The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm very excited about this awesome interview so I'll repost it all here


"
Mike Love’s Cosmic Journey By Erik Hedegaard

Mike Love bounds up the stairs inside his massive lake tahoe home (10 bedrooms in all, 12 bathrooms, two elevators, not to be believed) and into a large walk-in closet stuffed to overflowing with garish, multicolored shirts and a gazillion baseball caps, many of them emblazoned with the name of his band, the Beach Boys. A suitcase rests on the floor. Love nods at it, prods it with his foot. “A lot more shirts are in there,” he says, “because, if you must know, I haven’t unpacked.”
And why should he unpack? For the past 54 years, he and various versions of the Beach Boys, which these days include only him as an original member, have toured almost constantly. On his current outing, he has 172 dates lined up, cramming 19 European shows into 22 days this past December, for instance, and shortly thereafter flying back stateside to give the 6,500 citizens of tiny Avon, Colorado, the chance to hear all about California girls. From there, it’s onward, evermore, venues big and small, makes no difference to him. The man is 74. You’d think he’d want to mothball the Beach Boyscaps and Hawaiian shirts he always wears onstage, maybe do something else with the years that remain. Not a chance.
“My cousin Brian loved the studio, but I like performing,” he says. “I mean, I’ve probably sung ‘Fun, Fun, Fun’ live close to 6,000 times, and there are county fairs where we’ve broken the attendance records, playing to the biggest crowds they’ve ever had, 50- to 70-year-olds mostly, their children and their grandchildren. I love making music, and there’s never been a time in my life when there wasn’t music.”

And the fans sure do get their money’s worth, with more than 40 songs crammed into a typical two-hour show by the time “Fun, Fun, Fun” finally fades out, the soaring nasal twang of Love’s bass-to-baritone range, so essential to the band’s five-part-harmony stack, memorable and distinctive, leaving all the Dockers-wearing duffers buzzing happily, if not a little bittersweetly.

The Beach Boys: cars, girls and surfboards. Home movies on a backdrop. All the original members in a swimming pool, falling into and out of a life raft, laughing, fully dressed. Dennis Wilson, gone since 1983, drowned while drunk. Carl Wilson, cancer got him in 1998. Al Jardine, the band’s Ringo, still kicking but quietly. Brian Wilson, 73 now, the group’s musical genius, visionary, guiding light and the bearer of all those wonderful harmonies, a little wobbly in the mind since 1968, due to drug and alcohol problems and mental illness. Love, still going strong, looking fit and trim, just as he did back in the day, as always the entertaining cornball, joke-telling frontman, the souped-up, flamboyant counterpoint to his introverted cousin Brian, both entirely necessary to the band’s enduring success.

At the same time, however, Love is considered one of the biggest assholes in the history of rock & roll. That’s been the popular opinion of him for several decades. He just can’t seem to shake it. There are “I Hate Mike Love” websites and a “Mike Love Is a Douchebag” group on Facebook. He’s been called a clown, the Devil, an evil, egotistical prick, a greedy bully, sarcastic and mean-spirited, and, let’s not forget, “if he were a fish, he’d be a plastic bag wrapped around the neck of a beautiful sea lion.” Love is mostly able to laugh off this hateful venom, but on occasion he will break down, turn to his wife of 21 years, Jackie, and ask her, “What did I do? Why am I the villain? How did it get to this?”

According to his detractors, it all started in 1966, in a recording studio, with Love expressing his dislike for Brian’s work on what became Pet Sounds, one of the greatest albums of all time. “Who’s gonna hear this sh*t? The ears of a dog?” he is said to have said, though he strongly denies it. A year later, he supposedly so criticized the Smile project that Brian, that beautiful sea lion of a man, shelved it for 37 years. He has sued or threatened to sue Brian numerous times. Plus, in the 1970s, he used to wear gold-lamé bell-bottoms that were so tight that his (somewhat enviable) package seemed to have equal billing with everyone else. He made the insipid 1988 song “Kokomo,” which Brian doesn’t appear on and that has become the biggest-selling Beach Boys tune of all time, Love so proud of lyrics like “Aruba, Jamaica, ooh, I wanna take ya.” He coughed up $5,000 in seed money so Tipper Gore could start her campaign to censor music. And then there’s the baseball cap he wears everyplace he goes, onstage or not. It’s universally despised. Even wife Jackie isn’t a fan. (“When we go out on dates, I always ask, ‘Can you leave the hat at home?’ ”) Everybody knows he’s bald. He should embrace it.

He’s wearing one today. He steps out of the closet and plucks it off his head. He bends forward. “Yeah, well,” he says. “You really don’t want to blind oncoming traffic, OK?” And back on it goes.

So, he’s got his reasons for the cap, as well as for most everything else, a good bit of which, he says, is just plain flat-out wrong. “The fable is that I’m such an asshole, but a lot of that stuff is skewed by the crazies,” he says. “I never said half the sh*t that’s attributed to me. I mean, I must be pretty prolific in asshole-type things to say, like, I get up in the morning thinking, ‘I’ve got a job to do. How can I be a total jerk today?’ ” Later, he says, “I’ve become cannon fodder.”
He pauses and grins. He could pull back, or continue a serious discussion of how he has been pilloried and why it’s so off-base, maybe even apologize for some of the things he’s said. But such, apparently, is not his way. “It’s o-pun season,” he says, making a pun for pun’s sake, with little regard for how it might sound to those around him.
The most important thing to know about Love is that he meditates twice a day, without fail, morning and night, and has done so for 49 years. He learned meditation from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi himself, in 1967, at which time he forswore pot, hash and hard liquor, his only real vices, while Brian and Dennis, in particular, continued lighting up their brains with the more drugs and booze, the better.

Today, Love is tooling around in his wife’s Audi SUV, taking a right onto Tahoe’s Lake Shore Drive, the lake itself shimmering off into the distance. He looks quite crisp, happy, prosperous and well put-together: wool trousers, striped pullover, his Van Dyke-type beard trimmed close. He talks in a friendly, easygoing way.

“When I learned to meditate,” he says, “I said, ‘Hallelujah. I can relax without all that stuff that fogs your mind up.’ But everybody has their own path, makes their own choices. My addiction, if it’s an addiction, is to meditation.”

He has been up since seven this morning, already meditated and practiced yoga, eaten a vegetarian breakfast and spent time wondering how best to release his recent recording of a song he wrote in 1979 called “Alone on Christmas Day.”

“It refers to the melancholy of feeling alone on Christmas Day,” he says, “but I meant it sweet, in that you’re never really alone. It fits a number of situations, whether it’s a parent or a grandparent or somebody that you really cared for who is not there anymore.”

Like Brian, Dennis, Carl and Al, one could say, but the point seems too obvious to make. So let’s get back to meditation for a moment. Have there been periods where you haven’t meditated?
“Oh, no, that would not be safe,” he says, chuckling. “I need to meditate. Well, let’s put it this way. It’s not good for me to miss meditation. And not good for others, too.”
One time he skipped was in 1988, on the night of the Beach Boys’ induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Come time to make a speech to the crowd, he started off by saying, “We love harmony, and we love all people, too,” after which he hurled insults at Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Diana Ross and “chickenshit” Mick Jagger, while insinuating that he and the Beach Boys were bigger and better than any of them. He struck a grim-as-death, tight-lipped pose and was greeted with jeers and boos. At one point, he said, “I don’t care what anybody in this room thinks,” which was clear enough. He also said, “A lot of people are going to go out of this room thinking Mike Love is crazy,” which was true too.

He scratches at his beard, recollecting this awful, reputation-cementing moment, and says just about the only thing he can say: “Well, I didn’t get to the punchline.”
Do you regret anything about that night?

“Yeah, I regret that I didn’t meditate,” he says. “It helps you deal with whatever you’re dealing with. I meditate in order to cope with things.”

And over the years, he’s certainly had a lot to deal with. There’s the time, he says, “when my then-wife, Suzanne, mother of two of my children – I’d flipped for her, she really rocked my world – had an affair with cousin Dennis. Out of all the women in the world, you would think . . . ”
What else? Has there been one thing, above all others, that’s required meditation to cope with?
His blue eyes darken to gunmetal gray, and the bristles of his beard nearly stand up and quiver. “Yeah,” he says. “The major one of those things is being cheated.”

Ah, yes, that, of course. It goes way back to the start. Thanks to the Wilson brothers’ father, Murry, who was an abusive, conniving piece of work, as well as the Beach Boys’ first manager, Love’s name didn’t make it onto the publishing credits for many of the early hit songs. For instance, on “Wouldn’t It Be Nice,” Love says he was responsible for the ending couplet “Good night, baby/Sleep tight, baby,” not an earthshaking contribution but significant nonetheless, as were the lines that he wrote for “409”: “She’s real fine, my 409” and “Giddy-up, giddy-up, 409.” And so on, with many other songs, including “California Girls,” “Help Me, Rhonda” and “I Get Around.”

Brian apparently knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do anything about it (Brian Wilson declined to comment for this story). Even so, Love seems to blame both of them, although, on occasion, he does acknowledge how cowed Brian was by his dad. And it doesn’t seem to have helped that in 1993, long after Murry’s death, Love successfully sued Brian for back songwriting credits, got his name appended to some 35 of the songs, and was awarded at least $2 million in back royalties. The whole thing still pisses him off. And once he gets started on it, there’s no stopping him.

He’s in his house now. Waterfalls burbling, Chef Joaquin tending the stove, wife Jackie overseeing some interior redecorating, Pixie the little cat sleeping in the bed that Pumba the big dog should be sleeping in, and Love lost in the past.

