The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm writing an article and I'd love to know your answers...

Listen to the first 6 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttB4VlNSaHE

It's the little things really. Also the big things.

I don't hate Mike Love. He never did anything to me, personally.

I don't hate Mike at all, not in the slightest. Like who's perfect anyway, and he's responsible for a lot more excellent songs than me for example...... :smokin

(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75f/546/1f3/resized/creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-oh-you-must-be-new-here-6a194a.jpg)

Jon Stebbins’ chapter on this general topic in his “Beach Boys FAQ” book is about the closest you could get to a fair piece that doesn’t incite a riot. I would suggest just reading that. This thread is destined to become a minefield if not a full disaster.

The question in the topic is also loaded and presumptuous. I think very, very few people on this board actually hate Mike Love.

I’d say disappointed, frustrated, and a sort of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” attitude towards Mike is more prevalent from some fans.

Mike is no doubt misunderstood to varying degrees by fans and spectators. I also think he misunderstands those very same attitudes towards him.

If you’re looking to write an article that paints any detractors of Mike as “hating him” then I would humbly suggest leaving this board out of your article. 

Welcome to the board Iain! I'm presuming you're the comedian/presenter Iain Lee? I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Brian you did a few years back.

If you're not familiar with Mike's feature on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, it should give you plenty of material for your article. Good luck!

http://youtu.be/dlL7-j-IvVA (http://youtu.be/dlL7-j-IvVA) (skip to 3.10)

This post would be correct.  Hopefully the mods see this thread and lock it sooner rather than later. 

Altho really not TOO many people actually "hate" him other than perhaps his ex-wives, I find that nobody hates like a fan. Nobody. In every fandom, you'll find the biggest fans hate the most, rage the most... They are the only ones that care enough to get emotional about it. They start to get rigid, prefer things "just so" and when things aren't to their specifications, they go batshit. They Hate because they Love. Mike Love. Amen.


Footnote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlL7-j-IvVA

That should give you something to work with.

EDIT: Ha, beaten by the buddhahat!

[scans horizon for incoming clusterfuck...}

Yup, there it is...

Why does the sun rise? Why do fools fall in love? Why did Rolf Harris tie me Kangaroo down sport?
All equally as great and groundbreaking as your question.

why God why!!!!!?  "It started out with three brothers..." ... why can't I have those 6 seconds back!!!!? :angry :angry :angry

WHERE IS OLD SURFER DUDE? HE'S GOTTA BE THE BIGGEST MIKE HATER OF ALLTIME. (Except for Dennis maybe... Lol  :lol)

I don't think very many people on this site HATE Mike. Sure, he can be arrogant, condescending, and rude. But he is also a great singer and lyricist.

After a certain year in the band's history, did Dennis really begin detesting/hating Mike?  Or is that blowing things out of proportion? I cannot think that Dennis' issues with Mike can be chalked up solely to Dennis' own alcoholism... it had to run deeper than that.

He poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague unto our houses!

He's the one who uncovered the cornfields as the crows flew over, and some people haven't forgotten.

I don't hate him. Although I do think he's prone to bouts of dickishness, the R&R hall of fame being a prime example.

I think most people that perhaps not hate, but, have a strong occasional dislike of Michael Edward Love do so because of his "humility", or lack thereof.

:quote

Cough.

I don't hate Mike and feel he was an under-rated creative factor in the group's music of the 1970s in particular, plus his solo music's generally better than he's given credit for round here.

In fact, sticking my neck out, and adding an 'M' to this iconic image of yore -

(http://ustours.biz/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/i-like-ike-button-peace.jpg)

You should write a better and smarter article than one that focuses on why people "hate" Mike Love.
Or, if you think he's "hateable," do YOUR OWN digging and figure out if that's even the case.

Seems needlessly divisive.

Write about SUNFLOWER. Write about "It's O.K.," or "Good Kind Of Love."   
Focus on the best of this thing.
Let people know about that.

I admire Mike Love for doing a fair amount of charitable work.  I don't care for the side of Mike Love that wore the turban and other silly hats, that gave the R&R Hall of Fame Speech, that pushed the Beach Boys towards writing songs about the teenage lifestyle many years after the golden era had passed, for SIP, for the never-ending references to the Maharishi and TM, for the lawsuits and the constant references to the drug use and other bad behavior of the Wilsons (enough already).     

Nobody on this board should hate Mike Love

Agreed.

What he said.

And I commented about the 'Beards' thread being a waste of space. Compared to this its worthy of its own message board.

I don't hate Mike at all. I think he's kinda funny, in an unintentional way. :)

I certainly don't hate Mike -- I respect and admire many of the things he's accomplished.

What does annoy me : he drew the wrong conclusions from the fluke hit that was 'Kokomo', and piloted the band into the creative and commercial dead end that was 'Summer in Paradise'.

And also, Brian wanted to continue the Beach Boys as a recording act, but Mike let his ego get in the way.

I think that bucket loads of people have major issue with Mike because he appears to be one of the most outwardly defensive celebrities/entertainers ever. People can forgive shortcomings, but many, many, many people get very, very, very annoyed by those who seemingly deny responsibility/culpability, and seemingly show zero personal regret (in particular, culpability for inadvertently hurting others) at virtually all times.

Publicly-speaking, Mike does the defensive dance just about as much as a person could possibly defend themselves. Which ironically only stokes the flames further, which must be the opposite of Mike's intentions. If there was even one major interview where he let his guard down, he could benefit very much image-wise. At least a 15-25% improvement across the board, IMHO.

The major haters would turn into moderate haters, the people who dislike him would only slightly dislike him, and those who kind of thought he was a bit of a jerk would possibly think he was now humanized, and feel he was a flawed but good person ultimately. And if the interview seemed truly, truly sincere, that interview would be posted repeatedly on message boards, and there'd be less instances of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous interview being posted.

It would quite possibly go viral.

There's still time for this improvement in his public image, whether a slight improvement, a moderate improvement, or even a noticeable improvement to happen. Hasn't there ever been an instance of a celebrity who, after an interview or two of deep soul searching, became more publicly rehabilitated image-wise, and more highly thought of, than previously before? I'm sure it's happened. I truly, truly want very much this to happen to Mike, and I want his contributions to be better appreciated, but not letting his emotional guard down will surely = no dice for any image-improvement to happen, now or likely ever.

An important thing to note, is even if Mike thinks he's unfairly picked on (which he is), and that he never did anything "wrong", the key is recognizing and verbalizing that there may have been inadvertent personal mistakes made by him, not necessarily on purpose, at various points over the years. It takes emotional maturity to be able to recognize and admit to that. If he wants more appreciation and recognition for his musical talents... DOING AN INTERVIEW LIKE THAT IS THE BEST AND ONLY CHANCE for such improved appreciation/reputation happening in any way, shape or form.

i hate him!

- his dance moves give me douche chills
- his hall of fame speech just oozes "asshole"
- his outrageous pomposity, as displayed on lifestyles of the rich and famous
- he's a hacky singer
- his arrogance regarding sobriety 
- student demonstration time

that being said the original big sur is like one of the best songs of all time.

He is an asshole who arrogantly treats BW like dirt.

He had the sheer audacity to be in the Beach Boys whilst not being Brian Wilson - the nerve of the man.

All that plus:

First Hate

Country Hate

Looking Back With Hate

Make Hate Not War

Sumahateya

Everyone Hates You

I Hate My Pisces Brother

Daybreak Hates The Ocean

I Hate Wrinkles

Transcendental Medihatefest

             :tm :tm :tm

Sorry, but that is a completely empty argument (which others have attempted to use before too). Al, Bruce, Carl, Denny, Dave, Blondie, Ricky also had the sheer audacity to be in the Beach Boys whilst not being Brian Wilson, and none have even 0.01% of such a reputation.

Mike's reputation is not in any way, shape or form due to him not being Brian Wilson while being in the band.

However, I don't particularly doubt that Mike himself agrees with you 100%.

I love OSD's sense of humor and calling out of ML's bullshit  :lol

Exactly, nobody looks at any of the other members badly because of not being Brian Wilson. They look at Mike badly because he is a guy trying to deny BW's impact on the group and trying to make HIMSELF look bigger than BW.

There is actually a Facebook page called " Mike Love Is A Douche." It has over a thousand members. It is very mean spirited. I joined for a week just to see what it was about. Just awful. I left after a week. I'd be ashamed to be a regular member there.

You guys make me laugh. You are as predictable in hating Mike, as my dog is taking a sh*t first thing in the morning. I will never for the life of me understand how you can hate the lead singer of your favorite band.

Because we have to put up with THIS [exact] kind of S H I T.

Mike's cool.  Sometimes, like me, he says some dumb sh*t.  So what?  Saturday night he'll be aiming the Beach Boys at my front porch...if I'd have bought the house I wanted on William Street...11 months ago.  Meanwhile...I'll still be there...and NOT to hate him.

Kind of a dick-weeded question 'bro'.

My guess is that myKe luHv, instead of staying with the Beach Boys would have been much better suited for being the program and music director for "The Gong Show". Can you imagine the power he would have wielded in "gonging" things he didn't approve of? I mean, think of it, man. He's be the "King of all Gongers", with book and movie deals being thrown at him left and right.

He would have gonged pet sounds and smile until his ass was taken off TV. :lol :lol :lol

How can you "hate Love"? That's on oxymoron. I never have been a fan of his vocals (especially his constantly out of tune bass vocals that other people don't seem to notice) and his one solo album Looking Back With Love is possibly better or worse than Going Public but it's such a close tie...

Why don't you interview Mike yourself? Maybe there could be some redemption in all of this. Otherwise, read the chapter from the FAH-Q book by Stebbins. Mi ropa interior huele a pedos. I admit that I follow OSD on Google + for some good laughs (really makes me happy at times) but Mike to me is more of a clown than a mass murderer (or a mass murderer clown like John Wayne Gacey).

And I love your monkeesbootlegs page!

 :)

One more thing: I like Mike Love more than Courtney Love if that means anything.

I love Roger The Shrubber and his lifestyle in Las Vegas. :hat

Hey, dude, don't be slammin' one of my favorite sites on the internet. It should be required reading for everyone including fuckwits, shitweasles and last but certainly not least by any stretch of the imagination, trolls.   :woot

No offence but I don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about here.

Do you have anything resembling an actual life?

Damn straight, he does! 8)

When it comes to Mike saying irksome things, I either laugh it off or ignore it.  I like what he helped create and that's all I care about.  He isn't worthy of hate in my opinion.

"HATE is an extremely powerful emotion to waste on someone you don't like."

I think the oldest and original "trend" doesn't have to do with Mike's answers in recent interviews, or his Rich and Famous appearance and such... It has to do with a certain story-telling, propelled by David Leaf and others in the 70s, which wrongfully divided the BBs saga into a heroes and villains saga: Brian was the hero, the sweet, misunderstood genius; Mike was the villain, the greedy square that kept his cousin from realizing his artistic vision and somewhat guilty for his demise. The more recent crap, all of it, originates there.

Just blame David Leaf is the easy way out. ::)

My, oh my, it's so much damn fun watching the myKe luHv apologists getting their panties in an uproar!!  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 :lol :lol :lol

Leaf is the builder of myths and you perpetuate those myths, flawlessly.

There are a great many nuances and elements of the story (in Mike's favor) that of course are completely absent from the above description; still, what is described above isn't wholly, 100% outright false either.

There's *some* truth to some of it.  

I'd venture to say that multiple BB bandmates and relatives, living and deceased, would agree.

That doesn't mean the man should be hated. He shouldn't. But on the other side of the coin, he shouldn't be defended to the point of absurdity.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

I've been wanting to start buying some Beach Boys related books.  So I take it I shouldn't buy Leaf's book?  Or at least start with other books?

It's a good book if you read through the bias. Thankfully, the bias is clear enough.

Ok, cool.  I'm still not very familiar with their history away from the music, so I'd hate to start off with a book full of bias and inaccuracies.  :lol

How much David Leaf impacted the perception of the rest of the BB's is a potentially interesting topic. But I've talked to novice fans, more simply spectators than active fans, who have never read Leaf's work or any other BB literature, who don't know anything about my opinion, who have picked up on Mike's personality, to put it politely.

I think Mike's RnR HOF speech was awesome. I mean, it was embarrassing and terrible, but it was awesome.  He just got up there are talked straight trash. It's one of the most rock and roll things to ever happen at that place.

For just that hilarious speech, the lyrics to Good Vibrations and Big Sur alone, Mike rules. Who cares how corny he is?

 I'll bet a donut that if Dennis had given that same speech this board would be falling all over itself praising Dennis for the balls to give it.

No balls. Just lots of booze. The speech was shamefully meandering, incomprehensible, thinly-veiled contemptuous drivel. Nothing badass or rock and roll about it, just your drunk uncle hitting on your mom while your dad's in the room, telling your grandpa he's a coward and then snatching up baby cousin Eddy's lollipop level douchebaggery. There was nothing funny or respectable or redeemable about that speech. Just sheer second-hand cringe and embarrassment.

If it were Dennis, maybe some others would give him some slack about it, considering his alcoholism and other various troubles. But I don't think it'd be a celebrated moment. And it's more scandelous coming from Mike precisely because he always shits on Dennis and Brian for their alcohol/drug abuse and frames himself as the centered, clean, Mr Positivity. And then at their crowning achievement with all eyes on them he does...that. Perfectly sums up his hypocrisy and bullshit, I'd say. That's Mike Love unplugged, for better or worse. Tacky, mismatched baseball cap/tuxedo combo and all. The very definition of little man syndrome.  

What Mujan just said +1.

And if by a miracle, Denny lived and got sober, but then got preachy and judgmental about sobriety... and then said the same speech instead of Mike? I think people would think he had lost his marbles.  

It's all about context. Kind of how when Carl embarrassed the band onstage, he held a press conference the next day to do damage control and to admit to screwing up.

Denny doesn't magically get a free pass. If he is judged less harshly than Mike is for a number of things, there are reasons for that, many of which have nothing to do with the person's last name. The fact that all Wilson brothers seem/seemed to be among the most selfless, generous and ego-less people in rock music is a large reason why people are more sympathetic to them over others. There is not some inexplicable conspiracy.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol My underwear is fine thanks. Just genuinely wondering why you waste so much time banging on about how much you hate the dude?
Did he
(a) run over your dog
(b) stick it to your wife
(c) refuse to sign an autograph one time
(d) fleece you in a pyramid scheme?

Honestly, what's the deal?

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

I don't recall Carl admitting he was off his face on smack in that particular interview. I do recall him being decidedly economical with the truth.

Good point, but the bottom line was that he recognized he screwed up and took actions to correct it, and IIRC apologized for letting everyone down. I applaud that intention, even if the smack talk specifically was avoided.

Yep there it is, the token "compare Mike to Dennis" or vice versa in a Mike love thread!

Ummm... I think being royally chewed out by David Frost, whose company was promoting the tour, had a lot to do with the apology.  :)

If so, those praising Dennis' remarks would be wrong. When Dennis  behaved badly in public it usually came across as either mischievous or irresponsible and lacking in self control rather than bitter and envious.

In fact, the part of Mike's R&R Hall of Fame behaviour that annoyed me most was his continued interruption of Brian which seemed like immature attention seeking behaviour motivated by jealousy.

A whole bunch of people here seem to really despise the man, including his brother Steve:

https://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/

This writer really doesn't like Mike:

http://noisey.vice.com/blog/mike-love-is-kind-of-an-asshole

This guy says Mike is a monster:

http://alexcastle.net/2012/09/28/the-beach-boys-mike-love-is-an-awful-human-being/

I think a lot of what happened in the last 30+ years has to do with that conception propelled (not necessarily created by) David Leaf. And this includes Mike's urge to defend his role, for instance, which some people find unbearable. He needs to do so because someone spread the voice that he was against Pet Sounds-- which is bullshit.

Houston, the clusterfuck has landed.  ;D

Are you Iain Lee the comedian? Why write an article on why people hate Mike Love?! There are so many other topics on the Beach Boys you could write about! Perhaps an article like this would get you more readers but it would be nice for someone to write something that encouraged non-BB readers to delve into their music a bit more.

Why would anyone post outdated and already discredited links? One is from 2006!  Seriously!

Sorry an event that happened the year my youngest kid was born ( and who has a few gray hairs!) still bothers you. Talk about carrying a grudge.  

Mike was right calling Mick out on touring.  I agreed then, and do, now. Plus, it looked intended as a joke. Maybe ill- advised, but true. The BB's out-toured all those prima donnas.

Seems after nearly 30 years one might, as the song suggests, "let it go."  Grudges only hurt the people who carry them around.  This forum is for music and not personality analysis.

How can one hate an individual whom one doesn't know?

Mike needs to let go of his ego or perhaps carve it up and share with those less fortunate..... there is plenty to go around.

You might go see a few Touring Band shows and make an informed analysis.  That will help inform your research.

Good Luck!  ;)

Gosh, golly, and gee, too! I didn't know you cared so much about my time, so I'll ask you why you spend so much time defending the luhVster? Did he
a. point to you at a concert
b. sign one of your many copies of "First LuHv"
c. let you shine his sandals
d. let you join the Vibe Room.

Really, what's your deal?

Re: Mike’s 1988 R&R HOF speech, to try to defend it is pretty lame I think. I find it highly entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. There most definitely *is* good reason to call out the industry both collectively and in some cases on an individual basis. But Mike’s not the guy to do it, and the way he did it was lame. His words carried no weight coming from a guy in a band who are famously (and infamously) litigious, who at times let various, to use his own words from the speech, “internecine squabbles” derail the band and/or lead to exiting members (s***-canning Al from the band a decade later, quitting the band in 2012, etc.), who made everyone in the band look like idiots by essentially challenging the dead John Lennon to “out-tour” the Beach Boys, who shamed McCartney and Diana Ross for not being there yet years later skipped the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony, and so on. Like I said, some of the stuff he said was important. It was just coming from the wrong guy, and done poorly.

Re: The David Leaf book. All I say is that internally I’m sure the other group members were not so hot on David Leaf, and it’s surely possible that contributed to Mike Love’s hyper-defensiveness in subsequent years. But the book has been out or print for decades now, right? As I mentioned, I’ve talked to people who have a visceral and contextual dislike for Mike in some cases, and they know nothing other than Mike’s persona in interviews, stage presence, and that’s about it. They’ve never read any biographies, never really read much of anything about the band. I’m not going to blame David Leaf’s book for Mike come across as a tool in an interview in 2014 or something. The other BB’s including, say, Al Jardine were also minimized by Leaf (arguably I suppose), and Al didn’t spend the next 30 years trying to tell every interview that he was a genius too. I’d say the Leaf book and Leaf in general may have impacted the group internally more than it did the public’s perception of Mike.

I think the point is no matter how long Leaf's (and Priore's) book(s) has been out of print, the legacy of the books  is the problem.

My donut bet still stands and is relevant to the question of the OP and not really about Dennis.

Hey Jude - lame or not, one issue that I've always had with these megastars is that, they have been isolated from their fan base in a way that is not the M.O. of the Boys.  This has baffled me.  How many people ever had the chance to see The Beatles? The Stones? Diana Ross? Not many.  

Do you think it is even fathomable had the Stones been in the same boat that the Boys found themselves in would have gone to the same lengths to seek out new markets for fans, or would have humbled themselves to perform in front of very small crowds, to "stay in the game?"  I'll opine none of them.  The Touring Band took risks that few took, to take the music out there (and in Brian's behalf, in his absence.) Prague Spring.

