasn't there ( and suspect you weren't either) - lyric concepts are meritorious as well.  It is the specific song property that makes one sing a song, in the shower, in the car, or going down the street...

As well as the fine-tuning of a final product. I realize a lot of those years of lyrics such as Hang on to Your Ego v. I Know there's an Answer went through transformation (evident through many hours listening to the PS Sessions) before they were finalized on one album or another.

Your apologies aren't to me.  I'm not offended, but am becoming more aware of how polarized this forum is becoming, as well as intolerant and I'm not singling you out.  It is barb after barb after barb.  

Misinformation? Asher was heavily involved in that era.  No one is suggesting otherwise.  But, that material had to be digested by the live audiences and Asher wasn't the one at whom tomatoes would be tossed if an audience thought a song or performance was crap.  And who knew what would "work" with various crowds.  That would be Mike who was on the front lines in that era.  It is almost like a political speech writer who gives a politician or candidate a speech that the candidate knows isn't going to work with a certain constituency.  It could be a good speech, but won't garner a single vote.  

There is a very small margin for error in this business.  And Mike clearly had the feel of the crowd to know what would work; even keeping the much reviled, but fan-favorite Barbara Ann...and what wouldn't work.

GV was a long-ass song for AM radio play, for that era.  It took the strongest lyrics to keep the stations playing it, and for those of us listening to 1" speakers on a transistor radio to stay riveted.  

Yeah, Wrinkles.

Let's assume that the Brian only vocal of GV proves Mike had any knowledge of Asher's lyrics and Mike is wrong when he thinks he was given the completed instrumental track and he came up with a boy-girl concept (or boy-dog angle, whichever) and that the concept of Surfin' was Dennis'. That leaves a whole lot of songs with potentially Mike's lyrical concepts, a potentially "dominate" amount of songs from their relationship even.

I never said anyone was claiming that Asher wasn't heavily involved in that era. Just saying that Brian (and possibly Asher) deserves credit for the concept of Good Vibrations, not Mike. And, yet again, I'm not disputing that Mike was a better man for the job regarding lyrics. His lyrics were indeed FAR better (lightyears better), and that the song went to #1 is a testament to his brilliance at songwriting. But again, the concept didn't deviate much from what Asher had already written prior. So Mike getting credit for the concept is ridiculous.

Potentially. But given that Brian proved he was a powerhouse of great ideas outside of his relationship with Mike, it would seem odd to me that Mike would be the dominant provider of conceptual ideas when they worked together. Given that most of Today! was driven by Brian's introspective ideas, it would seem to me that it in terms of concept, credit spanning the duration of their creative relationship in those early years was more equal than dominant from either party.

Or does it show that other collaborators were also dominant lyrically and conceptually in their songwriting relationships with Brian? I'm not arguing that Brian didn't also have great concepts, but imo no one has shown that Mike is wrong or even over-stating about his claim for his songwriting relationship with Brian.

Mike is co-author of like 9 out of 12 songs on Today!, how is it we know they are mainly Brian's concepts?

Rab is right 100%, its Mike taking his actual (important) role and making it look bigger than it is. He is just a sad and insecure man at this point trying to look important to random small town newspapers.

Rab2591 - first, please respond outside my response.  If it is re-quoted, it appears as though I wrote that. You can make your point outside "my space."   ;)

Second, what is the purpose of re-writing history?  Whether the theme of "good vibrations" was bantered about in whatever context, by whichever people, is largely irrelevant now.  The single came out in 1966.  And, it wasn't Asher's version.  It is a fait accompli, nearly 50 years ago.  Tony's lyrics for God Only Knows are fully credited on the flip of the 45
rpm of Wouldn't It Be Nice.  It is how the ball bounces.  :lol

And, while we might think they are all brilliant, I would guess that some is concept, whether melody or lyrical, coupled with hard work.  And lots of trial and error. This morning, I watched some '09 Christmas Brian vocal sessions, and it appears that they (Brian's band) worked and reworked phrasing, sections and parts.  

And, in some other Brian interview, he talked about being so "next to something" that they all had to get away and "chuck it (Smile) for awhile."  It is subtitled in French.  And it seems to be clipped from An American Band.

And you know that how?

Given what we know about Brian's own songwriting and conception of ideas (I Get Around, Good Vibrations, Pet Sounds material), it isn't too hard to think that Brian brought a lot to the table regarding creative direction.

According to what I'm seeing I did respond outside of your response box. But perhaps I'm missing something.

Secondly, I'm not claiming anyone is rewriting history, just getting their facts wrong. It may be irrelevant to you, but it's mildly annoying to see Mike get credit for something he didn't do. Not sure why bringing it up is an unreasonable reaction on my part.

My bad. I mean the yellow screaming highlighting.

Mike's lyrics are what are what were the on final product.  Ever think the music (distribution) company wanted market-worthy revisions?

What you find or perceive to be is "reasonable" might not be that way for another.

Actually, I would be curious to know myself it that is against the rules - considering changing/re-wording text is a violation, it would make sense that bolding or changing color of a quote would almost fall under that. Apologies if it is against the rules. Was merely trying to clarify what portion of your post I was responding to.

Again, I'm not disputing this point, filledeplage. If you go back and read my posts, I'm clearly stating that Mike didn't himself conceive the idea for the song...that is all.

This: endless syncopation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfs7jm3uJdM&index=21&list=PL03A597537BC4CD3B

Maybe a mod can clarify it. Every writer (poster) owns his/her own "fixed" expression.  That is copyright.  

I disagree with you on IGA and GV, but I definitely agree "that Brian brought a lot to the table regarding creative direction" and imo that doesn't make Mike's claim untrue or an overstatement.

I think I've seen it claimed that people made contributions to some compositions and arrangements in Brian collaborations but imo it wouldn't make it untrue that Brian was the dominant "gifted arranger and composer of music" in his collaborations.

Interesting...and in the EH DVD, I seem to remember that Brian had commented he would have liked to work on Kokomo with those other very successful writers.  Seems it was the Landy era...I do wish he had been on it...and not just after the fact on the Spanish version. I'm wondering if the video is really for "educational or reaseach" purposes...

Some little boy's dog (probably named "Wrinkles") must have been run over by Mike when they were a little.

I hope nobody makes one of these turds for the rest of the band members.

there's a difference between getting credit and giving yourself credit, which is all Mike is doing here and what he's done for years. anyone who wants the truth, as opposed to Mike's version of the truth, can discover it without too much difficulty.

I suppose we should be used to these comments from Mike by now, but I still have to shake my head and marvel at his conceit.

Good Vibrations was a Brian/Asher idea (it is obvious judging by Asher's original lyrics). I Get Around is more iffy and I'll concede that. If Mike, according to you, truly believes he came up with the conceptual idea of Good Vibrations after he got the final backing track (even though we know for a fact Good Vibrations was already a girl-boy-ESP concept before Mike was handed the track.), it kinda makes me question the validity of his other claims.

And, Sloop was Al's idea but Brian did the arrangement.  It is "Trad. Arr. Brian Wilson. "

One is an uncredited "concept" and the other is reflective of substantial modification and production, and fully credited.  The finished product.  Al's idea, and Brian's work product.  It is what it is.

My understanding of the timeline was
Brian worked on endless sessions of a song he called Good Vibrations. It's title was inspired by a quote his mother made about 'dogs picking up vibrations from people'. Brian's concept was that people could pick up vibes others were giving off. The early sessions had no lyrics other then Brian shouting "Good, good, good vibrations YEAH!"
Mike tweaked the concept by making it directly about a boy picking up good vibrations from a girl he liked when he pitched the "I'm picking up good vibrations. She's givin' me the excitations" hook to Brian.
Brian asked Tony Asher to write lyrics to it. Asher wrote a rough draft version of the lyrics.
For some reason Asher never got around/wasn't asked to improve on the lyrics.
Brian asked Van Dyke to have a crack at a re-write; Van passed.
Mike came up with the far superior finished lyrics.

Mike can take credit for refining/expanding upon Brian's initial concept as far as I can see.

You and I know about Asher's earlier lyrics but did Mike in 1966? I don't know. The way I remember he tells it is, he heard the final track and thought it needed a relatable boy/girl lyric. Were there any vocal sessions for Asher's verses or have the other Boys mentioned hearing Asher's lyrics? I believe Brian gives Mike credit for the "vibrations/excitations" lyric.

I've never understood why Mike's lyrical contributions to Beach Boys songs is supposed to be so important. (Musical hooks is another thing altogether). Yes he was a pretty good lyricist but no better than Usher, Christian and Asher. People bought and still buy these records for their MUSIC. Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys.

Exactly, Mike needs to puff himself up for no reason. I don't see Tony Asher or VDP doing the same stuff on a consistent basis.

Mike is leagues ahead of Usher as a lyricist. I'm a big fan of Christian but don't think I've ever seen him write for anything other then the hod rod genre.

Well, he has a reason. He did cowrite a significant streak of hits with Brian in the 60s. That's undeniable, and it was a remarkable achievement (I say that non-sarcastically, but legitimately), but that probably warped his way of thinking (ie. he got a big head over it). Kokomo without Brian really sealed the deal in that department. Does Mike not think he has a big head and inflated ego, or that he brags too much? And if he does not, who would he (or any diehard Kokomoaists) quantify as an example of someone else with a big head and inflated ego who brags too much?

IIRC - Landy was the reason with Kokomo, as I learned, on this forum, but that Brian sang on the Spanish version. John Phillips, Scott McKenzie and Terry Melcher co-wrote. And on EH it was clear that both Mike and Brian would have wanted Brian's involvement. 

If it was an interview there were questions that Mike responded to.

Sure, I am not blaming Mike for Brian's non-appearance on the US Kokomo. I wasn't sure if you thought that was my line of thinking, but it wasn't. Still, for a guy who probably wants to prove himself, he was likely very happy to have had such a massive hit (in and of itself), let alone without anyone being able to say it was mainly due to Brian's magic touch. Nobody could say that with Kokomo.

Kokomo was mainly a John Phillips song. the concept and most of the lyrics are his.

Sure Mike is a bragger - if I'd co-written 4 US #1s I'd be braggin too! Is he not allowed to take pride in what he has accomplished when giving interviews?

I understand you feel that way about Mike, but do you believe that it is humanly possible that people can brag *too much*? Even people who have legit accomplishments? Is that possible? Where would you draw that line?

there's a difference between bragging about some hits you co-wrote and proclaiming yourself the dominant creative force in the band.

I would draw the line by closing this incredibly tiresome thread....  :thud

If Mike started telling the mailman everytime he came to the door that he was the guy who had a #1 with Kokomo or told the guy behind the counter at the grocery store that he came up with the hook to Good Vibrations whenever he dropped in to pick up a quart of apple juice, then yes that would be taking it too far. But mentioning his achievements in an interview, I can't see the problem.

It's not...it was done to clarify what you were referring to.  no rule broken.

Got it. So anything less than that extreme example = not taking too far I suppose. Who in your estimation would be an example of a person actually taking things too far in the bragging department? Kanye West maybe?

Actually it was just in collaboration with Brian.

The day Mike starts mentioning himself in the same breath as people such as Martin Luther King like that douche did, I will hold my hand up and say he has gone too far.

Mike seems pretty careful to me to not to inflate his credit in songs, he is usually pretty specific about what he did and what others did.

He does get interviewed a lot and so I suppose he is talking/bragging about his accomplishments a lot.

Agreed; Kanye is Douchey McDoucherson in the braggart department. Probably the most extreme example ever known in the entertainment industry. (Although, an argument could be made that the Mike-sung, though not Mike-written, "Good Vibrations/Assassinations" lyric, is a not entirely dissimilar same-breath example :))

Point is that one doesn't have to fall that far into the Kanye batsh*t crazy territory for it to also be said that they seem to have a pattern of consistently bragging too much, a pattern that ultimately doesn't help their "plight", so to speak. One can be a few steps more modest than Kanye and still go too far.

Comparing Mike Love to Kanye West.  That's kinda mean. 

At least Mike actually has some musical achievements to be proud of. 

I'd put Mike more in the same league as Gene Simmons.  Granted Gene contributed a lot more to Kiss than Mike did to the Beach Boys.  But everytime Gene talks in the press, or in his several books, about Ace Frehley or Peter Criss, he always seems to have something negative to say. 

Although at least Mike doesn't hire Brian Wilson and Al Jardine lookalikes to go onstage with him every night like Gene Simmons does with Ace and Peter. 

Luckily, history is written by the victors. 

People have compared him to Hitler as well. I'd rather be compared to Kuntye than Hitler, but that's just me.

same thing.

We're all waiting for that dominant creativity and conceptual content to take full flight, Mike! Now that you're unshackled from Al Jardine and forever banished from The Room with Cousin Brian, that solo album should prove once and for all who the real genius is, surely.

 God, it's a shame Radio Shack went bankrupt before they could put it out.

That's Why God Made The Radio Shack.

What I legitimately want to know, is why Love's one solo album has next to no songs written or co-written by Love himself, even on the original compositions. So, so odd. I cannot imagine that would happen today. Did some of Mike's other unreleased solo albums have similar very little Mike writing contributions?

"On the record...Mike Love"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45duZ1Sq38

Interviewed by Wink Martindale.  Comments disabled.

M. E. Love is asked about his solo material at about the 27:30 mark.

Just reread the quote..."Find someone with which to collaborate, someone whose strengths complement your strengths.That's the thing I did with my cousin Brian.  He was a gifted arranger and composer of music, but lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship.  Collaboration is key."

When I break each sentence down, first Mike gives attribution to Brian's acumen in composition and arrangement. Something wrong with that? Don't think so.