“I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’ ‘Surfin’ USA,’ too, the big shaftola. Same thing with ‘I Get Around.’ I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics. And nowhere was my name mentioned on the record. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Murry,” he says with a laugh. “And, OK, so then what do I say? My only recourse was legal. But if I stick up for myself, Mike’s an asshole. I mean, Brian wanted to settle, but he was in a conservatorship that wouldn’t let him. I give him credit for that. But I was cheated and stolen from by my uncle and my cousin, and I don’t think it’s ever going to be resolved. I mean, how you gonna resolve it?”

In 2005, Love sued Brian once again, this t ime for “shamelessly misappropriat[ing] Mike Love’s songs, likeness and the Beach Boys trademark” during the promotion of Brian’s belatedly released Smile album, mainly because a tiny picture of Love with the Beach Boys found its way onto a promotional CD given out in a British newspaper. A judge dismissed all of the claims and said the copyright aspect “bordered on frivolous.” But far from suing Brian at every opportunity, shouldn’t Love, with all his years of meditation, have been the one to step forward and try to make peace?

He blinks at the question, rolls his eyes and curls his lip.

“When somebody in your family suffers from a mental illness, sometimes it’s gone past the opportunity to have a normal relationship,” he says. “I mean, there may be a feeling that, ideally, you would like to see peace in the family. And I have nothing but sympathy for Brian. But when you say ‘peace,’ that would presuppose everything is peaceful. Well, when somebody has chosen a path or direction in life that has led to some pretty unhappy situations, everything isn’t all right.”

And he’s completely serious. It’s out of his hands. There’s nothing he can do. It’s enough to make you bang your head against the statue of Shiva, the Indian god of destruction, that stands in his house, or turn upside down the framed photograph of him, George Harrison, John Lennon, Donovan and others hanging out with the Maharishi back in the day. Then again, in 1968, Love said, “One of the greatest things [about Transcendental Meditation] that interested me was that [the Maharishi] said, ‘You don’t have to give up your Rolls- Royce and forsake all your pursuits of material pleasures to develop inner-spiritual qualities.’ That sounded real good to me.” And maybe all the lawsuits could be considered part of those pursuits, too, and thus fully justifiable, at least on an inner-spiritual level. 
In the main, he’s a fun and engaging, slightly wackadoodle fellow. One day he’s up in his home studio, playing “Alone on Christmas Day” and a few other songs, most of which he plans to put on a future album titled Mike Love Not War, and says, “I call it that because punditry never dies.” Many other puns feature his last name – about one song, he says, “A lot of Love went into that one,” and then says, “It’s a name you can have lots of pun with.” He signs his autographs “Love Mike Love.” He doesn’t care if you groan. He expects you to. He’ll never stop.

On the other hand, one can only imagine how frustrating and difficult it was for him at times, having to deal with Brian when Brian was in the throes of his drug-and-alcohol-induced delusions, crazy stuff, such as thinking that songs of his created fires in downtown L.A. Or when Brian was in full-on, persnickety, dictator-of-the-mixing-board mode. Or when Brian decided that surfing songs were passé.

The 2015 movie Love & Mercy, made with the cooperation of Brian, shows much of this history. And while Love does not come off especially bad in it, he was, he says, denied an advance screening and told, “Oh, go pay to watch it in the theater.” It’s just another salvo in a conflict that seems without end. And he has no plans to see the movie. “I don’t really need to see it,” he says. “I’ve lived it.”

The last time he actually played with Brian was during the 50th-anniversary tour, in 2012. The reunion ended badly, with Love going on to play dates with his version of the Beach Boys and Brian feeling like he’d been fired. “I’m disappointed and can’t understand why he doesn’t want to tour with Al, David and me,” Brian said. “We are out there having so much fun. After all, we are the real Beach Boys.”

Jackie says that during the tour, however, seeing Brian and her husband together again was really something else. “They’re like two 16-year-old best friends,” she says. “Once, Mike and I were giving Brian a ride during peak traffic in L.A., and they were like two boys out in Mom and Dad’s car. Brian’s like, ‘Mike, so what are we gonna do?’ and every few minutes, he’d say, ‘Are we getting closer? Are we getting closer?’ And Mike would say, ‘Brian, look at the traffic. I can’t go anywhere!’ It’s hysterical.”

“Yeah,” says Love. “I was very close to Brian growing up. We’d go to Wednesday-night youth meetings at the Presbyterian church and come home singing. We’d go outside and play the radio in his car, because my dad would throw us out of the house.” He smiles at the memory, shaking his head. “So that was the kind of closeness we had as children, and then we wrote all these songs together.”
The last job he had before becoming a Beach Boy was working in his dad’s sheet-metal factory, cleaning dingleberries off welds, and pumping Standard gas at night. He was 19. He’d gotten his girlfriend pregnant, married her, lived with her in a tiny apartment, had no prospects, evidently felt no calling, thought about going into real estate. “What I might have done,” he says, “is find run-down houses that need work, fix them up and resell them, but I didn’t have a plan, per se.” He grew up in Baldwin Hills, California, an L.A. suburb inland of the 405, but he spent a good bit of time nine miles away, in Hawthorne, hanging out with his music-obsessed cousin Brian and putting an early, fleeting interest in surfing to good use, offering up lyrics like “Surfin’ is the only life, the only way for me/Now surf! Surf with me!”

In late 1961, the song “Surfin’ ” entered the Top 40 on local record charts, hitting a high of Number 75 on the national Billboard charts, jump-starting what became known as the California Sound and, in due course, leading to all the hits, confusion, interminable feuds and untimely deaths of the past 54 years. Since 1998, he’s been the sole licensee of the Beach Boys name and the only one legally able to tour using it, although they all share in the tour profits. When Jardine once attempted to go out as Al Jardine of the Beach Boys, Love slapped him with a lawsuit and put an end to that.
These days, when Jardine and Brian tour together, they tour under Brian’s name, with no mention of the Beach Boys anywhere. (“They sound good,” Love says. “Al has got a great voice, and his son Matt sings all my parts, but you know in the reviews they say he is singing Carl’s part. It is bullshit – they are singing Brian’s high falsetto on the original recordings. I don’t know why people can’t just be truthful and honest and own up to it.”)

“Mike has his own vision of what the Beach Boys are, and he doesn’t need us anymore,” says Jardine. “It’s like, ‘Wow, that hurts.’ I mean, he’s obviously a terrific singer, and, oh, gosh, he’s just so clever with lyrics, but his strength was his ties to Brian, who is, let’s face it, the golden goose of all time. I think he really just wants to be back in the locker room at Dorsey High, being that guy who threw the most touchdowns – he has to have that recognition.”

One reason is that many people, when they think of the Beach Boys, rarely think of him, at least not in a good way. It’s all about Brian. “Everybody’s kind of tried to dial Mike out and make Brian a deity,” says Bruce Johnston, who has played with the Beach Boys since 1965 and is still playing with the band today. “I mean, you get so swept away by Brian’s incredible production abilities that people probably overlook the fact that they hear all this through Mike Love’s words.” Not even Dennis was immune to seeing brother Brian as the end-all, be-all. “Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys,” he once said. “He is the band. We’re his fucking messengers. He is all of it. Period. We’re nothing. He’s everything.”

That attitude must have rankled Love. And even when Brian was at the height of his musical powers – which have not diminished all that much in the past several decades, as he still writes and records music, releasing three studio albums since 2010 – Love apparently continued to second-guess him, which is what ticks so many people off about him.

In 1966, during the recording of Pet Sounds, did you really say what so many people think you said: “Who’s gonna hear this sh*t? The ears of a dog?”

“That’s a bunch of bullshit,” Love says. “I never said anything like that. All of us worked our asses off on that!”

And what about Smile? Brian has said your criticism of its trippy, experimental nature undermined his confidence and caused him to shelve it.

“But he’s also said the opposite of that: ‘Mike had nothing to do with it,’ which is the truth,” Love says. “I never said anything bad about any of the tracks. I admit to wanting to make a commercially successful pop record, so I might have complained about some of the lyrics on Smile, calling them acid alliteration, which even the guy who wrote them, Van Dyke Parks, couldn’t explain. But I wasn’t resistant to . . . I mean, crazy stupid sounds, like animals, farmyard sounds, did all that sh*t, laying in the bottom of an empty pool, singing up at the mic. I did all that stuff.”

Later on, he sighs and rounds up on another, related thought.

“It was a crazy time, people f***ed up out of their minds on stuff,” he says. “You do a lot of pot, LSD, cocaine, you name it, paranoia runs rampant, so, yes, Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? Should Mike Love take a beating for Brian’s paranoid schizophrenia?” (Brian is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.)

Love continues, “My contribution was positive lyrics. Why the f*** should I be the scapegoat and the fall guy for that other stuff?” He says a while later, “Smile . . . that’s a misnomer if I ever heard of one.”

And that is about all Love will admit to. “He’s reinventing his role in the band,” says Jardine. “He feels it has not been [properly] expressed, so he’s reinventing most of the things that are important to the songs he loves to perform.”

The first time Love sued Brian was in 1992, for defamation regarding how Brian made him appear in his autobiography. His main complaint revolved around how little credit he was given for the songs he and Brian wrote together. “They disparaged me,” he says. “It was like I hardly did anything and Brian did everything. It’s like kind of trying to erase somebody from history or create another reality.” The publisher, HarperCollins, settled the suit for $1.5 million. Love has never read the book, which thus allows him to say things like, “At the risk of being facetious, it’s my favorite book I never read, because what books have you ever read that paid you a million dollars?” He means this to be amusing, but it doesn’t exactly come off that way. Crass, is more like it. He does acknowledge this, saying, “I guess a lot of people don’t understand I have a sense of humor that’s kind of wack, or different, or sometimes bratty, so I get labeled with that and there goes my image, right down the toilet.” But it doesn’t slow him down any and probably never will. To the school of himself, he is totally true.
One afternoon in Lake Tahoe, he and Jackie are sitting down for lunch, about to dig into some pretty tasty quinoa burgers. Jackie’s 22 years younger than Love and, because she’s been married to him for more than two decades, can say, “I’m wife number six, but it’s OK, because I’ve beaten the cumulative average.” How long was the shortest marriage?