In terms of "litigious" all I'll say is that it was long overdue for a copyright owner to assert his rights.  Had Murry been a stranger, rather than a blood relative, that suit would have been filed long before, in my opinion.  

Some author's opinion is of little interest to me.  I like photographs, concert dates, audios or videos (unvarnished) which tell their own story, that I can filter for myself.  In this journey, so many have "hitched their wagons to a star"and ended up presenting a side representing a "special interest" and "back-burnered" the music.  Landy's book - numero un.  ;)

You got a point - "Elton John - Eat your heart out!" Dennis in Knebworth... :lol

Great. Now all you have to do is invent a time machine or learn how to raise the dead so we can take your bet. Otherwise it sounds like the typical "bring up the Wilsons to distract from dumb sh*t Mike Love does."

Looks like I'll be holding on to that donut.

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

Nah, this is a different or double standard.  

How so?

Every iteration of the “touring band” has toured to make money above all else. It’s why they never took a break, and one of the reasons Al was edged out of the operation in 1998. When the fork in the road came in 1998 to either take some time off, even maybe just six months or a year, from touring (no income), or continuing touring (some income), or continue touring under the band’s name (even more income), or continue touring sans Al Jardine (even *more* income), we can see which roads were chosen.

Various rockstars and the industry should have and still should be called out on a lot of things, but Mick Jagger and the Stones not playing enough shows, or enough small markets (or whatever the assertion is; and I don’t follow the Rolling Stones so I don’t even know how true any of that is) compared to the Beach Boys is not anywhere near the top of things anyone in the industry should be criticized for. I don’t like stadium and arena shows, but the Stones probably play to as many people in one stadium show as Mike does in 10 or 20 “small market” shows. I’m not sure why this ends up having to come back to some sort of culture war thing where playing the Beau Rivage in Biloxi and a bowling alley in Anchorage is somehow more noble than the Rolling Stones (or C50) playing a run of shows at Madison Square Garden or Wrigley Field or whatever.

I can go see an indie band play at a club in Santa Cruz and after the show I can talk to them, get an autograph, and go eat dinner with them. So what? That doesn’t mean Mick Jagger (or whomever you dig) isn’t as impressive, just in a different way. All of these guys, whether Jagger or McCartney or Brian Wilson or Mike Love, all lead the same relatively cloistered, rich guy life style. As I said, Mike’s ’88 speech was the *type* of speech that might be needed, but it had zero credibility coming from him.

I’ve never *once* heard anyone say “You know, Mick Jagger is just too distanced and inaccessible for his fans. But Mike Love on the other hand truly cares about his fans.”

Dennis is always judged less harshly...that charming impish manner...

Ah, got it.

Oh, Pa-leeze. I'm going way back to post-Smiley, when they were regarded as passé. I'm not talking about some impromptu Mick performance...

This isn't post-Carl...

Those megastars have been historically "inaccessible" both in terms of playing locales and as people.  

As private citizens they should be "cloistered" or "out there" as they choose.

It's all about Mike making money, he couldn't give two craps about the fans or quality of the band. He is only concerned with booking smaller venues for a bigger cut, not the fans.

Hi all,

I do enjoy being on this board.  It is great to read how people feel.  

The R&RHoF speech was a long time ago.  I say let Mike live his life.  Let Brian live his life.  To have Mike and Bruce still performing is great.  To have Brian still touring is great.  Hatred only hurts the person doing the hating.  Mike isn't hurting at all due to the hatted.  I don't understand the hatred for Mike.  Same as I didn't get the anger at Paul McCartney many years ago.  I am sure we have all said things we shouldn't have said.  We all know that Mike and Brian have been dueling since almost the start.  It is natural for people to take sides.  Me, I don't get involved.  Mike will do as he pleases.  Brian is doing what he likes.  Some people hate someone because they think it gives them power.  It is easier to hate Mike rather than to simpy let it go.  If one loves Brian they should buy his merchandise.  Does Mike comment on what all of us do?  No, he doesn't.  Did Brian ever ask us to get involved with his feelings?  No, he didn't.  To hate a long time memeber of the group you like is awful.  To question Mike is fine.  I will NOT take sides here.  I am Mom's caretaker and don't have the time to do that.  My answer here is to buy the merchandise both camps offer and leave it at that.  

I hope that everyone is having a wonderful summer or winter.  

If what you're talking about (late 60's popularity envy) is what Mike was angling at with his '88 HOF speech comments about Jagger, then that makes his speech seem even less apt and even more motivated by jealousy and insecurity. That makes it seem even more like Mike was just bent out of shape that Jagger and McCartney and Springsteen and Billy Joel, etc. were perceived as cooler than Mike or the BB's, and had more industry clout, etc.

I think part of the problem is that even Mike didn't fully know what the hell he was talking about in that speech. I've seen his subsequent attempts to explain it, and it still doesn't really make sense. And theories about the speech being about how the Beach Boys did more touring and were more accessible during some unspecified era make even less sense, and make Mike look even *more* petty and whiney.

And, what Mike did post-Carl with the "touring band" is certainly worth examining when we're looking at a speech Mike gave and deciding how much credibility he had/has, especially in retrospect. 

That may be, but that doesn't negate the apology from being a good thing to have happened. I don't believe it was insincere either. Other than the understandable fact that the actual chemicals in question were minimized, there was nothing about the apology that seemed anything but legit. It was a reality check, where a band member with self-awareness realized they screwed up and publicly apologized for it. Isn't that apology ultimately a good thing to have happened? The only reason to say "no" would be to hold onto some strand of an argument that minimizes or eradicates any positive implications of public recognition of having screwed up big time, so that it makes it ok when Mike never apologized or realized he went too far and came out looking like a hypocrite with the speech for the many reasons HeyJude listed earlier in the thread.

Good post MaryUSA. :) I don't know why it's the done thing on here to criticise the band we all love. We love them enough to sign up to be members of this forum so we can speak to like minded people. Yes there are always going to be some opinions on events that happened away from the music but come on, the music is by far the most important thing here and all we are doing is tarnishing the enjoyment of that.

Very few of us know the band members personally. Some who comment haven't seen either party live for years. So really, it's best to just talk about what you KNOW rather than what you think you know. :)

Mike's HOF speech was not some well thought out masterpiece to show the R and R world how important the BB were. It was a guy having way too much to drink and shooting his mouth off. We all have probably been there ourselves or been witness to someone else doing it.  When people try to defend it, it is an example of how this board has too many extremists.

What someone else says nearly 30 years ago, requires context.  Who really cares now? It is of little consequence except to those who want some fodder for a "hate" discussion.  And, I think that it was likely meant as a joke. How do you know he didn't have his stats correct? Those guys didn't tour as often. The Beatles "retired." Or broke up, or whatever.

We aren't (or I'm not talking about post-Carl.) I'm talking what I saw happen over decades; especially the struggle post 1967, in the States.  How many similarly talented 1960's era fell off the planet because they didn't "stay in the game?" And, it is the disrespect for that effort they all put forth.  

Do you think they didn't have to agree to stay out there, and move out to other locales to keep the music alive, in the face of someone like Hendrix saying, "Surf music was dead?" Even though he didn't get the memo that Pet Sounds had landed. And they had become more progressive and experimental into their work?  They had reinvented themselves.  Some people didn't want to accept that they grew out of that mode.  And Capitol was the biggest factor. They had a niche band who made them millions.

They used Brian's empty pool as an echo chamber. Does this show they didn't all work cooperatively with Brian for Smiley after Brian "shelved" Smile? Seriously.  

Why do you assume "popularity envy?" They were more popular than The Stones for a time in the UK.  I think at the HOF Mike was razzing them and it backfired.  But haters will interpret this and continue a narrative that self-perpetuates.  

Good grief. The questions just get sillier and sillier. You're "writing an article"? And this is the topic you chose? What's next - "why do you love Brian"? "Why are you indifferent to Al"? What a waste of time.

Apart from hard numbers (what date a song was recorded, etc.), there is little in the way of fact about any of this. The standard for discussion shouldn’t just be “it’s about the music.” Frankly, while it eventually blows up and gets too inflammatory, an actual *thoughtful* discussion about the perception of a band member is FAR more interesting to me than a thread about “favorite beards” or the millionth “fantasy track listings” thread. I’m all for all of these threads existing, mind you.

An occasional reminder to not be incessantly negative about something we ostensibly love so much is needed. But fans that are so non-analytical about the band to the point of never observing anything that even passively reflects negatively on a band member is a type of fan that probably isn’t going to have much to add to a message board beyond naming your favorite song or album, or asking Brian what his favorite pizza toppings are. I’m glad to have even those types of non-analytical fans around. It’s all good. But someone who wants to pick apart something a band member says shouldn’t be shamed or minimized, so long as it stays thoughtful and respectful. As I’ve often said, there are only a very small handful of people on this board that are truly trolls who seem to actually *hate* Mike, and only a few people who go to comic lengths to parse what he says so that he’s never wrong about anything.

The rest, the vast majority on this board, are thoughtful and know their s**t about this band, both about the music itself and the actual members of the band and what they say.

I also don’t believe being analytical and even criticizing these guys diminishes enjoyment of the music. For me, anyway. I can read an interview with Mike and feel like he comes across very poorly, and still go listen to his work on Beach Boys records and enjoy it. I can handle that dichotomy, stuff like the fact that while Mike didn’t “kill” “Smile”, he wasn’t its number one supporter, yet I can still listen to him kick ass singing the parts on those very same recordings. Same with C50. Mike himself has subsequently told us numerous things he *didn’t* like about the reunion album and tour, but I can still listen to that stuff and hear where Mike is a key component. He was literally the hero of C50, and then went on to tear it down. *That’s* what this band does, often. It’s nuts. 

Did anyone every write the detailed follow-up article on Brian’s favorite pizza?   :3d

Yes because Dennis sounded like he was being serious when he said it huh?

But isn't that what Rock and Rollers are supposed to do? Be drunk, high, talk smack, be obnoxious, etc.? Had what Mike said came out of the mouth of Keith Richards, no one would bat an eye.

Good point.  Just the other day, Keith Richards slammed the Sgt. Pepper's album.  And the reaction was "Keith being Keith." 

I'm pretty sure the definition of rock n' roll doesn't mean humiliate yourself in front of the world at an awards ceremony talking rubbish. But maybe Jerry Lee pioneered it or something, I haven't read the latest book.

Has Mike ever claimed that he was humiliated or are you just standing in for him and taking the hit?

One look at the rest of the band's faces during that closes the "is this humiliating" case, chief. I'm not going to sit here trying to work out if Mike Love ever felt ashamed about anything in his life, kind of immaterial... I've read a good chunk of his interviews: I doubt it. Maybe he just can't express shame or ever apologize in public but sits around moping in his hotel suite after shows worrying about it. Who the hell knows! I just figure it was a shameful, pathetic display and nothing to brag about.

Here’s the portion of Al’s 2000 Goldmine interview where he discusses Mike’s speech:

Let's go back to the Beach Boys' induction into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. It was a bittersweet night. It was an amazing honor that was lessened by Love's bizarre speech. What are your memories of that evening?

It was one of the early inductions. It was such a monumental event because of the magnitude of the stars that were there. It made us feel almost humbled by it. It was the Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Surpremes, The Drifters who were inducted. So many great stars. John Fogerty was there, Mick Jagger, Jeff Beck, Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, who inducted us, Billy Joel, Paul Simon. The stage was so jammed when we did the jam session at the end that I didn't even run into Paul Simon. It was awesome to be inducted. It was a mixed pleasure. Brian opened up with a speech of his own, written by his surrogate father, Gene Landy. The nutty professor, Gene Landy, who ended up writing a book with Brian. He scripted everything Brian did and said, so it was a little bit unusual and stilted. There were words there that Brian never uses in his speech. I could tell that. Then Mike was just dying to get to the microphone. As we were leaving the stage it seemed as if - Carl was trying to get us off the stage so the next artist could get inducted. Bob Dylan was waiting in the wings. Mike just drifted back to the microphone telling everybody how f***ed it was that people that were still living weren't there, like McCartney. I'm not really sure what to this day he was trying to accomplish other then maybe the politics of the record business were not to his liking. But this was not an event to discuss the politics of the record business. That's a discussion you have at another time.

Were you, Carl and Brian embarrassed or just plain angry by his speech?

Of course, both. I remember meeting Dylan backstage and Bob saying, "What's going on?" [laughs] He said, "I'm sure glad he didn't mention me." [laughs]

When you returned to your table, did you say anything to Mike about his wacky speech?

He was sitting next to Muhammad [Ali] so I didn't want to start anything. [laughs] Just kidding. But I immediately went over to George [Harrison] and Ringo and I said, "Geez, guys, I really want to apologize for that speech. My partner's not feeling too well." I said something to that effect. [laughs] They put their heads on my shoulder. That was really touching. When I was leaning down between them Ringo just kind of came over and put his head next to mine. He said, "Oh that's okay, we love you guys." George did the same thing. They were really nice.

What do you mean "work out"? You said that he was humiliated, but I have never read anything where Mike ever said that he was either humiliated or embarrassed by his remarks. Sure, maybe everyone else was, but I don't think Mike feels that way about the speech. He may have been drunk that night, but that may have been what was needed for him to let out how he really felt.

Had Mike said it, someone might have thought it was a challenge to a "duel at dawn."   :lol

(Especially on this board.)

I think George also said something to the effect of "I guess he didn't listen to the Maharishi." 

It's such a weak point. "Yeah, if Ernest Borgine said it... you'd all applaud it!" "If William Bendix advocated yogic flying and talked sh*t about his cousins for decades, you'd be on his side!" yeah, well... those other guys DIDN'T say these things or do these dopey things. Mike Love did. Spinning hypotheticals you can never prove and don't matter in the least still doesn't actually deflect the fact that Love does some dickish stuff now and again, like clockwork.

Instead it comes off like you folks are resentful on Mike's behalf... about what, exactly? That a troubled, beloved drummer who died decades ago got a "free pass" somehow. As if he (and his family) didn't pay fucking DEARLY for his mistakes.

I don't think people are resentful in Mike Love's defense. 

I think it's just a tired old topic.   

Wasn't spring great?  We have a new BW record, a movie, and a tour to discuss.  Now, with not as much to talk about, it's back to the usual somebody says something bad about Mike, somebody defends Mike, OP accuses Mike defender of being "on payroll" yada yada yada. 

Fantastic, bump those threads and talk about them there. It's a great year for BW for sure, but that would just rub salt in the wounds if this is for an article on why some people hate Mike Love. I see IainLee reading this thread, so maybe he'll take you up on it and put in a paragraph about what a fantastic trifecta Brian Wilson pulled off in 2015.

 I'm sure that'll help make the article go down smooth here and lead to a 21 page response thread about it!

Ontor - it's not exactly a "free pass" for Dennis who was arguably the most popular BB. Bar none. That cover of 72/3 Concert is the thousand words. Imagine sitting in a seat waiting for the BB's with a ticket you bought to see Dennis Wilson, play the drums and sing some lead or two.  Imagine that he was so drunk that he had to be literally carried off the stage.  Sadly I saw that in the late 70's.  

This isn't just compassion some fans might feel, but that they paid for a performance and Dennis didn't perform.  Not everyone is that understanding.  

This is not unlike a plumber you call to fix your sink...You are paying value for something. And not getting it.  That sounds extreme but it was an extreme situation.  I once worked in a school where an alcoholic teacher had a fifth grade class.  She was beloved and when sober on her game.  And the kids loved her.  But, she had a problem that took her away from those kids.

And, rather than fire her, the school needed to hire a substitute to cover that class when this teacher was incapacitated.  Same for Dennis.  They had to keep a back up drummer ready.  He was not reliable and all the compassion and love in the world doesn't fix that.  When he was good and sober, he was just the greatest.  When he was off the rails, the show still  needed to go on.   Who paid? We all paid.  Watching Dennis in that diminished capacity was painful for his fans.  

Seriously.

And this is getting ridiculous. So if Mike "admit no fault" Love doesn't outright say "yep, I humiliated myself." It doesn't count? Bob Dylan's quip at the end stole the show and had everyone laughing *at* Mike at the end. Carl and I think it was Al, apologized to George and Ringo after the fact (according to Catch a Wave) Its almost universally regarded as Mike making a fool of himself. Case closed.

I get that some of you want to defend the guy, but this is silly.

Right, now imagine how pointless it would be that having said that... I just responded by going "If it was Mike Love drunk and messing up shows, you'd defend it!"

Oh wait, you folks ARE doing that. Never mind, I just cancelled myself out and will disappear in a poof of logic. Carry on.

No one said that the other guys weren't embarrassed. Hell, even I felt like that 27 years ago. Again, I have never heard anything from Mike or anyone else that Mike felt humiliated. You guys act like, just because you felt that way, that he had to feel that way. It is just not the case, it seems.

I don't hate Mike.

I don't know Mike.

I intensely dislike some of his actions. But so what? It's not going to make my or anyone else's life better to dwell on it, and carrying around negativity hurts the soul.

Mike essentially never outwardly (in a public capacity) regrets anything that he has ever done/said, at least as far as I know, right?

Let's just say the man has problems saying he is sorry, just like Fonzie did on Happy Days, and at least we can agree at that?

It's not something to be proud of, it's a character flaw, but it is what it is, right? If we can all simply agree on this, then there is not much else to discuss... it's when people try to defend this, and say that an inability to publicly voice regret (the way Carl nobly did, for one) is not a character flaw... that a sober Mike being unable to publicly say sorry after the fact is perfectly hunky-dory and a praiseworthy, wonderful way for him to be... that's when the combative, endless debates go on and on.

The quickest way to end the discussion is to admit that he is overly defensive to a fault, and for posters to stop grasping at straws to defend stuff the way the man in question does himself. I don't for a moment think that there's a single poster here who actually, in their heart, thinks that Mike isn't overly defensive, and that he hasn't hurt his reputation at times by this over-defensiveness... I think people just plain don't want to admit this is the case for some strange reason.

This about sums it up.

/thread

If he hasn't said I'm sorry in the past 27 years, then in my opinion he isn't sorry. It's not like this happened in the past year. No, I won't say he has a problem saying sorry, because I don't know the guy to say one way or the other. The best way to end this is to mind our own business and let Mike to tend to Mike. Nothing Mike has said or done has ever hurt my feelings. I don't get that involved. I like the Beach Boys for the music, not because of their individual personalities. I certainly am not going to hold animosity for something that was said over a quarter of a century ago. Think about it? Just like I will never be more pissed at Mike, then Brian would be, when Mike is brought up in interviews. We carry our fandom way too far to the extreme.

That is the closest analogy that came to me.  This teacher was that valued on the staff that they gave the time off and got class coverage to make sure the kids did not fall behind.  It is the same consideration given to Dennis.  By the same token, the show had to go on.  

If any other band member needed that time, and show coverage, or support, they likely would have had it.  

And I don't like being called "you folks." I like all the band.  

Does this way of thinking extend to every person, or just Mike? That nobody should ever be regretful or say they are sorry, even when it's plainly obvious that they hurt others or put others in an excruciatingly awkward situation? (Lest anyone think that Mike is being "picked on"... I'd venture to say that a sobered-up Denny would probably express regret for bad behavior over the years... and if he wouldn't, I'd say that it would be better if he did).

