The Smiley Smile Message Board

Recent short interview/article from September 16th. It's the usual local fluff piece mostly. But Mike is asked about the L&M film, and offers a "no comment", and also briefly discusses the 50th tour, reiterating his assertion that he was "not allowed" to write with Brian. The pertinent portions:

The band, with Brian Wilson back on board, released an album of original material in 2012, titled “That’s Why God Made the Radio,” followed by a 50-year reunion tour involving Love, Wilson and original member Al Jardine. As the tour was winding down, Wilson had expressed a desire to continue, but Love nixed the idea, citing commitments with his current lineup of the Beach Boys.

“I love Brian, I love hanging out with him; I love being at the piano with him. I mean we’ve done some history-making stuff together. But on that 50th-anniversary tour, I was told that I’d be able to get together with Brian and write, but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself. I’ll leave it at that.”

Love has no comment — because he hasn’t seen it, he said — on his portrayal in the recent film “Love & Mercy,” told from the perspective of Wilson.


http://www.bakersfield.com/entertainment/2015/09/16/to-bakersfield-with-love-beach-boys-return-like-a-homecoming.html

Mike is so full of crap with the handlers implying...  ::)

I wasn't able to pull up the article, since I don't subscribe.  

All I saw was a picture of Bruce.  

Oh well, I'd like to see the 2nd part of that interview from a couple weeks ago.  

I just saw that as well.  I will be attending this show tonight, only my second M&B show ever and my first in 10 years.  I am attending only because it is in the town where I live and my law firm is the named sponsor of the opening night of the Fair. My partners know what a big fan I am so I have 2 seats "on the stage", off to the side of course. I'm looking forward to hearing this iteration of the group, though.

I saw them last month.  I used to be skeptical of the Mike and Bruce Beach Boys.  Not anymore.  It was a terrific show, and if they're near me again next year for a reasonable price, I'll be back. 

I subscription doesn't appear to be required to read this Bakersfield article. It's just one of those deals where you have to answer the pop-up question, and then the rest of the text appears.

But seriously, all of it was standard local show promotion fare. The only thing that hasn't been in every one of these articles for the past 20 years were the bits I excerpted above, and even those bits aren't comments he hasn't made before.

It's just disappointing the internal group dialogue, at least from the "fan" perspective, hasn't changed.

Courtesy of the PSML, here's a new review for  the M&B band, along with a Brian concert comparison/review:

http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/sep/21/the-beach-boys-showcase-their-many-many-many-hits/

On PSML, the reviewer added these comments: 

>>Hey there. I'm a longtime list member who finally saw Mike and Bruce on Saturday at a casino here in Las Vegas.
I wrote a review for my employer and thought I'd share; I tried to be diplomatic.

I say that because I'd seen Brian three times -- once each in his 50s, 60s and 70s -- and was surprised that the most recent show,
also in Las Vegas, was the best of the three.
He seemed far more relaxed than during the Pet Sounds and Smile shows, and Al's presence really added something.
So I couldn't help but favorably compare that July show to the one I saw a few days ago, and Mike and Bruce clearly embrace nostalgia a lot more than
Brian's band does. Even the performance of "Pisces Brothers," the one "new" song in M&B's setlist, features images of Mike and George Harrison in India in 1968.
The song kind of creates the false narrative that Mike and George once were besties.

  The crowds at the Brian and M&B shows were quite different, with the latter skewing older.
That might just be a function of the show being at a casino, rather than a theater.
As I mention in my review, Bruce's vocals are really faint these days;
 he only handled lead vocals for a couple of songs but apparently carries more
of the vocal workload in other shows.

  Speaking of Bruce, I interviewed him before the show.
He mostly said things you'd expect; he praised Mike and said he deserves as much credit for the band's success as Brian, and that Mike had
taught him tons about the music business. I semi-jokingly asked how he and Mike can stand each other after 50 years, and he seemed taken aback by the question.
He also said Mike has come up with every setlist since the 1960s, but I'm guessing that might not be true for the reunion show or the unplugged concerts back
in 1993 or so. He was pretty open about continuing to tour because it's making him money, which is fine.
He sounded vigorous and spirited when we chatted, which is why I was surprised his voice wasn't stronger in concert.
Oh, and I asked if/when "Mike Love, Not War" might come out. He said he wasn't sure why Mike hadn't released it yet.

