The Smiley Smile Message Board

Okay, it's been established that Mike Love has done more to bring down the Beach Boys name than any person in history, he's a hairless dork who sings bad, can't play an instrument, and thinks John Stamos is the definition of cool (as opposed to Dennis Wilson). He's the leader of the biggest fraud in rock history, that being the group he currently leads as "the Beach Boys". He lead them off the path of the cool and hip to the trail of nostalgia and Kokomo. So why didn't the other BB's just fire the sob? Imagine how much more respect the band would have today if Carl and Dennis had taken over the band in 1977. They probably would have fired Al, too, for being "clean Jardine", but brought him back later when they realized how much they missed his singing. They could have spared us the embarrassment of HCTN disco, Full House appearances, SIP, and best of all, Dennis would still be alive. Instead of touring every summer, they'd only go out once every 3 or 4 years as the Stones do. Brian could join them if he felt like it, but he would be focused primarily on making new music for them. Mike could tour Sea World and other theme parks, county fairs, bars and bakeries all year 'round, but only as "Mike Love's Endless Summer Band" or "Looking Back with Mike Love's Beach Band".

This wont end well

"It's been established" by who? You? Even David Leaf, one of the biggest Brianistas in history, gave Mike credit for being "the man who makes the live shows work." I'd hardly call that "bringing down the Beach Boys' name". Even if you believe Mike Love is satan himself, sometimes you gotta give the devil his due. And, Mike Love is hardly Satan. He just has a different definition of success than Brian. As far as him touring with his own band under the Beach Boys' brand - well, that was signed off on by Brian, Al, and Carl's estate, so that's like saying a new run of currency is fraudulent just 'cause it looks different, even if it's endorsed by the U.S. Treasury Dept.!

Cause the Wilsons are really really nice and have a lot of undeserved guilt.

It's a trap. ::)

OK, it's been established that the opening post is entirely worthless.

"...and best of all, Dennis would still be alive."

And that's probably the most inaccurate claim in said post: by 1977, DW was already heading south at an increasing trot. Troll-bait, and poor troll bait at that.

I don't know what this is supposed to accomplish.

Oh, the usual.  :)

 (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4F4qzPbcFiA/maxresdefault.jpg)

Regarding the ongoing Mike Love wars... Wow, Beach Boys fans are obviously really deeply divided into two acrimonious sets... myself not excepted. It's almost like there should be separate boards.
I mean, there are people who really perceive that Mike Love has been a negative factor from the beginning and people who perceive the absolute opposite. I assume there are those in the middle also, but could the two polar groups find any accommodation? I don't really think so.
If you're a member of a message board committed to a single band and you think one guy is essentially the Vader of the band you aren't going to get comfy with people saying he's Skywalker. And vice versa. Right?
What to do?

Well, I don't myself see Mike Love as Satan, but there do seem to be a lot of fans who feel that way about him. Personally, I was glad I got to see the touring Beach Boys many times in the 80's/90's, never minded Mike's corny banter, and yes, I bought Kokomo. Even watched them on Full House and - gasp! - enjoyed it. So this question was more for the fans that see things differently than I do.

Then why are you here participating?  :brow

I find all the incontinent spluttering, juvenile posturing and inchoate wittering endlessly amusing. Who needs the happy pills ?  ;D

I disagree with the assumption that Carl could ever have been the musical/creative savior of the band. Have you listened to his post-Holland songs? Bland, if sometimes tuneful, MOR stuff.

Carl would not have saved the band's rep, unless you think that Bread or Firefall are highly regarded groups.

Yeah, that plus disco HCTN being Mike's fault...it had nothing to do with him! Brian's the one who brought Bruce back, Bruce brought Curt Becher in for that song, and the two of them convinced Guercio and the band that it would be a good idea to go that route with that song!

Agreed. The best singer but worst songwriter of the Wilsons. After hearing so many build up Feel Flows and Long Promised Road both left me very underwhelmed last year upon first listen. Today, I cant even remember what they sound like

It's all personal taste. I like Bread and Firefall. I can dig Carl's more soft rock direction after Holland. But then again, LA is one of my favorite of the band's records, so I might be a smidge biased.

I'll say this, it wouldn't have been The Beach Boys without his co-lead vocals, especially 1962-1966. Brian and Mike were a great combination together, and if he'd have left i'd have definitely missed his later vocals like All I Wanna Do, Big Sur, Meant For You and his lyrical contributions. I think he's contributed more positives than negatives to the group during their peak era, and in the end its going to be the 1961-1978 period thats going to be most remembered, not the later embarrassments he influenced like John Stamos, SIP, The R&R Hall of Fame speech or performing at Sea World or whatever.

To my ears, and to my understanding of the way things panned out, Carl together with Stephen Desper saved the band's ass after Brian took a back seat post Smile, and as his involvement ebbed further during and beyond the SS/WH/Friends era. It was they who added the necessary polish and sheen to unfinished tracks like Prayer, Cabinessence and Surf's Up. 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, CATP, Holland… nought without their input. Carl's songwriting chops might not have always had the same strengths of those of Brian and Dennis but his ability and professionalism in finishing what others had abandoned saw the band through their second period of great creativity. Never fully acknowledged…

Thing is, about all this stuff, is that it's too late now.  What I mean is, I have some unhappiness over decisions the band made along the way - they made some of the worst decisions of any major band ever, but this wasn't all Mike Love's doing.   They did what they did and became what they became and lost much of their credibility as a "current band" long ago - but they retained their "American icon/perennial favorite" status.  So, whatever.  Look, as depressing as this is to acknowledge - all these guys are gonna be gone in the not too distant future.  So take what you can get and simply enjoy the music.  The Mike/Bruce band (from all I have heard) provide great shows which make a lot of people happy, and Brian does the same.   That's all that matters anymore.   Anything else is over.  Done.  All the battles of the past are just that, and maybe the resolutions of those battles are not what I, you or some other bingo Dan would have liked - tough (so tough, even), doesn't matter anymore.  It's gone, kaput.  Enjoy what music you enjoy and don't listen to the rest.  Remember the Alamo and don't leave your chewin' gum on the bed post overnight.  

The Alamo, like Plymouth Rock, is so disappointingly unimpressive in person.

Theres no basement at the Alamo!

I'll bite and take the question seriously - but when you do that, the question (at least to me) asks for the impossible: History tells us that Mike Love cannot be "fired," ever, from the thing called "The Beach Boys," any more than Brian Wilson can be fired, or Dennis or Carl.  It violates the Laws of Nature; it's like asking what if birds didn't have wings and didn't lay eggs. The only way a Wilson really leaves the group is the way Dennis and Carl left (and even then, as the concert video screens demonstrate, they still don’t leave). The reasons for this are, I assume, deeply personal and complicated (financial considerations are always relevant too). So one question is, why is it that this group will not "fire" its core members the way other groups might?

Another question (perhaps re-framing the original question?) is - assuming that you accept that a Wilson cannot be fired - how come the Beach Boys didn't ever formally break up. In other words, the group collectively “fires itself."  (and then reunites periodically over ensuing decades/years when an infusion of cash is needed).  While sacking a Wilson is an impossibility, the group members simply going their separate ways could conceivably have occurred at various points in time (and eventually this did, in effect, happen very late in the game between the surviving family members).  1977 was perhaps the most obvious point, when, if the books are true, they were indeed about to pull the plug (why else would everybody bring a lawyer to a group meeting).

Folks who don't like Mike Love perhaps shouldn't be asking why some combination of Wilson Bros. didn't fire Mike; maybe the question is why did these guys refuse to call it a day (yet another thing the Beatles did "right" - they recognized when something was over - Lennon even wrote a song about it).