I guess Carl and Al who looked incredibly embarrassed (and verbalized such) were wrong in being embarrassed, and the vast, vast majority of people who have seen the videotaped evidence were wrong too. One has to say that they are wrong and aren't owed any kind of apology if one is to defend a lack of remorse by Mike, right? There's nothing whatsoever to be regretful about, right? Everyone else is wrong; it's everyone's fault but Mike's. Right?

Geez, how hard is it to say that it would be better if he'd just say he's sorry for how he came off, even if he still feels there was a good intention behind some of the words? It's not *that* hard to say that. Again - it's one thing to apologize for inadvertently hurting others, as opposed to saying "I was wrong and everything I said has zero value". At the very least, the former shouldn't be unthinkable for us to think would have been a pretty good idea for him to have said.

I'm just guessing that Mike never say a parental unit of his apologize for their own actions, when it might have been warranted. Maybe that's why he never learned how to himself. And I feel bad for him if that's the case.

This is complete bs, also Keith DOESN'T act that way because he's cool enough to know not to.

BTW it's OK to call out assholes for being assholes. Even Ringo "peace and love" Starr has expressed his distaste for Mike.

They aren't "supposed" to do it, because when they cross a certain line, people think they are full of a bunch of crap. Keith's recent comment about Sgt. Pepper being "rubbish" was turned into clickbait by a number of online websites, because it incites feelings of shock and "WTF", and gets people worked up.

People DO bat eyes over it, otherwise it wouldn't be clickbait. When I read it (and I'm "people"), I surmised that Keith was an old coot who was/is out of his mind... not terribly dissimilar to how I feel about the 1988 speech.  

Too bad others don't realize that you can disagree without dwelling on it and dragging you down.  Or making it personal.  Thank you for this post.

Tell Mike that since he makes it personal about BW's decades old drug abuse in every local paper while promoting "the bar band".

Why would anyone hate Mike Love? Eccentric guy with a great voice who co-wrote some of the best songs ever and plays a mean sax.

Iain's article on Jan and Dean.

http://www.iainlee.com/2015/03/jan-and-dean/

Draw your own conclusions.

I stopped reading in the second paragraph when he mis-spelled "Aryan".

WTF are you talking about? It's been 27 years. If he hasn't said he's sorry by now, then he ain't sorry. I think that is a more reasonable approach to take then what you're spouting. Mike shouldn't have to apologize just because you think he should. Come on, use some common sense. If Mike ever gets to the point where he regrets what he said 27 years ago, I'm sure he'll send it off in a letter to the forum. ;)

And this is the impasse these threads always come to. One side has the completely legitimate point that Mike *is* undeniably, very defensive and unwilling to admit fault ever. And that he would come across far better if he did. And then on the other side is the "Mike doesn't have to apologize!!!"/"Get over it!!!"/"He wrote some good lyrics, he can do what he wants!!!" apologisms.

And nothing ever gets settled. For the record, I think Century's point is a lot more cogent and reasonable than you give him credit for. I'm sure you've done some things in your life you aren't proud of but never specifically owned up to. And I'm sure people have wronged you who never apologized and you wished they would. That's life. And I'm sure it applies to Mike. If it doesn't, he's even more careless and self-centered than people say he is. If it does apply, that's literally all Century is saying.

Oh! Andy Doe! 

Love it or hate it, Mike Love's one of rock n roll's less loveable artists.

I'm assuming the title of the OP's article is tongue in cheek (given that he's trying garner support for a vinyl release of Unleash the Love), but nevertheless the question does get to the very heart of Mike's essence really. Why does the guy ruffle so many feathers?

I think a lot of people here are taking this thread far too seriously.

Ah! So are we just a liner notes project? That'd be fun!

"Annoyed" - past tense. I don't stay up nights stressing over it. But this isn't the only thing that Mike has done over the years that I haven't liked and some of them are A LOT more recent. We all have our faults. It is when a pattern emerges that I decide how to feel about someone.

As for 'how can one hate an individual whom one doesn't know?' - firstly, I didn't state I hated Mike. Secondly, quite a few claim to love people whom equally they don't know. Celebrities have millions of fans following their lives. People cry over the death of a celebrity they have never met. Are their feelings invalid? The millions who mourned Diana for example? It would be arrogant for me to claim that they were. I don't know the people who express such feelings either so how can I judge them?

Thirdly as my post  clearly states, the bit that annoyed me most was Mike's continued interruption of Brian, which was extremely ill mannered, like the behaviour of a spoilt child. But Mick Jagger wasn't the only target of Mike's speech.

Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely!

And that is the fact that Mike Love is unique in being the only  "super famous rock star/band member" so widely vilified.
"Mike Love is a Monster", "Mike Love Is a Douchebag", "Mike Love is kind of an as#hole", "I hate Mike Love" on FB, "Why I hate Mike Love". There has to be a reason for such large scale public dislike one would think?

2006? You might say the same about this Board. When did this Board start? 198? Anyway, the Man vs. Clown "Blog", though started in 2006, is still being posted in 2015.

Discredited? It is a blog where people post opinions. So I guess this Board is "discredited" too.

Maybe you refer to Steve Love? Perhaps he did get his hand caught in the BB cookie jar but I feel safe to say he knows his brother a heck of a lot better than anyone posting on this board!

Lastly, these links/stories, simply exemplify the premise of the thread, which was the point of my post.

"If he hasn't said he's sorry by now, then he ain't sorry"

Well yeah, that's like saying if the sky is blue, then it must be blue. I'm saying that even if he isn't "sorry" in the traditional sense, it wouldn't have hurt for him to have still, nonetheless, backed down from being defensive over the speech many years ago, and shown a bit of regret years ago, especially in the wake of his humiliated bandmates. If only for their sake, to prove that he gave an iota of a sh*t about their feelings...AND for the sake of wanting to personally be less vilified (which clearly he, his family, and many fans of the band - including both you and me - all collectively desire).

How someone who has a chip on their shoulder (about being vilified) doesn't realize that the unwavering-at-all-times defensive tactic are related and intertwined in a cause/effect way is beyond comprehension. And how the small handful of people defending the incident don't realize that the man's own hard-line defense contributes to the man's vilification is also baffling. That. That's WTF I'm talking about.

I'd say Brian would have the best reason to hate him and yet he doesn't.  If Brian doesn't hate him, I don't think we should either. After all, most of us haven't even met the guy or know him on a personal basis.

Keith Richards has been in the music business and in the limelight for 50+ years, he knows the game and how to play it. Keith has a new solo album to promote. He makes some comments about a Beatles album, social media and the syndication networks pick it up, and now potentially millions of people who may have no idea Keith had a new record to promote have read his comments about the Beatles album and have also been informed that Keith has a new record available to buy.

That's promotion and marketing 101. Just for the record.

No, I don't hate Mike, never have and never will and that's coming from a Brian Wilson fan. If you want somebody to hate try Rocky Pamplin.

Exactly!

Why would Brian hate him? All of this makes no sense. This fuss about a 27 year old speech and the fact that a guy is defensive about himself is pointless. He harms no one.

   We know The Beach Boys and/or their people read this and other fan boards. I wonder what Mike Love thinks when (if?) he reads threads like this?

   IMO, Mike's HoF speech was the low point of his entire career. Does he owe anyone an apology? Better men have done worse.

   Mike, if you are reading this, know that I appreciate and value your efforts as singer, lyricist, and frontman for The Beach Boys these past 53 years. You have truly spread the music of The Beach Boys all over the world. But sometimes you make ungracious comments. Sometimes, in fact, you seem a bit crazy.

  So SGT PEPPER isn't Keith's favorite Beatles' album? Has it really come to the point where saying anything remotely negative about The Beatles is akin to swearing in church? Are they that much of a sacred cow? Come on. SGT PEPPER is a dated, gooey mess. It pales in comparison to SMiLE and many other albums that were actually fully realized in 1967. IMO, it pales in comparison to the earlier Beatles albums, and some of the later ones. Trite is the word that comes to mind. "I Am the Walrus" obliterates SGT PEPPER in 4:35.

Hate is too strong a word. Dislike is probably the better word. These are my reasons (many have already been discussed here, but if you're writing an article one more opinion may help):

Overall, I feel like there’s a general atmosphere of sleaziness that wafts from the Mike Love side of things. The tactless tabloid interview answers, the constant passive-aggressive comments about his cousin, his “we all need love and harmony in our lives" then he'll say “Brian is controlled and on prescription meds it used to be illegal street drugs blah blah”. When asked what is his greatest regret in life he talks about the faults of others. He constantly brings up Brian's past drug use - just last week Mike was asked about the disbanding of the Beach Boys after the C50 and his reply started with a statement about Brian's past drug use. He says he has so much respect for Brian's musical abilities but didn't take two minutes and 54 seconds of his life to listen to 'The Right Time' when he was asked to give his opinion about it (I should add that I believe this was an email exchange 'interview' so it's not like he was pressed for time). His complete lack of humility all while preaching how humility is the greatest trait to have is annoying (btw did you know Kokomo became a number 1 hit and that Brian had nothing to do with it?). I know we all have our shortcomings, but if you parade your supposed moral principles for the world to see expect backlash when your actions don’t quite add up to your mantra. In the past I've tried to keep an open mind about Mike. After my naive years of solely blaming him for the Smile collapse I actually defended him a few times on this very board. But the last few years of these interviews, as well as other things, have left me with a rather dour opinion of the man. And he has done absolutely nothing to change that opinion. No Mike, not even dropping a bunch of articles/interviews in one day that proclaim your love for your cousin will change the years of recorded tactless statements that you’ve made about him.

Also, I don’t need to know someone personally to dislike them. There are plenty of preachers and politicians who I find repulsive solely based on how they present themselves in the public spotlight. It’s a ridiculous notion that I need to know people personally to make such an opinion about them.

All of that being said, without him The Beach Boys probably wouldn’t exist…and all of us owe a huge thanks to him because of that. He helped craft some of my favorite tunes, and frankly I enjoy “I Know There’s An Answer” far, far more than “Hang On To Your Ego” so even his more critical outlook on Brian’s ‘60s art isn’t a real problem with me. If he didn't make such tactless comments in media outlets my opinion would possibly be very different.

A few years back, I started a similar thread about the history of Mike Love's reputation. But I didn't assume that everyone feels negativity toward Mike. I don't like several songs be wrote and some things he's said, but over all don't have a problem with him. But I do find the feelings pf many fans interesting. Today, I think it's cool to say you hate Mike. But Jon Stebbons book gives interesting insite on it. Apparently it started back in the 60s.

Except himself.

I bet if Dennis cleaned up his act and were alive today, he would defend Mike Love against all the hatred! Maybe I'm crazy!

That and probably a few lawsuits, it's a family tradition. It's how they bond and reconnect.

That's quite possible... but if that were the case, Mike would also be kept more in check, and would keep his trap shut more about saying anti-Brian things that get people so pissed off to begin with.

A less-empowered Mike (politically and sh*t-talkingly speaking) is the best possible scenario for this band, which is what happens the more Wilsons are standing.

Round it off to three minutes. It can take longer than that to shave. Put it on and listen while shaving, simple as that. Then at least it got heard. The duck-and-dodge routine doesn't pass in the age of instant media.

Will you marry me?  :)

He did make time to enjoy the Fallon sketch.

And to watch over a dozen indie films for the Lower East Side Film Fest.  :lol

Just jumping in here to say (off-topic) that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a shining example of pop art while on the other hand, Their Satanic Majesty's Request is a dated, gooey mess and SMiLE is unfulfilled genius potential. These are just my opinions of course... But overall I really love that era of music!

I don't know about that, but I do believe that if Dennis were alive, he'd still be in The Beach Boys, regardless of who else were there. I think that's one area where he and Mike were similar ... both seem to believe in the music/legacy of the group as an entity in and of itself. I remember one Dennis quote where the interviewer asked him how long they'd be at it, and he responded with something like, "We'll be going on stage in wheelchairs!"

Because he doesn't play an instrument, isn't the greatest looking guy in the world, doesn't have a huge vocal range, stands at the front and dares to have opinions. I think that's about it.

Because he hasn't written a good song since 1970, comes off like a jerk in interviews, won't admit he has flaws or regrets and is bald, kicked Al out of his own band, sued Brian in 2004, played the biggest role in ending the reunion and dares to call himself Mr Positivity. I think that's more accurate.

Fair points to some degree but how many good songs have Al and Bruce written since 1970? I don't see them getting much sh*t for it. And Mike did at leasr co-write most of the material the band's success was founded on. Bald? Yeah, but I'm reasonably sure he is aware that we know. If he was trying to pull the wool over our eyes I'm guessing he'd have gone for a toupee decades ago rather than a hat to stop the spotlights bouncing off his head. Kicked Al out of his own band....as opposed to what, kicking him out of a band he wasn't a part of? "Hey up yours Al, you're not in The Shangri-Las anymore". But yeah, granted, dick move as was the 2004 suit. Does/has Mike ever actually referred to himself as Mr Positivity? Not sure of the history on that one.

At least Mike did ditch the cap on some occasions, so I can't go along with that part.

If anyone should be called Mr. Positivity in the BBs, it's Bruce! He's one guy who always seems to be in a good mood, and despite shamelessly cow-towing to Mike since '98, Bruce really says great things about most everyone without coming off like he's slipping in backhanded insults (maybe except occasionally, and inexplicably, to David). Nobody necessarily needs that Mr. Positivity moniker, but if it's gonna be applied to someone, Mike (other than his "positive" lyrics) seems quite ill-suited to have that name in the band.

I, for one, pretty much totally dig all the post 1970 Bruce compositions on BB albums (not that there are many).  And other than PT Cruiser, I haven't heard many cringeworthy Al duds myself.

Mike's written or co-written tons of good songs since 1970! "Let Us Go On This Way" and "Goin' On" spring to mind ... "Pacific Ocean Blues" ... On his own, I think "Everyone's In Love With You" is pretty.

The hall of fame speech was cool because he was basically saying "f you" to the lame rock n roll establishment.

But I always thought it was unsavory to tour "The Beach Boys" without Al. I never went to see the group after Carl died, until the 2012 reunion. If Al and Dave were in the group, I would.

I agree! Embarrassing? Awkward? Maybe so, but at the very least he was doing something daring and funny.

I don't really mind Mike in all honesty, he's a bit of a dick but his voice in the earlier Beach Boy stuff is great. 

Perhaps. Tho if we're looking at it from that angle I'd still agree with those who say Mike is part of that establishment and thus, a hypocrite once again to do so. But I'm not even sure that was his intention, to be honest. I don't even think he knew what he was trying to say. It was just pure gibberish with kernels of insult directed at other musicians for no particular reason. Ok, so Paul wasn't there and the Stones don't tour as much as you. Who cares? Why is that your business? Who are you to publicly wag your finger at them? I'm not even sure what he was getting at tho. Something about harmony or something. Who knows.

Exactly. I don't think the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame is exactly the ideal location to rail against rock icons either. A bit like giving a speech at a retirement party about how old people are useless, doddering burdens on society who should be ashamed of themselves. The fact that Mike's meltdown followed Brian's earnest and gracious speech made it even worse.

Brian is his cousin. People make allowances for those with whom they have a relationship that they wouldn't make for strangers.

Oh yes - he can make time when it references Mike Love but when it is a song done by his cousin he's too busy.

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

I understand that people will never forgive him for trying to get his daughters to snort cocaine with him.


Oh wait... Nevermind.


Not watching a movie is an evil deed anyway.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

I think all three albums here are a bit overrated.  The Boys, Beatles, and Stones are released better albums before and after said albums. 

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin'  ;)

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

Brian belongs in there.  There's no excuse.  ;)

Strictly as a solo artist, I don't think Brian Wilson belongs in the RNRHOF any more than, say, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Tony Iommi, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, or any other key member of a legendary band that had a decent to OK solo career. 

But they did induct Ringo Starr, so all bets are off.   ;D

But, as a producer / arranger / songwriter, yes absolutely.  110%. 

Ringo is great, too! But Brian definitely belongs in there.

I think Ringo is in just because all of the other Beatles are in as solo artists.  He put out some good stuff in the 70s, but I think most of his solo work is middle of the road. 

You're entitled to your opinion, when I look at Brian's solo catalog, I see

One great album - TLOS

One very good album - NPP

One very good album that was based on an abandoned Beach Boys album, but still not as good as the unfinished Beach Boys album that was released seven years later  - BWPS

Three spotty albums - 1988, Imagination, GIOHM

One decent album where Brian Wilson sings songs by Van Dyke Parks - OCA

Two covers albums - BWRG, Disney

A Xmas album - also mostly covers 

On a side note, I think there's also a ton of artists that aren't in the RNRHOF at all that I feel deserve it over Brian Wilson, the solo artist. 

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Yeah, well, any group that thinos that the Beatles are gods really are lame. Stick it to 'em, Dr. Love!

As I’ve said many times, an anti-establishment speech at the R&R HOF is not a bad idea, and is probably needed. Mike's speech was NOT such a speech. Some folks in the past have tried to frame it as a “tellin’ it like it is” bold speech. But even setting aside the expected decorum for such an event and all of that (which I’m not concerned with), the speech comes across as scattered and unclear, and for those who know even a modicum of the history of the BB’s (to say nothing of reflecting on the speech in light of of subsequent events), also comes across as rather hypocritical.

It’s still entertaining, but it’s entertaining for the same reason that Brian in tight leather pants on Dick Clark’s primetime show in 1988 is entertaining. It’s a spectacle, another item for the blooper reel along with Dennis’s “Good Morning America” interview and Brian playing the entirety of “Surfin’ USA” in a different key than the rest of the band at that Don Was gig in 1991.

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys. I cannot get over how anal we are about this stuff.

For clarity: Ringo was not inducted as a solo artist.  He received the "The Award for Musical Excellence" for his drumming and its influence.  It was the category created for session players, etc.

Thanks for clearing that up Kemit.  I didn't know that.  When I saw the RNRHOF headlines that once again didn't include Deep Purple, I didn't really dig very deep. 

Overall, I think the institution is an absolute joke.  Many deserving rock bands are excluded.  While rap groups, popsters, and disco queens are inducted. 

Why care about it? Why then are there still attempts to spin it and shape opinion of it into some kind of rebellious, punk rock attitude kind of throwdown against a lame event? It was a rambling, disjointed speech that overshadowed the band and the music for the wrong reasons. It wasn't punk rock attitude or rebellion against the establishment or railing against a lame event, it turned into an embarrassment.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

Because some guy comes in here to start sh*t and succeeded. Again, an embarrassment to who? Do you think AL & Brian dwell on the speech like we have for the past few days? What has the end result been in this forum? The same old people taking the same sides that have been taken time after time, year after year. I heard something on TV this morning that really rings true in here. They said humans are wired for negativity, that it is what we respond to the best. We have it in spades, here. ;)

Well, you're just as obsessive about defending it 27 years later. You're hardly in a position to lecture people about it or sniff about negativity, especially when being so hostile about it. You're just the other side of the same fannish coin! Or are you not noticing that?