 Brian  <<

So who is not allowing him to see Love & Mercy? You'd think he'd want to support his Cousin Brian that he cares about so much, so it must be some evil handlers... Mike's handlers are really getting out of control, not even letting him see a movie!

I noticed that M&B review mentioned a song called "Let's Go Surfin" during the early 'surf' part of the show.  I'm assuming that's "Surfin Sufari."  

I thought Bruce sounded good on Please Let Me Wonder, but I agree that he sounded weak on You're So Good to Me when I saw them. 

Say what you want about the dreaded un-named "handers"...but just because you don't want to think there are any doesn't mean there aren't any. It's more subtle and clever then you'd think. Like Mike, I'll leave it at that.

No, don't. You should blow this case wide open and tell us what you mean! Who are the subtle, clever handlers?

Mike doesn't "leave it at that," he insinuates, sneers, makes cracks about how prescription drugs are controlling BW. He's not "leaving it at that."

I think Brian hides behind his handlers.

How about leaving it in the garbage bin where it belongs?

You seem fairly confident about that. How long have you been living with the Wilson family?  ???

Consider a hypothetical: You're a well known musician. You've been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder by a team of more than qualified doctors. You have a long history of depression and anxiety. You're emotionally fragile. But you're currently being treated for these issues by these more than qualified doctors. You have an old friend/collaborator who wants to meet up and work with you on some new songs. This old friend, through the media, has recently told the world that you're "controlled" by prescription medications. This old friend has recently told the world that you're overweight, out of shape, and that you don't pay much attention. Your old friend openly says he loves your musical abilities but then he doesn't openly support/comment on the recent work you did without him (and even seemingly passes judgement about your production style on that music, which he hasn't heard). This old friend has recently sued you for putting the name of your former band on a freebie CD for fans. This old friend also sued another old bandmate of yours for identifying himself as a former member of that band in promotions for his solo tour.

Again, you've been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, you have a long history of depression and anxiety, you are emotionally fragile...But you are currently being treated for these issues. Would your doctors recommend that you hang out with this old friend? Would your loved ones be thrilled about you hanging out with this old friend? Would you yourself want to hang out with this old friend?

The answer is pretty obvious, but I'm sure some people here will refuse to see the light. No, it would probably be recommended that you don't see this old friend. You yourself would probably not want to see this person...or at least work with him in close capacity.

Of course, looking at this in the logical way that I've written above labels you as someone looking for a villain. You're a "Brianista", you're "digging a hole". Thankfully the rest of us not living in a Rod Serling script can see the obvious.

TL;DR if I was being treated for schizoaffective disorder and a lifetime of depression and anxiety, I'd probably shy away from hanging out with someone who recently told thousands (potentially millions) of people that I'm overweight and controlled.

Most of these guys, including BOTH Brian and Mike, have "camps" or "teams" or whatever you want to call them. As with most well-known, celebrities (musician or otherwise), they have varying degrees of insulation.

But as has been pointed out by several well-respected BB scholars and journalists, there is no evidence that, during the C50 tour, anybody was keeping Mike from trying to write with Brian. As we discussed some time back, Mike saw Brian more consistently on a daily basis in 2012 than he had since probably 1981 or so. We've also heard that folks like Melinda and Joe Thomas did NOT follow the band out on their entire tour. Considering there *had* to be some downtime and a keyboard (several in fact!) at the ready, I'm surprised that there's no evidence (including any words from Mike himself) to indicate that Mike tried to broach writing with Brian.

Yes, I understand that subtle interpersonal dynamics and politics would not always make such a thing easy. But, contrary to folks who have assumed Brian kept Joe Thomas and Melinda and five bodyguards between he and Mike and all times during the tour, we've heard that none of that was going on.

I think the problem may well be that Brian didn't and/or doesn't want to write an album from scratch with Mike. Couple *that* with the possibility that Mike made no overtures during the tour towards trying to do so, and the whole argument falls apart.