The Beach Boys never would have fired Mike Love, he was doing most of the heavy lifting. 

cuHsin brYhan couldn't tour after his mental breakdown, and with no Mike there would be nobody who could be a frontman.  The lack of touring presence surely would have killed the chances of any resurgent popularity, and the band would have faded into obscurity.

I think where most people have their head up their ass about this stuff is, we hear the music and think of the band artistically because of the way it makes us feel when we hear the music.  This bleeds over into every conversation about the band.

The band, however, Brian included, sees the band as a vehicle to make money.  Every single one of them has said this, and it's their job, so of course that's how they see it.  The artistic parts of it are fulfilling but they work at this to make money.  It's their job.  

Mike is the one that has made that job make them money for over 50 years now.  When Mike's out playing the Mohecian Sun casino or playing some stupid fair in Nebraska, he sends Brian and the others a nice fat piece of it in the mail.  

Brian's genius gave them the wonderful music that people want to hear in the first place, but everybody knows you don't make money in the music industry without touring.  Brian's probably attended 1/10th of the Beach Boys live shows and has gotten paid for 10/10 of them.  Why in the world Mike gets blamed for that I will never know.  

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Flag on the play #1 - I don't recall Brian ever saying this. In fact...

Flag on the play #2 - Pretty much the reverse - in a sixties interview he stated (I paraphrase slightly, it's 6.55am here and I'm remembering this) "I've never written a single note to make money". And I completely believe him.

As am I.  ???

AGD, the interview where Brian said that was probably 50 years ago. A lot changed in 50 years. I interpreted Ron's quote, "The band, however, Brian included, sees the band as a vehicle to make money" as present tense and referring more to touring, though I stand to be corrected.

Even if it isn't present tense, in my opinion, I wonder if that attitude (the band members seeing The Beach Boys as a vehicle to make money) doesn't go back several decades? Did Brian Wilson vote to give the touring license to Mike Love for artistic reasons? According to posters on this board, with Mike doing such a terrible job in upholding the group's legacy by inviting Stamos on stage, presenting a "tribute band", and not allowing Brian to be in his own group, I wonder what possible reason Brian Wilson would have to allow Mike Love to continue with the touring license?

Ok bud you don't know your facts and for two you were reported for posting bs that isn't true. Brian did tour after his breakdown: in 1967 in Hawaii, during the 1970s  a fill in for Mike when he was sick and even the 80's. Read some more and get your facts straight. I like all the Beach Boys by the way including Mike.

Most things are I guess.  I have not seen either - Alamo or Plymouth Rock, least not that I can recall, but then the lack of impressiveness may have rendered them null in my memories.
Forget the Alamo, remember Alpo, cos puppy is hungry.

Well, that ain't good.  A basement is necessary, particularly if you dig worms, which, ya know, I might.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/a7/3c/11a73c94623c55fc6f80ec65ef5fa6c3.jpg)

Ron...I think that money is certainly part of the equation and for some of the 'boys' more than others.  Getting a song on the radio and hearing it played there was a key.  Still is.  Brian wants to HEAR his songs on the radio.  THEN it's a hit.  Sitting behind the control board and bringing the 'vision' of a final sound [the one he's already heard in his head] to fruition is NOT about the dough.  Sure money pays bills and buys stuff and Brian appreciates that I would guess.  But as motivation I doubt the dough matters very much at all.

I'd also venture to suggest that Bruce has more money than he'll need to get to the finish line and leave the family in good shape.  [if that's his plan and I think it likely is]  I think he tours and plays for something other than just the money.

Perhaps YOUR head needs a minor re-adjustment? ;)

At this point in their lives, I doubt that Brian or Mike do it solely for the money. 

Mike and Bruce do over 150 shows a year.  I'm sure they could do a third of those dates and still live very comfortably for the rest of their days.  So, for them to work that hard at their age, I'm sure it's more than just money. 

Brian never needs to put out another record, but he still does, and we're the better for it.  Plus, he's out there quite a bit too. 

The guy who works for the utility company goes to work each day because he needs the paycheck and can't make the bills unless he does. At this point, when each member of this band is worth millions, I don't think that's quite the case for them. They do what they do because that's all they've ever done.

Mike tours incessantly because he likes it. Brian needs to get into the studio to keep from stagnating. At a point when Brian really didn't care what happened to the touring band, Mike was able to make it into his own version. Upside is, the music goes on. Downside is, they're not exactly building a legacy band. Brian was short sighted not to see the importance of the touring group down the line, and Mike is now equally short sighted not to see how much more the band (and the brand) would be respected and valued if it included the rest of the original members, including the one who wrote those hits.

The band could have disbanded and gone their separate ways when the conflict and the creative slide started. Then The Beach Boys could have stayed frozen in time, the way the Beatles have, with no poorly done shows or cheese ball TV appearances to sully the image. But, using that model would require each member to go out on their own as solo artists. The problem is, there aren't any superstar solo artists in this group. The only one who made any inroads in that area was Dennis, and he was already on a personal downward spiral by then, so you wonder how long he could have carried a solo career. The Beach Boys stayed together because they had to. The band and the music was bigger than any individual member. Mike knows this. That's why, for all his bluster and ego massaging, you don't see him touring as Mike Love's Beach Bash featuring Bruce's Shorts and John Stamos. That's also why he doesn't care if Al and Brian are a part of the group. He knows the name will sell enough tickets to keep him working the way he wants.  I suspect he also knows that this would be equally true without Mike Love.

In my opinion, no one was ever fired and no one ever really quit The Beach Boys because without The Beach Boys there was no where to go. No one wanted to mess with the formula. A few tried. It didn't work out, and they came back. Brian has been sort of separated out by force, due to his illness and his prolonged time with Landy. Fortunately, he's been able to create a late life solo career, but even that is partly based in the strength of his earlier reputation.

As Mike was fond of saying in the C50, The Beach Boys were greater than the sum of their parts. I'm glad I got to see the C50 concert, because it looks like we will never see that creative synergy again.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVTp38maFQ26x0Sno3_jNNUu4uXD3FPF-lw_IiSik4pP8uR-1pfw)

I like Carl's songs; but then again, I'm guilty of liking post-Holland, non-Love You Beach Boys.

I agree. In fact, I don't think Mike tours for the money. He just seems to love doing it. Loves being a rock star!

It's more correct to say that Brian wouldn't tour after his breakdown. The two nights in Hawaii and the very brief Pacific Northwest tour were isolated exceptions. There were a few others, mostly in '65. But the point is still essentially a valid one.

BW onstage post 12/23/64 until 1976:

1965
February
12 - Convention Hall, Philadelphia PA
13 - Academy of Music, New York NY [two shows]
14 - The Mosque Theater, Newark, NJ
17 - Rhodes Ballroom, Cranston, RI
18 - Memorial Auditorium, Worcester, MA

July
  3 - Hollywood Bowl, Hollywood CA

1966
October
22 - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI [2 shows] - encore of 2nd show

1967
August
25 - HIC Arena, Honolulu HI
26 - HIC Arena, Honolulu HI

1970
February
26 - Gonzaga University, Spokane WA* [2 shows]
27 - Queen Elizabeth Theatre, Vancouver BC, Canada [2 shows]
28 - Opera House, Seattle WA* [2 shows]
March     
  1 - Civic Auditorium, Portland OR [2 shows]

November
  4 - Whisky A Go-Go, Los Angeles CA [2 shows]
  5 - Whisky A Go-Go, Los Angeles CA [1st show only]

1971
December
  3 - Long Beach Arena, Long Beach CA (one song only)

1973
April
20 - Hollywood Palladium, Hollywood CA (encore only, possibly in a non-performing role)

I guess money's pretty important for everyone.  Rich people generally don't just stop tryin to make money once they've made it.  They must feel some self-esteem when it comes in, shows their current value in the world.  It's an indicator of success, makes people feel good about themselves even if they're already stupidly loaded.