Second, Mike's skills were in lyric and concept, in the word concepts for lyrics.  Something wrong with that? Don't think so.  

That was what Mike brought to that table. He cites "collaboration" as the key ingredient. Most composers work with lyricists.  No different here.  

I  fail to see what is wrong with this comment.   He gave Brian credit, as Brian has given Mike in the past.

The hands of time cannot be turned back to re-make The Beach Boys in a fan's "image and likeness."  They are who they are.  The history is what it is.  Even old Murry. Had he not kicked a few doors down at the outset, we would not be having this discussion now.  

And, maybe if Brian, as a member of this board, and could be reading it, might be offended that people disparage the cousin who did write lyrics for many of his biggest successes, from his early years.  

Blood is still thicker than water.  

"He was a gifted arranger and composer of music, but lyrically and conceptually (pause) I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship. "

Reading it straight away, he is saying that lyrically and conceptually he was the dominant creative force.  We know Mike collaborated on some lyrics.  Some of his songwriting credits are still dubious ("Wouldn't It Be Nice" anyone?).  Brian's strength was not lyrics but he did write his own lyrics.  And as for conceptualizing the songs...  (cough)...  gimme a break.

JCM

ya ya ya ya ya Filled.  and one more "ya" for good measure.  All that is true.  AND NOT THE PART MOST TAKE ISSUE WITH.

Calling himself the "dominant creative force" is just SO ridiculous that it's merely laughable and oh SO typically Mike Love.  He can't dominate himself a blinkin' solo album of any value or credibility because, after 50 some-odd years, he dominates nothing.  Thank Gawd he wasn't around when Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa.  He'd have added a moustache and told the world that he was the dominant artist.

Mike Love is Mike Love's dominant worst ememy.

Exactly, there is no way to spin what Mike said. He is claiming to be the creative force behind the BBs

It looked like a partnership as written, with each side's strengths.  People may want to see something different. 

Conceptualizing lyrics.  Not arrangement or composition.

No he isn't.  He is claiming his lyricist work.  Not arranging or composing. 

Dominant for lyrics and he has written very good ones.  And not for Brian's composition or arrangement.

He didn't say he was the dominant lyricist Filled.  Plainly he said he was the dominant CREATIVE force.  I stand by my initial post on this matter accurately typed and posted on page 2 just after 7:08 eastern daylight savings time this morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And...over the long haul...the whole 9...the complete body of work...the material not properly relegated to being a concert medley highlight of once upon a time historic oldies...the only thing Mike is back to being dominant at is holding a microphone.

There's a thread here which talks about the era when the Beach Boys peaked as a live act.  The concensus is that they peaked when Mike stepped back a little and when the tambourine wasn't so essential to the realization of a truly great and gifted show.  Then Jack left...and we got 15 bigguns...and slowly but surely it all started to sink.  [thanks to dominance.]

Can I play a round of golf with ya next time I am in Canada.... :lol

It was also nice to see Mike's well-written and thoughtful tribute to Jack that Mike posted on his Facebook page shortly after Jack's passing... oh, wait.

If you can put up with my 'game'.  I broke 90...shot an 89...for the first time ever on Wednesday.  T'was my goal this year.  I have now re-set and will try and break 85 before it's all said and done this season.

[maybe when Mike comes in August I can get him to caddy.  Then if I break 85 he can take all of the credit.]

He knows no bounds in that department of taking credit! :lol

Add Some - I have the article open, reading it line by line, and don't see that at all. He appears to be only taking credit for his partnership with lyrics and ideas for lyrics.  There could be "scriveners" errors.  It ain't the NYTimes or WSJ.

That tone of "dominant" overall is just not the theme running though the article.  It is more general, contrasting the touring conditions and acoustics of venues.  This has been "spun" on this board with one word.  JMHO

Watch this scene from an early episode of "Dallas". Substitute the dialog words "power" or "money" with "credit"...and "Ewing Oil" with "The Beach Boys", and it's eerily accurate  :lol
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdfPtW56fo&feature=youtu.be&start=85

Nonsense. It's clear what Mike is saying. Yes, he starts the sentence by specifying "lyrically and conceptually" (the second part of which is incredibly questionable), but ends up going to "always the dominant creative force." That's far broader, and far more egregious.

Give me some due! ;D

You left off "in that relationship".

Which would only make it more inaccurate.  There is no defence for dumb.

"I'm the surf word man!"

Reasonable minds can interpret that article differently.

Wirestone - I read that article as a cursory and very broad and non-specific career survey.  Not rocket science.  And I see the "dominant" as confined only to lyrics and themes for songs.  You read it differently.  You find it egregious.  I find it innocuous.

Brian was melancholy, I was positivity! :lol

Let's break it down by Top 40 songs. This would doubtless be the way Mike prefers to think about it, right? So let's look at the songwriting credits to the band's biggest hits.

Brian / Mike cowrites

"Surfin' Safari"
"Be True to Your School"
"Fun, Fun, Fun"
"When I Grow Up"
"Dance, Dance, Dance" (with Carl)
"California Girls" (though originally credited to BW solo, there has never been serious debate that Mike wrote the lyrics)
"Good Vibrations" (Tony likely deserves a credit for his first-draft lyrics)
"Darlin"
"Wild Honey"
"Do It Again"
"It's OK"

Brian / Gary U. cowrites

"In My Room"

Brian / Roger C. cowrites

"Don't Worry Baby"
"Little Deuce Coupe"
"Shut Down" (Mike credit added through lawsuit)

Brian / Tony A. cowrites

"Wouldn't It Be Nice" (Mike now receives a third of the credit for adding four words)
"God Only Knows"
"Caroline, No"

Brian / Van Dyke cowrites

"Heroes and Villains"

Brian / Carl cowrites

"Good Timin'"

Brian solo

"Surfer Girl"
"The Little Girl I Once Knew"

Originally credited to Brian solo, but with post-lawsuit credit to Mike

"I Get Around" (Mike wrote  the "round, round get around, I get around" bit)
"Help Me Rhonda"

Undefinable

"Surfin' USA" (Credited to Chuck Berry and Brian Wilson, but Mike and Jimmy Bowles have a claim as well.)

Cover versions

"Do You Wanna Dance?"
"Barbara Ann"
"Sloop John B"
"I Can Hear Music"
"Rock and Roll Music"
"Come Go With Me"
"Wipe Out" (With the Fat Boys)

Mike with others

"Getcha Back"
"Kokomo"

Top 40 singles recorded by others, but co-written by Brian

"Surf City"
"Dead Man's Curve"
"The New Girl In School"
"Sidewalk Surfin'"

Of the 34 BB chart singles listed here, Mike has a clear "lyric and concept" claim for 12, including his 11 co-writes with BW and "Getcha Back." Kokomo had been written and recorded before Mike worked on it. That's about 35 percent of the group's top 40 singles.  Brian, solo or with non-Mike others, also wrote 12. (I leave IGA and HMR aside because a case could be made for crediting the main impetus/lyrics to either man.)

Seven of those top 40 hits are cover versions, and Brian is the producer of four. Therefore, you could say that he was the conceptual originator of 16 of the group's hits. You add in the four top 40 tunes he co-wrote for Jan and Dean, and the conclusion should be obvious.

Mike was important collaborator for BW in the group's heyday, no question. His words are in some of the group's greatest hits. But any implication that he's the creative force behind the BBs is belied by the facts. BW didn't need Mike to have hits, or to chart his band's course.

But even that is questionable....it'd be different if Mike had written the lyrics first, handed them to Brian, and said 'hey, write some music to this', when in truth it was either the other way around, or them writing together. Lyrically, well, I have always given Mike his due. Conceptually, well, read my first sentence again. Brian set the tone of the song with his music, and Mike (to his credit) came up with the perfect lyrics for it. If we're being objective here, *neither* was dominant at the time conceptually.

Do we know if that ever happened? Wasn't it said that Let the Wind Blow and possibly All I Wanna Do were more written in that manner?

Pretty sure that Mike wrote the music to LTWB, too. Brian re-arranged it a bit.

ML credits

409
Add some Music
All I Wanna do
Amusement Parks USA
All Summer Long
All This is That
And your Dreams Come True
Anna Lee
Aren't You Glad

Be There in the Morning
Be True to your School
Beaches in Mind
Belles of Paris

Brian's Back
California Girls
Cal Saga Big Sur
Catch a Wave
Chug a lug

Cool, Cool Water
Country Air
Custom Machine

Dance, Dance, Dance
Darlin'
Daybreak over the Ocean

Do it Again

Do you remember?
Don't Back Down
Don't Go Near the Water
Don't Hurt My Little Sister
Drive-in

Everyone's in love with You

Farmer's Daughter
Finders Keepers
Fun, Fun, Fun

Getcha Back
Gettin' Hungry

Girl from NY City
Goin' On
Goin' to the Beach
Good to my Baby

GV

Had to phone ya
Hawaii
He Come Down

HMRhonda
HM Ronda

HCTN
How She Boogalooed It
IGA
IKTAA
I'd Love Just Once to see you
I'm Waiting for the Day
In the Back of My Mind
Island Fever
Isn't it ?Time
It's a Beautiful Day
It's OK

Kiss Me Baby
Kokomo
Know coast

Lahaina aloha
Leaving this Town
Let the wind blow
Let us go on this way
Little Honda
Little St. Nick

Make it Big
Male Ego
Mama Says

Man with all the Toys
Match Point of our Love
Meant for you
Melekalikimaka

Noble .surfer
Oh, Darlin'
Only With You
Our Car Club
Our Team

Pitter Patter
Please Let Me Wonder

Rock and Roll to the rescue

Salt Lake City
Santa's Beard
Santa's Got an Airplane
She Knows Me too Well
She's Goin' Bald
She's got rhythm

The Shift
Some of your love
Sounds of Free
Somewhere near Japan
Spring Vacation
Still Cruisin'
Still Surfin'
Strange things Happen
SDTime
Sumahama
Summer in Paradise
Summer of Love
Sunshine
Surfer's Rule
Surfin'
Surfin' Safari
Sweet Sunday Kind of Love

That same Song

A thing or two
This Car of Mine
TM
Under the Boardwalk

Warmth of the Sun
Wendy
When Girls Get together
When I Grow up
Wild Honey
Wontcha come out Tonight
WIBN

A Young Man is Gone
You're so Good To Me

Doesn't write?

From wiki

Who said he doesn't write?!

I could list the more than 500 songs that BW is credited with in the BMI database. So?

Exactly. Hell, I've written and recorded 527 songs (not a typo) since 2001...does that mean I'm dominant conceptually? Am I Brian's equal?!

To me, the ultimate distinction in this "debate" is that Mike Love never wrote a hit song that wasn't attached to Brian Wilson.  Brian did write hit songs that weren't attached to Mike Love.  

And don't bring up "Kokoschmoe" because that was basically done before the BBs ever got involved.

That's Robert Pollard territory.

it's why billy is the fucking man! ;)

Roger Christian is credited with LDC lyrics.

Conversely, I think I read somewhere Brian admitting the the lyrics to Surfin' USA were written with help from Mike.

Then again, when people see a Mike Love credit on a song they automatically assume Mike alone is responsible for the lyrics when it seems just as often they were written with Brian. I read a critique of "She Knows Me Too Well" written with an anti-Mike slant which just assumed he was behind the questionable sexual politics, whereas I'm more convinced by the theory that the song is just one song in a series inspired by Brian's guilty doubts about how he treated his woman (Good To My Baby, Don't Hurt My Little Sister, You're So Good To Me).

Don't forget "Getcha Back." Not a huge hit, but a midsize one, and written by Mike and Terry alone. Of course, it did have a memorable BW vocal arrangement.

 :thumbsup

Thanks for the note! I updated the original post to include those notes, including putting "Surfin' USA" in a category on its own. Such an odd song.

And yes, Mike's credits for the more introspective material likely strayed into Tony Asher territory -- he was helping verbalize Brian's anxieties. Of course, that undercuts the notion that he's the conceptual mastermind behind it all.  ;D

So now we have gone way beyond Mike's words and hold him responsible for things he didn't say.

Many of those songs weren't hits but became part of our season celebrations, or culture...used in setlists, etc.

It just seems ridiculous to me to assert that Mike did not make huge lyrical contributions and concepts.  

How many fantastic songs have remained "un-named" for a lack of a theme? Not just BB music.  Mike is the guy who can hear a melody and come up with a theme, context and verse to complete it.  Without that, it is just a beautiful melody.  Lyric writing is a gift.  I think he deserves his props.  Those who can't get beyond their personal dislike, refuse to acknowledge that, and resort to ridicule.  

It isn't Brian's gift, but a talent, nonetheless.  

Brian is likely the greatest modern era composer and arranger.  Sloop, absolutely magic arrangement.  

That seems to be happening with others than just Mike.

Case in point...


Nobody is saying that!

What are you talking about?


From my post a couple of hours ago: "Mike was important collaborator for BW in the group's heyday, no question. His words are in some of the group's greatest hits."

Oops Filled...You forgot 'Pisces Brother'.

Still anyone responsible for writing 'Brian's Back' is immediately and completely disqualified FOREVER in terms of being "dominant".  [Unless were talkin' negatives.]

If nobody is saying that then we all agree Mike is right. Let's all hug!

Giving him his fair credit for making important contributions lyrically is not saying the same thing as saying he was the dominant CONCEPTUAL force behind the band.

Just for my own info, I pulled up that list.  And was surprised at how really long it was. You know they aren't all hits, but make up a lot of the highlights on MIC.

If you see them this summer, I think you will like that song and see how well it is received by the audience.

We can hug...after we agree that Mike was...yet again...wrong Cam.  Sometimes important lyrically?  Yes.  Absolutely...100%  The most important HAT wearer in the group?  Yup. :hat

"DOMINANT" conceptually?