“Sue Oliver,” says Love. “She was a great hang, but she was a fortune hunter. Lasted maybe six months.” After that, he gives a rundown on the rest of the exes. One marriage was annulled. Another was with “a Mexican mistake who liked alcohol and pot better than meditation and me.” Suzanne, the one who really rocked his world and had an affair with cousin Dennis, he says, once hired Manson Family murderess Susan Atkins as a babysitter, “which was kind of the last straw for me.” Another wife he met at a meditation gathering, but then she “became overly fond of another meditative fellow, who was living in a compound I bought in Santa Barbara.” And so on. As well, he can lay claim to eight biological children, ranging in ages from 20 to mid-fifties, although the early, horndog vagaries of his life may have resulted in at least one more.

And yet here he is, having survived it all. The biggest asshole in rock & roll history? No, not really. Egotistical? Without a doubt. Obtuse? He can be. Tortured soul? He’d like no one to think so. A Beach Boys history revisionist? To some degree, perhaps, which may be reflected in his memoir, due out this fall. Angry at Brian? Passive-aggressively, at the least. Mainly, he’s turned out just the way he has, telling puns, living in this massive house, owning a Bentley and a Maserati, still thankful that the Maharishi did not frown upon material possessions, and still performing like not a day has gone by since 1963.

“Despite the obvious dysfunctionality of the Beach Boys as a group of human beings,” he says later on, “to be able to take this music – all of these foibles and trials and tribulations, all of the unhappiness and self-destruction, the self-indulgent behavior – but if you take the music, music, and what it’s meant to so many people.” He shifts his weight, looking a little sad and uncomfortable, maybe thinking of something he’d said earlier. “Oh, man, going through the past like this,” he’d said. “It’s like digging up a rock and all these bugs are under it.”

Most of those bugs, of course, have Brian’s name on them, leading one to wonder what he might say to Brian if Brian magically appeared here right now?

He and Jackie are just finishing lunch and pondering some fine-looking gluten-free carrot cake. “What do you mean?” he says.
How would you greet him?
“Oh, OK, well . . . ”
Jackie speaks up. “Let me be Brian,” she says.
Love looks alarmed. “No, no, no, no,” he says.
But it’s too late. Jackie has hopped onto her chair and is towering over her husband, both magnifying the actual height difference of the two men by about three feet and reducing the actual distance between them by about 450 miles. She puts on a deep voice. She’s Brian now.
“Mike, hey, Mike!” she says.
Mike is held speechless. Finally, he says, “What?”
“That’s what you would say?” Jackie asks.
He laughs, awkwardly, and gives it his best shot. “Hi, Brian, what’s happening?”
Deep voice. “Hey, Mike. I found you. Ya know, dude, what are we gonna do? I miss you, Mike.”
Love drops out of the moment. “Brian probably would say that. If he had the ability.” He giggles nervously.
Jackie isn’t satisfied. She gets serious with him. “I don’t want to make you cry, but would you greet him as being your cousin and collaborator in music first, or just as a collaborator? OK, so I’m Brian. You’re seeing me. Express the personal part of it. What would you say?”
Many, many seconds go by.
“I’d probably say, ‘I love you,’ ” he says, moisture gathering in the corners of his eyes. “ ‘And I love what we did together. And let’s do it again.’ ” But then he gives his head a shake, narrows his eyes, any wetness there drying up, frowns and once again gives voice to what no amount of meditation can ever smooth over. “I’ve been ostracized,” he says quietly. “Vilified. In other words, f***ed with.” He looks around for agreement. When none is forthcoming, he says, “Pass me the water, please,” and, in such a way, lets it be known that some things will never change.
="

Wow. Jackie Wifeandmanagers too...

I have to say, as someone who’s met Mike Love on a number of occasions, I can honestly say that I didn’t know him at all.  Now, that I’ve read “Mike Love’s Cosmic Journey” by Erik Hedegaard in the February 25, 2016 issue of Rolling Stone, I have a much more expanded view of the man. It’s the current issue, pgs 42-47.  I recommend finding a copy and reading it. 

Yes, there are a number of the same old comments, but the article gives us context, a sense of the man in his home.   It’s pretty clear what Mike wants to say to RS and one might wonder if this is also the idea for his book. At least I can reference some quotes:

(pg 44) …“’The fable is that I’m such an asshole, but a lot of that stuff is skewed by the crazies,’ he says. ‘I never said half the sh*t that’s attributed to me. I mean, I must be pretty prolific in asshole-type things to say, like, I get up in the morning thinking, ‘I’ve got a job to do. How can I be a total jerk today?’ ” Later, he says, ‘I’ve become cannon fodder.’…”

Then we have this (pg 44): …(RS)  …”’Have there been periods where you haven’t meditated?
“’Oh, no, that would not be safe,’ he says, chuckling. ‘I need to meditate. Well, let’s put it this way. It’s not good for me to miss meditation. And not good for others, too.’
“One time he skipped was in 1988, on the night of the Beach Boys’ induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Come time to make a speech to the crowd, he started off by saying, ‘We love harmony, and we love all people, too,’ after which he hurled insults at Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Diana Ross and ‘chickenshit’ Mick Jagger, while insinuating that he and the Beach Boys were bigger and better than any of them. He struck a grim-as-death, tight-lipped pose and was greeted with jeers and boos. At one point, he said, ‘I don’t care what anybody in this room thinks,’ which was clear enough. He also said, ‘A lot of people are going to go out of this room thinking Mike Love is crazy,’ which was true too.

“He scratches at his beard, recollecting this awful, reputation-cementing moment, and says just about the only thing he can say: ‘Well, I didn’t get to the punchline.’
“’Do you regret anything about that night?’

“’Yeah, I regret that I didn’t meditate, he says. ‘It helps you deal with whatever you’re dealing with. I meditate in order to cope with things.’…”

Ironically, since much of the article is the old argument about writing credits, we read that he wrote “Alone on Christmas Day” with no mention of his co-writer.  Oh, well. 

Even though it’s the same old argument about the lawsuit that was settled so long ago that takes up most of pg. 45, it does offer details about exactly which lyrics were provided by Mike on various songs.  It’s rather fun just reading the contributions and how it fits his concept of his touring BBs. The other litigation Love initiated is also mentioned, including the one that was dismissed as “borderline frivolous” by the judge. Then there’s this:   

“(RS) ‘But far from suing Brian at every opportunity, shouldn’t Love, with all his years of meditation, have been the one to step forward and try to make peace?’

“’He blinks at the question, rolls his eyes and curls his lip.’

“’When somebody in your family suffers from a mental illness, sometimes it’s gone past the opportunity to have a normal relationship,’ he says. ‘I mean, there may be a feeling that, ideally, you would like to see peace in the family. And I have nothing but sympathy for Brian. But when you say ‘peace,’ that would presuppose everything is peaceful. Well, when somebody has chosen a path or direction in life that has led to some pretty unhappy situations, everything isn’t all right.’

“’And he’s completely serious. It’s out of his hands. There’s nothing he can do….’Then again, in 1968, Love said, ‘One of the greatest things [about Transcendental Meditation] that interested me was that [the Maharishi] said, ‘You don’t have to give up your Rolls- Royce and forsake all your pursuits of material pleasures to develop inner-spiritual qualities.’ That sounded real good to me.’ And maybe all the lawsuits could be considered part of those pursuits, too, and thus fully justifiable, at least on an inner-spiritual level…”

“…’On the other hand, one can only imagine how frustrating and difficult it was for him at times, having to deal with Brian when Brian was in the throes of his drug-and-alcohol-induced delusions, crazy stuff, such as thinking that songs of his created fires in downtown L.A. Or when Brian was in full-on, persnickety, dictator-of-the-mixing-board mode. Or when Brian decided that surfing songs were passé.’”

Nothing new about C50, of course.

This was befuddling, “These days, when Jardine and Brian tour together, they tour under Brian’s name, with no mention of the Beach Boys anywhere. (‘They sound good,’ Love says. ‘Al has got a great voice, and his son Matt sings all my parts, but you know in the reviews they say he is singing Carl’s part. It is bullshit – they are singing Brian’s high falsetto on the original recordings. I don’t know why people can’t just be truthful and honest and own up to it.’)”  What part is he saying Matt is singing – his or Brian’s? Yet Brian is accused of lying. 

“’Mike has his own vision of what the Beach Boys are, and he doesn’t need us anymore,’ says Jardine. “’like, ‘Wow, that hurts.’ I mean, he’s obviously a terrific singer, and, oh, gosh, he’s just so clever with lyrics, but his strength was his ties to Brian, who is, let’s face it, the golden goose of all time. I think he really just wants to be back in the locker room at Dorsey High, being that guy who threw the most touchdowns – he has to have that recognition.’

“One reason is that many people, when they think of the Beach Boys, rarely think of him, at least not in a good way. It’s all about Brian. ‘Everybody’s kind of tried to dial Mike out and make Brian a deity,’ says Bruce Johnston, who has played with the Beach Boys since 1965 and is still playing with the band today. ‘I mean, you get so swept away by Brian’s incredible production abilities that people probably overlook the fact that they hear all this through Mike Love’s words.’ Not even Dennis was immune to seeing brother Brian as the end-all, be-all. ‘Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys,’ he once said. ‘He is the band. We’re his fucking messengers. He is all of it. Period. We’re nothing. He’s everything.’” 