As for how the bandmembers regard the band, I agree with Ron, it's a job for them.  It reminds me of this quote from Brian,

"I don't really like working with the guys," he said, "but it all depends on how we feel and how much money's involved. Money's not the only reason I made records, but it does hold a place in our lives."

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/sep/29/brian-wilson-beach-boys

Reading that article today, yeesh, I'm not surprised the tour ended how it did.

I think it is a job. It looks glamourous to us, and there is a fair amount of glory attached to it, but mostly it is trudging around, town to town, playing the same songs every night. And just like any other job, they have co-workers they don't get along with, and some they really enjoy being with. Mike and Bruce obviously enjoy working together - mostly, I suspect, because because Bruce lets Mike run the show. It's like Mike is the President, and Bruce is Vice President - he's there mostly in title. Doesn't do much, but Mike enjoys having him around, and Bruce likes the money he makes traveling with the band.

If Mike had been fired we'd have peace in the Middle East, a cure for cancer and an end to world hunger.

what if the Beach Boys had fired Brian Wilson and Al Jar-- oh, wait...  :-\

:o

Had they fired Mike Love, the band would have gone to sh*t. He is the lead singer of the Beach Boys. You don't have to love him, but show some respect. I mean, put on Little Honda or Dance, Dance, Dance and hear him snarl those great lyrics like a boss he is. I don't really care if he's a dick in his person, when it comes to music he's the only one who could have done what he did. I'm a fan.

Great singers as the others were, Mike was the only one out of them capable of fronting the group.

Very good points overall but this last one I don't really believe. I fully appreciate Mike's contributions to the group on and off stage. Judging from interviews, however, he just doesn't strike me as a very humble person who would see things that way. Maybe that's just what comes with being the frontman.

If, after a certain point, say the late 60s, he was out of the picture… we certainly can't say for certain that it would have been a bad thing in every way. It's entirely possible that they could've carried on without him, and there might have been less internal resistance against a progressive direction, even after the 70s popularity resurgence.

While Mike certainly can't be entirely blamed for all of the band's problems/creative decay, the flipside of that is that when you remove a particular person from a group of people, it changes the dynamic. Perhaps with the loss, there is also a gain. When that person has a strong personality and a sense of entitlement because of past successes, that person's absence at a certain point might not have been a bad thing. Do I think a world where there were less potential thorns in each other's sides would've been a good thing for everyone involved? Yes, I do. Creative differences and resulting emotional turmoil both deeply suck. Maybe the band would have ceased to exist at a certain point, but it's also possible that there would have been more of an emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity.

I absolutely value Mike's contributions to the band, but some negatives outweigh the positives. We will never really know how it would have played out, except for the few glimpses of shows that Mike missed over the years, where the band seemed to carry on perfectly fine without him, without lines of fans demanding refunds.

I’m just going to go for it and share my honest opinion. I’d like to preface it by saying that I’m fully aware that this is a matter of opinion and personal taste and I don’t condemn in any way those who disagree. I have friends who are thrilled when Tiffany shows up for their pride parades and who listen to One Direction without irony. I have friends who talk of NWA, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen without a hint of misgiving. I’m completely cool with disagreement.
So, here I go:
What if Beach Boys had fired Mike Love on September 15, 1961 or had never even bothered with him to begin with? Perhaps none of the Beach Boys would ever have been heard.
But I consider this to also be perfectly likely:
-Brian finds sufficient quality lyricists to work with (he did anyway and more could’ve come of those collaborations if Mike and Murry hadn’t repeatedly chased them away). Frankly, to me and I think to many potential fans, Mike Love’s trivial and sexist lyrics are alienating.
-They are in LA; they find someone else with a good bass voice to work with who is a less dorky front man with a lot more charisma and, who knows, maybe also can play an instrument?!
-Brian feels more free to create the music he wants to make which results in fewer hits but a stronger long-term reputation.
-The band progresses, with or without Brian being actively engaged, into the 70’s without becoming a nostalgia act. Sure they play their early songs, but they are not so belittled because their lyrics weren’t so trivial and sexist to begin with.
-I’m a happier fan.
So, I’m serious, those of you who are fans of Mike Love, or think his contribution is worth the pain, I have no beef with you. I just don’t share your taste and that’s fine with me.
And those who just think Brian wouldn’t have gotten off his ass and done anything without Mike Love, I disagree there also. I think Brian was really driven in the early years.

No Mike = no Surfin' and Surfin' Safari, the two songs that broke The Beach Boys first locally and then nationally. Nothing Brian was writing with Usher at that time was going to make them stars.

CD - I look at this very differently for probably very different reasons.  

First, you can't fire yourself.  That is who BRI is.  It is a sort of "alter ego" of a family business (nothing to do with 'hanging on to an ego' in a psychological sense.)  That is hard to dissolve.  Mike was on the ground floor, with the rest of the guys.  Turn him sideways, in " silhouette mode" and he has the "Wilson profile."  Blood is thicker than water.

Frankly, I never paid a lot attention to Mike, although I liked his voice in the blend, and his lyrics a lot, (and the way he kept the crowd entertained) during a show, before they had roadies to tune the guitars, and fix a string, until after Carl died. Then, I wanted to see just "what Mike could do" to come out of this disaster. Could he keep the music alive? Losing Dennis was bad enough.  But Carl was the utter vocal backbone of the touring band.  Period.  Mike had a ton of leads, but fans looked to Carl, (looking so much like Brian, but with a creamier voice.)  And, maybe it is an unfair assessment, for me to put so much pressure on Carl, but he looked so much like Brian that he was almost a twin brother.  I cannot think of one die-hard fan of The Beach Boys that I know, who was not grieving after Carl died.  Most who took crap from their friends in high school and college just for being a fan.  Now, it is easy because that "window of time" is long over.

Second, looking back at the "totality of the circumstances" and not just a small window, since Brian took on the amazing solo touring, I think the "external" forces, such as the record company and various "interlopers" caused more trouble by meddling with the "principals" in any devious way possible. They were constantly undermined at a "band unit." Someone was always around who thought they "knew better."  

And, I think what the "business" did to non-promote Pet Sounds as a work was unconscionable.  Murry's disparagement didn't help anyone either.  When a parent disapproves or is jealous, it is a bad place.  No kid or family member wants to go against an elder and be disrespectful, no matter what.  You have to face them on Christmas and Thanksgiving or at wakes and funerals.  And we can spout off our opinions of what should have been done, but that was 1965 (50 years ago) and a very different world.    

Third, every kind of group, whether business or political, or a family, needs a strong "spokesperson," who is able to do the unpopular stuff, make hard and unpopular decisions, and "take the rap" for whatever entity that is.  At a point, it was Carl making hard decisions, maybe unpopular, and at others it was Mike.  So they take the heat.  It is like the campaign manager, who has to be "clear and tough" enough to make hard calls, in the name of the candidate, and not take things personally.  It isn't a popularity contest.  The music is like that candidate who needs to be presented in the best possible light.  And in the background the campaign manager takes the heat. But, do for the "greater good"  of the candidate or the band.

When I look at this dynamic, I see "worse influences" that "came in from the outside" (including and maybe especially Landy and/or Manson) than could ever have come from "inside."  

Mike couldn't be fired any more than Brian could have been fired.  It is a ridiculous concept.    

And, I've come to really respect what Mike has done, whether it has been easy or hard, to keep this BB music out there, being as tough a critic as anyone.  I've watched the attendance grow, from the time Mike took a chance on building a touring band, to include very young fans, so whatever Mike is doing, it is working.  If, as a body, BRI didn't endorse what Mike has done, he would have been unable to continue as the touring band.  