But it's not limited to this topic on this board in the past 48 hours, I remember years ago on other now-defunct forums this same thing coming up with some fans who thought it was a great moment of punk attitude and non-conformity kicking the establishment in the ass (or similar bloated wording, in those cases you had to consider the source(s) )...and it's still going on. It has been a topic for over 25 years because the speech itself got into the pop culture as one of those infamous moments in media that people would see and talk about. That's the nature of the beast. Fans want to talk about it, and discuss it. If it happens to show things that some might not want seen, then the response might be too bad. Which is also why i think there are attempts to portray it as something more cool or hip than what the tape itself actually shows, and unfortunately that tape is in permanent circulation for everyone to see and make up their own minds. Most have already no matter how it's spun after the fact.

My issue was stating my opinion how I always did and always will disagree with the attempts to spin or nuance this speech into something other than what it actually was.


On the other issue: The poster who started this is on the board, I'd suggest if there is an issue, take it up with that poster and ask the questions or ask for clarifications. If they choose not to reply after openly soliciting opinions from board members, then I agree it's not on the level. There have been other cases where opinions were openly sought, then when those opinions came in that may not have been what was being sought, the dust started to kick up. It's an open forum, if someone wants and asks for opinions then be prepared to read things you might vehemently disagree with.

Not defending. I DON'T F**KING CARE! Taking sides and fighting about this accomplishes nothing. It seems though that there are more people like you that rather come here and argue and trash Mike than talk about the band and the music. BTW, I am not surprised that you confuse common sense with lecturing and hostility. It's just you being you, huh?

You do care. You post repeatedly. Not caring would mean shrugging, skipping the threads, and not getting angry about it and using caps. Talk about the music, post some threads with some interesting thoughts on the music if that's what you're into. If this isn't accomplishing anything, why waste your time stirring the flames and being antagonistic?

Yeah, sorry. I don't think your posts are filled to the brim with nutricious common sense, no matter how many insults you sprinkle in. Hope that's ok.

Because if there had been an apology the day after, the week after, or even the month after the event, people would perhaps view him as 5% less of an assclown. And that is sadly a widely-held view. And if you think that percentage is somehow off, it would still be a quantifiable percentage. And that's better than nothing.

You do realize that is a widely-held view at least in part because of the man's defensiveness, don't you?

It wouldn't negate the speech from having happened, anymore than Carl's apology negates his instance of drunken/high slurred singing from being on compilations like Endless Bummer, which people get unintended amusement from.

Do you think Carl's apology *hurt* his reputation or the band's? At the very least it helped undo the damage… somewhat. Whether it was his own idea to apologize, or if the idea was forced upon him by management… The bottom line is that he did it, and soon after.  

The point of this thread is discussing why Mike has the reputation he has… And like it or not, there are things he does, and followup things he doesn't do which are in part responsible for that reputation.  Do you think the reputation just comes out of thin air? Is it so impossible to see how an apology, if voiced soon after the fact,  even if it was said simply to show that he cared for having embarrassed his mates, could have helped even just a little bit?

Hey Craig,

These are valid points, and of course you're right ...

The thing is, I don't think the speech stands as some great testament against the Hall of Fame or anything. It was obviously an emotionally charged, apple juice-fast, spontaneous thing ... it's not a great speech, but it is a cool moment in my view. I wouldn't really call it 'punk rock' ... more like Mike was probably putt off because the Beach Boys were never considered to be part of that scene, and he was ruffling feathers.

The Hall of Fame is an institution that I think is pretty much a joke, and is sort of run by this kind of baby boomer/Rolling Stone establishment. I personally don't care for Jann Wenner, Bruce Springsteen, the Stones (aside from Between the Buttons  :) ), etc ...

I some people dislike Mike Love because he's an easy target for all of the embarrassing things the group has done. I mean, Summer in Paradise was the nadir of the group's recorded output ... until Stars and Stripes, that is ... wow, I remember the feeling in my gut when that thing came out. Like, "wow, Brian is back with the Beach Boys?!?" ... then we get that. It's stuff like "Crocodile Rock" and "Problem Child" ... Full House, etc ... the whole group was involved with that stuff. Maybe Mike was 'leading' them at the time, so there could be some validity there, but I'm not sure.

But I don't know. I have to think some of these decisions came down to Carl and the other members. I single out Carl because of the stories of him being opposed to the Paley tracks, etc. ... And his taste certainly leaned toward bland MOR kind of stuff since the '80s.

There are distasteful things that Mike's done, and unappealing personality traits I'm sure he has (many of which are detailed in this thread), but in truth, they are not likely any more questionable than any other band members' if you were to actually make a list and compare them side by side.

Personally, I think the most distasteful thing he's done for the Beach Boys' career is to tour "The Beach Boys" since 1998 without the Beach Boys. The lawsuits, etc. were not pleasant, and I do think he's had a chip on his shoulder, but who knows how valid that is.

I think Mike probably was the odd man out in the Smile era. I don't think the people around Brian liked him very much. But it's hard for me to discuss personal things within the group, because I really don't know. I have known some people who were there at the time, and I have heard crazy stories ... but really, it's hard to know what angle to take with that stuff. Those were heady times.

Well-said, Donny - In my opinion there are some absolutes, some things that did happen or some opinions that people who were actually there may have. If those opinions are asked for and given, whether by an author doing research or among a fan community online, at some point certain absolutes can't be nuanced if the results aren't what some would prefer to see. Yet that shading and nuancing and explaining away happens regularly with things like the HOF speech or even the Smile history. If someone who was there says "this is what I saw", how much nuancing or spinning is warranted versus putting what they remember into the data bank along with all of the other records and documents and interviews as part of the story to be factored in?

The attempts to deny or even whitewash some of these things is what can be troubling. If people are seeking opinions, again it's a case of be prepared to not like what might be said in return. It can be debated, argued, etc but to try to shade and spin or reshape something to fit especially in the extreme cases of defending the HOF speech seems a fool's errand beyond regular debates.

The 80's-90's era - Mike was the primary skipper of that boat more or less. The career path that the band took after Kokomo was primarily on his shoulders, and the results are there for anyone to hear and see. What comes out as well is how Carl did in fact shut down or even veto certain plans that for fans would seem almost no-brainer positive things for the group...a Pet Sounds orchestral tour, the Paley material, the list can go on. There was a dynamic in play there which has only been scratched on the surface. Speculations why or why not things happen are just that unless someone who knows decides to offer more details. But overall, the fact is that post-Kokomo era was primarily under Mike's direction, and again the results of those decisions are all there for the fans to base opinions on.

Stars And Stripes was Mike's plan as well, it was Mike who (I believe) brought in Joe Thomas to pull it together, and it was an attempt to jump on the "country tribute" bandwagon that was a reaction to an Eagles tribute album selling massive amounts in the years before. Call in a group of guest country artists to re-record a band's "classic" hits, tap into the Nashville mass-media country market for a whole new demographic, and watch the sales pile up. Unfortunately, Stars and Stripes didn't work out like the Eagles or other "tributes" had done in that same era. But that was one of Mike's ideas, again if anyone calls that bashing for pointing out a fact, we have some issues... :)

I share the opinions of the R&R HOF especially in who has been excluded versus who has gotten in via threadbare credentials, but at the same time it's like the Oscars - No matter how much certain actors might dislike the spectacle and politics of the process and event, it's still a major media and PR thing that I believe many of them suck up the pride or opinions and go for the optics of it. Except Brando - now *that* was a moment, lol.

I'm sorry too, you know? It's Ok, I'm glad you recognize an insult when you see it. See, this my forum too, and if I read something that I don't like, then I am going to speak out. So, as long you do what you do, I will do what I do. Got it? I am glad we are both on the same page, now. :)

Agreed, but if I don't like what I read, then expect me to speak up. Again, it is one thing to criticize, it is quite another thing to trash a person for it. These threads become Mike bashing threads, because some people don't know how to speak to a subject without making insults. It really is unnecessary and very tiresome.

Unfortunately, you'll never convince them. No matter how logical and should-be-obvious your points. They want to pretend everything he does is excusable and hoist some kind of victim complex on him. I think it's funny one person even used the point that Mike comes here to suggest we should ease up on him and walk on egg shells about these topics.

Mike, if you're reading this...we want to like you. But you really don't do yourself any favors. It's probably too late now but you seriously could benefit from an attitude adjustment. Just being brutally honest

But Brian and Ringo were already in the RnRHoF, inducted in 1988. I'm not in favor of double (triple or more in some cases) inductions to the RnRHoF -- and that includes guys named John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Eric who have already been inducted, reinducted, re-reinducted -- until AFTER the huge backlog of deserving artists who have never been inducted get in.

Once that backlog gets cleared out, then I'm in favor of Brian going in -- again -- as a producer/songwriter.

As to the original question: I do not hate Mike Love, so the question is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Sheesh, eight nine pages of this so far....

According to whom, exactly? And you'd call it rock n roll even if he sh*t his pants, picked his nose and cried for mommy I'll bet.

You can't call Satanic Majesties overrated. It's one of the most maligned albums of the 60s. It's anything *but* overrated.

My issue, more than attacks OR defenses of Mike, has to do with the inevitable attacks on each other here. I've never met Mike. I don't know him. I don't think we'd get on if we actually did meet, but I respect his contributions to the band. Therefore, I don't 'hate' him. However, I know people that post here, several of them I'd consider close friends. So, yeah, I have way more of an issue with people here jumping on each other than criticizing someone who has made far more money than I ever will in 5 lifetimes. If you're in the industry, you have to have thick skin.

That'd be more country, I reckon.

What is also unnecessary to some, I think, is how sometimes like in this thread, someone will ask (ignoring the legitimacy or not of the request for a moment) for opinions on why fans feel a certain way about Mike. Summer In Paradise might invariably come up, which some fans thought was a frozen turkey of a Beach Boys album, and that gets called "bashing" too. Again it comes down to soliciting opinions but also being prepared to handle what will be delivered in return. Some of the other issues are the nature of open forums, just like you get opinions of who sucks and why they suck on any sports talk program or fan page. Ask fans in Dallas what they think of the Eagles, see if Buddy Ryan comes up, and though he hasn't coached the Eagles for many years and at this point is a moot point, it will still cause a flurry of groans and insults. It's the nature of fans in general.

Well I don't know about that I'll never convince them. When the point gets made clear as day, the same microscopic defensive contingent seems to just get quiet, ceases responding to the most logical posts, and outright will not admit - even slightly - that there's a point that was made. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't internally convinced a little bit, only that they (much like the person they are defending) are somehow incapable of publicly admitting such. Maybe seeing it as a sign of weakness or something, I dunno. I'm sure as hell glad I'm not wired that way; I can admit when someone with an opposing view has, nonetheless, made somewhat of a point.

At the very least the logical posts that you and I have made in this thread are due a "there may be some truth to that"  from the other side of the BB political spectrum, for the simple reason that there is logic behind them.  However, the same few people can never even seem to muster that much.

Ultimately, all I know is that logic will prevail in any debate or argument. And logic dictates that people who show regret for a widely-viewed-as-regrettable-action are invariably helped out, at least a little bit, in terms of their reputations. Even if they make the apology for damage control reasons as opposed to deep sadness or regret.  It still helps. Even a little. To deny that's true, even a little bit true, is baffling. That's why where are in fact PR companies that exist which specifically specialize in damage control for celebrities who run their mouths.

And as I've said before, lest there be any mistake about it... I do not hate Mike Love either.

I don't hate Mike Love. Sometimes I love his singing, sometimes not. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes not. Sometimes his lyrics strike me as great, sometimes not. Sometimes his reported behavior or quoted words strike me as annoying, sometimes not. But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally.

I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says.

I didn't realize Stars and Stripes was Mike's plan ... I remember when that came out. I was floored with disbelief that Brian would involve himself in that. I saw the guys in 1996 (last time until 2012), and remember thinking it was kind of a downer of a show, going through the motions. I do recall my sort of jaded non-BB fan friend who was with me saying, "At least we got to see Carl Wilson sing 'God Only Knows'" ... we didn't know it would be the last time.

But somehow, I had heard about the Paley sessions and knew there was potential for something cool to be going on ... but just the stuff that would come out was bizarre.

That era is filled with horrible stuff that I don't think had much to do with Mike. Like the BB85 album ... I was there for this stuff (as a kid), bought Summer in Paradise the day it came out, etc. I went through High School in the '90s defending the Beach Boys, resenting Mike Love, wishing Brian Wilson would join the group and make them cool again. Then he did, and they were even worse! I bought Imagination the day it came out as well ... my heart sank, I hated it. I haven't really enjoyed any of his solo albums since, though Gettin In Over My Head has some nice moments. There's just this element of cheeziness (particularly on the production side, which is part of what makes the Beach Boys so great) in everything any of the group or the solo members have done since the '80s. The exception being the Paley sessions ...

I suppose my main point is that regardless of the origin of the idea (cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Full House), it's not like Mike Love was forcing anyone to go along with this stuff. Maybe he was domineering? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like Carl was primarily commercially minded during this era, and sort of deferred to Mike. It seems like Al was maybe against some of the things the group was doing, and Brian didn't care ... so it came down to Carl going along with Mike. Does anyone else remember the interview with Sean O'Hagan, where he mentioned talking to Carl on a plane somewhere ... discussing records like Holland, and Carl saying something like, "We're not that kind of group any more; we don't have it in us to do an artistic record" (paraphrasing)? Carl's solo records, his material on the '85 album, and his apparent support of the '80s-'90s projects seem to support this. I suppose I really feel like the '90s were the group's last opporunity for true Beach Boys greatness, and they just didn't pull it together. I can't help but feel like maybe that was due to Carl. Don't get me wrong, I love Carl ... and he was always my favorite Beach Boy in those days (he was the only one to respond to a fan letter I sent all of the individual members in 1993). But I do think that at that point, that he probably was thinking of the band as either a business, or a creative entity of the past (possibly both). You have to wonder ... why did he veto the Paley stuff? Maybe he thought it was the Beach Boys 'trying' to be artistic, and they would fail?

Anyway, sorry for sidetracking the thread ... but, back to the topic ... let's remember that love and hate go hand in hand, and hate is not the opposite of love ... indifference is.  :)

If anyone is looking for a reason to hate Mike Love, here ya go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbX3rKMHYy4

I think Carl just gave up fighting, because the internal emotional cost to himself would have been too high. Especially with the turmoil of his brother being in Landy's sick clutches at the time. Perhaps Carl just got more risk-averse the older he got, but ultimately I think his mindset was due to influence, and very likely pressure, by those around him, who actively desired to stay clear of more artistic material.

Yes! :lol

I experienced the same things during this same era from the late 80's into the 90's. Pre-internet for the most part, when you had to actively seek out material and it wasn't a case of instant gratification via downloads and YouTube. Traveling to record shops, video stores, scanning Goldmine and Discoveries, going to record collector conventions and paying inflated prices, mailing lists, all of that stuff. It was that time when you take the plunge into a band's material, when it really starts becoming a near obsession to find new stuff to experience, albums, videos, books, whatever.

And speaking from experience, it was a tough time to be that deep into the Beach Boys. I'd see ads and listings that they would be making a TV appearance, playing this or doing that, and nearly every time it felt like they weren't fucking delivering the goods. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how it felt. Here I was being moved to tears and poring over this music and going all in, and you'd see some concert or TV clip and it was a letdown. beyond that, it felt like they just didn't *get it* on a basic level. There was an underground buzz, there were younger musicians namechecking the music in all kinds of 'zines and even mainstream music mags, yet you'd get a chance to see the band carrying the name (and history) on TV and it felt like you were watching a bizarro version of it. How could the same band release things like that horrible Problem Child song? That f***ed-up Super Bowl warmup show with Ruth Buzzi...seriously?

So i took refuge in the original records, looked for the underground and unreleased material, read books and mags and all of that which helped stoke the fire rather than throw buckets of water on it. Because *that* was what it felt like whenever they'd come on TV.

Baywatch was the absolute nadir. Blown opportunity times 1,000. Hot show, promoted in the press, some buzz in music mags that Brian and Mike had written a new song for one of the Baywatch shows...that's how popular it was, there were spinoffs too...and instead we get Mike rapping a song several years old over a video that Hasselhoff couldn't even be bothered to appear in. They had to cut footage of the show's opening credits footage showing him into the "video". You have Brian and Carl there...and we got Mike rapping instead?

That's bad. And it's not about hating or reasons to hate, but for the sake of all things good in music, WHY?

And further...we know who was calling the shots. Knowing that, is it hard to suss out whose call it was to feature Mike rapping on a hit TV show instead of something, anything else to spotlight the band instead of Mike? Something that took advantage of the fact that BRIAN AND CARL were there?

Stars & Stripes...same deal, same letdown. I bought a high quality VHS blank tape to record Letterman when it was announced they'd be on with Brian. Holy f***, that just doesn't happen, right? big deal, big news. As I've said before, watching that show...another clusterfuck. Brian, Carl, Al, Mike...singing BACKUP for an unknown minor league country singer. A "reunion" of the Wilson brothers and the surviving band members on a TV show, performing together, and they're holding wireless microphones on the backline behind a guy no one even knew at the time? Seriously?

And again, that was on Mike's initiative. Have the band sing backups for a parade of known and somewhat known and even totally unknown country singers. The best cut was Willie Nelson...I could be wrong but i think that may also have been the cut Brian was most invested in. Apparently the other sessions had the other Beach Boys almost patronizing him and overcompensating on the concern instead of rolling up the sleeves and getting into the trenches with him to cut records, which should have been the idea. It didn't happen. Again, who was the skipper of that boat?

Someone already beat me to it on the board, but the issue was deciding whether the success of Kokomo was one of those music industry flukes or a mandate. Some thought it was a mandate...and it drove most of the decisions from 1988 up to 1997.

That's my feeling in a nutshell. No hate, just remembering the time and time again feeling of "they blew it" during this era. they had the momentum, and it was bubbling up in places they ignored while the Kokomo momentum was as cold as leftover pizza. They chose the pizza too often. Going into 1998, it was in tatters.

Good, solid and worthy advice for the one here who has absolutely no qualms about calling people here fuckwits, shitweasels, or trolls just because they have opinions about myKe luHv.   :smokin

The S & S album liner notes show Mike as Executive Producer but thank "Eddie Haddad for the great idea" and "Dan Wojcik for introducing us to Joe Thomas", Brian is a Producer and all of the equal partners are all over everything about it.  Could Mike unilaterally pronounce himself EP?

How was Mike in control when someone else was Producer or when Carl had the power to stop production?    

Looks like we all agree Mike's HoF speech is being spun but disagree about which way by who.

Umm, no Cam. We all agree it was a drunken embarrassment except you. To you, because it's Mike no doubt, it was some iconic Rock n Roll moment where the brave Mike put the big bad establishment in its place. And just a few posts ago you were claiming the moment "didnt register" in the media's radar. So which is it? You cant even keep your own interpretation straight. It's all about saving face. For Mike, and yourself. 

Seeing you've entirely missed the point of the two posters you've quoted, allow me to enlighten you:

" But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally."

No ? OK, try this (emphasis added for clarification):

"I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says."

I may be wrong here, but my feeling is that those comments are directed at... well... you and your minions. I've stayed out of this particular bit of nonsense - been having way too much fun watching holes being dug ever deeper, tbh - but felt I had to correct the impression given that I pepper every post I make with name-calling. I don't. Don't have to. Used the term selectively a few times, and seems it's stuck. It's comforting to see a backlash against the "constant putting down, calling names stuff".  ;D

Oh, and a PS: on this and other threads on the same topic (and the usual suspects ensure they mostly devolve to that anyway), there's a huge mount of rank nonsense spouted. On both sides of the argument. Or rather, two monologues.