Okay we’re back to the “deity” thing again.  I know no Brianista who considers him a deity, but it’s the mantra of some, apparently

The denials continue that he was ever resistant to “Pet Sounds,” or “Smile.”  I guess the more people who were there die and can’t respond, the stronger this version will become.

“’It was a crazy time, people f***ed up out of their minds on stuff,’ he says. ‘You do a lot of pot, LSD, cocaine, you name it, paranoia runs rampant, so, yes, Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? Should Mike Love take a beating for Brian’s paranoid schizophrenia?’ (Brian is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.)

“Love continues, ‘My contribution was positive lyrics. Why the f*** should I be the scapegoat and the fall guy for that other stuff?’ He says a while later, “Smile . . . that’s a misnomer if I ever heard of one.’

“And that is about all Love will admit to. ‘He’s reinventing his role in the band,’ says Jardine. ‘He feels it has not been [properly] expressed, so he’s reinventing most of the things that are important to the songs he loves to perform.”

I think I’ll skip the commentary on the ex-wives – pretty grim stuff.

Now about his book:

(pg 47) “And yet here he is, having survived it all. The biggest asshole in rock & roll history? No, not really. Egotistical? Without a doubt. Obtuse? He can be. Tortured soul? He’d like no one to think so. A Beach Boys history revisionist? To some degree, perhaps, which may be reflected in his memoir, due out this fall. Angry at Brian? Passive-aggressively, at the least. Mainly, he’s turned out just the way he has, telling puns, living in this massive house, owning a Bentley and a Maserati, still thankful that the Maharishi did not frown upon material possessions, and still performing like not a day has gone by since 1963.

“’Despite the obvious dysfunctionality of the Beach Boys as a group of human beings,’ he says later on, ‘to be able to take this music – all of these foibles and trials and tribulations, all of the unhappiness and self-destruction, the self-indulgent behavior – but if you take the music, music, and what it’s meant to so many people.’ He shifts his weight, looking a little sad and uncomfortable, maybe thinking of something he’d said earlier. ‘Oh, man, going through the past like this,’ he’d said. ‘It’s like digging up a rock and all these bugs are under it.’

“Most of those bugs, of course, have Brian’s name on them, leading one to wonder what he might say to Brian if Brian magically appeared here right now?

And now the weirdest part (of course the oddly staged “play-acting” did allow the oft-repeated innuedo that Brian isn’t allows to call Mike):

“(RS47) He and Jackie are just finishing lunch and pondering some fine-looking gluten-free carrot cake. ‘What do you mean?’ he says.
How would you greet him?

“‘Oh, OK, well . . . ‘

“Jackie speaks up. “Let me be Brian,” she says.

“Love looks alarmed. ‘No, no, no, no,’ he says.

“But it’s too late. Jackie has hopped onto her chair and is towering over her husband, both magnifying the actual height difference of the two men by about three feet and reducing the actual distance between them by about 450 miles. She puts on a deep voice.

“She’s Brian now.

“’Mike, hey, Mike!’ she says.

“Mike is held speechless. Finally, he says, ‘What?’

“’That’s what you would say?’ Jackie asks.

“He laughs, awkwardly, and gives it his best shot. ‘Hi, Brian, what’s happening?’

“Deep voice. ‘Hey, Mike. I found you. Ya know, dude, what are we gonna do? I miss you, Mike.’

“Love drops out of the moment. ‘Brian probably would say that. If he had the ability.’ He giggles nervously.

“Jackie isn’t satisfied. She gets serious with him. ‘I don’t want to make you cry, but would you greet him as being your cousin and collaborator in music first, or just as a collaborator? OK, so I’m Brian. You’re seeing me. Express the personal part of it. What would you say?’

“Many, many seconds go by.

“’I’d probably say, ‘I love you,’  he says, moisture gathering in the corners of his eyes. “ ‘And I love what we did together. And let’s do it again.’ ” But then he gives his head a shake, narrows his eyes, any wetness there drying up, frowns and once again gives voice to what no amount of meditation can ever smooth over. ‘I’ve been ostracized,’ he says quietly. ‘Vilified. In other words, f***ed with.’ He looks around for agreement. When none is forthcoming, he says, ‘Pass me the water, please,’ and, in such a way, lets it be known that some things will never change.”

And there you have a bit of a synopsis.  I’d read the whole thing if I were you, though.  Absolutely fascinating.

Wow, the writer actually got to go into Mike's closet and witness the shirt and hat collection. I wonder if Mike first had to knock him out with a whiff of Bat Gas so that he wouldn't know the exact location.

Thank you, SIP, for saving me the trouble of actually being seem in public with an issue of Rolling Stone in my hand.  Or, worse, actually spending money on one.  

Not a ton of new information.  I thought that article was going to be much worse for Mike.  If anything, his current wife comes off worse.  

Some factual errors about Brian's band, as Brian and Al handle of lot of Mike's leads, not Matt.  

I've said this before.  Mike Love is no saint.  He never has been, and he never will be.  But, he's not the devil incarnate either.  

I'm hoping he delves a little deeper in the book.  But, overall, I thought this was a decent article.  Definitely a better read than the constant puff pieces full of factual errors that tend to come out at least once a month.  

I've always liked Mike. But blaming meditation for the hall of fame speech.. Meditation is in your mind, so he's basically blaming himself, as well he should. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't like him don't buy his sh*t, and don't go to his shows.

Oh Al is the ringo..WTF

I thought that analogy was a little odd too. 

Maybe because he had the fewest songwriting credits of the classic five??? 

Well, it's directly from the end of the "Jersey Boys" film in reference to the least known guy in the Four Seasons, so I'm guessing that's where he got the idea.  If he could only resist taking shots at Al, but...

This is kind of just an extended version of what we've had in other relatively in-depth pieces. It's not a hatchet job on Mike. I think it all boils down to that Mike clearly doesn't have the ability to step outside of himself and be objective at all and see how others see him. He gets close sometimes. In the article, he will admit that others may think he's an a-hole, but he implies they're 100% incorrect. He doesn't seem to be open to the possibility that sometimes he is actually being an a-hole.

He also still doesn't seem to be willing to admit to mistakes (ex-wives don't count, and he seems to blame them anyway), and seems unwilling to try to be the one who actually helps BROKER some peace.

One interesting tidbit that's a slight epiphany perhaps: Mike essentially admits that he's so freaking ANGRY about the songwriting credits situation that he simply will *never* get over it. That's unfortunate (especially since he won the lawsuit), but it at least explains the type of hostility and anger he harbors, even in cases where he himself at least partially absolves the only Beach Boy (Brian) that he could lay blame with. It also at least confirms (if we didn't already know) that he will never let it go.

It's pretty ironic to read Mike describing Al in that circa 1992 Goldmine article, about how Al holds onto old grudges and won't let stuff go, and then read this new Mike article.

The stuff about Matt singing his (meaning Mike's) parts is weird. I'm confused as to what he means. I think he's saying someone (though I don't know who) is saying someone in the band (Matt?) sings Carl's parts, but is actually singing Brian's parts. Mike's comments here are weird for numerous reasons. They're unclear. Also, I don't recall anyone running rampant claiming anyone is "singing Carl's parts" in concert. Brian typically takes Carl leads. The harmony stack varies from song to song I would imagine. But the offense he seems to take at the idea that some unspecified person is incorrectly ID'ing who is singing Carl's parts in Brian's band is just plain strange. I mean, Mike's band has all ringers singing Carl's parts too, right? On the leads, it's usually Brian, whom I think has enough clout to sing Carl songs that he wrote in the first place.

Dennis drown while drunk and cancer got Carl. I think the writer of the article is the real D-bag.

As for the confusing Matt comment.. When I saw BW last October, Matt sang wouldn't it be nice and don't worry baby. Brian's lead songs.. I believe Foskett did/does the same. Its whatever. But when I see Bruce singing do you wanna dance, that makes me wanna blow my ear drums out. Obviously I don't like when someone else sings someone else's song.. stamos anyone..!?

Mike the house flipper.  How fitting.

By the way I have eaten Quinoa enough times.  It times like shat.  

Dropping the sarcasm for a minute...Mike seems like an ok guy, but he's been a slave to his own ego and it's ruined his life.  He would have been better off working a regular job.

Kudos to him for admitting that at least two of his wives dumped him.

I thought Jackie came out great. Her role playing as Brian with Mike seemed to push him out of his comfort zone and forced him to be real. That may not make her the image of a doting, submissive wife but it shows that she wants people to see more to Mike than his usual, defensive bluster. I give her props for trying to shed some more light on Mike's current relationship with Brian.

Hey Jude,

I found that whole rant about the vocals in Brian's band to be odd too.

Don't forget about Darian and Blondie who tackle Darlin and Wild Honey respectively. 

I don't think a 10 bed & 12 Bath Lake Tahoe joint is a life ruined. And perhaps 2 elevators..

I assume that that is a transcription error -- that Mike said "the high parts" and the journalist misheard it as "my parts" -- that's the only way that sentence makes any kind of sense.
Also, he's not accusing Brian of lying, but reviewers. Which is odd in itself, as I've not seen any reviews saying Matt's singing Carl's parts.

I think you are right about 'high parts'/'my parts', but I still can't make any sense out of the Carl/Brian comparison and the references to reviews. Whatever it is Mike seems to feel strongly about it ("It is bullshit!"). Weird.

At least Mike says Al has a great voice! -- so we can salvage something positive there. 

In general, I enjoyed the article and it actually makes me more interested to read Mike's book. I'll never agree with everything he's said and done over the years, but there are at least glimmers of insight and self-awareness here beyond what we've seen in many past interviews.