Not a snowball's chance in Hawthorne. :lol
------------------

Filled...when Mike was here in November at the Rotary Club Banquet he payed the Pisces Brother video and the song and it was well received by all in attendance.  [He did NOT add in 'Brian's Back'. ;)]

It was framed as a dominant writing "team." Or a partnership.  That is how I read it.

Even if it was up and down though the decades.  

Yes, because he only said he was the lyrical and conceptually dominate force in his collaborations with Brian.

Man!!!  You two don't give up do you?  You're running out of paint. :brian

One of his finest moments, to be sure.

What would happen if Mike performed Brian's Back at a M&B show these days? Something tells me 90% of the audience would just bop their heads and be completely oblivious to the irony  ;D

And thus another damning quote from Mike is turned into gold by Cam.

It's totally innocuous! We're putting words in his mouth! Listen, the statement is utterly clear about what's going on, and about what Mike is saying both directly and indirectly.


We've established Mike wasn't the dominant creative force in the group. (And that was totally the implication Mike was making. You're naive to think otherwise.)

If we need to go through the BW/ML co-writes we can, but I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't "always" the dominant creative force there, either. As though contributing four words to "Wouldn't it Be Nice" or a hook to "I Get Around" or a child's singsong chant to "Kokomo" is being dominant. He's adding a bit of icing to a cake that's already baked and decorated, and then demanding that we all recognize him as a master pastry chef.

Maybe speaking for myself, but I really do think that if Mike just used the term "often" or "at times" instead of "always", and "a" instead of "THE", that we'd be less annoyed. It would have its roots closer to accuracy. It's a big distinction, and I don't think it's splitting hairs.  We are talking about a very famous, much dissected writing partnership, to one of the most famous and important bands of the 20th century. It's not an unimportant distinction.

By this logic, Mike should say "Dennis was drunk and belligerent at EVERY show".

Also, is it just me, or is it mighty awkward to use the term "dominant" which has its origins with the word "dominate" when speaking in terms of a relationship with Brian Wilson? To use such a term shows a lack of awareness of how icky a term that is to associate with a one-on-one relationship with Brian specifically, because of his relationships with Murry and Landy especially.

Agreed, Century, with one caveat...I think Mike had full awareness of what the term implied in regards to Brian.

All year, Mike's been pushing his version of "I'm a genius too,  Brian!" I can't decide if he secretly realizes that walking away from C50 was  a mistake that is costing him big legacy points, or if he's worried about how he's going to be portrayed in the various "Year of Brian" projects.

Either way, his work with the band stands alone and deserves to be recognized. The rest isn't helping.

7 pages about 1 statement and counting.

This site is going to crash when Mike's book comes out! :lol

Billy, I guess what I meant regarding lack of awareness is lack of how it could come off to others by saying it. I cannot fathom someone close to Brian innocuously and happily using the term "dominate" or "dominant" in a positive light, after his well-known history. Regardless of intention, I think history has shown it's a bit "inappropriate" for that word to be used in the same sentence as Brian, to use a term that Carl liked to use. IMHO.

That's controversial. He needed him to have a #1 hit. Unless said hit was a collaboration with Jan Berry. It took Asher to disappear and Mike to write the lyrics to GV in order for the BBs to score a monster hit again. So arguably yeah, Brian could do pretty good without Mike both artisically and chart-wise; but Mike made a difference sales-wise, and he was able to complement Brian's introspective and artistic needs as well as any lyricist. Asher was good, but Mike was on a roll back then. And if he wants to shove it up people's faces and exert all his teenage-like bravado while at it, I can forgive him. He's cool by me anyway. He doesn't do me any harm.

Oh, and Add Some: stop moaning, please, and bring back your photo with Mike avatar.

Uhhh....they had monster hits before GV (and some of them were co-written by Mike, too).

Add some won the thread today!  8)

When is MIC (Made in Castillo's) coming out?

Actually thinkING about doing a boxed set called Roll Your Own. :lol

"...to score a monster hit AGAIN". Fixed. Thanks.

But that implies that the hits had run out before GV! So Sloop John B was a  bomb?  Seriously...you're not helping your argument.
Your statement basically says going with Asher was a mistake...you might be alone in that.  Even Mike would say you're incorrect.

You post the quote and then put words in Mike's mouth in your explanation of how you aren't putting words in his mouth while calling me naïve. His statement is all about his relationship in collaboration with Brian and his claim is specific to that relationship. Not in the group, he didn't mention the group, if we've established it, it is irrelevant to Mike's statement.

Please do go through all of the BW/ML co-writes so we don't just depend on your opinion of just a few cherry picked BW/ML collaborations.

No and he didn't say the band he said it specific to his and Brian's collaborative relationship.

Right, Cam,  he sure did, and it's still incorrect. Perhaps now is the time  to visit good old Websters and look up what 'conceptually ' means. I can wait.

While I await your return,  let me also say this...  the 'concept ' of the Beach Boys? You can say it was Dennis's idea, in that it was his idea to do a song about surfing (when said song had yet to be written ). You can credit Russ Regan  in naming the band.  Cant say it was Mike. Talking about specifically between Mike and Brian...if he was so dominant,  then why in the hell did it take him decades to get the songwriting credits? If he was so dominant,  then why in the hell did he have to even whine about Brian fucking with the formula? If he was so dominant. ...THEN WHY DID THEY NOT DO ANY FUN IN THE SUN SONGS (save Do it Again) for many, many years? Or maybe you think that was Mike's idea too. In that case. ..Mike f***ed with his own formula. Huh. Imagine that. And before you say again that we're just talking about Brian and Mike I'm am well aware of that...just kind of proves that Mike was a one trick pony (at the time). Brian wanted to do different sounds, so he did with others.  When he wanted a return to the old style, he got Mike involved again. I wouldn't call that 'Mike being conceptually dominant '. Some people (not me) would call that him being Brian's bitch (which would explain some of the resentment ).

Cam, it's not me who said "I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

It was Mike who said always. Not me. Not you.

And if he said "always," by your usual logic, that means he meant always. And Mike is listed as the co-writer of "Wouldn't it Be Nice." He's listed as the co-writer of "I Get Around." He's listed as the co-writer of "Shut Down." He's their rightful co-author.

So was he the dominant creative force in the writing of those songs? He says he always was when working with Brian.

And if you say, well, he doesn't mean what he says, there has to be some sort of interpretation of his words, then that leads us to a lot of interesting places, doesn't it? We can interpret a lot of things from Mike's words over the past few years.

But no, you say, Mike has to be taken absolutely literally. Just like Marilyn Wilson, just like Brian when it happens to support your theories. Mike surely wouldn't lie or exaggerate or stretch the truth to embellish his role in the band's glory days, would he? We just need to look at his precise words.

So fine. Let's do that.

Mike says he always dominated. So how did he dominate the creation and writing of WIBN, IGA and Shut Down? Tell us. Or is he lying?

In other words, Brian didn't need Mike to have a #1 hit.

God how absolutely miserable do Carl and Al look in that interview with the 4 of them.

"Maybe not in the top of the charts always.  Until of course Kokomo came along that went to #1 and uh..." - M.E. Love

 :deadhorse

Remember this blurb a few years back?

'In 1974 Mike Love’s concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a tempest that rocked the music world.'


I think Mike's idea of 'concept' may differ from most.

My interpretation : Mike is saying that in their partnership, Brian wrote and arranged the music, and that together they came up with the song concept ( the subject matter ), and that together they co-wrote the lyrics -- and it is in the concepts and the lyrics that Mike contributed more than did Brian.

That's exactly how I interpretated his statement also. Giving Mike his due to what he brought to the band in the early days doesn't diminish Brian's massive achievements but some always act as if it does.

It means he came up with ideas for lyrics more often than Brian when they wrote songs together.

The first part of your 2nd paragraph doesn't apply because Mike is only talking about he and Brian in collaboration.  In the rest you are welcome to your own opinions but as you said you realize Mike was only referring to their collaboration so I'm not sure of your point in all of that.

I agree with both of you.

Clay, Mike didn't say that either. He said "lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship". So when he and Brian wrote together, not he and Brian and somebody else, in a relationship he had always come up with more of the lyrics and concepts. Not all but more.

I didn't say they don't mean what they say, I'm saying he and Marilyn mean what they say.

Re. your small hand full of song titles: always dominant lyrically/conceptually in their songwriting relationship is the claim so that could be Mike being the lyrical/conceptual guy once more than half or a few less than all or somewhat more than Brian all of the time. You are challenging Mike's claim, what have you got?

Sloop was not a monster hit. And had no involvement from Asher. Brian's biggest hits in the 60s with the exception of Surf City are co-writes with Love. So, back to my initial point, Brian did not need Mike to score a hit, but he scored bigger hits with him.

Brian wanted to change the group's image.  Leave that surf and car sound behind and get on with real life...real feelings...real obstacles.  Mike just wanted to do it again...and again.  Brian dominated.  He set the direction.  Mike pretty much followed suit until Brian stepped away from Mike and the group.

Yes Mike contributed...but Brian chose the course.  [and listened to the whining]

Seems they did pretty well after all.  And they both dominate their current situations.  Brian...living in the 21st century...Mike reliving a glorious past.  [I'll bet THAT never gets 'old'.]

It's more like a prison for Mike. ;)

Don't think so.  I believe he enjoys it.  And he does get to take a break when the 'sched.' allows for it.  Two great variations on a theme.  One for each concept.  Two for the rest of us.  I'll check them BOTH out and enjoy myself while doing it.  Nobody loses...at least not when they do it this way.

Sloop had excellent airplay.  That is not coming from reading a rock history book and looking at record sales, but having heard it on the radio and was the first BB single I bought.  I'd say it got at least as much airplay, or more, on the "request line" because of its "crossover status" and Kingston Trio's continuing popularity in 1966. PBS was a huge marketer of folk music, activism, and there were about 5 TV stations on, at that time, and they were 20% of that TV dial.  It was #3 in the USA and #2 in the UK and 99 cents!  It was more cost effective to buy the LP, to get it all.  

But back to the discussion at hand.  The question was "Lastly, do you have any words of wisdom for young, aspiring musicians?"  Four sentences.  

Key words used for intent and context: collaborate, complement, collaboration. In the contexts of a "relationship" (sentence 3) - the tone in "giving advice to young, aspiring musicians..." - interesting, because this band had talent coming from many different directions.  That would include David and the emerging electric guitar.  The built-in lyricist was Mike.  The composer was Brian.

Now, I'm wondering if he was misquoted, because, in the first sentence, it says, "Find someone with which..." And it should be "with whom." (My teacher hat)  I've found Mike more articulate, in any interview or on stage, than to use that  pronoun, incorrectly.  That just jumped off the page.  He could have misused the word, but it seems inconsistent, with being pretty well-spoken, a native English speaker, and educated in the 1950's.

People have patterns of language, such that, when they "catch" themselves in a grammatical error, they go back and correct that error. I've found him to have a very good vocabulary, which indicates that he probably reads a lot. And he was educated during that time in the 50's when proper usage set people apart from those in school, now.  

Grammar and usage was essentially a separate subject. Warriner's English book, for those who remember. Yikes!  :lol

But he's not just saying lyrics. why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that part of his statement?   I've stood up for you in the past, but your stubbornness is just proving them right.

The 2nd part IS relevant.  I'm not sure how else I can put this but for some reading going to try anyway.  Mike (again, at the time) was only capable of writing in one style.  If Brian wanted that particular style, he wrote with him. If not, he got someone else. Had nothing to do with Mike being dominant. .. if anything, it proves the opposite.  Mike was completely reliant on Brian (again, at the time). You didn't see Mike write with anybody else pre-1968 did you ?

To put it bluntly...up until Brian's  retreat,  Brian didn't need Mike, but Mike certainly needed  Brian. Post 15 Big Ones, though, then yes, Mike was the dominant force in the band. But to say he had dominion over Brian before is just revisionist history, and if you could quit praying to Mike long enough to use the brain God gave you, you'd realize that.

Exactly.  And hell, I give Mike his fair due, I dig his band ,  and I think he's unfairly maligned much of the time. For him to overly puff himself up, though, is proving his detractors right and quite frankly doing himself a great disservice.

Agreed on all points. ..could've been a misquote  or an embellishment. And yeah, you got my point regarding Sloop.

I'm not being stubborn, I'm giving my opinion like everybody else. I'm not ignoring anything either, to me Mike plainly says when he and  Brian collaborated, Brian did the music and arrangements and he did most/more of the lyrics and concepts and they complemented each other. But he is only talking about in collaborations of Brian and Mike, whatever or whoever Brian chose to do other times or what the rest of the band did aren't part of his claim because he is only talking about when Brian did choose to write with him.

Okay, let's say that what Mike wanted to say is "When Brian and I wrote together, he was the composer and arranger, and I was primarily responsible for the lyrics and lyrical concepts."

I don't think we'd be having this argument if that's the way he actually put it. I think we'd, for the most part,  agree that this is the case. But, given Mike's recent inclination to paint Brian as a puppet controlled by others, the choice of words (dominant, creative force, relationship) is either unfortunate or carefully calculated to make a certain impression.

And, given his recent history, I'm guessing the latter.

He really needs to stop trying to elevate his own status at Brian's expense. It's actually working to further alienate people. It's also unfortunate, because Mike's very real contributions continue to get buried beneath that alienation.

A misquote? Based on grammatical use of one word out of how many in the piece? Nonsense.

In that case, well, Mike's statement is an opinion as well. Unless we were there, we have no knowledge of whether or not Brian *asked* Mike to write lyrics for a specific theme. Remember, before Brian stepped back before the collapse of Smile, Brian WAS the Beach Boys.