There is no "what if?"  ;)

I'm just speaking in terms of hypotheticals, if Mike was no longer present, and less in terms of how that would/could have been accomplished. Yes, the fact that he was there since day one, was blood related (most important), and cowrote many hits are inarguable reasons why he didn't get fired.

But in terms of Mike not being in the picture after a certain point, regardless of how that could have happened - through him simply quitting or not being able to continue with the band for any number of reasons - I think the rest of my post still holds water, and that the band - past the mid 60s - could have kept going sans Mike (however circumstances could have caused that to happen), with less artistic conflict over direction being an indirect side effect. Would the band have kept touring until present day under the same name?  Probably not. But that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a perfectly awesome alternate path that could have nevertheless happened.  That said, I think Mike was definitely needed in the early years. Past a certain point… They could've carried on perfectly fine without him.

Correct CD, those early 1970s shows are awkward with love hovering in the background like a ghost since he didn't do much anymore.

CD - Ok - hypotheticals...so, going back to day one, they had a "force" who was "assertive" enough onstage, and that was Mike.  People have to learn to be "assertive" in certain situations, whether it is in a public speaking course, or learning how to teach in front of a class, or be a lawyer in a court room, in front of strangers and your opposition.  Not everyone can go onstage without stage fright and be able to "read" an audience. Barbra Streisand suffered for years from stage fright.  The amazing Barbra.  Mike appears to be able to do that.  Dennis was flamboyant and loved (an understatement) but wasn't consistent.  Mike "shows up."  I guess that is the difference.  I'm not sure that for all those years until Carl died and they all had to "learn the skill" of being an MC, that Mike was not "indispensable" onstage.  He makes it look easy.  It might not be. But he does it anyway, and well.    

And, lyricists are artistic. Not everyone can summon a phrase to work with a measure of music.  That is a gift.  

Artistic conflict?  Ya gotta sell your wares (music) and get someone to be your investor, and promoter and distributor...and, let's remember the "artistic" conflict arose from the record company who under-promoted just about the greatest rock album of all time.  I'll never give them a pass for them trying to pass them off in Europe as a surf band, post Pet Sounds.  What a joke.  Looking back, they were teenagers with talent well beyond their years and were taken advantage of by adult predators at many turns. And maybe whatever went down arose from "external forces"  attempting to "divide and conquer" rather than from their well-bonded synergy to make music.  

Reasonable  minds can differ.  ;)    

Which awkward 70's shows did you see?

Yes, Mike was a guy who connected with the audience in a vocal and MC capacity, and I'm not trying to downplay that role, nor do I not appreciate his good lyrics - he had many, at least up until a certain point. Yet still, past the late-60s, once they were famous + established... if he was going to be permanently unavailable for whatever reason that could have been, that absence wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for the band to just magically dissolve. Even Mike's biggest fans can't honestly say that they couldn't have carried on, wounded as they may have been - the Boys could have adapted. And sometimes people who are in fact quite talented can still cause artistic friction that isn't necessarily worth the fallout, so it's possible that there could have been less stress in some ways. I'm sure it was less stressful for Mike to not have to be around Al's alleged attitude problem post 1998, so perhaps without Mike, it could have been a similar de-stressor for certain other band members.

Mike himself has proved (by both the M&B show as well as the rare pre-M&B shows that he missed) that if a (or multiple) living original members are not present, the band can go on.  If at a certain point in the band's history, both Brian and Al are gonna be considered expendable to the live show, then Mike certainly could be considered expendable during certain eras too. It cuts both ways. Just because Brian and Al aren't famously great MCs, that doesn't negate my point. These guys could adapt if needed. Past the late-60s, they'd surely have found a way to go on (though likely not lasting until present day), despite him absent being in a permanent capacity.

Al and Brian have "grown into" being MC's but didn't have to in the early days.  I'm not sure how they would've had the same "voltage" as a show with Mike as the MC, and doing a large portion of leads.  I cannot even imagine Little St. Nick without Mike or Fun, Fun, Fun.  A lot of artists left their bands, to go on to solo careers in the mid-60's but, I think as the BB's it would have been a deal breaker and loss to not have Mike.  He was the other half of Brian-Mike.  We didn't have Brian on the road.   

We won't ever know, because the hypothetical, here, is raised as a "coulda woulda shoulda." I find it preposterous because we can't go back and re-write the events and I'm not sure I'd want to.   ;)



   

But, it gives the Smiley Smile Message Board yet another thread to diminish Mike Love's contributions.

We can know in some fashion, since the pre-M&B band played somewhere around a dozen shows without Mike over the years. I recall hearing of no long lines of fans demanding refunds. I believe Al sang Fun, Fun, Fun, but I'd have to check the setlist archive. No, an entire tour wasn't launched as "The BBs" without Mike, but those isolated cases proved that it could be done; shows weren't cancelled, it clearly wasn't a deal-breaker. Those non-Mike shows went off without a hitch, as far as I know. Leads were spread to the other guys. The band was very famous by that point, but remained (then as they do today) largely anonymous to the public at large in terms of personnel. They aren't distinctly known for all their members the way The Beatles are. People would have walked out of a Beatles show if John wasn't there (during his lifetime). Mike has now (and had then) good things to offer, but they could (and did) do perfectly good shows without him.

Being realistic about a band's ability to go on without a member in certain eras doesn't mean that his many legitimately positive contributions are being diminished, anymore than, for example, Al's contributions are diminished from his non-presence in the touring band. If you're ok with the latter, a rational conversation about the former should be just fine. Speaking for myself, I greatly appreciate the positive things Mike has contributed to the band over the years, and I'd prefer a functional BB band with all the members INCLUDING MIKE present and emotionally/personally content.

Al did the early songs way better than Mike at the BW show a few weeks ago!

Absolutely! Face it, Al has an incredible voice that has always outdistanced myKe luHv's nasal fingernails on the chalkboard scratchy attempts at trying to sing.

Can't say I disagree with that. I really, really liked hearing Al on Little Deuce Coupe at a recent show. He brought a totally different and fresh flavor to a song that I've otherwise not been particularly fond of. While I'd rather see all living members onstage together, situations like this prove how this is a unique band that is far more adaptable at replacing members (including Mike) than most other bands are.

There is a part of me which feels that without Mike, Murry and any other "Villain" - the Beach Boys story would be a hell of a lot less interesting.  The music drew me in, and then the slow discovery of all the drama and turmoil behind the scenes, the whole screwed up family dynamic and the corporate mindset vs cutting edge art/experimentation - that is what gave me some of the biggest "WTF" moments and drew me in even further.   It's all incredibly Shakespearean, in a uniquely American way.  
Mike did some nice vocals, he wrote some decent lyrics and he has/had a legitimate compass for the "commercial", but no matter what cabbage one wishes to toss - it's Brian Wilson's music, production and vision which will always stand.  He's an American treasure of the caliber of Twain, Ellington, and whomever else would rank in such a list.  No one else in the Beach Boys ever came close.  Dennis had the most prospects in that way.  

Take out the "I'm a fan" bit, and I agree.

The band has gotten along fine without Brian, or Dennis, or Carl, or David, or Bruce, or Al, or Mike.

I saw a lot of early 1970's shows.  Mike wasn't awkward, he was still the front man, telling jokes, introducing numbers, keeping the audience occupied while Carl switched guitars or Bruce switched to bass or whatever, which is what he has always done. 

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire. 

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.   

In Mike's case, I wonder if that extends as far as being able to identify the chords.

Ontor - What does that mean?

Haven't you seen Youtubes of Mike at a keyboard? 

Or the theremin?