"As well, he can lay claim to eight biological children, ranging in ages from 20 to mid-fifties, although the early, horndog vagaries of his life may have resulted in at least one more."

Pretty sad to hear Shawn's existence either dismissed outright, or reduced to a result of a "horndog vagary", and Mike's paternity remaining only a "may[be]". While one could perhaps chalk that crude verbiage up to the author of the article being a jerk... if it mattered at all to Mike, I'm sure he could have asked for a better representation of his daughter in print.  

But I guess her memory gets swept under the rug again, probably because Mr. Positivity remains bitter that she wed Dennis. Which of course, probably had nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of reaction to being shunned/denied by her father for her whole life.

Everyone hurts Mike, but Mike hurts nobody, and is responsible for no emotional damage to others, right?

Mike is so good at blaming everyone else (admittedly, he brings up many valid issues/gripes that give me some empathy for him - I feel very, very sorry for Mike being completely uncredited on California Girls... unfair the extreme, totally understandable to be majorly pissed about it, and very not cool for Brian allowing it to happen), yet the whitewashing of things like this, which is the just the tip of the iceberg, are at the heart of why people have issues with him. Instead of actually addressing specific personal faults, without excuses... in the very context of a specific discussion of trying to figure out why in the world people don't like him... it's just all about making sure everyone (especially including deceased relatives) get thrown under the bus, so that he comes out looking better. Nobody else in the band does this blame-shifting stuff.

You know, I think that Dennis bedding Mike's wife sucks, was surely a huge slap in the face to Mike, not cool, all that stuff. Undeniably. But if Mike wants to dredge that up... why does he duck the Shawn topic? Oh wait, because this way, he can continue his pathological mission to diminish Wilsons' reputations while gaining sympathy for himself. If his daughter is too private/sensitive a topic, well why is it that the Dennis/Suzanne issue is perfectly ok to bring up?

“What did I do? Why am I the villain? How did it get to this?” Because, for example, Mike completely ducks issues like this - in a specific conversation about parenting/ex-wives/past regrets - compared to his cousin Brian selflessly expressing public regret for major parenting screwups.

That exemplifies the reason why, in a nutshell. Mike's compulsive deflection of accepting responsibility for his own f*ckups - without excuses - is THE reason why.  

I wish it weren't that way.

I haven't see anyone claim Matt sings Carl's parts. But really, so what if Matt did? And so what if reviewers got that wrong? I see countless errors in reviews and stories about Mike's tours too. I still see old promo pics of Mike's touring band used. I just read a fluffy piece on an upcoming Mike show where it says Carl died in 1988, essentially implies Al just made guest appearances with the band over the years. Other reviews of Mike's shows have implied that Foskett is a third "official" Beach Boy in the band. That stuff isn't Mike's fault in the slightest, but why is he focusing in so much on reviews of Brian's shows (implying he does read them...I guess)? Which gets us back around to the question of where he read claims that Matt is singing Carl's parts.

Yeah, that's the oddest part of the whole thing for me -- which is saying something ;)

One bit that interested me, which no-one else seems to have picked up on is the bit talking about Smile:
Is this the first time that Mike has admitted any part, however small, in Smile's end? Not that he's blaming himself, of course, but note that he's talking about having had attitudes and body language that could have been understood as negative, and that he's "maybe deserving" of being characterised as against Smile.
(At least that's how I read it, obviously this is a transcription and not of the most articulate thing Mike's ever said).
To me, what he's saying here actually reads like a lot of what the people who dislike him have been saying -- not that he was entirely negative, but that Brian in his sensitive state took things Mike said or did more seriously than Mike did himself, and took that badly.
If true, that makes the whole Smile thing that much more sad, if one of the big contributions to it failing wasn't even intentional, but just one more example of the miscommunication that seems to characterise the Beach Boys.

I would imagine that Mike was the same way before Smile and since none of the guys really understood what Brian was going through, I doubt at that time that it was even given much thought. Hindsight is a funny thing. We dabble in it exclusively here at SS.

Mike's role in Smile's demise makes a lot of sense in this light.  Hopefully, he'll expand on it in his book.

Mike just needs to get behind the idea that some of his most infamous actions may have been well-intended by Mike yet inadvertently received very badly by others, and that while Mike may not have intended to cause damage,  admitting for once, with some regret, that resultant damage was nevertheless likely caused to the project.  

Sounds like he is dipping his toe into the waters of this mindset just a tiny, tiny bit. That's good, because wide-sweeping denial and defensiveness doesn't work.

Nobody in the Beach Boys "story" is "all good" or "all bad".  Brian isn't a saint and Mike isn't a devil.  We should keep in mind that there is more than one Beach Boy who has mental health issues, however.  And becoming world-famous at an early age has helped a great number of celebrities to become f--ked up. 

Not the least of which is Mike.

Thanks for pointing out the likely transcription error. I was confused.

This is all true.

But I am hesitant to start setting any sort of equivalency in this regard when it comes to these guys. There's one person who by leaps and bounds, time and time again, continues to often come across like an a-hole. Not all the time. But often, and far more often than the other guys.

Maybe we can all do better to try and understand Mike, and interviews like this actually do help. But Mike might do well to try and not simply occasionally acknowledge, but actually understand and *EMPATHIZE* with points of view totally contrary to his own, whether those points of view are coming from other BBs or fans or pundits or the press, etc. I see maybe a teeny, tiny bit of that in this article. But it's still mostly variations on "I'm sorry if YOU were offended" or "I'm sorry if YOU don't understand that what seems like being an a-hole is just my style of humor."

I have to give some credit to this interviewer for at least attempting to broach some topics may have wondered about, such as the contrast between espousing the virtues of meditation versus coming across as angry and bitter, filing lawsuits, etc. Mike didn't really give an answer (other than, I guess, he meditates so he's not even MORE pissed off all the time?). But at least someone finally asked.

The article does humanize Mike. I've never made fun of his baldness, wearing a hat, etc. I think he genuinely looks better sans the hats. But I've never sensed he's trying to hide anything on that topic. It's pretty obvious. It's just an appearance thing he prefers. What else is he going to do? I guess he could wear a different style of hat, as he has on occasion over the years. But then we're into cowboy hats, or berets, or whatever.

I don't know if this interview makes me feel any better about his upcoming autobiography. I think we may get more details (e.g. talking about his former wives) than we might have thought. But I don't see any evidence of humility or admitting mistakes. I guess we'll see.

None of the guys owe me any explanations about themselves. If they share, fine. If they don't, that is fine too. It is their lives to live, warts and all. I am not religious by no means, but I am a firm believer in the saying "let he without sin cast the first stone".

I'd be more optimistic if this author was also the book's author.  At least some real questions were asked.  Whether they were answered or not, it was more telling than the usual silly interviews.

I do have have a question though, what proof is there that the quote was a transcription error about what parts Matt sings?  I'll wait and see on that one.  I'm far from convinced, given some of the other comments in the article.  There was a time in Brian's band (briefly) when he had both Matt and Ike.  Possibly there was once a reference to that by a reviewer.  It certainly wasn't a "lie" on Brian's behalf.

what is he even getting at with the whole Matt Jardine thing? does he think they're trying to fool the audience into believing it's Brian singing falsetto? they're not. is this really the stuff that consumes his waking thoughts?

the article is a revealing peek into the unstable (by his own admission) mind of Mike Love. you almost feel sorry the guy, which is exactly what he wants.


here's a man who lives in the lap of luxury and owns the rights to the Beach Boys name which he wrested from his founding bandmates, yet still believes he's getting the short end of the stick.

a man who refused to keep working with his founding bandmates after a mega-successful album/tour/reunion, yet still has to ask his wife why he is the villain. what did i do??

a man who took his cousin to court and was awarded several million dollars and name recognition on dozens of songs for the rest of eternity, yet still asks how it can ever be resolved.

a man who claims to have meditated twice a day for nearly fifty years, yet still lacks the self-awareness and humility to finally stop blaming others for his misery.
 

I don't think anyone says Mike *owes* anybody anything. He's the one asking his wife why he's the villain. Does he actually want an answer?

There's no proof. It just seems like the most likely explanation for why Mike would say Matt was singing "my parts" but then in the same sentence talk about how he was singing Brian's old falsettos. It's either a transcription error, a slip of the tongue, or Mike thinks Matt is singing both the bass and the falsetto simultaneously somehow. To me the transcription error seems by far the most likely explanation.

But wouldn't that "let he without sin cast the first stone" ideology that you believe in apply to Mike himself?

Hasn't he cast more hypocritical stones than you could shake a stick at, like publicly griping how Al is the one who holds onto resentment, going out of his way to somehow finger Brian's band for "false advertising", etc etc?  If he is asking why people vilify him, don't you think it's at least in part because of the way he often publicly judgmentally picks on people for things he himself is often guilty of? If you're such a firm believer of it, I would think this would bug you considerably.

If you don't want to find fault in Mike's (or any BB member's) actions, fine. But at least concede that Mike should lay off hypocritically picking on people for stuff he does all the time.

Like you said, all are possibilities.  The greater mystery is why Mike brought it up at all and thinks that people are "lying" on Brian's behalf regarding what his band does.  Have we seen any evidence of this?  I haven't seen any photos of the C50 band promoting Brian's shows, so misrepresentation doesn't seem to be his "thing."

That's Mike's business with those people and not for me say. How you or I feel about anything that was done between these guys means absolutely nothing. For some reason we think our fandom entitles us to impose our opinions on their lives. As I have stated here many times, we hate on these guys more than the guys themselves do.

Nice article! It shows Mike in all the complexity and drama of our human condition. The contradictions and conflict shown defies over-simplification and easy judgement all of us are willing to make.