Yep.

How many listeners bought or even got into these records (i.e. the 'classics' from the 60's) primarily on the strength of the lyrics? Did the kids/fans in the 60's hear whatever single was on the radio then go out and buy the 45 based primarily on lyrics?

I'm sure everybody could always say everything better but to me he is very clear and he very clearly confines it to only the songwriting relationship of he and Brian. Obviously people's mileage varies.

I agree.

Can't say firsthand  as I wasn't born until 1978, but I think it was the combination of the two. Regardless of how everything turned out between the two, there's no disputing Brian and Mike  made magic together.

I think there were many folks who bought the music and enjoyed it despite the lyrics, not because of them. But I can't imagine there was anyone who bought BB records solely for the lyrical insights of Mike.

GF - it was an absolutely dynamite song on the radio.  Great vocals, but lyrics were from that traditional Carl Sandburg's "The John B. Sails." From "The American Songbag." 1927.  An old Bahamian folk song, recorded at Mr. Jardine's behest. Score!  ;)

Also recorded by Johnny Cash, Dick Dale, Brothers Four...

On the charts for 11 weeks, the summer of '66, alongside WIBN and GOK.  A BB hatrick!  :lol

In the early mid-60's, I really didn't care about the lyrics at all, even with my love of California.  As long as I heard those gorgeous harmonies on the rockers and Brian's leads on those ballads, I would have listened to any lyrics.  Nothing has changed all these years later.  Aside from hearing great lyrics from Van Dyke Parks, or some of the more insightful personal lyrics which I enjoyed over the years.  I'll applaud Warmth of the Sun here, too - both musically and lyrically.  No trashing Mike's lyrics - I just didn't care. His lyrics aren't the issue, the other claims are, and I read them as Wirestone and Billy and Guitar Fool read them.

Again, my interpretation is that Mike is not saying that he was the dominant one in the writing partnership -- I don't think that Mike, even at his most egotistical, could believe that for a second.

Mike is not even saying that he wrote the lyrics, or came up with the subject matter, on his own. He's just saying in that one area, he contributed more than did Brian.

Mike is still correcting the public perception that Brian was the sole author on the bulk of the hits. Maybe he shouldn't emphasize that anymore in interviews. Anyone who cares already knows.

But perhaps that's what looking at 'I Get Around' (B. Wilson) and 'California Girls' (B. Wilson) on record sleeves for 30 years will do to you.

But that's what he said:

"He was a gifted arranger and composer of music, but lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

You read it as saying that Mike is claiming he was dominant in the songwriting partnership overall, while I read his claim as referring back only to the "lyrically and conceptually" phrase.

With such an ambiguous sentence, can we not give Mike the benefit of the doubt? Do we really believe that ego and envy have driven Mike so out of his mind that he now believes he was a greater creative force than was Brian?

This. It's obvious to anyone without a Mike dislike bias.

Yes.

But it's not a new thing. He's believed this for some time. Remember those quotes from the Endless Harmony documentary.

I don't care about the substance of this argument at all (as if any arguments here were of any substance). But that sentence has to mean that the dominance in the partnership that Mike states is only related to "lyrically and conceptually." Otherwise there is nothing to which those adverbs refer. It is not an ambiguous sentence. Incorrect, maybe. But he is not saying he was the dominant member of the partnership other than lyrically and conceptually.

It is especially hard to read it that way for me when he first gives half or more of the credit to Brian for the composition and arrangements which automatically denies he is claiming he was dominant of the whole songwriting collaborations and then he takes only somewhere between more to most of the lyrical/conceptual credit. That leaves Brian ahead in the credit even in Mike's own claim it seems to me.  And that claim is for only the songs the two wrote together which leaves all of Brian's and the other Boys' credit for their other accomplishments to them.

 I don't have an anti Mike bias, and I still disagree with you. If you're going to accuse me of something as patently untrue as that, I'd suggest you reconsider.  Tread lightly

Did I personally say that YOU did? No I didn't so don't react as if I did.

Well, with such a general statement such as that , how did expect me to take it? You said it was 'obvious to anyone without a Mike dislike bias'. Well, I disagree highly, but I don't have a bias against Mike.  There's only one band member I actively dislike for reasons I don't care to go into, but I'd still admit that him joining the band in 1965 filled out the harmony blend perfectly. I don't let my feelings about people personally color my view on their artistic abilities.

My statement was aimed at the usual suspects who do have a personal dislike for Mike and it seems to cloud their judgement on interpretating everything the man does and says. It certainly has clouded this thread. I'd always just assumed it was a given that it was recognised in Mike and Brian's songwriting relationship, that it was predominantly Mike who came up with the lyrics/subject matter while the music and arrangements were almost exclusively Brian's. It's kind of surreal to see people claiming otherwise.

  Never really thought it that solid; I lean towards Brian writing the music AND often, tho certainly not always, having a sense of what he wanted each song to be about lyrically.

I can only speak for myself but I paid attention to lyrics, more in the car songs, less in the other songs, but always singing along and not always with the right words it turns out.

Is it fair to say that Mike Love's lyrics to "Spring Vacation" proves that he was the dominant creative force in selling fans the fact that C50 symbolized the FUTURE of the BB's? (No mention of an "end date" anywhere that I can recall. . . )

(crickets from the Cam corner)...

Hmmmm.  Just a few tweaks and…

Driving around living the dream
I'm crusin' the town, diggin' the scene
I'm not gonna stress, not gonna worry
Doing our best, no need to hurry
Lookin' ahead with anticipation
To the set end date of this celebration
Seems like it could take forever
Al even thinks we can all stay together

Maybe Joe Thomas did some editorial work. It would explain why Mike doesn't want him in the "room"! :D

 :lol

Ahhh..ok gotcha.

I don't know. Lots of posters are saying it must be mostly Brian's concept and lyrics.

 :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Bravo, sir. Bra-fucking-vo. You said it.

Billy I've said it several times since I arrived here.  Mike's 'foot in mouth' disease is a LARGE problem.  He is his own worst enemy constantly.  He very MUCH needs to hire a PR company.  His book is gonna be ripped to shreds and used to start forest fires of Mike Love books if he prints out THIS kind of bullshit.

He has his strengths...and like all of us he has his weaknesses.  No amount of a self-appointed Mike Love Cavalry can ride to the rescue of the fly attractant he spews.  Most people will ignore his tomfoolery.  But when it comes out in book form ...'on the record' as it were...and when the critics get a hold of it...he'll be made the laughing stock of the month...elegible to be the grand prize winner of 2016...and possibly the entire decade.



--------------------

Hire some PR people and avoid this...and ultimately THAT.

Well said Add some, a sensible solution.

Careful. You don't want your Mike hate to cloud your opinions. ::)

Problem is, having a PR person filter wacky statements like these would necessitate the person saying them has any idea of how he comes off, and wanting to get a PR person to help out...and I don't think Mike does have any self-awareness in that department. I don't think he thinks there's a problem whatsoever with using the "dominant" word in a Brian Wilson sentence, as though those two words together (regardless of "good intent") should give most sensible people the creeps, knowing Brian's history of being literally being dominated by his dad and shrink. There's like 5 people on this board who don't think it's a problem, and perhaps casual fans who think Carl Wilson was the dad, but most people who know the history of the band would see that as being an icky thing to say, let alone the inaccuracy of saying "always" in place of "sometimes" or "often".

Plus, a PR person costs money. And we know how the overhead must be cut, cut, cut.

Then wouldn't that contradict what Mike said?

In any case, my understanding was that he did do a fair portion of the lyrics. Who came up with the idea? I'm not 100% sure.

Morpheus, why have you forsaken me?

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Tough room.

No actually, it wouldn't.

He occupied "Laughing Stock" territory a L O N G  T I M E  A G O and he'll never get out of it. Once a buffoon, always a buffoon.  >:D >:D

But that's not what Mike said.

If that was what Mike said, there would be no thread.

Some folks' overwhelming sympathies toward Mike are clouding their ability to see how he comes off. And not just here, but for the last quarter century.

Let's look at two statements. See if you can spot the difference.

1.) I was usually the guy who came up with the lyrics and subject matter when we wrote together.

2.) Lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship.

One is plainspoken, but still making a point. One is bloated with self importance and superlatives to the point of hilarious falsity.

I have a basic understanding of the band's history. Also general usage of the English language.

I would ask you this: Are you seriously suggesting that "I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship" means simply that Mike came up with full lyrics and concepts for 50 percent +1 of the songs he's credited with co-writing?

Because that sure doesn't square with the sense of Mike's statement, or any definition of "always" or "dominant" that I know. Here's one definition of "dominant," just for kicks: "commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others." So it's not just a simple substitution for the word "more." If one goes by the precise meaning of the word, it goes far further, in influence and extent.

When it comes to interviews it's definitely a lost cause. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when a PR guy is trying to coach Mike on how to answer questions....

PR guy: "So when someone asks you 'Do you still talk to Brian?' how should you respond?"
Mike: "That Brian is controlled and on prescription medications."
PR guy: "Dammit, Mike, for the 9th time, that has nothing to do with the question. We'll come back to that. How about if someone asks you about Joe Thomas' involvement with TWGMTR?"
Mike: "......Oh! I'll talk about his fear of flying!"
PR guy: "....siiiggggghhhhh...."

When it comes to his book, you're right, if he follows this usual passive-aggressive/back-handed quips, and over-dramatized self-importance style in "on-the-record" form, it'll just make him look bad.

I'd like to see Mike save his own ass.  I always enjoyed the Beach Boys sound...and that always included Mike.  Some of his songs...I mean some of the ones he sang LEAD on...are among my all time favourites.  His part in Brians mix...the BRIAN DOUGLAS WILSON sound...imagined and  created exclusively by the TRUE dominant creative force in the group is etherial and outstanding and the reason why were all here.  Mike didn't have much to do with it except for playing his NICHE part.  AN IMPORTANT part...but still...just a part.

The thing is when it all comes back to reflect badly on Mike...and it will...it'll reflect badly on the whole group.  And that's just 100% fuckin' wrong.  They were all...Brian included...a part of something WAY bigger than just the individual.  Maybe a PR person can convince Mike to lie and say he believes that too.  It's true.

I know some  won't believe it, but I truly agree with this. I love so much of the stuff that Mike did with the group, including his little answer vocals on "Summer's Gone," his bass parts, the catchy hooks he added. He has an undeniable charisma and way with words. I even think "Cool Head, Warm Heart" is a really nice song!

I acknowledge and celebrate the work. But his actions as a person, bandmate and interview subject? Not so much.

Mike has an undeniable charisma??? Where, what, how, why and really?  ??? ??? That's  an obvious head(with hair) scratcher.  :o

I have a basic understanding of the band's history and also general usage of the English language as well.

That is an incomplete explanation and only one possibility but we agree that no it isn't that simple. Here's another definition of "dominant" just for kicks: "predominant; main; major; chief".

It does square with my sense of the statement and your sense of the statement is contradicted by the statement itself imo. I've already given my opinion and my reasons. We just won't agree on this for now.

Maybe your assumption of this isn't as accurate as you think. At least, perhaps, not as accurate to allow that assumption to include each and every collaboration the two worked on.

With Good Vibrations, for the record, I do think Mike's lyrics were the better choice and made for a better song overall. However, the boy-girl element of that lyric was already in place in Tony's original lyrics, as others here have pointed out. So using the "interpretations" of Mike's answer to carry over to include that song's concept and subject matter doesn't hold up for obvious reasons. The most obvious being the boy-girl theme was already there before Mike wrote lyrics for it. The concept was there before Mike worked on it. Mike expanded on what was already there, exactly what he did when he reworked and revised John Phillips' "Kokomo".

And we'd also have to assume that Brian's working methods with his previous lyricists and collaborators like Roger Christian and Gary Usher were either totally different than those times he wrote with Mike, or we have to assume that lyrically Brian didn't bring as much of a lyrical and conceptual contribution into *those* collaborations, and we know that's not true. Example, Gary Usher did not bring the concept of "In My Room" into that song, that was Brian. Some of the Roger Christian car song lyrics, Brian had Roger grab the correct slang and lingo to be accurate but the song concepts themselves can't be pegged so definitely to Roger Christian's dominance in that collaboration. It simply was not that clear-cut as a general rule. At least not enough to use the word "always".

So Brian and Mike must have had a different method of collaborating than anyone else Brian worked with, Mike took the lead in bringing in the concept and the lyrics to the point where Brian basically stuck only to the music as Mike dominated the conceptual and thematic creation process...yet we know in the most obvious cases like Good Vibrations, even I Get Around (where Brian had the "I get around, from town to town, I'm a real cool head... section pretty much in place, right? And Mike added the hook "round round get around, I get around...), it didn't play out as consistently across the board as Mike's answer seemed to be describing it. Brian had "good, good, good...good vibrations, yeah" to which Mike translated into the hook "I'm picking up good vibrations" which was pinned to the bass line melody Brian also had in place on the earlier takes.

So once again, that particular song's actual, factual history doesn't back up the way others here are using it to "interpret" what Mike said, in any way. The concept was there, the concept was there in the lyrics about good vibrations and a boy picking them up from a girl...Mike ran with it, revised and reshaped it using the same basic concept as Asher, and delivered the goods.