You might want to reread because I'm not the only one.

Imo, the HoF speech was both at the same time: not on the radar of the world in general and also a Rock and Roll moment challenging and criticizing his peers.

Well that's him on my shitlist and no mistake...

Which "him", ol' pal?

Ok, one or maybe two other posters. Still...the point remains that any reputable source and the vast majority of fans see it as an outright embarrassment or something to laugh *at* Mike for. So...maybe there are a few outliers but the overwhelming read on it is the opposite of what you're saying. You're objectively wrong about the media ignoring it too, and we all know you'll continue to blindly defend this and everything else Mike has ever done so your opinion is hardly unbiased

Ask the people flaming him on YouTube.  They call him all sorts of delightful things.

I don't hate him.  I don't think we'd be the best of buddies, though.

Errr... the dude I highlighted in my repost ?

Guitarfool's long post up there was a bit of an eye-opener, I have to say! The Baywatch thing being a while after SIP tanked I think I was vaguely aware of but I hadn't realised it was a matter of years, or that the advance rumour was of a new (or refurbished) Brian and Mike song for the appearance. That must have been an absolute kick in the nuts for any fan. Any more info on the reasoning?

Exactly! But it's the fun of the board. Cam loves Mike. He is very unwavering in that, which I sort of admire.

Exactly. This HoF moment was even brought up to Mike recently and he himself admitted something like "I guess I didn't meditate that morning [chuckles]" - gee, if he was so proud of this revolutionary moment why would he allude to the idea that he lost his cool that night?

Mike apologists will stoop to any defense to try and make Mike Love look good (these are actual arguments I've heard):

Brian fans don't like SIP? Must be because Brian wasn't on it! - lest we forget many Brian fans dislike GIOMH, so obviously we don't all go gaga over everything the man does, but let's not let logic get in the way.

Mike makes a tactless comment about Brian in an interview? Not Mike's fault, the interviewer probably edited Mike's words to make the story more sensational - lest we forget, Mike gets to approve these things before they're released, right? At the very least he can call up the tabloid and demand his words be changed if he was unfairly represented.

Mike won't see the L&M film? Must be because the Landy scenes will be too emotional for him. Lest we forget he called the multiple page Evan Landy article an interesting read...ya know that article that goes into explicit detail about Brian's treatment during the Landy era. But let's not let logic get in the way.

And now the HoF speech is some incredible radical punk moment where Mike love stood up to the man. Sighhhh. You guys don't do Mike any favors whatsoever :lol

Well put. And as I have already written so sorry for the repetition, the way Mike behaves when Brian is giving his speech is unacceptable as well.

But it isn't just about the HOF speech. Mike once accused Brian of watering his legend. Well, Mike has continued to water his as well.

I can understand some name calling - it's a natural reaction when someone has done something annoying - but it is pretty easy to criticise Mike by relying on factual instances of his behaviour. Even when such criticisms are made, there are those who try to write them off, either by obfuscation or simple denial. Perhaps the loyalty is commendable - to me sometimes it is just inexplicable. The only thing that comes close to explaining it for me is that those who want to see all the originals back together again think this is the likeliest way to achieve it.

Yes, nine pages... And started for misleading reasons...I agree.

The last couple of days I've been looking at the HOF.  Seems the ranks are including non-rock and roll artists.  And that clogs the list.  Something weird with the ballots, seems to have happened the year the Dave Clark 5 were nominated...

There is an interesting article on 105.7 - The Hawk - Classic Rock for the Jersey Shore about the HOF.  Maybe someone can jump in who is familiar...

Having separate categories for individual inductees who have contributed heavily or who are standouts is not a problem for me. After all there are a ton of behind-the-scenes people who work in sound production or promotion who get the music to the public.  But inducting non-rockers before others who are bona fide rockers makes no sense to me.

And, I was delighted to see Ringo get in, having read how he taught himself to play, on a drum pad, while in a long-term treatment sanatorium for TB, later using a biscuit tin, and other primitive percussion stand-ins, even a garbage can lid.  That merits solo recognition.  But the band was in there, already.  

But Ringo has inspired other musicians. "Play like Ringo."  I think when you get to the point where the next generation wants to imitate your self-taught style, someone should recognize that.  I like that he played DC with The Boys after Dennis passed.  

We only have one rock HOF.  Maybe the "industry" should work on getting the right people in there. It should not be the alter ego of a magazine, as it seems to be.

If pop artists (who are not rockers) want recognition, maybe  they should find a way to honor "their own" with their own HOF.  And get the real rockers in the door... ;)

SIP is a middling latter day release such as KTSA, BB85 and Still Crusin' and would be viewed as such by many Brianistas if Brian had even minimal involvement in it. As he doesn't it's used as Mike bashing fodder to the extreme ("worst album ever made" and other such BS). Granted the drum sound is the worst the BBs ever used.

Some of Mike's ideas for the group through the years have been perplexing, there's no doubt about that. Mike appears to be an intelligent man; he 's articulate and sometimes sophisticated. That's why it's hard to believe he has come up with some of the stuff he has. Some are questionable, there's no doubt about it. In regard to SMiLE, while I think he had very little to do with Brian scrapping it, Mike didn't "get it" in 1966 and he still doesn't "get it". His interviews have proven that.

That being said, to blame Mike Love for the ideas coming to fruition and ultimately failing is hypocritical, a double standard, and typical of some of the posters on this board. They either refuse or are unable to not only blame Mike Love, but to spread the blame around to the other band members, which is where it belongs.

We often post about our Holy Grails in Beach Boys' fandom. It's a fun topic. We'll list Beach Boys' potato chips, badges, shorts, promo 45's, acetates, lost TV shows, and on and on. What I would like to see, or read - and have the posters on this board read - are the minutes for Beach Boys' meetings since they've been having meetings. I think they would not only be eye-opening, but prove, and more importantly DISPROVE several prevailing theories. Sure, Mike Love might've been the originator of several "ideas" for the group, but he alone could not pull them off without the blessing and formal approval of the other band members.

Mike Love couldn't just say, "Hey, let's do a tour with the Maharishi!" without approval from the group. He couldn't just say, "We're gonna get a bunch of country singers and do a duets album" without approval from the group. He couldn't arbitrarily pick a song from Summer In Paradise and go on Baywatch and perform it without approval from the group. Mike couldn't forcefully get ALL of the band members to appear on Full House and sing "Kokomo". In the 1970's and 1980's, Mike couldn't just make up the setlist without approval from Carl (and Brian and Dennis in some instances?). Mike couldn't get the permission to record Summer In Paradise the way he did without a vote from the group. Every time somebody takes a shot at The Beach Boys touring band, calling it an embarrassment and a "bar band", do they realize that Brian Wilson himself VOTED for it? I never see any outrage directed at Brian for that.  

But, Mike Love gets singled out. Mike Love is hated. And the other members walk away unscathed, virtually without any blame. It's hypocritical. It's a double standard. Ask Al about Stars And Stripes; did HE vote to allow it? Ask Brian about Summer In Paradise; did HE vote to allow it? Carl Wilson (God rest his soul); there he was on Full House. Dennis Wilson (God rest his soul), wasn't it he and James Guercio who were pushing for more oldies in the setlist? Yet for years, and especially on this board, it was Mike Love who was being BLAMED for it.

Yeah, I get it. Let's make excuses for Brian and Carl and Dennis and Al. Brian didn't care; he had other issues. Carl was burned out and tired. Dennis was an addict. Al had no power. Well, they had a vote. And I'd love to see those votes. Never will, though. So let's just blame Mike Love. Actually, let's just hate him. It's less painful. And then we won't have to make Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Al accountable.

This is part of one of the links Gregg posted.

His constant badgering of Brian Wilson, the band’s bassist, first lead singer, primary songwriter, visionary genius, resident virtuoso, and acid casualty drove Wilson literally crazy right around 1968. Wilson had composed and performed almost every note of the band’s critically adored, times-changing 1966 album Pet Sounds in solitude while the rest of the Beach Boys played concerts on the road; Brian worked insane hours to create an even grander follow-up, a double album called Smile, and the first fruit of those sessions, “Good Vibrations,” promised another huge sonic leap forward.

But when Mike Love came in to add his nasal baritone to the new songs he made a huge deal about the weird lyrics and browbeat Wilson — who by this time had already begun to invent Eccentric Rock Stardom as a thing by turning his thousand-square-foot living room into a sandbox with his grand piano at the center — until Wilson had a nervous breakdown, shelved the entire album, and spent the next 20 years in his bedroom a shell of his former self, never coming anywhere near the twin highs of Pet Sounds and “Good Vibrations.”

As long as there are those spewing such utter garbage as this and naive people are swallowing it hook, line and sinker then Mike will continue to get hatred his way.

To be perfectly frank, I think it's more of the fact that John Stamos is on it.

Jon & Ian's excellent In Concert book also has contemporary reports of Mike having several outbursts where he was pissed that the fans kept clamoring for the oldies as opposed to the newer songs, so yeah that is indeed a good point

That certainly didn't do it any favours.

Summary of the bile above from certain posters: It's never Mike Love's fault for anything in the BBs, he is just a hardworking touring machine while BW ruins everything with drugs and strange music made without cousin Mike.

Oh really? Then why the hell isn't it sold anymore, Mike's Beard? KTSA, BB85 can be found on iTunes (and until recently so could Still Cruisin). But alas, if SIP is just another "middling latter day release" why hasn't it presence been made on any digital media outlet? Because (a) it either doesn't sell or (b) the powers the be realize what an embarrassment it is the Beach Boys name. BB85 had a song that went to #26 on the charts. KTSA had a single that reached #83. Still Cruisin went gold, included a #1 hit and a #12 hit. What did SIP have? Was it's great highlight that it sold less than 10,000 copies upon it's release?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense and further illustrates my point that Mike apologists will scrape the absolute bottom of the barrel to defend the guy.

Btw, even probably the most ardent Brianista would tell you that Brian's contributions on BB85 are the weaker points on that album, and that Getcha Back (a Mike Love song) is the highlight.

On the other hand, you make Mike the fall guy for everything. You can't complain when you do the exact opposite.

Not to get in the middle of this thing, but this was not released by a normal record company, not even by Brother Records, but rather Brother Entertainment. For all we know there may legal issues or Capitol just does not have any interest in paying to license it.

To my ears, it is a half of a good album, but if it is ever re-released, I hope Mark or whoever works on it does a remix and tone that drum machine down. ;)

So if we're going with the sales and hit singles pulled from it arguement, then by that logic NPP must be a real steaming pile of dogshit - oh wait... it is.

As for being out of print - how many years was POB unavailable? That the title track for SIP was on the MIC box must mean that it hasn't been totally disowned.

Let's see Mike do better with a solo album of his own, oh wait he won't release one without rerecordings of songs by BW.

They ain't been too good either.

I'm going by the accolades each album and their songs got. No Pier Pressure went to #28 on the Billboard 200. 'One Kind of Love' won best song at the Nashville Film Festival. Again, what did SIP get?

The dour opinion of SIP has nothing to do with fan loyalties to certain band members. It has to do with the music itself and how bad it is, that it has gotten no accolades and isn't even sold anymore proves my point correct.

Exactly Rab, NPP proves BW is great artist even on a solo album. Mike couldn't even sell his practically solo album SIP under the Beach Boys name.

Ah. Time for new trifocals I guess. Are there quadfocals?

Remember that the C50 promo material showing all the BBs albums also left SIP out, easy to say it's been disowned as a piece of sh*t.

How come the rest of the band made sure they got credit by appearing on the S&S and Baywatch on national TV in the video if they were not in favor?  

Doesn't Randy Bachman claim Carl was the force behind KTSA, getting Bachman to write songs with him and record demos with him and wanting Bachman to produce the BBs' album?

Carlin claims Brian was working on a Beach Boys' revision of "Dancin' The Night Away" especially for Baywatch.

Just saw you edited this^ in to your last post...

The 1991 POB re-release became unavailable due to copyright ownership disagreements...not because it didn't sell. POB has been critically acclaimed, stayed on the billboard charts for 12 weeks at it's release, it's on MOJOs list of 'Lost Albums You Must Own'. Again, what did SIP get? Your comparisons aren't doing your argument any favors. And it's very telling how they feel about the studio album if the only inclusion on MIC from SIP material was a live version of the title track.

Which was exactly my point, that there are other reasons an album could be out of print besides poor sales.


Good thing I'm not claiming SIP to be in the same league as POB then, isn't it?

For those with doubts or questions about Stars & Stripes, this is the background, of course corrections and comments welcome...but this is pretty much the deal.

Those names in the album credits, "Eddie Haddad" and "Dan Wojcik", Haddad is a promoter and Wojcik was a booking agent (he since passed away).

Eddie Haddad's company is EJH Entertainment, and they organize, manage, and promote concerts and events among other things. Mike Love was one of Haddad's clients, and EJH not only was a consultant to Mike but also was involved in the NASCAR salute release that was given out at "76" gas stations in the 90's. Hank Williams Jr was a client too.

Dan Wojcik as a booking agent had a lot of Nashville and country music clients with his agency "Entertainment Artists", and booked shows, did promotions, etc working also with Joe Thomas' company River North Records which was in Chicago and Nashville in the 90's. River North was the label for Stars & Stripes. Dan also worked with Hank Jr.

So Haddad who had promoted shows for Hank Jr and the Beach Boys said to Joe Thomas how it would be a good idea if Hank Jr recorded a cover of "Help Me Rhonda". Joe agreed. That explains that credit on the album liners.

Joe Thomas got in touch with Mike Love, according to the liners it involved Dan Wojcik in the process. There is that explanation of that credit in the liners. Wojcik seems to have been the go-between or the facilitator to get Joe in touch with Mike. I'm sure it wasn't that simple, but still...there were the connections that explain the album credits with these names.

Joe mentioned the idea to Mike, and Mike and Joe started planning things out and running ideas for it to happen. So there is Mike's role from the start - he was the point of contact at this time, it's who Joe went to in order to discuss the project and make plans.

In planning the project, again it was originally the thought to have Hank Jr cut a version of Help Me Rhonda, Willie Nelson's name came up. Mike's offer was if they get Willie Nelson, they'll get Brian Wilson too, in return. So Mike got Joe in contact with Brian, and Brian says I'll do it if you get Willie to sing "Warmth Of The Sun".

The band traveled to Texas and cut Warmth Of The Sun at Willie's studio, with Brian's participation and obvious support (it was his 'demand' if you will to have Willie cut that song out of all the choices), and thus began the project. Willie was the first to record with them, and having him involved gave the project some clout in Nashville - If Willie did it, it's legit, all of that political Nashville music biz stuff that goes on. Willie was happy, the band was happy, it rolled on.

Then the guests and song choices started coming in, to the point where eventually they had enough to have two Stars & Stripes albums.

James House was given the lead single, he was the singer i mentioned earlier was on Letterman with the surviving Beach Boys doing backup for him. "Little Deuce Coupe". There were plans to have House be the opening act for Beach Boys live shows as well. There was a TV special too (which I also recorded in the day), and I know Kathy Troccoli was on the Regis and Kathie Lee show with the Beach Boys (minus Brian) to perform and promote "I Can Hear Music".

So that's about it. An idea from a promoter to have Hank Jr cover a BB's song put Joe Thomas in touch with Mike Love, who together outlined plans for the project and got the ball rolling. Brian got involved after Willie Nelson agreed to do Warmth Of The Sun. Everything (and everyone) involved after that initial session at Willie's studio in Texas you'll have to fill in the rest.  :)

And the fact it had poor sales and was the first Beach Boys studio album that failed to chart tells me it's a lousy album which is my point. It also helps solidify that even if there are other legal problems with a re-release, I doubt anyone in Beach Boys management is seeing dollar signs when it comes to this album.


Didn't say you did you did, sport. Just listing the accolades it has received which is why it has gotten re-released multiple times, unlike SIP.

I think Stars and Stripes is a far worse album, I've managed to listen to that stinker about twice.

Agreed. I hate country to begin with, at least THAT style of country, and the execution was horrible.

So it seems it probably was pretty much as the liner notes have it. Haddad had the concept, Wojcik had the contacts, Mike did logistics and probably financial, Brian and Thomas did the "creative", all the Boys participated in recording and promotion.

You know I really don't get why some of you waste your time coming to this board. People like drbeachboy and Mike's beard(you know what that makes you right?) This whole Brian vs. Mike thing is futile. It's art vs. commerce. I have always subscribed to Dennis' thoughts about Brian;"He is the Beach Boys,we're just his fucking messengers". I do think Mike gets blamed too much but his personality encourages it. Things like sitting there when Carl got punched by Rocky Pamplin or saying that Brian's first solo album was sh*t in the Goldmine article. Doing the 1981 Long Beach concert without Carl which did a fair amount of harm to their reputation. The cheerleaders onstage in the '90's, yes I know that the other Boys signed off on it but Mike came up with the idea.By the way, comparing SIP with those other albums is just sheer ignorance and bad taste. SIP would've been a better if Brian had been involved with it. Go listen to the Sea of Tunes stuff if you are wondering who the Beach Boys were. Somebody else knocked Brian's solo albums, only in America would people criticize an artist of Brian's magnitude. I don't know if you take Mike's side because you feel somebody has to or you really believe it, but I wish you a lot of luck.

I don't think SIP would've been better with Brian on it...sound is too tinny.

But here it's you purporting this Brian vs. Mike bullshit. Why are there supposed to be two factions? Why is it an x vs. y situation? It is you and others making it that way. Reality is more intricate and subtle than that.

My point being ,anytime Brian is involved with some project it is intrinsically better.

We all know that reality is usually grey but the fact is we don't know the actual  reality of most Beach Boy incidents, infamous or otherwise, only what we read . That is the starting point for most of us.

I'm not creating any situation only what I encounter here every day. My point in the previous rant and probably not said very well is that in terms of talent and influence Mike is not even in the same universe as Brian . To compare Mike with Brian in any way ,shape or form is an insult to the legacy of the Beach Boys and music in general.

 :woot :woot :woot :woot  Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo damn true.

Sadly the cheerleader thing has been done in very recent years, most notably this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5AhcMhze1Q&feature=youtu.be&t=36) performance from 2013. Keepin' the legacy alive, folks!

As for the Mike apologists here on Smiley Smile, they will petulantly knock charting Brian albums ("steaming pile of sh*t" lololol) and come up with convoluted arguments to try and defend any statement Mike makes or any action he does. They will use comments dripping with sarcasm to berate how people feel about Brian's music. Just look at this post from the former member Kittykat regarding No Pier Pressure:


(http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17691.msg463451.html#msg463451 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17691.msg463451.html#msg463451))

And elsewhere in Kittykat’s post history (most notably her last post) you’ll see evidence of a complete lack of respect for Brian and those around him. Within the last year another apologist compared certain Brian fans to suicide bombers and one person alluded to the idea that Joe Thomas should throw himself from high rise window. Certain members here used to be quite audible in their belief that Brian is currently controlled by handlers/Melinda. One person here has admitted he’ll defend everything Mike Love does (excluding the song ‘Wrinkles’) - and he has a proven track record of doing exactly that.

It doesn't surprise me that these type of followers gravitate towards Mike....just a shame that not only do we have to trawl through Mike's sometimes tactless interviews but we also have to read some lousy defense of these interviews by the handful of devoted Mike apologists who insist Mike can do no wrong.