 

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

No, I haven't seen him at a theremin... altho it'd be real cool to see him wave his hands around and OOooOooOo OooOooooo.  I've seen old footage of him playing that tannerin gizmo that you play with a slide thingie with individual notes labled. It doesn't play chords. He wasn't really very good at it, which is presumably why he stopped dabbling in electronic music.

What is the issue with the chords?  I don't get what you're driving at.  Whatever that tannerin (gizmo?) seen on a Wild Honey Video in a park in the UK with Blondie on lead, does not resemble the device he was playing in 1967.  Whatever the "gizmo"  was - did the job.

There is a really fuzzy youtube where Mike is on a keyboard playing across from Brian likely mid to late 1970's.   

Pretty obvious what I meant, you said a band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know. I just wondered if that meant he could identify all them fancy chords BW used in those songs, then.

Not really.  Should Mike be telling the audience what key the song is in, too?  By "backstories" I meant the "concepts" for them.

There is a different Youtube entitled The Beach Boys in the studio 1980 where Mike is reading from some kind notation sheet/chart.  And Brian is at the piano.  The song is "Goin'  to the Beach."

It doesn't look like Brief forms from a secretary/stenographer.  (that is a joke.) :lol

I guess we just disagree. Seems to me the intoxicating harmonies and gorgeous chord structures are vastly more important to why we still adore these songs than the nebulous "concepts." If a song about vinegar and baking soda volcanoes was wrapped in "I Get Around," people woulda still gone apeshit over it.

I take it all back if Mike Love takes up the theremin, tho.

I want to see more of that footage in better quality, such a strange period in their history.

I think my favorite buried clue to the secret musical gifts of Mike Love is still where is hand rests on this little beauty:

(http://blogs.c.yimg.jp/res/blog-d9-1e/bobby_sideup/folder/983746/94/18327794/img_0)

His strutting style is perfect for "Little Honda," but ultimately maybe parting ways after Pet Sounds would've been the way to go other than occasional charity gigs and an 80s reunion. In this alternate universe version of The Beach Boys... John Stamos still would've been involved somehow. BECAUSE. Kokomo is still ultimately, unavoidable.

Ontor knows! :lol

Let's not change the subject.  You alleged a non-knowledge of chords.  I found that bad quality youtube.  So, you might acknowledge and show your good manners.  I know they are there. 

If you can find better quality, I'd like to see it.  And not contorted into a "parody."

Well, I don't really see that video as proof that he knows the fancy jazz chords BW was using in his tracks. Sorry, we just disagree.  I bet he does a killer "Heart and Soul."

That wasn't the point of searching for it.  It was to support that Mike is musically literate.  We don't know much from that poor quality tape, except that Mike is capable of playing a keyboard, and you alleged that he didn't know chords. 

Clearly, he can play a keyboard at some kind of a recording session.

If you don't like Mike, fine.  Just say so.  It saves time. 

No one needs to be continuously attacked without merit.  That is just bad faith. 

 It's ok, he's still a Beach Boy and the licensed franchise holder of "The Beach Boys." His legacy is undiminished. I just don't think he's much of an instrumentalist judging by his tannerin playing and some grainy VHS. He's done more than alright for himself regardless! BW had the grasp of harmony drilled into him by all that Four Freshmen obsession and breaking the chords down on the piano and teaching the individual lines to his family. Mike learned his part of the chord but never really got the whole thing or had that ability to arrange voices despite a recent attempt at claiming a co-arranging credit. Sure, he picked up some fun doo wop riffs and can re-purpose somebody else's melodies effectively but nothing in his work post-BW shows that much talent for harmony or composing melodies/chord structures. But he can hold his baseball cap up high and say: "my voice is my instrument."

Then process the sh*t out of it. Point is: he can be Mike Love. You don't have to pretend he's Brian Wilson at the same time.

Ontor - that isn't the point.  Disparaging the video is of no consequence.  It isn't in high def.  But, it is clearly a rebuttal of the myth that Mike is incapable of playing any instrument.  He isn't a concert pianist.  He doesn't need to be.  What he was clear about, is that Brian used each "voice as an instrument."  That is a tribute to Brian and is not news. 

Mike is not disrespecting him.  That video looked as though there was a very affable relationship as between Brian and Mike.  Does that bother you that they appear to be having a really good time?   

And we aren't talking about "processing" and I assume you mean autotune.  Maybe I am wrong. Technically, I am not up to speed on autotune use.   The only "autotune" that I did not care for was the C50.  And,  I have not listened to the new song.

As for claiming credit, I don't know what song/s you are talking about.  And, absent being a witness to the creative process and outcome, I cannot speak to that.     ;)

Without Mikey, this website would take up half the room it actually does in cyber land...

Before I start, the house which I've lived in for 22 yrs and the only rooming house left in downtown Vancouver BC is being torn down sometime in january.  we'll be evicted at the end of december  . the 90 yr old house will be replaced by a hi-rise and I will be out of a job as property manager. Not something to look forward to in the coming New YEar. 
So i look forward to this distraction of Mike Love bashing. And I'm Taking off the gloves Andrew G Doe. nothing personal Andrew I just don't hold you  as high on the BB pedestal as so many have  as the ultimate authority on the BB.  this is not necessarily a contest to see who knows more about the BB. this is more a personal opinion about Mike Love which we are all entitled to have.   and Smile Brian is right,  it's a trap that i"m willing to tackle and i'll  bet  that you're right,  it probably won't end well. But here goes anyway.
MR Doe has deemed Lonely Summer's attack on Mike LOve worthless, therefore it is written and must be so.  that in itself is not an opinion on Mike Love but an attack on Lonely Summer. I would like to keep it focused on Mike Love rather than attacking each other. though I must admit self restraint Is not my strong suit.
But I would like to examine the veracity of the facts and  Lonely Summer's opinion .  Mikey is balding that's a fact, whether he's a dork or not is an opinion I also happen to share. Unfortunately I disagree with Mikey singing bad, It pains me to say that yes he is a competent showman on stage and knows how to play up to the crowd or suck up  to the crowd is more like it, and  he is a competent vocalist. And for those who know me like Lee Dempsey, Peter Reum, Danny Rutherford, etc... that's quite an admission from myself. I must be getting soft in my old age or soft in the head as some of you may suggest.  Lonely Summer see what you have done,  you Have me defending Mikey sorta.
Let's tackle the elephant in the room shall we. That Mikey's current BB group is the biggest fraud.
On the surface that seems like a  baseless attack on Mikey's right to capitalise on Brian's talent  and use Brian's music on stage to make money.  Every US citizen has a right to take advantage of someone else's work and claim it as their own. While I've overstated that claim slightly. Mikey has received writing credits for songs  that Brian worked so tirelessly on, then Mikey would prance in and suggest a line or two , and be responsible for turning a MOR song with his own hook line and turning that single into gold. You gotta have that hook  Brian  to make it sound commercial .  Such sound advice Mikey. So that's why Mikey's helpful interference, er, I mean suggestions and one line hookers gives him the right to go on stage and call themselves the Beach Boys with Pride. and just to back up Mike's contribution with proof, here's a classic line that Mikey claims he contributed to in Help me, Rhonda  something about " doing it out in my head". And Mikey has the unmitigated gall to criticise  Van dyke Parks lyrics.  I'm  sure Mikey's supporters can explain that lyric considering they know what Mikey's all about.
 Now let's examine who is in the group shall we.  Bruce Johnston but he was never a BB to begin with and he was never an official member of the BB and had no legal say in the inner workings of the group. And i would never ever claim Bruce as a BB anyway,he just rubs me the wrong way,  as i'm sure I do as well.  but that's just my opinion, it's not a fact. Although it's a fact I said it.
As for Kokomo i dislike it immensely  and just because it made # 1  does not mean  it's as good as Good Vibrations.  if you like Kokomo so be it but please don't put it in the same sentence as Wouldn't it be Nice or the Lonely Sea, etc...  But i will take exception with Lonely Summer on HCTN the disco version.  I really should not admit this to you guys cuz i'll never hear the end of it.  But i do have a fondness for this disco version and yes I know Bruce  or B J as i call him was responsible for this version.  I must explain why I have an affinity for this nostalgic tune.  it was April '79 when i walked into a gay disco bar in Denver  waiting to do my Travolta imitation . when I heard this remake of HCTN  which I never heard before.  I said to myself is this possible the BB are doing it?  I t sure sounds like 'em. I confirmed it with the DJ and then preceded to dance by myself,  as no one else was around to dance to it at 9:30.  I was dying to hear anything by the BB after It's OK back in '76. It was a 2 12 yr drought and You better believe I embraced it and dance to it to my heart's content.  I was literally starved for anything by the BB so I did my Travolta imitation  sorta.  So it's more nostalgic fondness and the fact i hadn't heard a BB single for so long. I hope i can be forgiven for my weakness which is still my love for the  Beach Boys.   So if you want to make fun of me liking HCTN  have at it.    it depends on how you do it. Bullying is not the way to go. We can have opinions and share them but when it comes to Mike Love, it can be a very divisive issue and there does not seem to be a middle for Mikey either you support him or you don't.  I can not ANd if you watched that movie recently it showed how divisive Mike was within the group and the pressure he put on Brian. I mean i knew all that in writing but to see it played out in the movie made it more real somehow and brought into focus.  Porky Pig's sign off,  that's all folks
 