But it wasn't his concept any more than Wouldn't It Be Nice or or In My Room or Little Deuce Coupe were dominated by the lyricist of those tunes. They each talked, they each shared, they each listened...and the songs took shape. That's how Brian collaborated, that's how the songs took shape, it *has* to be a give and take and a sharing process to work as well as it did. Now we're to believe that process was completely different with songs he wrote with Mike? Brian's lyrical contributions were "always" that slim as to justify this conclusion? "Lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

Was the conceptual aspect of the Wilson-Asher tracks on Pet Sounds dominated by Asher's concepts, or did Asher write from the conversations he had with Brian about each song?  Brian fed him the ideas, they talked at length about the subject matter of each song (i.e. the concepts behind each song), Brian gave him the musical feels, and Tony put them into more organized verse. Roger and Gary did that same exact thing when they collaborated with Brian. I guess some are suggesting Mike did not as a general rule?

Point is, Brian wasn't just showing up with chords and a few rough musical ideas only to have Mike or any other lyricist-collaborator completely take over the process or the subject matter to suit their needs. That just isn't what happened with Mike, Roger, Gary, Tony, etc, and if it did happen on a few occasions perhaps, it can't be translated into the kind of wording as we just read in that interview.

Cam, you first wrote that:


Then I asked you whether:


And you replied:


Seems to me as though you're acknowledging you painted yourself into a corner with your earlier argument. And if that's the case, do you now believe that Mike was exaggerating?

You also write:


And that means 50 percent +1?

Here's another question. Surely something in Mike's statement is hitting a nerve with people. Mike's interviews tend to lead to long threads here, but I can't recall another one in which it was his descriptions of co-writing that sparked debate. And we've both been around a long time. So why do you think this interview led to such discussion? I mean, it's not like it's a thread featuring OSD solo. Folks like Billy and GF and Howie have interpreted something condescending and false about the statement as well. Why do you think that is?

Well, GF just said it better and more completely than I could ever hope to.

That's the whole point in a nutshell. What we know about Brian's working methods just does not square with Mike's statement, in whatever reading of it you choose to believe.

(For that matter, how "conceptual" is it to decide to put sad words to a sad melody? The very chords and music chosen create a concept. And Mike isn't known for writing sets of lyrics and bringing them to Brian. It's always been him writing to Brian's melodies, whether pounded out on the piano or already recorded in the studio.)

Both statements are essentially saying the same thing. I grant you the way Mike chose to word his views are not the most tactful or modest usuage of the English language but as pointed out Mike is a bragger. He's never been one shy of tooting his own horn and for anyone to expect him to stop at 74 is unrealistic. It just doesn't bug me like it does some people, I just sort of roll my eyes and think 'that's our Mike' and move on.

Does it though? Brian could have had a totally different working relationship with collaborators outside of the band to the one he had with Mike.


I'll agree with you there, Brian's music obviously dicitated the tone of what Mike was going to sing about.

Mike doesn't take enough pride in certain undeniable facts IMO. Whether you like it or not he has been a force in keeping the band touring with some pretty sweet set-lists. A consistent performer over 100 plus shows a year regardless of the venue size. The constant presence of the bands name over that period has probably helped in record sales and radio play.

He should sing those praises more than the creative aspect as they could be claimed to be just as important.

I haven't seen anyone claim there wasn't back and forth or that Mike was responsible for every lyric and concept. Mike only claims he did more of it, was dominant, in the lyrics and concepts in their relationship.  Not other collaborators', just Mike and Brian's.

"Concept" seems to be the sticking point.  "Concept" does not mean only original idea, it also means a general idea or understanding of something, a plan, a unifying idea or theme.

True.[escept maybe for the radio play.]

No.

The sticking point is not the word "dominant," but the words "dominant creative force."

And the REAL sticking point is that that comment (along with that transparent travesty of Beard's “interview”) is that it seems that Mike is setting things up to change history, presumably for his book. What I find interesting is that Mike’s supporters are ALWAYS claiming a bias from others against him because of the things he says when they knock Brian Wilson.

For DECADES Mike talks about Brian’s mental, emotional, and substance issues with abandon.
When was the last time you heard Brian (or Melinda) discuss Mike in any negative light?
They haven’t.

I fear that that will be the crux of Mike’s book: BRIAN WILSON’S STORY THROUGH THE EYES OF MIKE LOVE. Because that’s the story of the band, they were all -- even Dennis -- satellites of BW. What's Mike really going to write about? HIS songs? HIS marriages? HIS kids?

Two themes: Brian and TM.

This book is his last shot at public redemption. I know his people read this board, so I’m gonna say it straight to them: Do the right thing. Don’t hire fact checkers to change history to present situations in a positive light when they weren’t. Own up to how it went down. Brian Wilson has. Everyone will appreciate an honest Mike Love book that simply calls it like he sees it rather than taking away from Brian Wilson’s gifts and catalogue. His life has been a fascinating enough journey without having to do that.

If Mike and his staff go with “That’s mine/that’s me” they lose -- especially after Love And Mercy.
Trying to knock/hurt this guy is the dumbest (professionally and monetarily) thing they can do.
They will be SLAUGHTERED by the press.

“Dominant creative force" is a red flag, and Mike Love’s supporters on this board always end up spending weeks arguing semantics (e.g. what words REALLY mean), this thread has become that now, too.

Cam -- the lesson is as old as the ages: If you have to s hit on someone to win, you don’t win.

Stop fighting.
Go outside.
Kiss your kids.
Have fun.
I love you.

Cyncie - last night, on AXSTV, I caught Fleetwood Mac. It was a Joe Thomas production.  And, found it was excellent. I gotta give the "devil his due" for this one. Superb.  But, must admit I know their work less well as compared to the BB's. Other big FM fans might think I'm off base.  But the video is great.

And I'm one of those in the minority who likes Stars and Stripes, for the "concept" ( a semantic ) of bringing the country headliners with the BB's.  His lyrics are another story, and I would agree it is not his "strong suit."

I honestly hope Mike's book will not be a hatchet job on Brian because (1) I really want to hear Mike's lifestory and (2) this board will self destruct if it is.
However realistically, to some on this board and elsewhere the man cannot say or do no right. Let's just remember that there are always two sides to each story and both men are going to air theirs. Somewhere between the two will lie the truth.

Yeah, but you - and others - are conveniently and repeatedly leaving out the words "lyrically" and "in that relationship". And, including those words makes all the difference. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, knowing that you are a seeker of THE TRUTH!

Howie,

I just respectfully disagree on this Mike quote.

I'm not going to pre-judge Mike's (or Brian's) book but I don't want Mike's book to be that either.

Even though we've never met, I respect your work and participation with us, and I love you too.

(I am saying that without irony just so there isn't any Internety misunderstanding.)

 :shrug :shrug  WTF  ???

What is a song concept?

For instance, the concept for 'Surfin' USA' isn't "surfing", it's "if everyone in the US had an ocean like California's, then everyone would be surfing like we do here". That concept was gold -- it made the record a nation-wide hit, it made surfing a subject of interest even for kids in the Midwest, and it helped make Southern California the center of youth culture.

I don't know whether it was Mike or Brian who came up with the concept, but the record is carried by the melody, the vocals, the arrangement, and the concept. The job of the lyrics is to put across the concept in a concrete way. That 's the way most Beach Boys songs work -- it's not so much the lyrics as the idea behind the lyrics.

Now, I have a feeling that Mike may be exaggerating a bit on the "lyrically and conceptually" front. Maybe Mike came up with only 60% of the concepts, say. Is 60% dominating? I'd say not, though others may differ.

But this is one of the reasons why I believe that Mike's book has the potential to be the most important yet on the subject of the Beach Boys, if the book goes into detail on how the songs came to be written, and who contributed what.

What I find the most interesting with you and Mike is that you both are so much alike. Especially, the way you both stick with the same lines. It really gets to be hard to take what either of you say seriously when the message never changes.

Happy Mother's Day to all of you lovely mothers who post here and to all of the rest here and their lovely mothers.

I take it we're all just speculating on who did how much of what on most of the songs with any of his collaborators?  I do wonder why Brian would write so few songs alone and want so many collaborators if he was the one who was dominant in the lyrical/conceptual side.

You don't have to be the sole lyricist to be creattively dominant. Sometimes, a lyricist will "translate" someone else's grand concepts or ideas.

Thanks for that Happy Mother's Day wish - Dr.BB   - in Stevie Nick's fairly recent DVD, which has been on Netflix, she discusses her creative "process" which begins with "verse" or poetry...so this hotly debated "chicken or egg" and the "value" attributed to any artist is up for semantic debate.  And it seems that the creative process is very difficult to quantify.  Her process might be different from the BB's. 

The "verse" could, in some cases precede the "melody" so I'm thinking maybe this process (which I'm not familiar with as a non-artist) might be an amalgam of sorts.  And, I'm considering all the options, here!  ;)

You've left one out as well. 'Conceptually'.  If we define concept as a unifying idea or theme, I don't think Mike has a very strong argument. The unifying themes of surfing and drag racing were surely inspired by Dennis. Mike used TM as a theme, otherwise some of the concept albums and concepts in the songs, were not down to Mike but to others including Van Dyke Parks and Brian himself. Mike wrote many lyrics, admittedly but to claim he was 'always the dominant creative force in that relationship' is untrue because it suggests that his lyrics were more creative than Brian's music.

And I try so damn hard to painstakingly craft my posts so even you'll like them. Man, I'm soooo sorry! I will undoubtedly be doubling my efforts. And knowing that you are one of myKe's steadfast lieutenants, I guess I have to thank you for putting me right up there with the LuhVster on your most liked list. Let's see, only 5 more wives to go and I'll really be...  ... :wave

That part of the quote - "conceptually" - is being twisted, again intentionally, to criticize Mike Love. Mike's quote is NOT saying that he invented or created the original concepts that were used in the songs he wrote with Brian. He's not claiming that he invented or created the original surfing concept any more than Dennis Wilson did when he suggested they write a song about it. Surf music was around before Dennis suggested it. What Mike is saying, if you really want to admit it, and most on here don't, is that JUST IN THE SONGS THAT HE WROTE WITH BRIAN WILSON, he (Mike) came up with/decided/most of the time/the dominant percentage of time, the lyrical concepts USED SPECIFICALLY IN THE CREATION OF THE SONGS. Created the original concepts, no, he's not saying that. But in the context of the actual writing of the songs, yes, was responsible for bringing the concepts INTO THE LYRICS, creating the concept FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SONGS.

EDIT: I read an interview with Mike, a fairly recent one actually, and Mike was discussing Chuck Berry's lyrics and how they influenced and inspired Mike's lyrics and concepts that he brought to Beach Boys' songs. That's about the best example I can come up with. Mike wasn't taking credit for inventing or creating the concepts that Chuck wrote about - cars, up in the morning and off to school, and girls. But, when it came to creating songs, creating concepts for songs, with Brian Wilson, yeah, Mike was responsible for that. A lot.

Even if I were to accept your interpretation of Mike's words (and I've yet to be convinced) I repeat that to claim he was 'always the dominant creative force in that relationship' is untrue because it suggests that his lyrics were more creative than Brian's music. I think few would accept that to be the case. Mike's skill as a lyricist did not equal let alone surpass Brian's skill as a song writer.

Now you're leaving something out. Mike isn't just saying he was "always the dominant creative force in that relationship". You are.

Mike said, "LYRICALLY AND CONCEPTUALLY, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship." Lyrically and conceptually. Very important part of the quote.

That's nonsense. The twisting of the words, parsing of the words, finding any excuse to "interpret" them as something other than what they actually were up to and including suggesting he was misquoted came fast and furious as soon as people started to post reactions that didn't agree with Mike's commentary. Look at who is doing the most twisting, parsing, and filibustering in this thread as opposed to reading the words exactly as they appeared, and you'll see what happens when damage control tries and fails to smooth things out.

Like clockwork.

I'm a Brian fan first and foremost, even before being a Beach Boys fan. I do appreciate Mike's lyrics 1963-67, but otherwise I've seen him as being a bit of a joke.

However, the way that some on this thread have distorted Mike's words in order to show Mike in the worst possible light has convinced me that there does exist a pervasive anti-Mike bias.

Despise him if you want, but even Mike Love deserves to be judged by standards of fairness.

I thought the "whom" was a joke.

Apparently we all think the other guy is doing that and we all think we are reading the words exactly as they appeared.

Mike's words were: "He [Brian] was a gifted arranger and composer of music, but lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship."

What is wrong with this is that if Mike was the lyricist and Brian wrote the music Mike cannot be the dominant lyricist as he is the ONLY lyricist. Similarly if the concepts were all from Mike, he is the sole creator of those concepts, not a dominant one. Brian could just as easily be stated to be the dominant musical creative force in the relationship. That makes Mike and Brian equal creative forces. But of course they are not. Mike 's creative force as a lyricist doesn't come close to Brian's creative force as a composer of music. The only other way this can be interpreted is that their relationship involved both of them coming up with concepts and lyrics, I'm sure an interpretation that Mike did not intend.

As I know that you are well aware and that I have stated many, many times, my allegiance is to the band. I take no comfort in ripping any of the band members. It adds nothing to my enjoyment of being a fan or listening to the music. The music should be what counts most, not breaking down to the Nth degree what word Mike uses to describe how he goes about coming up with ideas and writing the lyrics. I keep thinking when I enter these threads that I am going read well thought out posts. Learn something. Rarely happens. All I see are folks picking sides like a Dodge Ball game and going to town heaving the ball at each other.

This thread is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that is rampant on this board, and you are leading the way. Again.

Thread after thread, post after post, the subject comes up about the Beach Boys' image of cars, girls, surfing, and fun in the sum-sum-summertime. And who is usually held responsible (blamed?) for that image? Well, that would be Mike Love, of course. Mike was the one who wrote the words, pushed the concepts on the group, and maybe even bullied Brian into going in that direction when he (Brian) didn't really want to. Yep, it was Mike Love all along. Blame him. It was HIS fault.