According to Mike, Still Cruisin'  was a democratically political album with each Boy getting "two songs each" and the original album concept was "diluted" to accommodate Landy and Al.

He also said he "was not happy that the album was half repackage and half politics".

Sounds like Mike was pissed there were new songs on the album and not just retread songs. ::)

Well, you know how Mike is when the rest of the band thwart his concept albums. They just weren't receptive enough or sensitive enough to see his vision.

He was not happy that the original concept of music that had been in a movie was diluted for political reasons with songs that had not been in a movie, not that they were new songs.

Doesn't sound like he was in charge or control either.

You should lobby Mike to undilute his original vision, bring us MIKE LOVE PRESENTS STILL CRUISIN'

Director's cut. Rerecord 'em, see if Bruno Mars will return his calls.

Then he can explain why Somewhere Near Japan didn't count in the dilution department, while BW and AJ's songs did. Maybe it was featured in a documentary on toilets in Osaka or something, I dunno.

I think the world is ready now to face the full majesty of Mike Love's vision for this album.

This is where someone pipes in with "Actually I'd love a compilation of their soundtrack music, I'm one of four fans of Problem Child!"

Maybe.  Maybe after Landy and Al had broken the concept Mike was receptive enough or sensitive enough to see their vision.

Was Wipeout ever in a movie either?

Do the liner notes state Brian did the creative?  I'm not seeing that in the prior posts, only that Brian requested Willie.  I don't own it so I can't check for myself.

EoL

Who are you trying to kid?

1. Mike makes anti-Brian comments publicly and people here read them, you've read and commented on them.

2. Mike has initiated lawsuits against Brian (and Al) and I'm not just talking about the song writing credits lawsuit.  Are you unaware of these lawsuits?  I am pretty sure you've commented in those threads as well.

I don't think people here are making it that way.  I think Mike is making it that way.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is Mike.
 

:thumbsup

Brian and Joe are credited as the album's Producer.

Yeah, that must have been it  ::)

I'm not sure why you do, all you ever do is bitch, bitch, bitch.


Oooops, somebody dared to criticise the demi-god by saying they don't think one of his albums is any good. Try to be a man about it and not cry. BTW, I'm from the UK.

Ah yes. Perfectly ok for you to throw out baseless speculation, but it's on us to prove you wrong. Just like how Mike wrote Vega-Tables and it's on me to call VDP and prove you wrong, right?

It was a joke reply to ontor's post right there above it. Mike made the claims about the album.

Edit: Well it wasn't "right" above there because I didn't quote it but it includes a joke reply to ontor's previous post:  "Well, you know how Mike is when the rest of the band thwart his concept albums. They just weren't receptive enough or sensitive enough to see his vision."

Also, you don't need to ask VDP (though it would be good) as Mike is an author of record of "Mama Says".

You called the album

Whatever "dogshit sh*t" is lol. Either way, you criticized the album in a pretty disrespectful way...so it's not surprising a couple people got offended by it. And no one is crying about it, just pointing out the absolutely childish manner in which you knocked the album.

More like Pisces brothers is dogshit. ;)

Speaking of childish.  ::)

You're a miracle

A turd by any other name is still a turd. And I only mentioned NPP in the first place because YOU used SIP poor sales figures as a reflection of it's musical content. Well NPP has only sold twice as much as that did and that's with all the internet hype and coming off the back of a #3 reunion record. Yet you no doubt think NPP is a great record, so your argument falls apart.

There is no comparison between music sales in 1992 and 2015.  ::)

Thanks.

Oh, so NPP would have been a massive hit if half a million people didn't download it from a torrent site, gotcha. ::)

It was a hit, only you seem to deny that. ::)

By today's standards it was. The industry has changed massively. Just like TWGMTR hitting #3 was huge . Most albums peek during their initial week.

It was not a hit, sorry.  Though I will say some of that is due to marketing.

Funny because NPP actually charted....did SIP? Uhhhh no. I used poor sales figures and other examples as a reflection of SIP's musical content - but let's ignore the other examples because they completely refute your point. Coming off the back of a #3 reunion record? One thing missing from NPP that TWGMTR had was the name 'The Beach Boys'....no sh*t it went to #3 with that name, whereas Brian Wilson's name and music is lesser known to the public.

Yeah, but now you're bringing logic into this....which goes completely over some people's heads here.

Do you honestly think the reason a Beach Boys record in the early 90s (or whenever SIP was released) didn't sell is the same reason a Brian Wilson album isn't selling in 2015?  Further, you are isolating one part of the argument to the neglect of the full argument.  Poor sales when sales were robust plus critical panning plus terrible production plus bad music (I would argue) = SIP.  On the other hand, NPP has poor sales in a radically different music environment, received some critical praise, one song has won an award, the production, while far better than SIP, is admittedly too "AOR" for my ears, and the songs are pretty good, some excellent (in my opinion).  And of course a BW release does not have the benefit of the BB brand name, which carries a lot of weight.  In fact, I would argue that the general public wants to hear either Brian's falsetto or Mike's signature lead.  Furthermore, youth sells.  So as far as sales are concerned, NPP is handicapped, in the golf sense, in at least three regards:

1. By not having the BB brand attached
2. By being released in a sales environment drastically less robust than when SIP was released.  
3. The performer is 20+ years older, and in fact can be considered elderly

The point being, low album sales in the early 90s says a lot more about an album than low album sales in 2015, which is why you have to consider not just the other points of the argument, but you also have to "grade on a curve" in regards to sales.  So the argument in total, not just the single bit you chose to isolate because it fits your POV, does not at all fall apart.  But you knew that, you just picked the easy target and ignored the rest.

EoL

I don't think Mike's rumored solo album or Pisces brothers would have charted in 1992 or 2015 due to a lack of songwriting talent from ML without BW.

Errrrm, I did argue all your other examples.

The point I am making is that using sales figures to back up the quality of an album is not always a clear cut method, if it was then Sunflower would be one of the worst records the BBs ever made

Errrrm, your initial argument was that "SIP is a middling latter day release such as KTSA, BB85 and Still Crusin' and would be viewed as such by many Brianistas if Brian had even minimal involvement in it"

The fact that SIP was the first Beach Boys studio album that failed to chart, the fact it had no singles that charted, the fact that it sold less than 10,000 copies upon release, the fact that Beach Boy historians Andrew G Doe and John Tobler called it "the absolute nadir of their recording career", the fact that it isn't sold anymore, the fact that no one in Beach Boys management seems to be eager to re-release it makes it an entirely different animal from KTSA, BB85, and Still Cruisin.

It's completely laughable that you think Brianistas hate SIP because Brian wasn't a part of it.

I'd say musically S&S is far better. It's just that the whole project is redundant if you're a BBs fan. I have versions with them singing leads, why would I want to listen to them being relegated to bvs?

SIP isn't despised because it's Mike-led, it's despised because in many places it is, for want of a better word, offensive. The desecration of Surfin', the repulsive come-on's of Summer of Love, then the pillaging of Dennis' soul (but not before first dressing it up like a $5 hooker) of Forever...

These are things as a fan of the band and the legacy that you can actually feel angry about. What is there to genuinely hate on S&S other than the fact that it's a bit sh*t?

It's not 1992 anymore. Bands were still selling in excess of 6 or 7 million copies back then. Now they throw a party if they hit 200,000. For a 73 year old artist in 2015 Brian's sales are more than respectable.

I might add that NPP has deservedly gotten a fair amount of airplay on satellite radio as did TWGMTR whereas SIP garnered absolutely none that I am aware of in this market.

I think the only Airplay SIP got was in Mike Love's house.

I think that if you are a serious fan of the Beach Boys and that doesn't lead you smack-dab into an admirer of the genius that is Brian Wilson then you at best missing the point, at worst , wasting your time. You might as well follow someone like, well, Oasis. Apparently they have no use for Brian Wilson either.

Agreed. This review of SIP from 2011 pretty much sums up all my thoughts about why SIP is atrocious, and (surprise!) it has nothing to do with Brian not being apart of it: https://tuneinrockon.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/when-bad-songs-happen-to-good-bands-5/ (https://tuneinrockon.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/when-bad-songs-happen-to-good-bands-5/)

The writer sums it up perfectly in one sentence: "Summer In Paradise is a justly forgotten cornucopia of utterly terrible ideas." True that.

Do you think even a great Beach Boys record would have sold by the bucketload in 1992? The nostalgia wave had long peaked, the interest from fluking a hit with Kokomo had been and gone, the artistic reappraisal of Brian and the band from a new generation of fans had yet to happen..... by '92 the band as a commercial act was dead in the water.

Some things I didn't include in the Stars & Stripes mega-post, again comments and corrections/suggestions welcome. And other stuff too.

Besides Willie Nelson's involvement lending the project some record biz and Nashville credibility which allowed the project to go forward, it has also been said that parties investing in the project wanted to ensure Brian Wilson was involved in the project. His name appearing with a producer's credit carried a lot of weight, as it still does. It seems part of the early negotiations involved getting Brian on board, and part of the give-and-take was first bringing Brian into the fold, which Mike did, and then Brian making the condition that Willie not only come in (as negotiated already by Mike and Joe in return for getting Willie on the record), but also that Willie cover Warmth Of The Sun. Willie agreed, Brian was in, and that was the first session and song they recorded.

After that, as I said, ask around how the other sessions went. Some reports have said Brian was not as hands-on with the production due in part to how the other band members were dealing with him being back in the studio with them. I used the word overcompensation, maybe even patronizing would apply, but it wasn't what might be assumed. Again, just check around and get some more details on that one. See what the process of recording these songs was like after the first sessions at Willie's studio in Texas when they did Warmth Of The Sun, at Brian's request and condition on him getting involved.

Then there were the public appearances, like the Nashville "Fan Fest" which tied into promoting the album. Some have said other band members didn't necessarily want Brian doing much on stage, maybe for fear of him not giving a good performance? Again, ask around on that one too, get some more reports on how all of that went down.

Point is, the project needed backers, funding, all of the usual stuff that Joe and Mike had to do in order to pitch the idea. Getting Brian Wilson's guaranteed involvement no matter how large or small that would be was one of the key points needed to green-light the project. It's similar to what Warner-Reprise did when they signed the BB's after leaving Capitol, it's similar to what CBS did when they signed a deal with the group. Brian had to be involved in making the music or else there was no deal.

So all of the doubters and skeptics, why do you think that is?

Consider Summer In Paradise. No Brian involvement, in fact there may even be reports that Brian was deliberately kept away from some of the sessions...or am I confusing that with another BB's album project? Anyway, Brian had no involvement in that record, no credit to be listed on the album.

And it could be said as a result of that, partially and in conjunction with the quality and marketability of the music itself, SIP couldn't find a major-label distributor to pick up the album. It had to go pretty much the indie/unknown route, "Brother Entertainment" headed by Mike Love rather than Capitol or any other name label or entity.

No Brian, no label. No sales, either.

Fast Forward...The reunion album. Capitol signs the deal, again ensuring Brian Wilson would be involved in the writing, production, and performance on this new Beach Boys album. And tour. And he was, and it went to #3 the week it was released. Major label release, major tour with major promotion, a success all around. Beach Boys with Brian back in the fold along with all surviving members...look at the results.

And that's what some can't seem to grasp or process, whatever the case. You get Brian involved, it's a different deal altogether. It's bargaining power for one thing, not to mention the cache and clout that translates into when negotiating these deals. Stars and Stripes had Brian on board, but beyond the Willie Nelson track, ask around how much hands-on work he actually did on the tracks rather than speculating. Or use your ears - How much beyond Willie's track sounds like a Brian arrangement or production? Or was that the idea? I'm not going to make a definitive claim on that, but just listen.

Point is, SIP couldn't find a label. Stars & Stripes was able to move forward after Brian's involvement was inked into the deal, along with Willie's. TWGMTR was on Capitol as part of a bigger deal. SIP and TWGMTR are the only two new, non-compilation or non-tribute BB's albums of note from 1990 to 2015, and what one notable element did one have that the other did not? Hint: The initials are BW. And look at the results. It wouldn't have happened without that element.

Note the differences in quality and public/sales reception of the two as well.  

No one pretends to compare their musical contributions. Nobody here purports that Mike is Brian's musical equal. But the reason for the hatred is not related to people praising Mike's music above Brian. It's about sides taken in a history that is told as the struggle of pure genius against mediocrity. And it's just bullshit.

Didn't S&S v.1 do very well on the Billboard Country charts/sales?

I won't even begin to speculate and it's beside the point. Brian fans (and overall Beach Boys fans) dislike SIP because it is "the absolute nadir of their recording career", not because Brian had nothing to do with it.

But isn't it like a cool thing from Mike to want to have Brian on board for the project he alledgedly led (i.e. S&S)? Wasn't Mike supportive of the Was-produced material (which Mike did not co-write btw)?


If anything, Mike can be blamed for being the one guy in the group to always want to have Brian on board. If anything, he regarded Brian's talent as high as anyone. I suppose this should be cool with some people, but it will be debunked by the end of the day ("Mike wants Brian only on his terms", etc.).

You've said what I said earlier regarding the 88-97 era. A fluke was taken as a mandate, decisions were made based on the thinking that "The Beach Boys" which fans wanted to see were the Beach Boys that had done Kokomo. Sounds, image, themes, appearances, etc. Kokomo was a #1 hit, as you said it was a fluke of a hit. But some thought it was the way the band needed to go to remain a hit. And that was a critical error, if anyone doubts it just look back on those years.

And, having jumped into the deep end of the Beach Boys pool by 1992 and seeing it all unfold as I described in my rant yesterday on that topic, The Beach Boys as of that time were like Superman and Bizarro, Jekyll and Hyde...etc. Within these same years, the Pet Sounds reissue CD was still influencing people and getting the buzz. The two-fers...all original albums remastered and released with bonus tracks...in some stores I used to frequent, certain titles would sell immediately when they came in. These were popular, and people were rediscovering and discovering these original albums via the two-fers. Then the two-fers got replaced by the single-album reissues. 1993 - The box set gets released, 5-star review in Rolling Stone the same issue Dr Dre and Snoop were on the cover.

The buzz was happening, people were talking and referencing and being influenced by and loving this music again. Or in the case of the Smile material on the box, those who didn't have the bootlegs prior to this were pretty much in awe and wanting to know more. Again, 1992-93, there was the same exact buzz and excitement and recognition that you said wasn't there.

And the Beach Boys as a commercial entity, mostly led by Mike (although Carl vetoed some potentially great ideas too), chose to keep finding the follow-up to Kokomo or at least to keep the Kokomo Tiki-torches lit by doing things a certain way to appeal to the public. Full House, etc too. All the while the credibility and acknowledgement and acceptance was right there for the taking. People who bought Pet Sounds or the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey two-fer might go looking for a Beach Boys album, see Summer In Paradise in the bins and perhaps buy it, and it was Superman versus Bizarro.

It's all in retrospect now, but how did those choices end up working out?

I'd argue it's because he knows Brian's involvement boosts sales. Hence the deplorable "Brian is Back!" Campaign

Did you miss what I wrote about this, are you just ignoring it so you can apply the term "allegedly", or is it a case of not being familiar with pitching ideas for a project, getting backers, and negotiating the terms?

Brian's involvement was part of the negotiations from when Joe first mentioned Willie Nelson to Mike as they were planning it out, and Brian's participation was essential for some of the backers to invest in the project so it could move forward. Simple as that. No Brian, no backing, no project.

The buzz may have been building but clearly in 1992 that had yet to translate into upward swings in sales of new material. That would take the 30 Years box, the Pet Sounds box and a raised profile of Brian Wilson after the whole Landy thing. Even then Stars & Stripes sold very little (and has rarely been in print since it's initial release). Personally, I think despite not sinking to the lows of the Stamosied Forever it is a much poorer record than SIP overall.

So Brian was or was not a Producer with Joe on S & S v.1 doing the creative and content work that Producers do?  Is the Producer credit a fabrication and was Brian pretending on the video?  I may not remember the video too well but memory is it showed Brian at work and seemingly enjoying himself.

Well, that leads us back to your own question - would a good album of new BBs material have sold well in 1992? If you're acknowledging that there was indeed a buzz around the band's, shall we say, more serious side then I think the answer is most likely yes. Lot's of 60s influenced bands doing very well, springing up, having hit albums, name-checking....this was an age where indie respectability would have sold. Cartoonish plastic sounding power ballads and rap attempts which frankly were at least 5 years out of date by the time SIP was released, not so much.

Everyone should have spent a little more time looking at the La's and a little less at Bart Simpson and Vanilla Ice.

When Mike Love brought JT in, Cam... do you think they talked about Stars and Stripes...OR discussed it first? I'm curious. There's a big difference and we have to get our terminology straight.

I didn't miss it. I read the whole post through. All 4000 words of it. And I followed the making of it and the interviews back then.

Will you submit that Mike's sole reason for getting Brian involved was getting backers for the album? You Believe that otherwise they would have done without Brian? They they had been working together, WITH Brian, since like a year before.

I will not defend S&S. It's the biggest turd of an album Brian Wilson ever produced.

I would imagine Haddad talked to Mike about his idea and Mike discussed it with the rest of the band.

Again, did you bother to read my mega-post, at least the first 350 words or so? Haddad told Joe Thomas he thought it would be a good idea to get Hank Jr to cover Help Me Rhonda. Joe got in touch with Mike, and they talked it over, the Hank Jr thing wasn't the deal-clincher, but when Joe mentioned Willie Nelson, Mike in return called Brian who agreed to work if Willie cut WOTS, etc and so on and so forth.

Where do you get the idea that Haddad was the one who went to Mike when Joe was the one who took the idea to Mike and then started negotiating and planning with Mike? It's not that complex of an issue, Cam.

Bingo. Not just Lee Mavers, but the numerous alternative bands and artists who were talking about and name-checking The Beach Boys, Brian, Pet Sounds, etc. It reached a point that by 1994-95, at least in Boston, there was hardly a review printed in the Tab or other papers and local mags that didn't name-check the BB's or Brian if a band featured a song with vocal harmonies. It was actually something of a running joke among a few of us who actively read and followed that stuff.

The buzz was *there*, but it felt like those calling the shots for The Beach Boys were completely unaware of it. You're right, Bart Simpson, WTF?

OK, Joe talked to Mike about Haddad's idea.  I assume Mike discussed it with the band for their approval.  Was Brian a Producer?

I won't submit a sole reason for any of that, because it's not a sole reason situation. Was Brian's involvement in the project a key factor in getting the project from idea to pitch to actual reality? YES times 1,000. If anyone doubts that, they're ignoring the facts of what happened. The people who would be funding it all but demanded Brian's name on the credits. It gave automatic credibility that SIP for one lacked, especially anything labeled "Beach Boys". Still holds true today. No Brian, no project, period. Assume what you like about Mike's reasons, but that was a major factor.

Mike and Brian were writing songs when Don Was and Andy Paley were on board, yes. What was Carl's reason for scuppering that arrangement? Because it seemed everyone from Mike to Brian to Was to Paley was into cutting the song Soul Searchin and moving forward with it as a release, then Carl balked. Why did Carl also nix the idea of the orchestral Pet Sounds tour that was on the table? Ask around, see what folks say about those issues.

Tell us how much of that record you think Brian was hands-on with the production and arranging.

Maybe you'll have to wait for Mike's book to find out how much hands-on producing Brian did or didn't do for the project if that even gets mentioned.