Just like any of us, he wears his scars as best as he can-- and he has quite a few scars. He seems like a nice and fun fellow, great sense of humor, hard-working, work-loving, probably not easy to work with, and overprotective of his role and place.

Regarding the Matt issue, the line is a bit confusing, and probably mixes up a two different ideas. But let us remember that during the C50 adventure, Joe T. said in interviews that Jeff Foskett was singing Carl's parts and range-- never mentioning that he was singing Brian's original falsettos. So maybe this idea just leaked in the phrase or phrasing.

He doesn't own the rights to the Beach Boys name, he has a renewable license to use it for touring, and he didn't wrest that from anybody, it was granted by a vote of the corporation.

You say renewable yet others have said he has the name pretty much forever. Is there a definitive answer out there? What is the period?

Only those in BRI meetings could actually answer this, and they are likely legally bound not to speak publicly, so - good point Pretty Funky.

sigh.
for all intents and purposes, the name belongs to Mike. when those same voting corporate members (Brian & Al) expressed a desire to continue touring and performing as Beach Boys alongside Mike, he's the one who kept it from happening. when they have used the Beach Boys name to promote a tour or release, Mike sued. he has done everything in his power to control the Beach Boys brand and prevent the others from claiming their rightful and equal membership. he's the Executive Producer don'cha know

Fair enough, drbeachboy. But are you saying that your deep belief in the casting stones ideology only applies to fans, and that in your opinion, that belief doesn't apply to the guys themselves? Honestly - you're never tired of hearing Mike continually rag on the other Boys about the very same stuff he himself is guilty of?  Us fans just discussing stuff amongst ourselves isn't imposing anything on any of them. We can't make them treat each other better just by wishing it were so.  

What if he kicked the proverbial bucket say like tomorrow?

We get that.  I'm not seeing any opinions being "imposed" on Mike.  People here are replying to Mike's query in the article about why he's "vilified" by fans.  That strikes me as a legitimate reason for this thread and I've been pleased that the responses have been reasonable, thank heavens.  No one is being vilified, nor "hating" that I can see, unless I've missed a stray post.  

Deb, I am glad that you see and read that way. Sorry, but I don't. Amazing how 2 people can read the same posts and come away feeling differently. You know, I love this place, but this personal stuff with the guys just doesn't sit right with me. I guess the best thing to do is to just stay out of this particular thread.

Some old men get mellow and funny in their later years. Others get angry, cranky and complaining. Mike lives in a mansion, has a private Chef and all the bounties of a multi-million dollar annual income. Yet, he obviouslly is very unhappy.  This interview validates my opinion of him, which is based noet only on all the stories and stuff, but my little run-in witth him backstage at a C50 show. Rude, arrogant, hypocrite,  unlikeable!  

Edit add: This is my own personal opinion, you don't have to make it yours.

One word: bossaroo.

Another word: oldsurferdude.

OSD simply asked a question. Bossaaroo stated fact. I believe it is true that when Brian and Al wanted to bill themselves as "original Beach Boys", Mike called in his legal team.

Good and bad, Mike is a legendary rock star. What surprises me is that he let this writer into his house and said writer kinda made a fool of Mike in the article.

In the end, Mike has nothing to prove. He's done it all to immense success!!!

More than anything I thought the end of the article gave a glimpse of how Mike really feels about the situation between him and Brian.  Pretty sad. 

 :h5

Didn't he say that again in the PS boxed set booklet/liners, when he said that is where he got the idea for the name Pet Sounds?

My take is, I don't dislike the man. I pity the man. You're allowed (anyone's allowed) to obsess over something until it drives you bats, but you reach a healthy place when you finally just let it GO. All the TM in the world, over many many years just can't seem to allow him to let it @#$'n GO. That's a drag, in my book. That's sad.

Enjoy the house. Enjoy the lifestyle. But the real bling won't be on the outside until it's on the inside.

All great bands that have problems (and it seems they all do) have a designated villain I guess. Paul McCartney, Mike Love, Mick Jagger, Roger Waters. It's not fair or accurate but it is what it is I suppose.

Not worth a new thread, another interview. Absolutely nothing new, plus some errors, however this caught my eye.

Love said a documentary also is planned and Love’s autobiography, “Good Vibrations,” will be released in the fall.


http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/life/beach-boys-still-true-to-their-sound/article_52b6302d-4e57-5d29-a9fc-c9c20915b406.html

Producing his own documentary.  Check!

I know that he's said it somewhere; and even then, I never thought that it was a negative thing, more like just being sarcastic/joking around with a friend. Like 'f*** Brian, we have to do another take of this? It was perfect the last time! Who's gonna hear this sh*t, the ears of a dog?". And then everyone laughs, because Brian's a perfectionist, and they're used to doing a ton of takes because he demands the best.

If you like Mike Love already, this article makes you like him even more, and understand him a little better.

If you dislike Mike Love already, this article makes you dislike him even more, but understand him a little better.

There is a ME in documentery.

About the writing credits : yes, Mike eventually received justice, but 30 years after the time it mattered most to him. When 'California Girls' was a hit  -- that is, when it mattered most -- Brian was the credited lyricist. That will embitter a man.

One thing that this interview demonstrates one again about Mike is his total lack of charm. The guy comes across as completely graceless. Dennis was a far, far bigger a**hole than Mike ever was, but Dennis had charm. Screwing the wives of your brothers, cousins, and bandmates, and everyone is like, "that Dennis, what a rogue!"

Sometimes it feels to me like some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike. 

I agree with the lack of charm. He just doesn't have a likable personality. Yes, Dennis did do far worse stuff than Mike but got away with it because he also had charm...and could also be kind. Didn't have the irritating aspects to his personality either, like the corny sense of humor and the blatant materialism.

But the other thing about Mike is that he seems psychologically stuck in 1963. It's like he can't acknowledge the validity of anything that has happened since then. He can't even get Brian's diagnosis right, and Brian is someone who had a BIG presence in his personal and professional life, and so presumably, someone he cares about. But he hasn't even taken the time to maybe find out WHY Brian does some of the things he does. Mike appears to be stuck as a 22-year-old, with the adolescent humor and everything. Thus, he can't accept Brian as anything other than the 21-year-old who wrote Fun, Fun, Fun with him. He can't seem to accept that things change, and he hasn't seemed to have gained the perspective that most people gain as they get older. A lot of people look back on things that happened when they were young and say, "I get it now. I get why I did that, and it was a mistake. I get why he did that. There are more important things in life than holding onto this." But he can't seem to do that.

And like a much younger person, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Still pointing out Dennis and Brian's addictions and Brian's mental illness, blaming them for those things. Talking as if meditating is a virtue in itself-- something that makes him the better person. But in fact, the meditation seemlngly hasn't given him inner peace at all.

I can't blame Mike because he seems to lack self-awareness. And he seems to suffer from many of the same demons as his cousins...they're just expressed in different ways. I wonder if Mike has ever had therapy to help him make sense of why he's so bitter.

I can see how is he mad.  Yes he jumped on a gravy train and has made bank for doing so.  He didn't get writing credits<which probably didn't seem to matter as much in 1965 when the band was huge.  I am sure he feels and some what rightly so that he has carried the burden of the music since 64<through touring> and now he is looked at as a pariah.<no matter how much confidence you have it has to beat on you>  I would guess he feels that Brian fcked as well as the music with the formula by leaving the touring band then screwing up his voice. >not to mention the drugs which may have had some ,and in his opinion most of the reason Brian dropped out of sight>
I do want to say I have never been accused as being a Mike Love apologist my wife on numerous times had tried to get me to go see his band.

Stick to your guns and don't bother as you'll come away with a hollow feeling seeing an angry old man up there pretending to be something he isn't.

Go, see the band and make up your own mind.

I would go.  I saw them last year at Jones Beach and even though I'm not a big Mike supporter, I thought he was great.  His voice is a lot stronger than you think and the music is excellent.  Just make sure Stamos is not around.

To be fair, Mike HAS acknowledged the validity of Brian's post-1963 music, including the 1966 and later "artistic" stuff - he routinely acknowledges the huge, influential success of "Good Vibrations", and perhaps to a lesser degree Pet Sounds, and has been known to drop such esoteric "deep cuts" as "You Still Believe In Me", "Here Today", "Heroes And Villains", and even "Surf's Up" and "'Til I Die" into his setlist from time-to-time, depending on the venue. But I think his over-arching goal is to please the audience, and if it's a county fair, for instance, he will stick to the hits. I think the lack of receptiveness the band sometimes encountered when playing the lesser-known stuff in the early '70s left a lasting impression on him, rightly or wrongly. But I know he appreciates it on an artistic level, at least nowadays: someone once told me they were standing next to Mike backstage right before he went on to a packed crowd anticipating the hits, when suddenly, out of nowhere, Mike started humming the melody to "Wonderful". Mike said "That's SUCH a beautiful melody!", before walking onstage and performing the usual string of crowd-pleasers (this was sometime in the last ten years or so). If Mike ever WAS less-than-receptive about some of those artistic, musical gems, then his view certainly HAS evolved since then.

Regarding Brian's psychological problems - in a couple of 2012 interviews, Mike acknowledged that there perhaps was a better understanding of, and lots of sympathy for, Brian's illness now than there was in decades past. I think that's a sign of someone who's view of the situation has evolved somewhat. For a long time, I think the other Beach Boys, including even his brothers, wondered how much of Brian's "craziness" was authentic, and how much of it was a put-on and a way to cop-out of what they saw as his "responsibilities". I think nowadays, it's pretty much understood that any of the latter was a symptom of the former.