Then, now, Mike Love takes credit for it, takes credit for the very thing he is accused of on this board. But, instead of saying, "See, I told you they were his ideas, he was responsible, it was him", no, now you don't want to give him the credit. Now you want to take it away. Hey, guitarfool2012, you have a way with words. What's that called? Having it both ways?

Agreed 100%. Great post.

Ahh, here we go, hypocrisy, double standard, etc. I'm the hypocrite on the board, yet again. Prove it. Then we can talk about some hypocrisy on this board hardly anyone knows about. Make sure you check on that carefully before opening that Pandora's Box.

On topic: When The Beach Boys were getting slaughtered in the late 60's for that image of surf-sun-cars-girls, when all of the things that made them superstars were really getting criticized and dismissed, where was Mike Love to defend it publicly?

Great point overall, Sheriff! I'll say this much, except for the band losing their popularity here in the U.S. during the early 70's, musically I am very happy with the trip this band has taken me on. It has been a fulfilling 50 plus year journey that has enriched my life. That is more enough for me. :)

I know this post wasn't addressed to me but firstly I am prepared to admit openly that I consider Mike wanted to maintain the concept of Endless Summer type material. Had Mike said 'I was the main lyricist for a large part of the Beach Boys' career and the idea of Endless Summer type songs was mine' I'd have found this perfectly acceptable. Mike deliberately phrased this in a way that suggested he was creatively more significant than Brian and THAT is what I take exception to.

Creating concepts of cars, surfing, girls, and fun-in-the-sun isn't at all the same as milking that well completely dry while turning your band into a laughingstock of an oldies jukebox machine that plays bowling alley parking lots and rodeos to make a quick buck.

Mike didn't create the concept of surfing for the Beach Boys, Dennis did. Mike didn't conceive the idea of introspective love songs on Today! (in fact, it seems he wasn't too keen on the idea ("don't f*** with the formula") of introspective songs)...So yeah, why would we agree with him when he takes credit for being the dominant creative force when it came to conceptual ideas? Mike singing pretty much solely about the fun-sun/surf concepts 150+ times a year is why some people here dislike him...not because he supposedly came up with these concepts.

This is true, but then again we really don't know what went on in the writing process. We know very little about what Brian & Mike discussed when coming up the songs and themes for albums, etc. For those who are dubious of Mike's explanation, maybe these things will be discussed in Mike's and Brian's new books. There had to be some process that they went through, whether formal or informal.

You are only just now becoming aware of this?

Apparently Brian Wilson doesn't mind! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4

And this has to do what with the conversation at hand?

That is common sense, absolutely. Yet whatever it was about that phrase and the reaction to it has led to those who legitimately did take exception to it (and can lay out reasons why) now being tagged with having an "anti-Mike bias", with hypocrisy, any number of other charges, and have had to read through 10+ pages of attempts to parse and perform surgery on the actual words spoken in order to "explain" or "interpret" the meaning intended versus what was actually said.

And the really sad part of all that is had the words been chosen more carefully, had they been phrased just a bit differently, none of the explanations and defenses and parsing-spinning would have happened. It could have been a positive, but that's not how it played out. Unfortunately that's usually not how it plays out over the past few years, and that is a total mystery why it continues to happen. It doesn't need to.

Looks like Jack just came back into the room... ;D

(dig that obscure reference...)

And no worse than Brian Wilson singing Barbara-fu**ing Ann at every show. I never understood it with his canon of music.

It is sad isn't it. And it doesn't need to be. But, why is it so? Well, maybe because when Brian is interviewed and says something that is totally untrue (and there are times it can be factually proven), many people on this board take the position, "Oh, that's just Brian being being Brian. Funny guy. And, (cough) well, we know he's had some problems..."  But, when Mike says something, well, it has to be totally torn apart, word for word, and turned it into a multi-page Mike bashing fest. I guess THAT has to be.

What does Mike singing about fun/sun/surf concepts 150+ times a year have to do with the conversation?

There seem to be two arguements running here against Mike.
1/ Some people generally disagree with not what he said but HOW he said it.
2/ Others don't think that Mike was leading concepts/lyrical ideas - period.

Two very different things altogther.

Guess I shouldn't expect a reply to this.

EDIT: I didn't expect a reply, but if someone calls me out as the face of hypocrisy on this forum, at least have the guts to back it up. If that's not the case, Sheriff, get off the pot.

Exactly GF, all these guys would defend Mike against reality itself. He'll even if Mike hung out with the Manson crew.

Does Brian say Mike is controlled? Does Brian publicly take backhanded swipes at the people Mike works with? Does Brian decry auto-tune in Mike's solo output before he even fucking hears the music? When Brian is asked "what things do you regret from you past?" he doesn't respond by bitching about things Mike did back in the day. THAT is why people dislike Mike. That is why there is a definite anti-Mike slant on the board. Brian gets something factually wrong, it probably is due to him being forgetful. Yet Brian is always humble, always kind to his cousin and brothers when being interviewed. Mike on the other hand proves he is completely tactless in nearly every interview - whether its him being boastful, or him taking pot-shots at Brian and his management.

Sorry, I'm late on that. Nonsense. Total nonsense. I noticed you like to use that word a lot when you don't agree with somebody.

So you have nothing to back up the statement that I'm the face of hypocrisy, i.e. "leading the way" on this board?

Get off the pot, Sheriff.

Hey, guitarfool2012, aren't you and rab2591 supposed to respond to this? And this has what to do with the conversation at hand? Nevermind, I did it for you. I didn't expect you to.

You made the absolutely ridiculous argument that people on this board dislike Mike for supposedly creating the concept of surfing/cars/fun-in-the-sun. I was clearing up your obvious confusion as to why many people here dislike Mike when it comes to fun-in-the-sun material - more to do with him singing these songs to death rather than his supposed hand in creating these concepts.

Well said Rab! For a man who has everything, Mike is a wreched human being to his so called songwriting partner, Brian Wilson. Mike don't bite the hand that feeds and saved you from selling used cars for a living.

Yes sir. When a moderator tells a poster to "get off the pot", well, I listen. You know, coming from a moderator and everything. Yes, sir.

Randell Kirsch was fired by Mike Love a few weeks ago and replaced by Brian Eichenberger, who was poached from The Brian Wilson Band. Randell Kirsch was the bassist and falsetto singer for the Mike and Bruce show, and was fired for no reason other than Mike Love’s lunatic obsession with his cousin Brian Wilson and woe is us. We’re in a lot of trouble.  So a tall, bass playing falsetto singer was fired. What has that got to do with the price of rice, right? And why is that woe to us?

Gather round, friends and Kokodopes.

Many of us have spent much hard earned quid over the years seeing the touring band, and Randell Kirsch was a constant presence - a good vocalist, a good bass player and a better person who was popular, personable and accessible to many of us. The fact is, we are being lied to. The truth is not that Randell left for some unnamed opportunities (Papa Doo Ron Ron, anyone?), no, he was fired for no other reason other than Love, having an opportunity to stick it to his cousin yet again (and no opportunity to do so is ever wasted), even at the expense of a good musician and even better man like Randell Kirsch.  

And what happened during the interim on SmileySmile? The gang of Club Kokomo propagandists sprinted out of The Vibe Room and tried to spin it that Randell decided to waltz out of the touring BB door into the sub-tribute band world.  More attempts at a history rewrite.  Again. And now, after almost 50 years, we are supposed to believe that it was Love's concept that changed Good Vibrations from a song about dogs to a boy/girl song, completely ignoring the fact that Tony Asher had already written a set of lyrics that were specifically boy/girl, and completely ignoring the fact that Love dictated the lyrics to his wife in the car on the way to the vocal session, a story that Love himself has told ad nauseum. And to top it all off, now we are being told by Mr. Love that he was the “dominant creative force” in conceptions and lyrics in that relationship. And his propagandists now are pushing us the Good Vibrations was a Love concept, rescued by Love from becoming a song about dogs feeling vibrations! They will try and sell any shite that you will buy, as if anyone sane would buy into the circuitous drivel and pretzel logic spewed out by Mr. Cruz and his cohorts in propaganda - I don’t have to name them, you know who they are. All you have to do is be able to read the English language. They will tell you “Pisces Brothers” is seminal, they will tell you Stamos matters, they will tell you that Mike is the dominant creative force, they will tell you that Mike is the real genius behind the group, they will tell you any shite that they think you will believe, partially because the historian who won’t tell you he is indeed working on Mike’s autobiography and attempting to rewrite history for this book says it is so, and partially because they think they can get away with it. It's all about controlling information, specifically on these boards. For some here, the only truth you know is what you read right here. There is a whole generation of fans who don't know anything that doesn't come off the internet and publications like ESQ. This board is the gospel, the ultimate revelation, and is the most awesome gosh darn source in the whole godless Beach Boys world, and that's why woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of zealots, and who knows what kind of shite will be peddled for truth on this website. They will tell you exactly any shite they want you to hear, they will tell you that Mike is the genius behind the group, they will tell you that he is the dominant creative force, they will tell you it was Mike who has kept the group alive all these years, they will tell you that Good Vibrations would not have been a hit record if it weren't for Mike's lyrics and none of it is true. It’s all an illusion - none of it is true.

Put on Pet Sounds. Turn out all the lights and listen all the way through. Then play Summer in Paradise and do the same. Then tell me who was the dominant "creative" force.

You called me a hypocrite, back it up. Simple as that. You haven't done that, and instead are getting into taking shots at me. If it hadn't been done by others on this forum before, I'd see it differently. But it's the last vestige of those who can't back up what they say.

Nice job proving that in real time, Sheriff.

Someone needs a long lie down.....

Hey Sheriff --

Remember that time today when I wrote Mike Love’s supporters on this board always end up spending weeks arguing semantics (e.g. what words REALLY mean), this thread has become that now, too.

Didn't know if you knew what I meant.

You can challenge me, and threaten me. But, if I tell you what I really think, you would ban me. And, even if I did post it, you wouldn't get it anyway. Not my posts, but YOUR posts, prove that.

 :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :h5 :h5 :h5 :h5 :h5 :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :love :love :love :love :love :happydance :happydance :happydance :happydance :happydance :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Prove it. Not make excuses for what you think would happen, not make bogus claims that you'd be banned, not do any of the other spinning and twisting to argue against you actually backing up your claims, but prove it.

Of course that's also yet another tactic to use when things start going opposite of the way you'd like them to be. When the opinions aren't being swayed fast enough or opinions aren't being changed to suit your view of the world - or in this case your views on what was said versus what you'd like others to believe was actually said - then it's time to distract and divert, to filibuster and bring in all kinds of other issues to generate arguments on those rather than face the actual topic at hand.

If proving it means taking this thread into a direction where you're leveling bullshit charges and claims against me in order to divert from the fact you cannot change opinions about the topic at hand based on what you'd like them to assume, or when a sow's ear can't be turned into a silk purse, maybe you should stay seated on the pot as long as you want. We'll talk about the topic and consider your claims of hypocrisy against me as the empty claims they are and always have been.

Now to this nonsense, where did I threaten you? These claims are ridiculous, Sheriff.

On this point, it is sort of amazing that someone who for more than fifty years has had the job of singing the words "Well I'm not bragging babe so don't put me down" night after night still hasn't picked up on the causal link between his bragging and other people putting him down.

I wonder if the irony is lost on him?

Yet another lovely thread about which surviving BB (or who among their defenders) has a bigger penis.

I regret that on the TWGMTR album, it was Brian who came up with the concept of Spring Vacation and the lyric "easy money, ain't life funny". The fun we could have had here had Mike come up with that. Too bad he was not a dominant conceptual creative force for that one.

I have no big problem with Mike's bragging and his issues with his family, his past and his role in the band. It's his life and his mind, it does me no harm. He does promotional interviews for his +100 shows a year; we read them all, the casual reader has not read one. Move on.

My problem is with the crocodile tears cried by many here who, knowing better, pretend to infer from Mike's assertion that he incurred in the blasphemy of minimizing the creative genius of Brian Wilson. Pure bullshit. Hypocrisy means purportedly saying the oposite of what one thinks. I can't take seriously some posts in here from knowledgeable people who seem to infer from that interview that Brian's musical genius has been attacked.

Let's get back to accusing each other of not understanding English. ;D

Tried to stay out of this, but hell. You took a swipe at GF, called him a hypocrite, and now refuse to back it up. If you have something to say, then say it. Tell you what, if you continue with this, you don't have to worry about him banning you, cause I'd have already done it. Say what you meant, or better yet discuss it privately with h8m, just quit clogging up the board with this garbage.

I spend a lot of time defending Mike when he's unfairly attacked (same with Brian, or anybody ) and crap like this is why it's so damn difficult. I'm supposed to be working right now yet I'm putting my job on the line dealing with this childish fuckery. Gloves are about to come off.

This times 1000.

I don't think ANYONE can argue that Mike is the most tactless BB member, relatively speaking. Nobody even comes close.

Heya Sheriff - Mike is getting criticized for using the statement ALWAYS in relation to dominance for concepts/lyrics in a songwriting relationship. While it's fair to point out that many people unfairly "blame" Mike for a lot of things (when in fact it's more complicated than any one person's "fault"), I don't think your statement has airtight logic. Who is "blaming" Mike for writing awesome lyrics like The Warmth of the Sun or Kiss Me Baby or Please Let Me Wonder? Nobody, that's who. Mike did not entirely and wholly write or dominate with concepts about sun/fun, despite a large chunk of material being of that nature. He also wrote rad lyrics and contributed/co-contributed rad concepts about other topics that nobody "complains" about him having written about.