To the degree any people in Brian's camp might not actively try to instigate a Brian/Mike collaboration, I would guess perhaps it might be because Brian doesn't want it. Has Mike *ever* even entertained the possibility that Brian himself doesn't want to write with Mike? It's the most convenient scenario to constantly complain about Brian, but blame everybody "around him" while assuring every interview that there's *no* problem between he and Brian. It also ignores Mike's "camp" and his degree of insulation/advice/management, etc.

No , don't leave it at that.  Name these handlers. I would like to know who they are.  A few members of SS were at a Barnes and Noble event for Love and Mercy in Tysons Corner , Va. Last week. I would ask them to chime in and identify the handlers they saw. 

Stellar post, Rab. Hoping everyone reads and understands this, but the "old friend" sadly won't-probably- unless someone posts this on his facebook page and even then, would consider it "toxic".

Good points all the way around. Mike does himself no favors with that brain and mouth of his. I'd be tickled to death that Brian finally received the professional help that he needed. Mike probably finds it hard to believe that Brian would reject him, and so, his ego must pass this blame off unto others (the "Handlers").

It's called denial. Has Mike ever selflessly publicly said positive stuff about Brian's non-BB accomplishments (those which have nothing to do with Mike) without sneaking in a backhanded insult, or without saying something self-congratulatory about his (Mike's) own accomplishments in the same sentence? I mean, in 50+ years, I'm not sure that's ever happened. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Just once I'd love to hear him congratulate Brian on an accomplishment, a job well done, and say he is happy and proud of Brian. Period! (And I bet Mike's most ardent defenders would love to hear such words come from Mike's mouth too!) One would think this would be a natural occurrence for someone who says they deeply care for and love another person, *especially* a person who has overcome adversity to the level of Brian. Right?

Ego makes people do very strange things.

Seriously... is there a single famous musician on the PLANET who would agree to work with Mike if Mike said all of the repeated slights and insults (being overweight, controlled, etc) about them in the media? It's not rocket science, Kokomoaists.

What kills me is that he just did one of the best interviews I've read from a Beach Boy in years. In that Rock Cellar Mag interview he went into great detail about his early life, growing into fame, all that stuff. I know it's gotta help when you have a solid interviewer, but I really hope Mike treats more interviews like that RCM one. I'm looking forward to reading part II whenever that drops.

To be fair, in this interview Mike says he and Brian each have a "side", nothing about handlers (unless I missed it).

What in the world do you think the word "side" meant?? The only thing you missed was the point.  ::)

Let me get this straight.

1. The Radio album is done and a big success.
2. The band is touring to great success. Brian, who admittedly wanted to limit the tour initially, is having a blast and wants to keep going.
3. Mike pulls the plug though because he "wasn't allowed" to write alone with Brian" on an album already done the year before? If he was so unhappy, he should have pulled the plug in the album pre-production stage.

Why can't Mike just say something like, "the tour had just run it's course" instead of these veiled insults at Brian?

These threads are really getting old, guys. Mike's a dick. He's always been a dick. He's always said shitty things about BW ... This goes back to media interviews in the '70s ("I'm not going out on the road like some broken down old rock star").

Mike comes off like a gentle old man in these recent interviews compared to stuff like the 1992 Goldmine article.

Brian has people around him taking care of business. Some of these people are likely involved in creative decisions as well as commercial ones. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Brian might not be calling all of the shots.

The problem I see on this board is that in "taking sides", folks are losing clarity and objectivity ... I doubt all of this stuff is blank and white, that's all.

Agreed, there's nothing new here in the interview. I don't see people taking sides so much as reacting to these interviews. If Mike would stop saying this stuff, that might go a ways towards stopping critical commentary. It's not a big story or anything. But we're at three years now since the end of C50, so it's not out of line to just check in to see that Mike is *still* implying people around/controlling Brian are doing, well, something Mike disagrees with.

I would also say that implying people around Brian are keeping Brian from writing with Mike (and also seemingly implying Brian *wants* to write with him) goes beyond just mentioning that Brian has a "team" around him that helps him with stuff. Again, both guys have agents/managers, etc.. Brian has never given an interview claiming that Mike *totally* wants to continue the reunion but people around Mike are keeping Mike from doing it.