lt is worthless, because it states an opinion as fact ("it has been established..." - by who, exactly ?), not to mention implying that Mike was in some way responsible for the demise of Dennis ("and best of all, Dennis would still be alive": it was, of course, entirely his own doing). Hence the comment.

As for being the ultimate authority on The Beach Boys, well that's just rampant nonsense. Just a fan with a criminally retentive mind and a short fuse for idiots.  ;D

BTW, Mike didn't suddenly decide to call his band The Beach Boys purely to piss off a certain sector of the fans. Proper legal process. :)

But far more importantly, l sympathise with your imminent plight, truly. Been there myself.

Sorry about your house tokensurfer. That really sucks.

Yes, it does.

My intention in starting this thread was to play devil's advocate. I have read thread after thread about the evil that is Mike Love - and opinion I did not agree with, although he has certainly done some things I was not pleased with. I'm not exactly thrilled that there is a group still touring as The Beach Boys (as opposed to Mike Love's Beach Boys, or the Endless Summer Beach Band), but he has gone through the proper legal channels to do so. And in a way, it's an honest advertisement for what kind of music us punters are going to hear at the concerts. Mike and his band are out there to play the greatest hits of the Beach Boys, not highlights from Looking Back with Love and Rock 'N' Roll City. On the flip side, it's always disappointed me that a Brian Wilson solo concert features very little of his solo stuff - like Mike, he plays all the big hits - Help Me Rhonda, Good Vibrations, Fun Fun Fun, Barbara Ann. In terms of the music presented, Brian's show is as much a BB's show as Mike's is. But I don't hate any of these guys. Yes, it is urban legend that Mike hated PS and SMiLe, but Dr. Love didn't seem to resist the direction the band took with SS, Friends, Surf's Up, Holland, etc. When Carl wanted to do a few of his solo songs in the shows circa 1983-84, ML didn't say "F---- that! We only do fun in the sun tunes recorded in the 1960!" ML had a pretty good sense of various things the band could do to keep themselves in the spotlight, even when the records weren't selling - July 4th concerts, tv appearances, getting their songs into movies. Maybe the band would have faded away even earlier than they did if not for the aggressive efforts of Love.

If Mike Love were never a Beach Boy, I don't think they would have ever had the success they had. Without his lyrics in the early days, they may not have been as accessable as they became. Without Mike, there would be no Let the Wind Blow, All I Wanna Do or Big Sur. Without Mike Love there would be no one in a white robe and long beard dancing around and playing the tamborine. Without Mike Love, the rock n roll hall of fame would have been boring. And most of all, without Mike Love, over half the posts on this board would never have been made (probably, I haven't counted). Even rock n roll needs a good heal (using wrestling terms). He is one of the best heals in the music business.  >:D

Great point! Definitely a heel.

(http://houseofdeception.com/files/IMG_897.jpg)(https://30daysout.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mikelove_400.jpg)

Gorgeous George / Mike Love Diptych, 2015. Mixed Media on Monitor.

Well, if Dennis had been around in 1988, he would have rocked the HOF with some colorful behavior - standing on Brian's piano shouting "Elton John, eat your heart out!" or making a pass at Mick Jagger's 15 year old daughter. But we would have been spared the potshots at McCartney and Ms. Ross.

I certainly agree with THIS part of your post.  And in all seriousness...dating back to the ying and yang days when it was almost ALL either Brian or Mike...[like the first 3 foundational years of REAL success 63-65]...we long time fans likely wouldn't BE HERE AT ALL if it weren't for the 2 of them and the options they provided...both singularly and then collectively.  The Beach Boys were balanced by Brian on one side and Mike on the other.  Carl, Dennis, Al and David [and a touch of Glen] completed the picture and made it a rich and full view.  It was something we 'saw' with our ears.

Really?  Back then when Mike began wearing the various hats [some cool/some 110% 'dorkish'] I just felt bad for his having to deal with the advent of 'goin' bald'.  And in the flowing robes, beard and hair days he looked fine w/o the hat.  No justifying the Hall of Fame fiasco.  But we've almost all been under the influence of something SOMEWHERE where we've made an ASS of ourselves...right?  Right.

Mickey Mouse with a sore throat?  Nose on the critical list?  The boys realized some perceptions and realities long before we started taking sides...and swipes.  THEY made light of it.

And WE?  Collectively WE have this thread.  Oh how outstanding it is to be an expert.  ;)

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

Jack Reiley corrected that 'problem' OSD.   [and a problem...for me...it really and truly was]  How?  Way more Carl.  Way less Mike.  THAT worked.  Mike doesn't 'do' that kind of shyte these days...thankfully.

Back in the day...as 'the spokesperson'...Mike had NO CLUE about what NOT to say...and HOW to say it.  GOTTA know that every bit as much as what TO say.  

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike... ;)

Please be objective.

Dennis Wilson

Add Some - Carl was approaching his mid-20's during that era. He was closer to the desired "narrative" and new image that Jack was trying to project and achieve, with the anti-war protests, and Carl's CO status.  And, I like to think it was more "Carl coming into his own" working through the legal issues he was up against.  So, as much as the more "protest" orientated music that was emerging, Carl may have "fit" with whatever Reiley's vision was. Carl had a higher profile in the media, and perhaps Jack saw that as an opportunity to exploit that image.  

Maybe Reiley did what Capitol was supposed to do with promotion.  Maybe Jack did their job. They weren't a surf band, anymore, but the back catalog was still essential in any show.  

But, I always keep in mind that Reiley was dishonest in how he "credentialed himself." There was a greater emphasis on a "face" that would work best with a college or university crowd.  Carl was that guy with his name in the headlines.  Students looked to Carl and his issues with the draft board.  So, I think it is less "correcting that problem" and more "using Carl"  for whatever Reiley had for a vision.

There was always mix of the newer with the older stuff in Concert.   ;)

Much as he was loved, it was highly unlikely he would have been consistently able to do this.  He was fantastic when he came to the mic for a cameo and the girls went crazy.  Listen to any 1966-7 ish stuff and you will hear the girls screaming "Dennis."