As I already said, the most invested Brian was in the project was The Warmth Of The Sun which was the first song and the catalyst that got the ball rolling, maybe give your ears a chance to weigh in and listen to the other tracks to see if any of the answers become clear through the music. I think Warmth Of The Sun is a standout track, my own opinion it's the best thing on the whole album and I think there are many fans who agree. What do you think?

My point is that, as you mention, Brian and Mike and the rest of the guys were already collaborating; it wasn't a stretch for Mike to look for Brian to produce it. Regarding Carl's reasons for nixing some of those ideas, I've heard several reasons-- none of them entirely convincing... perhaps it was a combination of different reasons. But if it's a rethorical question, go ahead and answer it yourself.

I'm pretty sure you're absolutely right on all counts, EOL, and the myKe luHv apologists just keep on getting their backs closer to that wall of no quarter.   :thud :thud :thud

It's not a rhetorical question, so what's your take on it?

Or maybe Brian's autobio.

Ears can be deceiving.  Maybe the eyes too because I remember Brian being invested in the filmed sessions but the memory's not that great and I haven't seen it for a long time.

My favorite didn't make the album, just the video.

Minnie Pearl and Grandpa Jones covering Summer Of Love?

(http://www.cmt.com/sitewide/assets/img/news/hulton_archive/hulton_archive_2671738-x600.jpg)

In My Room.

SB, you are being way too generous and kind when it comes to myKe luHv's wizardly, groundbreaking artistry on "Pisces >:D Brothers".  

Only after myKe handed her the paycheck and she went out shopping  spending most of his dinero.  :lol

OSD!!!!!! :lol :lol :lol

Has anybody read the Original Poster's article on Jan & Dean yet?

http://www.iainlee.com/2015/03/jan-and-dean/ (http://www.iainlee.com/2015/03/jan-and-dean/)

I really love Iain, but I have to quote just a few BB related parts in his essay:

"Jan Berry, knowing they were on their way out, befriended The Beach Boys and persuaded Brian Wilson to give them a half written tune called ‘Surf City’ which Berry dutifully tidied up. It became the only surf song to get to number one in the U.S of good ol’ A, pissing off Mike Love no end which can only be a good thing (unfair, sorry. Cheap jibe. I don’t subscribe to the theory that Mike Love is evil personified, I think he’s done some dodgy things but probably deserves a lot more respect than the world affords him)."

"Warner Brothers were impressed enough with Jan’s recovery (or maybe they were mislead slightly as to how well he actually was. That was a trick the Beach Boys played every time they had to sign a new record contract – clean up a drooling Brian and show him off for 20 minutes telling the execs he was back to normal and would be writing all the new songs, before discharging him back to bed!) that they allowed him to record another album. Carnival Of Sound was supposed to be the duo’s psychedelic masterpiece – a swirling orgy of sound and colour inspired by the drug culture and the changing world around them. You would never have to hear surf music again."

"The Beach Boys were finally acknowledging they were an oldies band. Love had won the internal battle for control and dictated that creativity was out and sunshine funshine hits were in. J&D could tap into that market, they could have a piece of that pie."

And the guy vanishes after starting the thread.

Also, thank you to Craig (GF) for a good insight into the SIP and S&S album origins. That was a side of the story that I was previously unaware of.

Either Brian and Carl's relationship was strained as an aftermath of the conservatorship and autobiography issues. Or Carl didn't care for the projects. Or he was busy battling then-uncovered health issues. Or he didn't trust his brother's instincts
as a producer/songwriter at the time. Or he didn't trust his brother's vocal prowess. Or he found artistic fulfillment in recording with Beckley and Lamm. Or a combination of all or some of the above. Or none of those reasons.

What's your take?

The Love/Melcher songwriting partnership was actually a pretty good one, but not good enough to carry a whole lp ( or even half of one, frankly).

But what was the alternative to SIP? Brian was not available. Carl and Bruce weren't writing.  Mike understandably thought he had something going post-Kokomo. Are we saying that Mike should have had enough objectivity to recognize that Kokomo was a fluke? Should the band have thrown in the towel after Still Cruisin'?

Why is releasing nothing for awhile not an option? Wait until you have something good. I guess Mike thought he did, but yeah. It's not like they were starving.

My take is that it could very well have been some of those points you listed. But overall I think there was a dynamic between the brothers during this time that doesn't seem to be talked about that much, which also says there may have been deeper issues that are "off limits" outside the family and friends who were there. I can't speculate and won't try, but if we put together what little has been said about things that happened during this time, it can paint a picture that might run counter to what a lot of fans might assume things were like. And some of those issues you mentioned, again, could very well have been at play, in fact a few have been reported (or revealed?) in various places.

I do think Carl had issues with Brian's ability to perform - again *just* my opinion based on what has come out - and seemed to take it perhaps a bit too far in trying to stave off what he may have thought had the potential to reflect badly on the band. Yet - Brian had the Don Was documentary under his belt, and was giving a few one-off performances...was it that much of an issue for Carl to try to avoid the potential for possible problems as he seems to have done?

Was that why the Pet Sounds tour was nixed by Carl? Was that why there were reportedly concerns about Brian performing at the Nashville Fan Fest, Letterman, etc? Was it Carl being too concerned or was there more behind it than just performance concerns? Again, until more is actually revealed (or if more is revealed), we just don't know. Why did Carl nix Soul Searchin' when all the key players seemed to be energized by the song and getting it out as a single, even? Why did Carl apparently cancel out on Brian when they tried to make plans to meet for dinner? Who knows.

But it was something beyond what the public might know or think, and again  it seems to be one of those off-limits topics since there just isn't much on the record.

Adding to that, just consider putting yourself in Brian's shoes, hypothetically getting out of the Landy disaster and wanting to get back with your band and your brother making music, since that was the vibe that was in the public "we can't wait to be back together making music with Brian again"...all of that...and the dynamic was more on the weird side instead of being perhaps as Brian (or some of us) would have expected. And also factor in something that may or may not have been hanging over the activities - Mike's efforts to oust Al from the Beach Boys. That had to cause some strained feelings outside Mike and Al, I'd think.

You did it again! You changed the letters in his name around!!!!!!  :-D :-D :-D

That is so good! Oh my god, let me catch my breath. Wait, I've got one myself: "Adolf Shitler". Geddit? Because he was a sh*t? Eh, it's not so funny when it's about someone who isn't as bad a human being as Mike. Sorry, mYkE.

Wheeee-oooo. Okay, sorry, I can't resist, do it again! Oh you did ?!!!!! Twice?!!!!! On the following page??!!!!! What are you trying to do, make me die from laughter?  :-D :-D :-D

Ohhhhh god. Nurse?

Tworandom observations. Discard if you will.

1 - the BB/Was sessions were in November 1995. In January 1996 Carl accompanies the band to London and appears on TV looking very rough. It's widely agreed that he knew something was very wrong some considerable time before the 'official' cancer diagnosis being announced in April 1997. Maybe this was also the reason behind all his interviews for Nashville Sounds being shot separately, and why - please correct me if I'm wrong - he's barely, if ever, shown  in the session footage.

2 - If Willie was the bait for getting other top-line country stars on board... how come no-one else did ?  I'm not talking "big in the States" here, I'm talking A+++ like Willie: he and Tim Schmit were the only two I'd even heard of, much less knew something about (OK, and Tammy, even though she didn't make the cut). Reba... Dolly... Cash... Emmylou... Garth... Waylon... Kristofferson... were they even approached ?

Certainly regarding point 2, the talent you'd have expected to be willing compared to the turn-out was a paltry showing. Presumably everything aside from the leads had been cut before the guest parts too, so what, a day's work? All I can imagine is record company politics playing a role - or at least that's what I'd rather imagine than the Boys' stock having fallen so far that they could no longer get them. Just the idea of Emmylou harmonizing with them is magnificent - if it had been a Parsons' song, even better.

Come to think of it, I think 'The Beach Boys go Country' would have been a far better album than 'Country goes The Beach Boys'.

This was hardly an isolated incident thought was it? The last time the BBs had their finger on the pulse of what was happening was Holland. Okay, BB85 was also an attempt to be current - look how that ended up. While it's a nice dream the BBs were never going to become Godfathers of the Indie scene in the early 90s. They were dorks pushing 50.

Following your and guitarfool's posts, I'd add that the autobiography seemingly hurt Carl very deeply. We don't know exactly how close they remained until the end. And keep in mind it was Carl who sidelined Brian's stage role in the late 70s - early 80s. So yes, he could be his brother's toughest critic.

I have never liked Mike's style or his arrogant and boastful attitude as expressed onstage and in interviews. He is obviously a good singer but I think his importance to the Beach Boys is overstated by him and his defenders. Some of his early lyrics are good but his later lyrics are usually excruciating.

Perhaps some of the legends about the negative influence he has had on the band are over the top. But too many of the arguments in favour of absolving him from blame are based on his own self-serving testimony.

Timing was always crazy. People aren't always ready to digest what an avant guard artist releases.  Even Brian has said that in the Smiley interviews...

Who knew country would become sexy? They were ahead of the curve with Stars and Stripes and a little behind it with SIP and Baywatch.  Had it been a real studio album instead of on ProTools (and leading edge in a techie way) but with that authentic human groove, things might be different. It isn't bad music.  I sort of get annoyed when the UK or other countries get an "enhanced" or deluxe version and they are US guys.  Guess I'm just "territorial" like that!  :lol

And, I used to wake up my youngest for school (like trying to raise the dead!)  :lol with DWB with Lorrie Morgan! They did assemble the greats for that album.  Country was becoming sexy at that time, but it wasn't there, yet... ;)

The 1991 pseudobiography hurt everyone whose name wasn't Eugene Landy or Alexandra Morgan. I'm omitting Brian's name as his involvement in the whole sorry mess was on the slight side of minimal. He stated under other that his contribution was seven or eight hours of interviews, and that he'd never read it. In private, he's (accurately) called it "a piece of sh*t". Whatever the merit of the 2016 reboot, it has to be better.

This x 100.

Leaf and Priore did their homework.

myKe luHv   :P

This taps into just how segmented country music really is, and has been for decades. The artists listed, Garth Brooks aside, eventually fell into the "legends" category even by the 90's. They made their mark in previous decades, but modern country radio would rarely play their songs. Garth Brooks changed country music, some would say for better or for worse depending on their views, but they were saying that about Willie, Kris, Waylon, etc back in the eraly 70's too. They were changing country too much, the diehard fans who tuned into the Grand Ol Opry radio show would say...yet they changed it for the better. Expanded its appeal, brought a different take on the genre into the genre. Garth Brooks sold records outside the "country" genre, he got the treasured "crossover" markets and demographics to buy country records, which was the plan all along. Garth was all about the marketing which is why some really didn't dig what he was doing...but I digress.

The Stars & Stripes project wanted to tap into the "modern country" demographic. It wasn't necessarily the "carry your own lawn chair to the concert" demographic who was the target, it was the hit country radio market they wanted to tap into. Some of the artists in S&S did in fact go on to become major stars in commercial country and on country radio, but at that time 1996 they may have been the equivalent of a modern band today with maybe two radio hits under their belt but who are still playing package tours and mid-level venues. They broke, but not yet cracked the big time arena market yet.

So consider if S&S was supposed to tap into that younger "hit country" or "crossover country" or "modern country" or "pop country" market, the kind of new records that got played regularly on country radio that didn't play nostalgia, they'd go after some of those artists in that category. If they got Kris or Waylon to cut a song, chances are it wouldn't get on modern country radio especially in 1996.

Willie Nelson - The clout came from landing a major artist, in fact one of the most recognizable country artists period, I'd suggest perhaps as much for the industry and agents/managers as the artists themselves. You get Willie on a project, instant credibility, and if other artists' managers and agents and even labels were approached about the project, the thought would be "Willie is involved? We're in." It was an industry thing. However, if you were looking to crack country radio and the younger modern country demographic, you wouldn't fill the album with with Willie's peers and all of his cohorts because that's not the demographic you're trying to tap into.

Country music as a genre has as many segments and sub-genres and labels as any style of music, not to mention some odd attitudes toward tradition versus modern appeal, wanting to cross over versus stay true to the old traditions...it's bizarre sometimes.

Maybe I should have done this instead, save all the words... ;D

Click on this link, it goes directly to the most current Billboard top country chart. See how many names are recognizable to those who don't follow country or listen to modern country radio. Then consider that the artists on S&S were on this same chart back in 95-96 with few exceptions, and that's what S&S was aiming for:

http://www.billboard.com/charts/country-songs (http://www.billboard.com/charts/country-songs)

I agree with your first sentence. Mike's negative influence - or any influence - is overrated. I also agree with your second sentence. Too many arguments absolving Mike from blame are coming from Mike himself, which ties in with the first sentence. If the perception of Mike's negative influence is, as you say, "over the top", then maybe fans need a dose of reality. Mike's simply supplying it. But there is a point that is still being missed.

Regardless of whether these "bad" ideas came from Mike Love directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter. The ideas had to be approved and executed by the group. Mike was not a dictator. It had to be done via a vote, with signed contracts, riders, etc. - or just VERBAL consent and approval. Any form of approval you choose, the group carried out the idea(s). Nobody was forcing them to do anything. Could Brian, Dennis, or Carl Wilson actually be forced to do...anything?

You can decide for yourself why the group agreed to the bad ideas and choices that they did. But I find it hard to believe it was because of Mike Love's charming personality and good looks. How many times have posters ON THIS BOARD stated how Mike - because he wasn't a musician - wasn't even respected by the Wilsons, how his role in the band was intentionally diminished over time, how he was an embarrassment to the group. Then why would they listen to him? Of all people, why would they listen to HIM?

What possible reasons? Could it be alimony and child support payments? Maybe boat refurbishing loans? How about past due mortgages? Outrageous doctor bills? Expensive cars? Girlfriends? Cocaine?

Well, somebody agreed to put more oldies in the setlist, somebody agreed to the recording of the M.I.U. album, somebody agreed to the disco version of "Here Comes The Night", somebody agreed to "keepin' the summer alive", somebody agreed to do a video with The Fat Boys, somebody agreed to appear on Full House, somebody agreed to the configuration of the Still Cruisin' album, somebody OK'd the recording and release of Summer In Paradise complete with John Stamos' lead vocal on "Forever", somebody agreed to appear and perform "Summer Of Love" on Baywatch, somebody participated in the Stars & Stripes project - both the album and the Fan Fair concert, somebody voted to give Mike the touring license, somebody CONTINUES to give Mike the touring license, and on and on. Mike Love didn't do all of that alone.

And who would those "somebodies" be? Well, that would Mike Love AND his bandmates - Brian Wilson, Dennis Wilson, Carl Wilson, Al Jardine, and Bruce Johnston. In the words of Fredo Corleone, "Did you ever think about that? Did you ever once think about that?" :police:

Sheriff - In recent years JC Penney wanted to try to reverse some of their losses and decreasing hold in the retail sales and department store market, they had once been among the iconic American brands and a retail powerhouse for decades until the business in general began to change, leaving Penney's brand and image seemingly stuck in the past. The Penney's board hired an executive who had been with Apple previously to try re-energizing the company and reversing their fortunes which were on a downward trend.

This Apple exec steps in, and proceeds with his "vision" and plan for the Penney brand. It was all but a reboot, or a total revamping of everything from how the store interacted with customers, to the look, to the overall day-to-day ops of the stores.

This former Apple exec's "vision" ended up nearly destroying the Penney brand for good. The loyal customers they did have rejected the changes. They still looked for weekly sales and special buys via ads that the Apple exec thought were too old-fashioned for his modernization plan. They wanted some of the old JC Penney to still be recognizable, and when it changed too much too fast, those loyal customers bailed too. The new, more tuned into Apple style business operations customer demographic never warmed up to the "new" ways of JC Penney either. Thinking perhaps..."I don't want to buy a pair of Khakis like I just bought this iPhone at the Apple Store". Etc etc etc.

Point is, it was one of the biggest corporate flops of the past decade. The Apple exec ended up getting shown the door after he all but marched the company off a cliff. JC Penney is still recovering after realizing JC Penney is NOT and should NOT be The Apple Store for obvious reasons. You'll have to check how they're doing now, I stopped following it.

But the point also that I'm getting at is this:

If the board of directors for JC Penney brought this Apple exec in to develop and execute a business plan to help the business, if everyone from high level management to mid level managers to buyers to the individual store managers and floor workers put their trust in the former Apple exec's vision and plan but it ended up almost destroying the company...

Is it their fault too that it failed? Or is it more a case of the leader who was trusted to lead the company simply failing to do what he was charged with doing for a variety of reasons, which was as in all business to make that business better? In the case of JC Penney, it must have been a cold shot in the face to realize Penney customers are not the same as Apple devotees. But the "blame" if you will rests more on the guy who put the entire fortunes of the company on what turned out to be a flawed premise from the start.

Did S & S v.1 go to #12 on the Billboard Country chart?

  Sorry, no. SIP does not keep company with the likes of KTSA, 85, STILL CRUISIN. It keeps company with the likes of METAL MACHINE MUSIC, HAVING FUN WITH ELVIS ON STAGE, which is to say, the worst albums ever released by major artists. If Brian were on it, as is, it would only be more embarrassing, if such a thing is possible for this wretched record. SIP has two redeemable moments - the title song, and when it stops playing.

You're correct but 101 on Billboard.

So, it "crossed over" into country.   ;)

Ahead if it's time...

If JC Penney's board had let the company slide and each member had taken turns implementing previous failed plans over two decades and had also approved and participated in the latest failed plan it seems they would share the blame, if any.

And S & Sv.1 also had 4 singles chart, 3 in the high 60s and low 70s on the US Country chart and 1 at 16 on the AC chart? Are we calling that a failure for an AC/Country (or any genre) album?

The blame is shared, or should be shared. Somebody - the Board Of Directors? - had to look at the incoming Apple exec's idea/plan and vote on it at a corporate meeting. If the plan is approved via a vote, and that plan fails, then not only the person who developed the idea, but the people who gave it "the green light" must be held accountable. In regard to The Beach Boys, not only is the person who thought of the plan - in this discussion Mike Love - should be held accountable, but also the people who approved it - in this case the other band members.

As far as the mid level managers, buyers, and store managers are concerned...now you are talking about the execution of the plan. There is a little bit of apples and oranges at play here with the example you used. Obviously with the subordinates the degree of accountability is limited. They aren't the ones who agreed to the plan; they are merely carrying it out. Their roles in the success or failure of the plan is limited in scope. But I'm not criticizing The Beach Boys for the way they executed and carried out their plans (although there are many instances where I/one could). The Beach Boys accountability and blame lies with the approval or accepting of the plan in the first place. When Mike made "his sales pitch", they could've rolled their eyes, laughed at him, and kicked his ass out the door. And maybe they did that. But they also went along with it. They voted for it. And for that, they share the blame...except on this board.

EDIT: Cam beat me to it with his response, made with much less words... :-D

Sears has been able to "tweak" it's brick and mortar stores with Land's End. Excellent quality, mostly 100% cotton, in a separate department next to the Sears cheesy dime store clothing brands.  

They didn't change everything, didn't alienate their demographic, but have been steadily bringing more customers who would not be caught dead buying clothing, there, outside of kids' clothing, or appliances.