It's shades of grey, not black and white... MUCH like it's shades of grey and surely not black and white regarding Mike ALWAYS being the dominant lyrical/concept guy in his and Brian's relationship. It's just an overreaching statement to say things in absolutes, and nobody should try to defend that Mike is correct in making such an absolute, extremist claim. His words are being picked apart for a legit reason!

To admit that he's probably exaggerating to an extent is not to vilify the man. His words can (and do) have a partial element of truth to them, but that doesn't mean they don't also go too far in stretching the truth. I feel like because he is vilified for a lot of reasons (many of which are unfair/exaggerated), some people have adopted an inability to admit that he is exaggerating/overreaching in this instance, just to somehow "help him out" on the overall big-picture defense front.

Murry Wilson: "Brian, I'm a genius too".

M.E. Love: "But lyrically and conceptually, I was always the dominant creative force in that relationship.

Eugene Landy: "(Speaking of his business partnership with BDW) "Brains & Genius; Brains is Brian with the 'i' and 'a' reversed and Genius is...obvious".

Juxtapose those with...

Brian Wilson: "I'm not a genius.  I'm just a hard working guy".  

What do all those men have in common, Brian Wilson.  All, in their own way were either abusive, jealous or manipulative of the one thing they all had in common, Brian Wilson.  It's so striking that in their own way each man wanted to lay some claim to what Brian had in his soul.  Luckily, as I said way earlier in this thread (quoting Churchill) "History is written by the victors".  And Brian Wilson is a winner and survivor.

M.E. Love made fine contributions to the Beach Boys and their music and some pretty awful one's too.  His deep down desire to "smell the greasepaint" was his ultimate undoing because of his unwillingness to grow as a musician.  He saw himself as a performer, not an artist.  The Wilson brothers largely viewed themselves as artists.  Those two competing factions couldn't go on forever and eventually M.E. Love won the battle and settled the Beach Boys down into what they have been for nearly 30 years.  

  I think a lot of this stems from the many years back, when Mike Love went uncredited on so many tunes for which he'd written lyrics. Let's face it, that would  have stung any of us - rightly so. If Mike had gotten credit way back when, he might not need to endlessly trump himself in every interview he gives. A lot of rock critics would think more highly of Mike as an artist had his true lyrical input been known all those years ago.

  None of this should ignore the fact that Mike, like every other member of the band, has (or, sadly, had) issues. Has he learned nothing of PR these last 52 summers as a pop star of consequence? Or is Mike Love just another crazy Beach Boy?

LuHv won what battle? To become a travelling oldies mahajukebox tribute band with one original member? Man, those are some real spoils goin' on there. What an absolute boring concept.

What a waste of people's time and energy this thread is.

It's funny -- "I'm a genius too" was one of the first things that ran across my mind when this topic came up.

This is Mike's latest moment to overreach, to say something that ultimately will be used against him for years.

I think Carl was the only Beach Boy with his head completely screwed on tight.

He WuHn that conflict within the group, sure.  That was his vision of things, playing that old material and living with that "image".  Occasionally he needs to re-inject some freshness into the proceedings and makes nice with BDW.  Otherwise - County Fair here we come!

Exactly, myke Luhv is a joke.

Those are fair points.  The lawsuit in the early 1990's though did reveal that Mike felt like he deserved a song writing credit for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (the coda "Goodnight baby, sleep tight baby" was his contribution).  That's the kind of thing that rubs me the wrong way.  The original 45s do credit Mike quite a bit.  One of the notable one's that does not is "I Get Around" (the intro "Round Round get around" was Mike's supposedly).  The inexplicable one is "California Girls", that almost seems like something Murry did (not crediting Mike as a co-writer).

What I always come back to in my mind when it comes to Mike though are the stories (we know them all, I don't need to recite them) but I will reference one.  That Mike wanted to write more 'upbeat' lyrics to "Til I Die".  Really?  REALLY???   :brow

I don't contribute that often so, be kind. I am no Fan of Mike Love. That being said, I feel that he contributed one hell of a lot to the BB. I agree that he he is tactless and I think that his stage presence and on-stage banter is corny and, at times embarrassing. His contribution through his lyrics was very important to the success that they have enjoyed through the years. that is my position. Crucify me if you like.
One damned thing that has bugged me a lot though is why he took so many years to complain about his uncredited composing? I would have bitched and complained the minute that any disks came out with my name omitted the moment that I noticed it. He's is presented so often as a money grabber. Why would he miss out on the royalties and not complain from the start. I will never understand that.
I agree with an earlier statement that Carl had his head screwed on right but we are forgetting little old Al.
I think that Mike deserves credit and respect for his contributions. The fact that I don't particularly like the guy has no bearing on my respect for guys contributions..

A vote was needed for Mike to win the battle. Brian often voted with Mike and Al. After Carl passed away, Brian also voted to give Mike the license. None of what happened over the past 30 years cannot be attributed to just one band member. Brian and Al are just as at fault for all that went down. Carl could be at fault, as well. Who knows how he voted after Dennis passed and after Kokomo hit number one. For at least 8 years he went along with all of their endeavors.

I similarly find it hard to understand why it took him so long to complain about the credits, but then I think of the Bill Cosby rape case, where the many women who took forever to deal with their cases too had their reasons. That in and of itself doesn't make me outright doubt the legitimacy of the claims. I guess Mike must have either been afraid of the legal mess, or afraid that this could get ugly to the point of potentially harming the personal relationship with Brian in the 60s/70s, during a period which he felt there could be (and indeed would be) further Brian/Mike collaborations which a lawsuit could have impeded.  Some people think he was waiting for Brian's most weakened non-protected time to jump. I dunno. It's weird, like everything else with this band.

He saw BW won ten million from his trial to reclaim his songwriting ownership and as usual, Mike went for the cash.

That's true.  I think I've heard it told that Brian's vote with Mike & Al was more because of Carl & Dennis' instability at the time.

This is true, however I do question how much more highly Mike would have been thought of by critics if his name had been on the credits all along. Maybe some, but I can't imagine it would have been a majorly significant difference, like he might perhaps think it would have. Curious to hear what others think...

Mike IMO remains to this day messed up, majorly messed up, over this admittedly grossly unfair issue he had to endure for decades. I cannot think that the person he is today is not informed by what this did to him. The thing is, does HE see this correlation himself? Does MIKE think he has deep issues/complexes that have manifested in very bad ways as a result of his legit crediting slighting? What do you think, Kokomoasits? Oh wait. You guys are gonna say that the decades of slighting didn't effect him in any negatively perceptible way that is self-destructive to his own reputation or the band in any way shape or form, right? That he's dealt with those emotions in a mature way, and fully moved on from any feelings of historical slighting? Just like the Wilsons moved on from what their dad did to them, right? Or do you think Mike just gets to be absolved of any possible egomaniacal behavior because of what the slighting did to him? I could understand if the latter is your viewpoint, even if I'd find some issue with it. However, the former viewpoint is absurd.

There are parallels (obviously many huge differences too) regarding how the Wilson brothers got messed up from their dad. Mike never has hesitated to point this out in interviews, how the Wilson brothers developed destructive tendencies in part due to complexes they developed early on. He is capable of seeing this in others, but no way to see this in himself?

I think it would be hard for anyone not to have some degree of empathy for how it must have felt to be screwed out of credits. The empathy could continue if he would see the connection to bad behaviors that manifested in himself. I just don't know if he'd see there's a problem, to be able to see how much it screwed him up too.

There's an good amount of more empathy waiting for Mike Love if he would ever publicly own up to his own problems, the way Brian so bravely has. But again - it's black and white. Mike Love admits never to having any problems, the same handful of posters continue to defend everything he does (and claim that any "possible" emotional damage due to being slighted over credits did not manifest itself in egomaniacal ways). No correlation, right? None whatsoever? I think if Mike gave an interview finally owning up to a lot of regret due to his own crappy behaviors, even if he could trace his issues to blame the crediting situation having emotionally screwed him up, that people like Cam would defend those behaviors and say that Mike is being too hard on himself by backing down even a smidgen from his decades-long steadfastly defensive position.  

Kokomoasits think that so many people critical of Mike want to play the blame game, blaming Mike squarely for so many things. Well suppose we shift the blame of Mike doing/saying bad things due to complexes he sustained due to Murry and a passive Brian not fairly crediting him. Suppose we say that the negative aspects of Mike's personality are not his "fault" any more than the negative aspects of the Wilson brothers are their "fault".  Fine, let's say that. But to take the additional extra step and say that things like this that Mike says are simply just fine, harmless, and not overreaching is very inaccurate. One can have an understanding of where Mike's "coming from" and still admit that he's going too far.

Michael tried to settle with Brian out of court for $750,000 and future credit and royalties. The people around Brian decided to fight it...which was a stupid decision.

Absolutely agreed.

13 pages in  a thread devoted to just ONE sentence Mike uttered. Crap, no wonder he's writing a book. 

Let's see...$22.99 hardcover price X 31,013 members =  ::)

It's funny because when I was a ten year old Beach Boys fan in 1990, I had the idea that Mike Love wrote the lyrics to most of the songs. Thinking back it may have stemmed from that comment that Brian makes in that mid-70s interview that's featured in the American Band doc (which I saw a few times at that age) where he says he writes most with Mike Love (and sometimes Carl) but his favourite person to write with is Van Dyke Parks.

And then things unfolded and the evidence unfolded showing that Murry had set the wheels in motion for royalties and attribution to be un-compensated. The SOT sale.

So the court decided that monies were owed.  Brian went after his attribution  (as well he should have) but Mike was "similarly situated" and was deprived as well. 

So the two guys do the same thing, and that is bad, why? 

Some stuff is online.  It would be interesting to read the whole line of cases and not depend of poster "hearsay."

You answered your own question.  Why did they/he wait?  Why did those women wait?

Why did kids wait to report pedophile priests?

Who thinks that a family member would screw his own kids out of the fruits of their labor?  Who thinks an uncle would do the same?

Fewer protections were in place to defend against predator companies, or deal with "payola" mechanisms in the music industry. On an on...

Murry did help them get established, and he deserves that credit, but it seems to have been a double-edged sword.  They appear to have had complicated relationships. And judging people 50 years after the fact applies a lens from 1960 in 2015. 
I don't think it is appropriate.  Life was so different then.

I'm not being so quick to negativity question or judge why he waited, just so you know. I think there are a lot of reasons and it may not be a very simple thing to answer though. But I don't think that from the onset he abstained from complaining out of some big evil plot. I just think the direct and indirect repercussions of that unfortunate crediting snafu need to be addressed and dealt with. They are inextricably tied to why Mike says exaggerated claims such as the topic of this thread.

Yes, it is simple. Sociology 101. The recognition of Murry as the head of the household. No gender equality for Brian's mother.  She was no match for him.

Read up on the history of the movie industry and child stars being exploited by any number of people, including parents.  Murry was in control.  Those younger boys were not protected as to their attribution rights which were vulnerable.

But, my opinion on your motivation is of no consequence.

Billy, I feel terrible about this. I mean, for you to have to risk your job to come on the board to keep me from clogging the board with my crap and garbage, well, frankly I'm embarrassed. You know, Billy, I have this problem. It seems that I'm always posting something that upsets people on this board. But, I'll change; I know that I have the ability to change. And, just to show you that I'm on the right track, I'd like to apologize to anybody I offended with anything I posted, including guitarfool2012. But, Billy, there's still a few "loose ends" that I have to clear up before I can truly reach my goal on this message board. And, Billy, you're the perfect person to help me. I just have a few questions that I need answers for, if you don't mind.

Question 1: If a poster expresses their opinion about Brian Wilson, say a Brian Wilson solo album or a Brian Wilson TV performance for example, and an Honored Guest or a Moderator responds to that post by calling it "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit", does the original poster have the right to then, in turn, refer to the Honored Guest or Moderator's post by calling IT "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit"?

Question 2: Scott Totten recently posted, "Mike gets slandered and trashed on a regular basis and many of you think that is equal to wondering whether Brian played piano. I don't find these two examples to be of equal value. I really feel that some of you are bullies." Billy, when I read that I thought, "Uh oh, there's going to be some outrage now. Somebody is accusing board members of not only unwarranted Mike Love bashing, but also bullying. The moderators aren't going to like that." However, there was no outrage, barely a ripple. I then thought, "Gee, the moderators must agree with Scott.

Well, earlier in this thread I read this post, "Mike is a sad and insecure man", and "Mike is a wretched human being to his so called songwriting partner, Brian Wilson", and finally I read, "I don't think anyone can argue that Mike is the most tactless BB member, relatively speaking, nobody even comes close." Well, Billy, again I thought, "Now there will be outrage because the moderators must've agreed with Scott and will respond to this Mike bashing." So, I kept checking the board and checking the board, but I never saw a single moderator respond to those posts. No calling them "total bullshit", no asking them to apologize to Mike, not even a "Gloves are about to come off." Now I'm confused.

Thread after thread, post after post, things like Mike Love's vocals and Mike Love's lyrics and Mike Love's solo songs are criticized. Over and over. And I get that; this is a music message board. But, sadly, every other possible area of Mike's career, character - and life - is also criticized. I've read posts criticizing Mike's spiritual pursuits, Mike's personal conduct on the road, and I've even seen comments directed about the legitimacy of his children. And, those comments were allowed. I ask you, Billy, would those same comments be permitted if they were directed at Brian Wilson? I ask an even more specific question. If somebody merely substituted the name Brian Wilson in place of Mike Love, would the same comment be allowed? For example, Brian Wilson is a wretched human being. Brain Wilson is the most tactless BB member and nobody comes close. I don't think they would permitted. Wow, I almost slipped and used the "h" word. But, see, I'm already getting better and caught myself.