I don't agree 'Filled'.  I wonder how many were really aware that Carl was a Conscientious Objector?  Even in the early to mid 70s the Beach Boys fan base widened as new fans came on board to join the folks who'd latched on to the sound in the first 1/2 of the 60s.  Carl was COOL.  He was laid back, soft spoken, genuine and MUSICAL.  He could sing, play guitar [like ringin' a bell] and he appeared to direct and lead the orchestra.  That gave Carl credibility.  So did his clothes, his hair and his beard...as it began to appear.  It was Carl's leadership on stage which gave the group the 'cred' to become one of the most successful touring acts in the world.

It was when Mike began to re-insert himself into the equation circa 15 so-called bigguns that that fact began to slowly crumble.

I don't think Dennis could have pulled it off.  I think, in fact, that it might have become openly divisive right there on stage for all to see.  Where Mike and Dennis entered the 70s as brothers in arms...heading out to demonstrate why 'the town' should have locked up the women [and children...cause that's how the saying goes]...things changed.

Al?  Not so much.  Bruce?  He was pretty much gone while Jack was around.  I 'get' that Jack wasn't perfect.  It's true.  BUT he was the BEST manager they group ever had...and by light years.  Why?  He understood talent and what to do with it.  Murry sure as sh*t never did.  And Jack's predecessors?  Not 1 eff-in clue.  IMHO Mike was a KEY to the early foundational success...in spite of his severe shortcomings on stage.  On record he was essential.  Nowadays he also makes it work and work really, REALLY well.  But from about 1966 until maybe 2013 [except for Jack's era] Mike was about equal parts asset and millstone.

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

2012 was a one-off which the group did wonderfully from all reports.  A pretty decent lp.  Not a bad live album.  Very well received tour.  But then THAT all got pissed into the wind didn't it.  Kind of like 1975 all over again.  Take the good and begin to flush it all away.  I guess, after experiencing how it was done so absolutely well by Brian and HIS crew during year 50, that Mike actually saw and heard value in upping the game.  He did it.  It works.  Credit where, at long friggin' last...credit is due.  For all of those outstanding songs...and Pieces Brother...it's never too late to pay homage and do them well.  We, as fans, deserve nothing less.  It makes sound financial sense.  Brian always knew THAT.

Add Some - there are some youtube with interviews from circa 1967 from Brian, Mike and Bruce, and a little later where the band is totally dismayed going to Europe with a prepackaged "surf band" image coming from Capitol.   This was post-Pet Sounds.  I liken Reiley "tapping into" the "void," in veracity that the record company had created to keep milking the false "oldies machine" they created.  

What Reiley (and Brother establishing itself) did was tapping into the mode that they were actually in, and that Capitol failed to promote, but matching the P.R. with the actual product. I was in college during those years and saw Carl's emergence over a period of maybe six years or so, starting in 1967 when his arrest in the States for draft evasion and subsequent agreements for free performances or community service was in evolution. For Capitol, the perception was not the reality.    

Carl's draft woes were widely covered in the U.S press. There is still plenty on line with a little google or (Duck Duck Go) search.  

Reiley did what Capitol was supposed to have done in 1967 as far as the image went. But, let's not forget that Mike kept the shows going, in a low tech environment when, if stuff went wrong during the performances, he kept the audiences engaged and that is a definite skill.    

But every student at a BB show knew that Carl was a CO.   ;)

The concept of a "frontman" for the Beach Boys never quite worked for me. And as time went rolling along, it became downright embarrassing with luHv at the helm and you know what I'm talking about, FP, without going into the gory details. I chose not to be deeply in luhv with cornball humor and ludicrous outfits that called for one looking like a pansy or a circus clown.

OK - fair. But, I think it is way more complex. And, divided by gender.  

If you go back to the BB's Concert - 1964, for LDC...on youtube...

http://youtu.be/nZqUXkgtNTA

(hope it copies)

First, Mike could easily " transition" and do a lead or co-lead for almost anything.  And maybe in 1964, while Brian was still touring, and Brian and Mike were sharing most of the shared leads, it was different.  Once 1965 hit and there was a huge void, who was still doing half the leads?  Mike.  Carl had barely done leads on the studio end, and Al hadn't even done Rhonda (for the single version) it was a different dynamic.  You know that. And, don't you think the on stage dynamic changed after Brian left? Do you think Brian (who is reported to have suffered from stage fright,) was relieved that Mike took on that role?  It is not easy to get up in front of a crowd, night after night.

Second, I'm looking from a woman's perspective.  Within about three years or so, (for me anyway,) first, seeing them live, they had gone from striped shirts, to the white suits (which Al still can uniquely rock!) to whatever they wanted to wear.  I was looking less at what they wore and focusing more on "how they sounded."  And listening (or rather ignoring) my contemporaries who claimed they were all "washed up."  That was between the spring of 1967 to the summer of 1969.  Three evolutions of clothing including the Carnaby Street rage.  

Cornball?  Maybe.  But, between songs, and broken guitar strings someone had to "fill that space" - to keep the show going...

A turban...I assume you mean...I barely paid attention...It was just part of the show-biz schtick, for me.  If you are listening and watching for substance over form, and comparing the "live version to the studio versions," you don't even see it.  But if you're looking to find fault or focus on the visual instead of the sound, you miss what is important.  Remember, we got about 11-12 songs, in a late 60's show.  Tops.

Guys outnumbered girls as fans about two to one. We look at clothing and styles, differently, I think. And you know that, too.  Not a bad thing.  :lol  
  

Not too much to discuss here because, for me, it's not a complex issue like it is for you. I just thought it was amusing watching myKe luHv try, in vain, attempt to compete with Dennis on stage. The turban, the feathers, the tight leotards(showing off his manhood), the rings, sequins, etc, etc. I mean how much attention did this buffoon need anyway. Funny, all Dennis had to do was showup, y'know? "Space between songs"? Who would care? I sure didn't. All I needed was the next song, not some goof rambling on, and on, and on about nothing or trying to land some dumbass, cornball joke. Nope, didn't need some attention starved clown who's day in the sun was long gone over four decades ago.

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

OSD - So, let me get this right...your problem is with the "bling..."

And, a lot of rockers wear bling.  I was nearly blinded by Jeff Beck's diamond (or cubic zirconia) cuff... :lol

You had to be there... :lol

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50? 

 

I would suggest that by then Mike had toned down the on stage BS banter and if not he would have been advised to do so.   It really isn't Brian's forte.  Mike does fine NOW.  I have NO problem with his running the show these days whatsoever.  It's WELL done to be honest.  So I'll guess ['cause I wasn't there to see/hear it] that he did it that way in 2012.  It was the OFF stage BS that marred THAT episode in Beach Boys history.  Too much Brian.  Too little control of the juggernaut.  Smaller paydays.  What was a fella to do? ???

Well...He didi it.   :o

OH SO VERY doubtful that he'll ever get the chance to 'do it again'. ::)

Watching cuHsin brYhan half-heartedly mumble the words while awkwardly snapping his fingers shows just how much Mike was needed to be the frontman and keep up the energy.  That's why the current Beach Boys shows are a million times better than brYhan's tribute act shows. 

 :woot :woot :woot :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :woot :woot :woot

(http://jackcavanaugh.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83555153869e20120a55c162e970c-pi)

Maybe if he was fired he would have grown more powerful than we could possibly imagine.

(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12227630_10208042746050310_8958781067691435770_n.jpg?oh=66e7f508322d15c0836b36d2b0986ef0&oe=56C6AAEA)

Ontor! :hat

Well, they did cut out almost all of Mike's banter on the cd and dvd from C50.