It's a good analogy, except, if it's creativity, it requires projection into the population, like test-marketing to see if the product will fly. Surf's Up was "test marketed" by Leonard Bernstein on Inside Pop...

There are a few excerpts on Yahoo that seem to be from the documentary Beach Boys: Nashville Sounds. They make it look like Brian is involved and even enjoying himself on those sessions for whatever it is worth.

I take it Alan Boyd may have been in attendance at some, most, or all of the sessions. Maybe he will come by explain how they went.

What if that JC Penney hire and board had also participated in a campaign 8 years earlier that had revived the brand and given the company their best sales year in the history of the store?

Edit: Wait. Is the Apple exec Mike or Joe? I guess Joe would be the outsider with the supposed "failed" plan, so never mind, Joe didn't have anything to do with Kokomo as far as I know.

So the responsibility for the JC Penney debacle is akin to 'shared blame' for those who brought in the Apple exec, those who trusted his plans and visions for changing the company, and those thousands of workers who implemented that plan because they were working for the organization with the goal of improving it? Is it a blanket kind of shared blame where even if some members of the board or other execs voiced opposition, they'd get blame too because they got outvoted but still went along with the plan as part of the company "team"? Should those "no" votes have resigned from the company because they thought the plan was flawed, or should they have stayed the course and played ball, more or less?

In other words, the entire JC Penney organization shares blame for an executive's business plan that nearly sank the company. f***, I'm glad I didn't work for JC Penney, I'd have a hard time going to sleep at night knowing it was my fault the entire business structure almost went belly-up due to me managing the men's slacks department at the King Of Prussia mall.

The ultimate fault rests with the person who was given the task of coming up with a plan and executing it. Unless all of those around him had ESP and were able to see that a plan pitched to them would fail before it got rolling and had enough support to veto it.

I, for one, think it does.  The best song on 85 is the hum-drum "Getcha Back"?  And they couldn't even come up with enough original material to fill an album for STILL CRUISIN??? 

Hard times, man!  Hard times!

Apple demographic is elitist and top-down.  JC Penney is common man and bottom-up.  iPhone 5c. It is an upside down view.  And a bad fit.

Sears was conservative bringing in only one higher end label. It gradually brought in new foot traffic. People adapt slowly to change.  They like what is familiar.  ;)

If the board was also the company, yes, just as much as their fellow board member who didn't have ESP and wasn't able to see that a plan pitched to him would fail before it got rolling and had enough support to veto it. Except S & S v.1 wasn't a failure and didn't drive the brand to ruin, I just don't think the analogy is working.

Then when it seems like Mike more often has credited himself for Kokomo reaching #1 on the pop charts, that wouldn't be right since the whole Beach Boys organization and all personnel would have been involved in the process from the initial plan? What would Mike think about that suggestion if someone ever challenged with it in an interview?

You're onto something. But artistic credit (or merit) does not equal responsibility for career moves.

I don't remember him crediting himself except to spell out the contribution of others and his limited contribution but yes, if he ever did/does, it was a group credit/blame. I have seen Mike credit Kokomo as the group's biggest #1 (or something) and that it was without Brian which is probably true (however I'm guessing Brian may have also given his approval at some level since he did participate in the Spanish version).

Ok, Kokomo just hit #1, and now you, guitarfool, have been made manager and been given control over the band's direction. What next? I don't see an obvious move.

Maybe do what Aerosmith did, and bring in outside writers and song doctors to collaborate with Mike and Terry? Love/Melcher/Desmond Childs?

  "Getcha Back" is infinitely better than anything on SIP.

  There was enough new, or relatively new, material for the entirety of STILL CRUISIN', but the group and Capitol opted to go for oldies to fill out the record. Something like "The Spirit of Rock & Roll" or "Let's Go to Heaven in My Car", which would have fit into the album's "concept." Had this approach been taken, STILL CRUISIN' would stand as an OK record.


  SIP: the worst album ever released by a major rock band. The fact that it has been disowned by its makers tells you the whole story.

  Let's say STILL CRUISIN' had ended with the following tracks rather than the oldies: "Let's Go to Heaven in My Car" (Brian solo from one of the POLICE ACADEMY films), "Oh Lord" (an '85 outtake) and "The Spirit of Rock & Roll". STILL CRUISIN' would likely be remembered as a fairly entertaining mish-mash.

 Quite frankly, The Beach Boys - all of 'em - were cowards to fill out STILL CRUISIN' with oldies.

LA Times
The Beach Boys' New Splash
May 26, 1989|STEVE HOCHMAN

The Beach Boys are riding their biggest wave in two decades. They're coming off their first No. 1 single in 22 years ("Kokomo"), "genius" Brian Wilson is back in the fold, they've re-turned to Capitol Records and are on the road with Chicago for a hot-ticket summer tour.

You'd think these purveyors of good vibrations and endless summer fun, fun, fun would be coasting along quite comfortably. But the mood at a Culver City sound stage during the band's final rehearsal for the Chicago tour was anything but light.

The tension seemed to mirror the band's determination to take advantage of the current resurgence and re-establish itself as a contemporary hit-maker--or be doomed to a life as nostalgia merchants.

Carl Wilson, who had spent much of the night before working on new songs in a recording studio, declined to be interviewed. And Wilson, Bruce Johnston, Mike Love and Al Jardine seemed pretty businesslike as they worked out choreography steps to "Barbara Ann" with the six bikinied surfer girls who are decorating the stage on this tour (which includes shows Saturday at the Pacific Amphitheatre and Sunday at the Hollywood Bowl).

Explained Johnston, who joined the Beach Boys in 1965 after Brian Wilson gave up full-time touring: "I don't want the Beach Boys to be the futile endless road show of 'The King and I' or 'I Love Lucy' reruns. I live, eat and breathe getting on the radio. I just think, 'How can we get back on the radio?' "

Johnston didn't pause before answering himself: "With great songs, that's how!"

An odd question, coming not long after the band's "Kokomo," a song from the "Cocktail" movie score, became the Beach Boys first No. 1 single since 1966's "Good Vibrations."

And that was only one highlight from what was the group's best year in eons. It began with its induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, built through the attention focused on the solo album debut of Brian Wilson--the architect of the Beach Boys' often-imitated sound--and crested with "Kokomo."

The new Capitol release will be the band's first album in four years. Titled "Still Cruisin' " and due this summer, the record will be a combination of movie-related tracks including "Kokomo" and "Wipe Out" (a pairing with the rapping Fat Boys) and several new songs. After that, the contract contains an option for an album of all new material. Johnston calls it "the album of doom."

"Just because you've had a No. 1 doesn't mean you're automatic," Johnston said during a rehearsal break, acknowledging that the Beach Boys could go on forever recreating the endless summer with its stockpile of old hits. But that isn't good enough for him.

"It's records that matter," he said. "There's no point in touring without new records. It's just huge payments to me. We've got to be better than that."

David Berman, president of Capitol Records, was pleased to hear that the Beach Boys are going into their new arrangement with the label with that attitude.

"I think it's a pivotal point in their career," he said. "I hesitate to say with them that it's ever make or break. As a touring entity so continually successful, I wouldn't say that if this record doesn't happen it's the end of them as a recording entity. They're too good and represent too much so that they won't ever be dated. But on the other hand, I'm glad they feel that way because it bodes well for the record."

It's clear to the Beach Boys what Capitol expects from them.

"Three hit singles, to tell you the truth," Jardine said. "That's what they told us."

"That's fair," Berman said. "That's what I would hope for."

But even one hit, coming on the heels of "Kokomo," would pay double dividends for Capitol, which still owns the Beach Boys' '60s catalogue, some of which is now on CD, with the much-anticipated and much-delayed CD release of the hailed "Pet Sounds" 1966 album still to come.

Said Berman: "We do anticipate that a new hit Beach Boys record will help us exploit the catalogue, including but not limited to a 'Pet Sounds' CD."

Much is being made of Brian Wilson's role with the group. He will play only selected dates on this tour, including the Southland shows, with a four-song solo set included. But he will be working throughout the summer in the studio creating new songs for the band, which is essentially the role he has played for the past 25 years.

"We're going back to the original formula," said Dr. Eugene Landy, Brian's controversial therapist, guide and co-writer who hovered around while Brian was being interviewed. "Brian is most valuable to the Beach Boys using his time in the studio."

Still, many are perceiving this as a return to the fold for Brian, given his solo activities and the fact that he was not involved with "Kokomo." That impression was heightened last year when Love said in interviews that "Kokomo's" commercial superiority over Brian's solo album might prove to Brian that he needed the Beach Boys.

And Brian himself spoke of being accepted back into the Beach Boys.

"I'm very happy about it," he said. "And Mike seems to be happy for me being in the Beach Boys."

In any case, Brian's presence is paramount to Capitol. "Brian's involvement on this record is extremely important," Berman said. "But the fact that Mike Love and (producer) Terry Melcher came up with 'Kokomo' on their own without Brian means you've got a tremendous amount of talent there. I'm confident we can have quality material from all the Beach Boys."

Bruce was right back in 1989 in calling the next album of all new material - which would turn out to be Summer In Paradise - "the album of doom". But maybe in a different way than he intended it.  :lol

Exactly. It's no contest. KTSA, BB85, Still Cruisin all had hits and charting songs on them (Wipeout, Getcha Back, Goin On, etc). Each of these albums charted. Again, that Summer in Paradise was the first Beach Boys studio album that failed to chart says a lot - not to mention most critics, fans, Beach Boys historians call it their worst album as well. Not to mention it's not sold anymore. Not to mention no one in the Beach Boys management seems to be eager to re-release it.

Lest we forget how godawful the lyrics are on some of these songs:

"Yeah I'll take you to the movies
But I'm no fool
First I'll get you on the beach
Or in a swimming pool
Doing unto others is the Golden Rule
But doing it with you would be so
Very cool"

I think Peter Carlin put it best, "But even the lite-metal guitars on Dennis's once-understated ballad weren't quote as painful as Mike's "Summer of Love" which climaxed, so to speak, in a hail of yucky sexual references (Mike in Señor Suave mode, crooning about the joys of doing "it" in disparate, summery venues, including a beach and a swimming pool) that seem designed to excite the wrath of the same Parents Music Resource Center Mike had once supported."

And partially getting back on the main topic at hand: this was the same album that featured Van Dyke Parks playing accordion on one song....here is part of that story from a 2000 article:

"Parks recalls he saw Love one final time when Melcher called him to Monterey to play synthesizer on the Beach Boys' final album, recorded without Brian, 1992's dreadful Summer in Paradise. A neighbor offered to fly the musician to Monterey in his one-engine plane if Parks agreed to cover gas and other expenses. When he got there, Love was meditating in Melcher's living room. "For the first time in 30 years, he was able to ask me directly, once again, 'What do those lyrics -- Over and over the crow flies, uncover the cornfield -- mean?'" Parks said about that meeting in '95. "And I was  able to tell him, once again, 'I don't know.' I have no idea what those words mean. I was perhaps thinking of Van Gogh's wheat field or an idealized agrarian environment. Maybe I meant nothing, but I was trying to follow Brian Wilson's vision at that time." Parks says Love asked if he could fly back to L.A. in the plane with him. "We had a nice chat and he insisted that he wanted to split the cost of the flight with me, so he gave me a card with his number on it. The next morning, I called to discover it was a disconnected number. And that was the last time I saw Mike Love.""

And from last month's PR 'I-Need-To-Back-Pedal-And-Let-People-Know-I-Love-Brian' bonanza:
“By the way,” Johnston chimes in, “he plays a 100-year-old accordion on ‘Kokomo.’ ”
“That certainly gives a lie to this idea that we don’t like Van Dyke,” - Mike Love

ok Mike :lol

And notice even the New York Times writer calls Summer in Paradise "dreadful" - HE MUST BE A BRIANISTA :lol

Exactly Rab, Mike is a bitter old f*ckwit who screwed and ripped off VDP 30 years after smile. Plus having vulgar and crass lyrics showing his creepy "romantic" skills.

It's hard to take VDP verbatim after all the crap he's been posting recently. I think it's a poetic license in order to stab ML and fulfill his fixation with Mike.

Those 'lyrics' reminded me of Shakespeare - specifically "Was ever woman in this humour wooed? Was ever woman in this humour won?"

And that's the ONLY way they remind me of Shakespeare.

:lol :lol

Hard to take a story told to a New York Times reporter in 2000 verbatum because of a sparse handful of Twitter posts from the year 2014+?

Adding this one to my list of most ridiculous Mike apologist defenses - and the list is growing ever larger with each passing day :lol

Mike is Shakespeare in his sick mind. :lol

No wonder BW doesn't want to go in the "room" with Mike.

Exactly- it is not fact checked.  On his Twitter on June 26, he saluted Abner Doubleday as the inventor of baseball. No way was he the inventor.  

It was an evolution of town ball and rounders.   There was in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, a bylaw, on the books, from September 5, 1791, advising not to play "wicket, cricket, baseball, bat, football, cat, fives...within eighty yards of said Meeting House."  

And on July 1, VDP is saluting George Sand as a "poetess" - she was a novelist. Big difference in literature between a poet and novelist.

George Sand (born Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin) is said to have stretched out underneath Chopin's piano while he played.

So Van Dyke Parks tells a story to a reporter who works for the most well known and (arguably) respected newspapers of all time about a conversation he had with Mike and how Mike stuck him with paying for jet fuel...You guys are comparing that to Park's getting some trivial facts wrong on some Twitter posts?

Seriously, the lengths you guys will go to defend Mike is astounding.

It's like at the level of them backing up Mike saying the earth was flat.

Let's see...doesn't BRI have a corporate phone number?

I'm not defending Mike.  

I'm calling out VDP on his published inaccuracies.  

People take whatever comes out of his mouth as gospel.

Boo hoo.

Published inaccuracies? A twitter feed? Good luck with that one. Don't call him out here, tweet him back and get very upset about calling a dead novelist a poet. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

His published inaccuracies in a couple trivial Twitter posts regarding literature and baseball from 2014+ have absolutely nothing to do with the incredibly slim possibility he lied to the worlds most well known newspaper in 2000 about this Mike meetup in Melcher's living room and the jet fuel payment snub that followed.

Nice try though.

Every interview Mike Love has ever done has a ton of published inaccuracies.

Every print and electronic media source is subject to scrutiny and bias.

Parks holds himself out as an intellectual.

Absent witnesses who can support this, I'm not buying it.

Didn't he refer to Brian as a buffoon? Or had "buffoon-like" behavior?

Please. 

Well, if it was in fact true, exactly as described? If there were video evidence of such? What then? Would that at least prove that it was a crappy, underhanded thing for Mike to have done? Or would that lead to yet another attempt at finding a way to justify his behavior?

Exactly, these posters are practically PR people working for the loves with all these lame "defenses"

Who cares?
Parks knows where the courthouse is.
The man can't tell you what his lyrics mean.

Mike can tell you what his lyrics mean in "summer of love", he wants to bang women in a pool...... ::)

You say the story wasn't fact-checked - you know this for a fact? Uhhhh no you don't. I'd be hard pressed to believe the reporter (who again works for the most respected and well known and 2nd most circulated newspaper of all time) didn't call up Mike and/or fax the story over to give Mike the chance to deny it and tell his side of the story. That's how it's usually done when it comes to major newspapers. But great that you magically know this story wasn't fact-checked.

I still don't understand how Park's getting some trivial facts wrong on a few Twitter posts has anything to do with him recalling a story from 8 years prior.

One question: who was fired?  The guy from Apple or the board who went along with his ideas?  The answer to this question tells you who is considered most responsible.  I didn't know anything about the history/origin of S&S until I read this thread.  I think it was a mistake, but no worse than other mistakes made by other band members, and I don't see it as a reason to dislike ML.  Mike has given us a lot of reasons to dislike him and as much as I dislike Kokomo and S&S and SIP and Uncle Jessie and the current touring band, those are just reasons to dislike his taste, choices, apparent preference for commerce over art, etc.  His public actions, comments about Brian, and lawsuits are the reasons to dislike him as a person.  Those things may not compel some, but it should be clear to all why he is disliked by so many.

EoL

Those twitter posts are apparently there to educate the public.  And, they are false. Those are two I picked up on because I've done some research in both areas.

And, I don't put too much stock in the LA Times.  They (the media) are subject to error and manipulation like ABC news and George Stephanopoulos, being a Clinton operative and donor to the Clinton foundation and still working the political beat. Unbiased? Not. I think it is naive to think the media is all on the level.

Whatever the story is, doesn't affect me.  So I don't care.  I care how they perform when they are in front of me.  I care about their work enduring.  The rest is nonsense.

But, I am impressed that Parks can play a hundred year old accordion.  You want to talk about what he has accomplished, fine.  I like the movie Popeye which he was in. I'll talk about that.

Boo hoo on the rest.

Again, you still aren't telling me what some trivial wrong facts from a few Twitter posts in 2014+ has to do with a newspaper article in the New York Times from the year 2000. You keep monotonously reiterating this Twitter argument without making a clear connection between the two.

As for your outlook on certain newspapers and news outlets, I couldn't care less what your opinion is about them. I see that Mike has never publicly denied this story, nor was the NYTs forced to the redact the story. And it's a pretty popular story that has circulated numerous times on this very board that Mike supposedly reads while he eats his Wheaties in the morning. So again, I'm hard pressed to believe that this is all a fabrication.


Posts #379, #382, #386, and #393 refute that.

Rab-he made two boo-boos in less than a week. He was called out on the Abner Doubleday on his twitter. I'm won't be joining twitter to joust with him.  He can't even tell you what his lyrics mean. Fans wondered for decades, what do they mean. It is not unimportant.

Where is the cred of a lyricist who cannot explain his work? Writers can generally tell where their imagery is coming from or what inspired them. He can't.

That is three strikes in my book!

He is O-U-T!  :lol

So, who's winning?

So if I have this correct: Van Dyke Parks tells the world’s second most circulated newspaper about a moment he lived through where Mike Love snubbed jet fuel costs. Only we can’t trust the newspaper because it is subject to manipulation such as a Clinton donor working for the political beat. And we can't trust Van Dyke because 14 years later Park’s makes an error in calling Abner Doubleday the inventor of baseball and George Sands a poetess. And because of this Van Dyke Park’s initial story falls apart. Gotcha.

You claim the story was never fact-checked. You have no basis for this claim.
You allude to the idea that Parks misremembering a few facts makes his recalling a moment he actually lived through questionable. This argument doesn't fly whatsoever.
You claim you don't care about this story. Your last 6 posts in this thread prove otherwise.

I say three strikes and you're out, filledeplage.

Three strikes and VDP is out according to you. How many strikes does it take to get Mike out?

As for the Cabinessence lyric, sometimes we have to search for our own meanings, which doesn't mean the lyricist didn't include them. This from Wikipedia:

"Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield
Over and over the thresher and hovers the wheatfield

"If the listener rearranges the last half of each line, they get "over and over the crow cries and hovers the wheatfield / over and over the thresher uncovers the cornfield", which makes them clearer. Parks penned additional lyrics to Cabinessence not heard on any official release, nor bootlegged. They are unknown to have ever been recorded during tracking sessions..."

Rab - it wasn't my story to fact check. Check Park's Twitter Feed for those days. He is pontificating.

And I have no reason to care about his jet fuel story. He had to get back anyway. He gave Mike a ride.

He wasn't "misremembering" facts. He was asserting facts-of-the-day.  

They should be facts and not fiction.