I'm honestly baffled by what I interpret Mike's intentions are in his regular interviews. I'm trying to understand what he would truthfully want people to take away from his words. Does Mike desire for regular readers of his interviews to deduce some (or one) of the following?:

1. Brian wants to write some songs solely with Mike, but is being forceably not "allowed" to by mysterious handlers

2. Brian is being influenced by mysterious handlers to not want to work with Mike, and has been brainwashed to agree with them (or Brian is afraid to stand up to them, and do what his heart truly desires which is to write some songs solely with Mike)

3. Is there a 3rd option which I'm not able to see here?

I would think that if a reader is unable to objectively say a remotely critical thing about Mike's interviews, that the reader would be saying that one or more of these options is, in fact, correct.

Because I've never seen Mike say a peep about acknowledging the possibility that Brian actually didn't desire in his own heart to regularly work with Mike in that one-on-one capacity... I'm assuming that Mike considers that scenario to be an impossibility.

To give Mike the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's because Brian said nice things and made promises to Mike about songwriting in 2011/2012 (much like in '66/'67) that aren't/weren't always kept (instead of outright saying something more truthful along the lines that in all probability, some people, perhaps including psychologists in Brian's sphere may have advised him it's best to not work one-on-one with a sometimes pushy collaborator who may be prone to occasionally laying guilt trips, and that Brian, now more focused on his own mental health, may actually agree with that conclusion (or he may have reached it on his own), and that having another person around playing interference is the best option. Will anyone on this board really say that this is such an outlandish theory? I certainly don't think it is.

IMHO, that's what's actually happened (or not far from the truth), but Mike doesn't want to think it's remotely possible, or he just wants to publicly grumble in a way that garners sympathy for himself, hoping that Brian will "see the light".

Maybe Mike thinks that Mike himself is never a person who gives guilt trips, communicates unhealthily, and that he is the world's foremost authority on the nuance of mental health matters for Brian simply because he grew up with him (regardless of what professionals who help Brian these days would say). Yes, professionals' views are not always right, they can be wrong... but so can Mike. Doesn't Brian generally seem outwardly happier, more productive, and sober these days than he has in many years past, and wouldn't that be an indicator that Brian's support system works?

If I didn't know better, I'd assume that Mike seeing Brian aligning with a mental health group would feel that it's a bunch of hippy-dippy bullsh*t - I say this because he seems to imply he knows the ins and outs of Brian's illness solely out of his experience years ago, likely without any more recent nuanced booksmart education on the matter which might lead him to understand that Mike's own personality could sometimes (not always, but sometimes) have inadvertent, unintended negative implications for Brian. I'd love to see Mike say that it's cool that Brian is working with a mental health organization, but I won't hold my breath.

If Mike poo-poos Brian's support system, the only conclusion I can draw is that he thinks that everyone is somehow magically out to get him, or that he thinks that psychologists' opinions are a bunch of hooey unless they are the same as his own. Because I cannot see any psychologist knowingly recommending that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in his 70s continue to regularly work one-on-one with a collaborator such as Mike, especially at minimum considering the negative stuff Mike says in the press when Mike doesn't get his way. That alone should be a hint of the negative way Mike reacts when Mike doesn't get his way... and that mindset would in some way surely find its way into the recording studio if a one-on-one collab happened - how would it not? If creative conflicts were to happen in a one-on-one collab, why would Brian think that Mike would act any differently than the negative manner that has become Mike's norm post C50?

So you think Mike meant he and Brian both have "handlers"?

Sorry for jumping in, but I think it's less a problem with the clause about 'sides' but more with the surrounding bits, that it wasn't "allowed" and finishing with the very clear implication that Brian W. didn't make his own decision.
"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I dunno, Cam. You tell us. You seem to know what he's thinking at all times past, present, and future.

Are you implying Mike is saying he himself is being manipulated and controlled to do things that he (Mike) doesn't want to do?

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

In any event, it was a long tour and most folks who really wanted to see them were probably able to do so.

Its unfortunate that Brian decided at the end that he wanted the tour to continue.  He probably should have requested a longer tour prior to the beginning of the tour.

Having said that, I still don't know why NPP could not have been a "BB's" album.  How long would it have taken to get the guys into the studio to sing on at least some of the songs.  Far as I'm concerned, they could have called it a Boys album anyway with the inclusion of Al/Blondie.