For all his "materialism" (something that I think Brian and Dennis had also fallen victim to upon occasion, but managed to not have it negatively affect their image with the fans by also being extremely generous and genuinely caring people at the same time), Mike has also been known to use his financial resources for altruistic purposes, like matching sponsorships in a Carl Wilson Walk Against Cancer, and to aid the people of tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri, for instance.

As for "charm" - well, that's pretty subjective - evidently that are plenty of women, including Mike's present wife and five ex-wives who recognized some in him! :)

Finally, there ARE people that dig that corny sense of humor, at least in small doses here-and-there! :) Even David Leaf acknowledged that Mike's corny jokes make the live show work - and Brian has praised Mike (including during the 2012 tour) for being a great frontman.

For all their flaws, I will defend Brian and Dennis to the death - I just think Mike also deserves a pass on some of the stuff he's routinely flamed for.

Agreed. Especially if they're playing in a theatre environment - but even if they're not.

Thing is, it's usually the folk who've not seen Mike & Bruce live for some fifteen years - if at all - who will tell you how bad they are, and not to go. Ignore them, make your own call.

Oh yes, by all means go but only if:

You don't have anything important to take care of.

You don't care about what you do with your time here on earth.

You are into seeing only one original member of the band and the rest are sidemen who most people don't know.

That original member is an angry, grudge motivated man who has touted the benefits of TM for the last 4 decades.

That original member did not write most of the songs, but tries to falsely claim he did.

You don't care about seeing a tribute band that calls itself The Beach Boys but isn't anything close to that band.

You can get the tickets for free so you won't think you wasted your money.

Don't mind the possibility of John StamoHs showing up.

You somehow don't mind stupid jokes and plenty of boring stage banter.

You get a guaranteed refund.

You don't mind being pointed at.

Mike seems that is longing to be with Brian again; that part is sad. Sounds like he also recognizes and regrets how his own blind spots contributed to the 2012 breakup. He was willful when he could have been more like water and worked with Brian on being together. Sadder that he knows this than if he did not. Heartbreaking portrait of Mike.

Angry, grudge motivated man....Ok....Gotcha!

You can have the purest, most polished piece of pyrite in the world, but it still won't be a bar of gold.

SIP Mike, you wonderful if slightly naughty person. I've printed it and will read it at my leisure later tonight. :=)

ML says he has been ostracized - what? ML was the one who chose to end the reunion. He talks about missing Brian; well, get on the phone, bonehead, and call him!

Oh...wait....does calling Brian mean he will have to go through his handlers again?

Sometimes it's not hard to understand why people would have a hard time sympathizing with Mike.  You are talking of what, a thirty+ year grudge even after he won a lawsuit wherein he probably received more money and credit than he deserves?  And he still can't quit bad mouthing a mentally ill man who never really bad mouths him back?

Then he goes on the attack against Al Jardine in a frivolous lawsuit against Brian in regards to Smile?  Despite Al not even being named?  Here are some of the more choice bits from the lawsuit:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/cassius-love-vs-sonny-wilson-2005-lawsuit-text.67046/

"4. In addition to his songwriting contributions to The Beach Boys, as the longtime front man for the band, Mike Love has been historically recognized as the primary voice and image of The Beach Boys; and Carl Wilson was historically recognized as the musical leader. After Carl’s death in 1998, Alan Jardine announced in the entertainment media that he no longer wished to tour with The Beach Boys; and Mike Love announced privately within BRI that he would no longer tour with Alan Jardine because of Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members. BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark. Since 1998, Mike Love has scrupulously fulfilled his license obligations, using the trademark to perform as The Beach Boys in approximately 150 live concerts per year all over the world. He has paid over eleven million dollars to BRI as royalties on this license.

5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.

6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

7. Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties. Between 1991 and 2002, Brian was under a court-ordered conservatorship, first with a court appointed lawyer until 1995, and then with his just married wife. In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems. In order to promote himself, Brian began to misappropriate BRI property. In 2003, he misappropriated “Pet Sounds,” a Beach Boys album, all while serving as a fiduciary to BRI. In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV.

Sometimes Mike makes it hard to feel bad for Mike.

EoL

Everybody knows you reap what you sow-Bruce Johnston in the SIP music video.

Any one of the detail-oriented fans here who knows actual dates of events, I would think, would find this shocking.  I certainly do.  And anyone who observed otherwise would be horrified.  Many are dead and can't testify otherwise.  Some who were there are still around.  Just sayin'...

Well, I guess you can be more outraged (or whatever) at Brian's continuing hurt feelings than you are with Mike and his actions that hurt Brian. If you think that is OK?

What did that mean?  I can't even begin to decipher your response.

And re:  the text included in EoL's response, um, nothing?

Standard duck, dodge, evade, red herring, straw man, etc. from Cam.

EoL

Right, says the guy with the Grade A duck, dodge, evade, cherry picked example of a red herring straw man example of a misguided lawsuit with Brian being the offended party and not Mike as in my post. 

Um, Cam.The Court clearly ruled Mike's above stated greviences had no merit whatsoever and threw out the case!

Once again, you take a crazy "the moon is made of cheese" stance.

Who "misguided" the lawsuit exactly?  And we should just shrug it off, possibly because it was full of questionable dates, events and descriptions? Never mind the time and expense of the people who had to deal with those obvious - shall we say, "inaccuracies."  

You're such an historian - why don't you go check those dates for us?

If a commentary on that lawsuit and others was in your previous post, I have no idea where to find us.  Do enlighten us.

The rant against Al shows how petty Mike is through the legal system.

Legendary OSD can you change your name to OST (Oh So True) ?

EoL seems spot on to me.

Uh-oh!  Where did Cam go?

OSD is on point as usual in this thread! 8)

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the judge found Mike's legal claim had no merit and not the background EoL posted. And my post was about offenses against Mike and EoL moved the goalposts to Brian and now holds me responsible I guess. My reply to him applied the principle of my post about Mike to EoL's post about Brian.

Maybe it's your moon that is made of cheese.   ;)

I'm right here.

You can do as you wish with EoL's post, I didn't express an opinion of the substance of the post.  My reply to him was an attempt to apply the principle of my post (he supposedly was responding to) to the changed subject of EoL's post.

To me the Mike suit EoL references was misguided and shouldn't have been filed so I would lump it in with other Boys' lawsuit where we believe they got bad legal advice when they lose.

Baghdad Bob strikes again... ::)

Maybe you missed my original post: "Sometimes it feels to me like some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike."  Didn't have anything to do with that lawsuit.

I hope that "Baghdad Bob" comment doesn't violate Rule 2 and get you in trouble.   :-\

The background, in part being, " Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."? I guess I heard "Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower, Holland,  Surf's Up, solo albums, and on and on" while I was up on my imaginary moon base eating cheese.

Cam, you really are picking the wrong/losing battle trying to defend this despicable escapade by Mike. I mean, what a hypocrite Mike is. Did Brian sue Mike over the blatant Nascar record escapade?

Cam, is that a threat? :o

They aren't my rules. Was it a personal attack or insult?

Ah, so glad you weren't called away.  It was quite noticeable that you didn't express an opinion "of" the substance of the post by EoL.

Well, heaven knows, Mike's lawsuit about lyrics, no matter how limited they were compared to the work of the entire song, hasn't been addressed enough by the courts, with awards of large sums of money and credit, Mike's endless interviews and posts by his followers here.  No doubt this is the first anyone has heard of it ;-)

I would agree that more than one of the BBs has likely gotten bad legal advice.  However, I doubt an attorney fantasized and then sold to a certain band member the idea of initiating a lawsuit attacking a fellow band member (or 2, that's oddly unclear as well) with extremely questionable assertions and dates.   One might assume that came from the complainant, don't you think, and it certainly doesn't equate to a lousy defense in another suit.  Then you're kind of arguing against your own post, aren't you Cam?

Now I actually do have work to do before family arrives.  But I'll check in later.

No, as I said, I think it was misguided so I'm not defending any of it, I didn't even comment on it (I commented on your comment about it), it didn't have anything to do with my post as I also pointed out.  

Cam, stop fishing to try and get people banned.  The new Board strategy of the Mike Love PR team.  ;D

I also do occasionally eat and sleep and interact with family and friends and work, in case I don't respond quick enough for anyone in some future discussion and they feel compelled to call me out.

I didn't discuss it, it wasn't my point, I'm glad we got that straightened out. 

I don't know about the suit, I just know that it seems we usually blame lost lawsuits or their claims being dismissed on the Boys' lawyers so I assume we will extend the same courtesy to Mike too. I don't think your supposition about the suit makes me arguing with myself.  You might be illustrating my original post though with the lyric lawsuit comments, I'm not sure.

Who in the hell cares?  ::)

By hoping it doesn't get him in trouble?  So did you have any comment for SB about his comment?

I care about you SB, even if they don't.

Look at it this way, by being called Baghdad Bob, you got off comparatively easy coming from someone who's been called far worse. give it up and move on Cmott.

Really C-Man? He did this by suing Brian and alleging , " Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."?

As have I but that doesn't help SB.

Back at ya, old pal.  :h5

I would be flattered to be compared to Baghdad Bob. He was right on almost every call.

Contradictory though they may appear, Mike has indeed done both.

Yes indeed. OC Disorder perhaps (him, not you).

What the hell is a Baghdad Bob, besides something you can get in Cambodia for about $30 U.S.?

Took longer than I expected, but we got there.  :-D

Iraqi military/regime PR spokesmen prior to Desert Storm and up thru the fall of Baghdad. His press conferences werre highly entertaining!

We can laugh and joke but hard for me to imagine retaining a relationship with someone who initiated such a case.

"In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems." So much so that he made the national news in the UK and was invited to perform at the Party at the Palace.

But if his "performance" was so limited, why did Mike agree to the C50 then?

Ahhh Comical Ali.