Just one more thing, Billy, and I'm sorry to bother you, but, well, it's about my wife. Oh, don't misunderstand, she's a wonderful woman. She volunteers at church, works at charities; she's a beautiful person. But, see, Billy, when I'm reading or posting on the message board, she thinks I'm discussing good vibrations, going to the beach, and fun, fun, fun. Sometimes she's lurking, you know, when she's cleaning, and she'll occasionally take a peek at the computer monitor, and, well, Billy, if she saw where you described my posts as "childish fuckery", she'd get very upset. She's very sensitive. So, Billy, the next time you insult me or use derogatory terms to describe my posts, could you not use the term "child fuckery"? 

Billy, thank you for everything you do for this message board. I realize it's a long, hard, thankless job. Love and mercy... 

If I could summarise the point I would like to make about the whole Brian and Mike "thing" and reflect on your post it would be this.

What you carry inside is projected to others and that will be reflected by others unto you.

Not sure if most of this is sarcastic or not, but on the assumption that it's not...

You know (or should know ) that there I handle Brian and Mike posts the same here. Some of the most anti Mike posters have had 'discussions' with me, privately and otherwise. Obviously,  you already know the converse is true.  So for you to sit here and post this, well, if I didn't have the sneaking suspicion that you're trying to antagonize me, well, I'd find incredibly offensive. I don't play favorites here, and for to even insinuate that is incredibly out of line.

But, thing is, I realize this is partly my fault. I've been too nice, and tried too hard to avoid choosing sides. I figured 'well we're all adults here' and tried to let you guys sort things out for myselves. Obviously that hasn't worked. So if I have to be that 'my way or the highway guy' then so be it. So to answer your questions. ..yes it would've been the same regardless of it were Mike , Brian, Al, Huey, Dewey, Louie, anybody. I've suspended/banned friends foes and strangers if the situation called for it.

And for the record, I wasn't referring to only you with the childish fuckery comment,  but rather this entire thread. Cause it is, really. Just an excuse for people to take potshots at each other.

If this answer is not agreeable to anyone, there are  other forums on the web. Or better yet, there's this thing outside,  kinda hot orange and rather big. That lucky old thing is called 'the sun'. Suggest going outside and staring at it for a few hours. that'll stop the problem of seeing offensive posts any longer.

Well said Billy!

Just my two cents on the subject. Personal attacks on band members should not be allowed. It is one thing to critique performances or disagree with band decisions made by the band members, but personal stuff and slander is way over the line and goes on here with precision like flair. It adds nothing and only creates animosity amongst the forum members. I just hate seeing so many interesting threads devolve into name calling and fighting. You would think that grown people could police themselves or at least show consideration to each other. We are in this together.

I agree, but over the past few months I've learned that it's impossible to stop that from happening. I mean, there's a thread on here ( a riff on this one) about whether Mike is dominant or submissive in the bedroom. I mean..really?

I was once in an unruly class. The teacher lost all control. The teacher wound up quitting and was replaced by a nun. Guess what? Within a week no more unruly class. You just need some rules and enforce them. Sounds funny to have to do this with adults, but sometimes we don't always act like it, myself included.

My comment wasn't directed at the mods (I can't expect them to read every little thing on here) but rather directed at members of the so-called "fanbase" who seem unable to control themselves, whether it's actively hating a member of the band or swearing up and down how much they support Brian and then conspiring to steal his new music. I don't know what that's called, but "fan" certainly isn't the word.

Well, i'm glad we're not in your BDSM nun fantasies and we have terrific mods here that help make this a great place to post full of all kinds of interesting characters. Good luck endorsing a no personal attacks on band members policy, tho. Hell, you couldn't even get Mike Love to comply with that one.

Now enough goading the mods and all these practically Pinderesque protestestations that there's some kind of hypocracy here. SJS has been posting for years, if you want some examples of comments about Brian he claims don't exist here... Click on his posting history and enjoy!  He wasn't banned for 'em, just like I haven't been for needlessly pointing out that Mike Love can be a bit of a knob when he sets his mind to it.

 :lol

People don't like certain band members and that's fine, we are all entitled to their own opinion. When certain posters use it to derail every thread then it becomes tiresome. There's plenty of things i think Mike has done wrong but I don't feel the need to drag them up at every chance. I wonder how long a poster who felt the need to endlessly bring up how Brian
Allowed Mike to be ripped off on songwriting credits
Was a lousy father to his two children
Tells some whopping porkies in interviews from time to time
Is a hit and miss live performer at best
would last around these parts?

Ask kitty kat.

In any case, I've gone off on the personal attacks on Mike many many times. If anybody who has received any of the PMs from me on that subject wants to confirm,  go right ahead.

I especially liked the bit I highlighted.

There is a special description of the criticism levelled at Mike: 'Mike-bashing'. But the bashing isn't unique to him.  People have implied that Brian is incapable of managing his own life, that his word cannot be trusted and much more. Criticism should be OK IMO as long as it based on a strong argument.  Anyone making unsupported allegations - that is quite another matter.

I think the personal attacks are wrong no matter which member they're leveled at. No one should be calling Mike the names he's called, but I see much more of that on Facebook and YouTube than I do here.

But, let's be honest about something. The main reason we have these threads constantly coming up on this board is because Mike goes into interviews and publicly says insensitive and boorish things. And, as long as he's going to publicly make those kinds of statements he can expect to be publicly discussed on a fan board.

As I said in a different thread, if Mike's management, or Scott or the band want these negative threads to stop, then Mike needs to learn to use some sensitivity and diplomacy in interviews, because he fuels them himself. Mr Positivity needs to hold to the old adage: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's called tact, and it starts with his own statements. And, if he doesn't want to do it for Brian or Al or the band, he needs to do it for himself and his own image and legacy.

The reason people aren't ripping up Brian interviews is because Brian isn't using his interviews to talk negatively about Mike. If he was, he should have to face the same scrutiny.

So yeah. Deal with the personal attacks. But, there's no way to prevent people from discussing Mike's interviews in a negative light as long as Mike keeps giving interviews that lend themselves to that kind of discussion.

 "He brings it upon himself" is not a valid argument. Slander and constant attacks against any BB or board member must not be allowed. Period.

That Mike, or any other beach boy, should withstand the backslashing because he ignites it, or because of the way he is, or because of the things he says, or because he is a public figure, is a perverse argument. This is a fan forum. This is not FB, nor YT, nor the conversation thread of some blog. There is a presumption that people posting here are fans and do not hold hateful feelings towards group members. However heated the discussions may be about artistic output or career decisions, attacks on band members (or forum members) mustn't be allowed.

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD! :lol

If you're referencing my post, you missed the opening sentence where I said exactly the same thing. Personal attacks are wrong and should never be tolerated. Discussion of publicly available interview content, however, is going to happen.

If it's interview fodder then it's up for debate. I don't know why that would even be put into question.

Ontor - I don't appreciate that intolerant and highly religiously disrespectful remark about the nuns. And I can qualify that by telling you that I had the nuns for 12 years (having had my share of "bioches" ) but got a first-rate education, despite my fair share of time in detention.  Not unlike any large group, there are sickos in the bunch. And brilliant women who took a hard road, to benefit others without personal financial gain.

But for the most part, the nuns taught people "boundaries" which is a term several posters on this forum appear to lack. It is sort of unacceptable that fans who come to discuss the music in a neutral context, find themselves unable to do so. And didn't join to discuss any perceived "personality flaws or mental health status" that they actually know diddly squat about but discover that have to "pick a party," as though going into a voting booth, and voting Democratic or Republican (in the US) and are constantly queried about their "postions."

Another poster mentioned the art of argument, to support a position, rather than hateful "one-liners" that are often seen here. It is a distraction from actual music discussion.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/40388d7059357d1ec97382a12e0f2968/tumblr_mp4q7fvLkV1qb2flgo5_250.gif)

Thank you filledplage. Your posts enrich this board. The time I spent reading your post whining about nuns is time that I will never get back, but that's ok with me.

Keep on fighting the good fight. Fight on, fighter.

Thanks rab! One of my Favorite movies! That movie did show how clever, charitable and resourceful the nuns are!

And the behind-the-scenes corruption of those administrators closing schools in urban areas.  

One for you!  :beer

The part about Brian being less than a model parent? The fact that Brian has publicly on more than one occasion self-depracatingly and regretfully admitted such is probably why not many people go out of their way to bring it up when discussing many various aspects of his personal life that do get discussed here.

Bull.

(http://i60.tinypic.com/21nleu8.jpg)

I agree the whole anti Mike Love stuff does get tiresome. 

But if you think this is bad, wait until Mike's book comes out next year.  This website might actually break. 

I still think our mods do a better job than nuns, but I concede perhaps there may exist really good nun-run forums that you guys can point me to. Otherwise, if you folks reaaaally want to interpret that as an attack on religion you're more than welcome to...  but I'm afraid I'm going to roll my eyes a bit at that more than slightly goofy, borderline desperate interpretation and certainly won't be taking it remotely seriously.

Altho come to think of it, how about we compromise: Billy has to wear a habit at least twice a week, say? I hope we can move forward with renewed resolve to bring balance to the Force.

(https://rubycanoe.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ch10.jpg)

Ontor, thanks for the comic relief again...Seriously, an attack on nuns?  Life has become far too strange, particularly on this thread.

What we need is a change of habit

What people need is a bloody life. :lol

And a doggie named Wrinkles.

Who goes with your pigtails and freckles?

Song that defined a generation!

The Mike Love sound!!

The Real Beach Boy sound! ;)

The sound of success!

The sound of Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen

You trying to disrespect me?!? Me, the Doctor of Love? You'd better sleep with one hand on your balls.

I, smile Brian, do not agree with your lovely agenda. SMiLE4life.

Yo, that music was inappropriate, though. Even Cousin Brian said it.

Summer in Paradise put me into a coma for three years due to creepiness of "summer of love" :o

Real talk, though...that track was hot. If only my fellow OG Bartholomew JoJo was able to duet with me. It would have sold a million units, I can tell you that.

Some of us sleep like that regardless.  I mean,  I woke up one morning and my dick was orange. Then I remembered I'd been eating cheetohs...

You must have f***ed with the formula, bruh. Let go of that ego and embrace the mantra!

Probably just got too close to some highway cones

 Billy: true life of the munchies.

The formula is dead!

Fifty years of the Mike Love sound disagrees with you, homes.

That would be a good solo album title for him. "50 Years of The Mike Love Sound"

A real earnest album cover. One that shows that all that time has kept him upbeat, positive, and happy in life. One like this.

(http://scontent-b.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/10899445_1527284310884110_857758221_n.jpg)

Liner Notes by a man who talked to Bruno Mars about covering "Wild Honey" but was rebuffed.

Bruno Mars probably wouldn't be much for Wild Honey.

Ontor, photoshop that!

:lol

Sorry for the bump but I had to post this because it's most definitely relevant to this discussion.

In this clip (circa 1988) Mike says "at one time Brian was the dominant musical (pause) he was the progenitor of the Beach Boys, musically.  And he had a little help with words and concepts from his cousin Mike on several songs; and some other people as well.  And then, just lately since about 1968 or 69 when he started getting heavily into hallucinogenic drugs, it kind of set him back about..two decades."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k1_NcgFOZs&feature=youtu.be&t=9m20s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k1_NcgFOZs&feature=youtu.be&t=9m20s)

So then...this Dr. Love guy...like wow man!!!  If I ventured out onto some 'shady' steet corner... one of ill repute of course... and procured me some of that there lsd stuff...and actually took the pill....  [It is a pill right 'cause I'm not big on needles unless I'm sewing... ... ...or does one smoke it?] ...I could like be in my mid 40s again?  Would it suddenly be ... you know ... 1995?  Or would I just magically be in my 40s...like... now?

Science eh?  What will they think of next?  Does Doctor  Love do "hallucinogenic drugs"?  'Cause like he could be young[er] again too. :hat  So, according to the good doctor, Brian USED to be dominant...back when all of the KEY stuff was written, arranged and recorded?  And then POOF!!!  One day he turned into like a 5 year old?

Did the Doctor write the script for that Tom Hanks movie?  What was it called?  Big or something.  The Doctor should sue them for stealing his idea.  Do they have pills to make you smaller too?  Like...The Jefferson Airplane weren't kidding?

No sh*t eh?  So Brian is a "progenitor" kind of like that magical white rabbit?

Man!!!  You learn something everyday.  They must be OK for ya...those drugs.  Otherwise the Doctor would have helped Brian and made him old again...perhaps even before his time.

Good thing Brian didn't have hemorrhoids.  That medicine tastes awful.  I'm sure the Doctor knows that.  It doesn't work.  For all the good it does you might as well stick it up you arse.  Given how much trouble those Wilsons had, medically speaking, they were lucky...no...EXTRA lucky...to have a Doctor in the family.  [even if he does forget the things he's previously said.]

As someone mentioned, Wild Honey, Smiley Smile, Pet Sounds, Friends and 15 Big Ones were all Brian's concepts

I think Mike has said he came up with the concept for the song Wild Honey from a jar of wild honey. Pet Sounds the song is an instrumental and wasn't written with Mike. The song Friends wasn't written with Mike. Smiley Smile and 15 Big Ones aren't songs.

Everyone is compared to Hitler, no matter how ridiculous. Godwin's Law. It's not specific to Mike critics.

Gee, it's almost like I was talking about albums and not songs. As in, showing that Brian came up with the concepts to many of their albums (or, if you want to be pedantic, ALL THE SONGS ON THOSE ALBUMS) and it wasnt always Mike coming up with the concepts. Durr. :P

OK. They collaborated on songs and Mike didn't claim to always comp up the song concepts or albums for that matter.