Yes, I know, legalities, realities....sigh

There are about ten trillion posts on this subject spread out over the last three years. Nobody has ever said any C50 dates were cancelled. The argument that they couldn't do more reunion dates because Mike had other commitments makes no sense and never has; it implies someone was forcing him to book dates. He didn't fail to continue on the reunion tour because he had his own dates booked. He booked his own dates because he didn't want to continue the reunion.

Anyone in that organization who actually wanted to continue the reunion would not have begun booking non-reunion shows while the reunion tour was still going.

And if anyone doubts any of what HeyJude said above, just try to imagine a scenario where Mike "got his way" with writing with Brian in a room, and felt that the C50 situation suited his needs/ego/etc... does anyone think that Mike would simply have sneakily started to book M&B shows right in the middle of the C50 tour (in the same manner that it actually happened)? Not in a million years, of course.

Booking those M&B shows was a reaction to absolutely ensure he would get back all the power and control that he felt was slipping away from him during C50 due to the pesky (and apparently, as he proved, soon-to-be-avoidable) problem of having other actual official BB members onstage and part of the band. What a gnarly problem to have, good thing he fixed it.

I'm not singling you out, MikestheGreatest, but since you mentioned this...it's something I've wanted to address for awhile.

It was advertised and promoted extensively that Brian Wilson "reunited" with ex-Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin on No Pier Pressure. Does anybody know if, as Beach Boys, Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever shared the same stage live? And, does anybody know if Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever attended the same recording session during the CATP and Holland sessions? I'm just curious but that's not really my point.

Please correct me if I'm missing a part, but the only song on No Pier Pressure that Blondie Chaplin sings on is "Sail Away". On the song he sings four lines totaling 25 seconds. For some reason - and I'm not questioning Joe Thomas' and Brian's artistic decision - Blondie only sings the first verse and disappears. Brian sings the other verses and Brian and Al Jardine are both featured on the choruses. Blondie is listed on background vocals but I'll be darn if I can hear him. I guess my point is, yeah, factually, Brian and Blondie, two ex-Beach Boys, did reunite on the No Pier Pressure album. But, damn, if you sneezed you might've missed it. OK, sorry to hold you up. Go back to hammering Mike Love. The thread is still young...

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

To me it seems clear there were no offers for more C50 dates in 2012 so that is probably a strawman argument; the offers were for 2013 (or later) and were apparently never even put in writing to be discussed by the band as the band and so another strawman argument.  To me, if there is blame it is on BRI for inaction.

It's clear that Mike's handlers have him kept prisoner, isolated from the world. They won't even let him watch Love & Mercy, and he loves his Cousin Brian so very much! Nutty Jerry can't get a straight answer, much less get thru on the phone any more. Rumor has it that he's been prevented from writing songs with Bruce Johnston in a room for decades! Their combined songwriting power and commercial savvy, inexplicably suffocated. Damn those handlers!

Dunno what SJS's point is, or what "reunion" marketing or hype he's referring to. It's just great that Blondie Chaplin is playing with the BW band, they sound great together. So they didn't pal around in the 70s. Big deal. Neither did George Harrison and Mike Love, and he's out there whining almost every night about his Pisces Brother. Weird that Olivia Harrison didn't remember that and ask him to perform at the Concert for George or something. Where was he at Georgefest? Maybe he was watching BW sing from a nearby doorway and didn't want to hog the spotlight.

Anyway, you can't deny that BW and BC are linked forever by "Sail On, Sailor." And yeah, yer wrong -- he's doing backing vocals on "Runaway Dancer' too.

I would think Brian and Blondie were both present for sessions on tracks like "He Come Down" and "Funky Pretty".

Let's especially blame Brian and Al for not wanting to deal with the emotional weight and financial drain of what would surely have been a protracted, bitter legal battle if they wanted to do something about it. That's as lame and difficult-to-comprehend an excuse if there ever was one - very blame-worthy.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

OK, we'll leave it there, agreeably disagreeing.

I think this is the most agreeable you've been in a long time. You're really getting mellow

8)

I'm always mellow and agreeable. It's everybody else.....

I knew it wouldn't last

I wouldn't bet on it.