Perhaps someone can one day edit together entire vintage BB concerts where only Mike's banter is present, and everything else is edited out - all of the pesky things like songs, and any audible evidence of unnecessary guys like Al and Brian being present can all be nixed.  That should once and for all show the world how important Mike's stage banter is!  ;D

Truth be told, Mike's stage banter is ok. Typically functional, sometimes annoying; stage banter in general by any person in most any given band is just that way. It is what it is. Mike can go way overboard into the corny side. Mike's banter in particular has been known to be considered laughable (not in a good way) and/or be off putting to some people (as I've witnessed firsthand), and I'm talking just ordinary music fans who have no particular preconceived notions of Mike. I think his '60s banter and onstage presence dates more poorly than many other bands of the era. A few years back I saw the BBs' "Lost Concert" (footage from 1964) screened in a movie theater, along with footage of The Beatles from the same era. The crowd reaction was, to put it lightly, quite different when observing the reaction to between-song banter and onstage moves compared between the two bands.

Let's not oversell Mike's banter itself into calling it a precious gift or anything. He's generally competent at it, but I get the feeling that some people think that Mike's stage banter itself is more important and vital a part of a BB show than the presence of actual other, original BB band members being there whatsoever - somehow, the latter has become acceptable as an expendable thing, while corny banter is to be treasured and praised. Meh.

Havin' Fun with Mike Love on Stage, a free CD with the next ESQ!

This whole "Mike Love's a great frontman" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. The Beach Boys, including Mike Love, were never known for being great showmen. The Beatles' early music was not that remarkable but they had great marketing and amazing amounts of charisma, something none of the Beach Boys, save Dennis, had. Mike Love might have been able to babble incessantly between songs, which is more than any other Beach Boy could manage, but he didn't babble well. John Lennon's babbling and antics, and Paul McCartney's and Ringo Starr's head-bobbing, and George Harrison's ghouly grins won over fans; Mike Love's banter never won a new fan. The Beach Boys' draw is the music not the charisma, cause there is no charisma. (Though since non-SMiLE, the pathos and drama may have won a few).

Completely appropriate to filter the chatter.  (I enjoy it but there is only so much space on a CD. It has to be edited.)

And for that purpose, they cut out about 10 songs as well. 

Is the C50 CD you are referring to that processed nightmare?

But, I'd prefer the raw live footage.

yeah the idea that the Beach Boys needed Mike's emceeing to keep the momentum going while they constantly replaced broken guitar strings is ridiculous. The Grateful Dead are famous for tuning incessantly between songs AND never uttering a word, and they did alright. Mike's banter actually had the opposite effect... he stilted the momentum searching for something clever or witty (but often just kind of awkward) to say. his song intros ramble on and on at times, and i'd tend to think the band and the audience were at least as annoyed as they were amused by the long-winded guy in the turban. in those days especially, people went to concerts to BOOGIE, MAN!!! not hear bad stand-up. despite the beard and the garb, any hope Mike had of being perceived as cool or hip went *poof* as soon as he opened his mouth.

In a freaky bit of synergy, Brian just talked about enjoying Mike as an emcee on stage in this interview..

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/11/06/brian-wilson-talks-50-years-beach-boys/75058352/

Sounds like he's leaving the door open for another record too.

Brian is very kind, and he also misses the days when he didn't have to deal with being the MC, or even hardly had to say a word to the audience. In that respect, I'm sure he enjoys Mike being there to do that. Mike picks up the slack there, and unlike Brian, Mike seems to actively enjoy being the MC. Brian also enjoys and misses being in a band called The Beach Boys.

Brian really has nothing unkind to say about anyone these days... Mr. Positivity could take a pointer there.

Mike Love's role as a "front man" is an important one, but it is a distant second to Mike's most valuable role in the group - that of the lead singer of most of The Beach Boys' early recordings, and the recordings for which the group is mostly known for (i.e. the hit records). Not only was Mike the best singer in the group for Brian's rock and roll songs, he was one of the best singers in rock and roll at that time. His distinctive voice was a key ingredient in the records' success(es).

Earlier in this thread or another thread, somebody noted that other bands' versions of Beach Boys' songs don't match the sound or the greatness of the originals. I agree, and I believe that's because of the superior vocals of The Beach Boys. You could take almost the identical backing tracks of Beach Boys' songs and substitute other bands' vocals and they would be inferior. And, I believe that Mike Love's distinctive voice is a perfect example of this. I think Brian knew - and knows - that, too.

The emcee thing though, really?  Was/Is it really that important?  I mean, you're a musical group - shut up and play yer songs already!  Yeah yeah, someone breaks a string and somebody has to babble through that, I guess, or maybe they just switch to a fresh guitar and keep going, or damn the torpedoes and just play with the same broken string guitar.  Personally, I don't need an emcee when I hear live music - what I want is the band/performer to play their songs.  Sure, it's nice when a performer has something interesting/clever/witty to say between some songs, but overall it isn't important.  However, if Mike really is/was such a bright light of emceeing, than perhaps instead of firing him, they could have just made him the emcee - the guy who comes on and does 10 minutes of patter before saying, "And now, my cousins and their friend, The Beach Boys!"  And then he hustles off the stage until such time as there is an intermission or a broken string (or some other such technical snafu), which requires him to come back on to patter some more.    :-D

You never really get many people calling Mike Love "one of the best singers in rock and roll." No journalists or magazines stick him on a list of great singers or great lyricists for some reason, why is that? It can't be the irrational hatred of baseball caps that plagues the music press.

I gotta say, to me, Brian Wilson is the best songwriter of the last century, but he's never had any taste that I've seen outside of that and clothes, and he has no idea whatsoever how to entertain a crowd outside of playing his brilliant music. So I wouldn't go to him when needing recommendations for emcees.

The uniqueness of The Beach Boys sound is definitely where Mike's talents are indispensable. In the early days, his more earthy lead contrasted with Brian's soaring falsetto in a way that was hard to duplicate. You can listen to any of the imitators from that time and know immediately that they are definitely not The Beach Boys. Even on a Beach Boys song, like Little Honda, or a Brian collaboration like Surf City, you know that the guys singing are not of the same calibre. Taken separately, the Boys may not have had the best solo voices. But blended, no one else sounded like them.  Mike's voice was unique and most of the Brian falsetto imitators are screechy and shrill. Lose any of those voices, including Mike's, and you lose what made The Beach Boys sound.

I have to diasgree. I identify a lot with Brian's tastes. He's a guy who's hip enough to dig the Del Close and John Brent record "How To Speak Hip" from 1959 but he also really enjoyed watching a TV show as saccharine as "Fipper"....and he's unapologetic about it! (which makes him the coolest guy on the planet in my book). I'm always reminded of (I think?) Paul William's claim that Brian was 'counter-hip', meaning he'd be more into a Four Preps record than the latest Jimi Hendrix album. I totally get that.  

As for Mike's MC skills, I can't speak for how Mike is on stage today but his early stage patter was modeled on what Dave Guard used to do with The Kingston Trio. Same tone and delivery. All the guys were into the Trio (as was most of America for a time). It would makes sense that Brian would enjoy that. That sort of thing is right in his wheelhouse.

Pet Sounds era Brian was a snappy looking, trendy kind of guy. I love his tastes in clothes from that period. I think, being the introvert that he is, Brian admires Mike's lack on inhibition on stage. But, yeah. He's probably not that good at gauging the quality of the chatter.

And that's a damn shame.

His clothes were perfect from the earliest post-high school photos up until about 1980. He had some good things going in the 90's too. So, I agree that he dressed very well. His taste in home-furnishings, literature and philosophy, food and friends seems to be somewhat lacking, though.

To say it with Mike's words, Brian doesn't have an evil bone in his body.