Thanks.

I guess we can relax, SB.  Maybe you're fine rule-wise as long as we keep our insults to comparing someone to a notorious liar of a murderous regime.  Good to know, right?    :pirate :h5 :rock :drumroll :love :happydance :spin :kiss :woot :thumbsup :wave :grouphug :ohyeah :hug :drunks :serenade :king :quote

Seeing this all in black and white - or white and black... it is inescapabaly shitty, isn't it?

Cam Mott doing the Two Step Side Step again, a much easier manoeuvre than addressing the serious, and seriously depressing, points raised in this thread.

I agree it looks appalling set out in black and white.

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

Ang says as Two Step Side Stepping my point.

We're not talking about what the Beach Boys have done to each other or what lawyers have done - we are discussing one specific situation. Widening this to include a variety of situations is an attempt to evade and whether or not other Beach Boys have also behaved badly does not alter this specific situation at all. The 'everybody does it' excuse is known as the Golden Rationalisation:

"1. The Golden Rationalization, or "Everybody does it"

"This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.

"Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

"If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

Shifting blame to the attorneys would work Cam, were it not for the fact that many of the comments read just like a Mike Love interview.  Shall I begin providing links and quotes to make the point?  Or are you suggesting his attorneys are writing his interview responses as well?

EoL

Plus nice try with the Baghdad bob distraction. ::)

Sahaf's nickname, "Baghdad Bob," now denotes someone who confidently declares what everyone else can see is false--someone so wrong, it's funny.

I didn't excuse anything, the opposite - I agreed it was misguided, and I pointed out a context that speaks to the perceived bias in my original point. If you'll read my original post it is specific and apparently being avoided with side steps and diversions and distractions.  I'm not side stepping anything and I've answered diversions from it. You could just speak to MY point instead of holding me accountable to other's diversions from it and we can agree or disagree.

You may continue to divert from my original post as much as you like but please quit blaming me for your diversions from it.

Well, you're off the hook for your own actions then I guess. Well done, carry on.

Edit: it does sort of speak to my point: there is much more discussion of my reaction to the deed than there is about the actual deed. On topic finally, well done again.

Let it go "Kokomo Cam"

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

Well, I have a few minutes away from family, checked SS, and this powerful piece of information, that most certainly adds a dimension to our view of the RS article, was nearly perfectly derailed.  People here are skilled at that, to say the least.  I doubt Mr. Love's attorneys made these claims without his approval.  So can we discuss how these claims could have possibly been made by someone who keeps insisting how much he loves his cousin and how badly he himself has been treated?  One doesn't even have to do minor historical research to see how false a number of the claims are.  And you fans who "love them all equally" have no objection, much less outrage over this?

If anyone wants to discuss or opine about this: "Sometimes it feels to me like some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike" instead of diverting and accusing and insulting I'll be around (no need to call me out).

OK,  I'll answer this. In consideration of the history, what right has Mike to hurt feelings? Mike has received financial reparation, he got the chance to have a reunion (and ended that... badly), he has repeatedly dragged up Brian's drug abuse and mental problems, the way Mike behaved at the R&RHOF, 'Your husband had better write a big hit because he is going to have to write me a big cheque'...... Things like this do not present him in a sympathetic light and therefore people are not inclined to feel sorry for him.

Mike is an extremely wealthy man who seems to enjoy his career.

Brian had an abusive father, mental health issues, Landy and the litigation from Mike to endure. And despite these things has hardly ever been publicly rude to Mike. It's a no brainer.

Had to quote this from the RS interview

'Love has never read the book[ WIBN], which thus allows him to say things like, “At the risk of being facetious, it’s my favorite book I never read, because what books have you ever read that paid you a million dollars?”'

Wow, he is really suffering.

Hi all,

I read the article.  It was interesting.  Mike only hurts Mike when he acts certain ways and makes certain types of statements.  I see this as hype for his book.  I would like to know how Jackie feels about the feud between the two men?  I know that Brian recently made a statement about this.  Nobody wins in a fight like this.   

The issue here for me is this: Mike is great. Awesome singer and frontman and great songwriting partner to Brian. I am 39 years old, I've lived long enough to have suffered betrayal, cheating, went to through the difficulties of life just like anybody. Now, grudges are part of life. Mike is entitled to his. Why shouldn't he hold grudges? Who on this board has co-written a smash hit song and not been credited for it. How about 4 or 5 massive hit songs? We assume these guys are just pawns in our pre-conceived or learned view of this group. But they are suffering individuals. Heck, Dennis held a grudge through the late 1970s since he learned that Brian had to be convinced by their mother to include him in the group.

Hi all,

Mike is a great front man for The Beach Boys.  Dennis may have had issues with Brian.  What family doesn't have issues with each other?  In the end grudges only hurt the one holding the grudge.  I know that Dennis was right for the group.  I know that for some time Carl held the group together.  I know that Kike watches his money carefully.  That is because of what happened to his father.  Brian is doing what he wants to do.  Each person bought something to the group.  Grudges and fights are part of life.  The thing here is to not allow them to run your life.  Each post here brings something to the board. 

I just hope that we can all enjoy the music and the people.  I smile when I here Love & Mercy, I Can Hear Music and Fun, Fun, Fun. 

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Knock yourself out.  Enjoy Mike.  Grab your beach ball and go to the show.  No one is trying to stop you.  The endless talking point about a lawsuit that was settle years ago is getting old though.  Re-read the RS article about some of the huge "co-writing" contributions.  Then re-read that 2005 lawsuit.  Do I have to copy and post it again?

The 2005 lawsuit was also settled years ago. Talking about that is also "getting old". Mike was largely in the right in the lawsuit over songwriting credits, and he was completely in the wrong in the lawsuit about Smile.

A lot of us thought it hugely outrageous *at the time*. Remaining outraged a decade later seems a little much, though.
(Though I don't know if I'm one of those fans who "love them all equally" -- 90% or more of what I love about the Beach Boys comes from Brian. I just don't think Mike is a completely worthless human being with literally no talent, and in the overly-polarised world of Beach Boys fandom that makes me seem to be taking Mike's side a lot of the time.)

Deb, do you not see Mike's band over all this stuff that went on 10 plus years ago?

Oh my, finally some sanity.

Actually Dr.BB, when Mike is in my area in May, I'll be in the UK on my way to see Brian and his band in Birmingham.  A band described in that 2005 lawsuit this way:

"7. Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties. Between 1991 and 2002, Brian was under a court-ordered conservatorship, first with a court appointed lawyer until 1995, and then with his just married wife. In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems. In order to promote himself, Brian began to misappropriate BRI property. In 2003, he misappropriated “Pet Sounds,” a Beach Boys album, all while serving as a fiduciary to BRI. In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV."

So yeah, having seen Brian and his stellar band and enjoying them tremendously, I continue to do so.  I have my preferences and pay for tickets for the band I want to see.  We all have that option.  Did I find the above paragraph offensive?  I certainly did, on so many levels.  BTW, I personally saw Brian "Between 1967 and 2002" driving around in his pale yellow Mark III with no problems, going to the Ivar offices to audition artists for Brother Records at another BB's request, and overall being quite functional.  I held a number of fully engaged intelligent conversations with him.  And he was always both of those things.  Yeah, this angers me on a number of levels.  I'm sure Mike's band is fine.  I want to see Brian's.  I'm not certain how that makes me "insane." 

This Rolling Stone magazine article is really not a surprise is it?  It's a constant.  I feel badly for Mike.  He has it ALL...yet...he's convinced himself that he has nothing.  Absoulutely nothing except possessions.  Possessions?  THAT'S how HE measures his success?  I wonder if it'll all fit into his casket?

Along the way he's fought with every one of his band mates.  [perhaps with the exception of David].  Everyone else was/is wrong.  Meditatin' Mike is above their earthly ways.

B.S.  The ONLY thing Mike came away with from his association with ol' Yogi was chasin' skirts and 'relaxing' twice a day.  It would appear that it's done his head absolutely NO GOOD along the way.  There is something wrong with Mike...something upstairs.  Anyone who's spent time in his company will have noticed that even when he's ON SCRIPT he falters when he speaks.

The article [and other interviews] will have disguised this peculiarity...but Michael Edward Love ain't the swiftest horse in the race.  :(

And THAT'S the bottom line.

Which isn't really fair, as he was so often right.

Thanks - maybe Baghdad Bob should go to the Sandbox? We have an article we're discussing. 

I think the problem lies in the fact that Mike Love keeps bringing up his gripes in public. Yes, it all happened long ago and most people would probably have moved on if Mike didn't bring it all up all the time (though I'd never seen the text of that lawsuit before. Sheesh).
Also I find it bothersome that in this interview and in other recent ones, he still implies that mental illness is a choice.
I don't find Mike Love very likable generally, but that would remain passive if he didn't actively irritate with these interviews.

Just playing.

You know I find your posts entertaining, Emily.  It's just that there's such an obvious effort to derail and trivialize things on this thread.  I'd like to see us back on topic.

I get it. Sorry about that. I replied on topic above.

People, c'mon. He says the same thing in every interview. He is entitled to it. We read all of the interviews he gives-- thus it becomes tiresome and repetitive.

It seems like there are people here that have a capacity to hold grudges equal to Mike's. Some aren't able to let go off Mike's doings in the past and just have to bring them up constantly. We get it. He sued in 2004; he gave angry interviews; he oiled his body in front of a camera; he gave an angry speech; collects cutlery; his humor is sarcastic and sometimes aggresive. So what? Isn't it possible to enjoy his contributions without some obsessed fan bringing up a 20 year old lawsuit? And before anyone says "It's Mike who brought it up first", let me remind you that we are responsible for the issues we bring to the board and the judgement we pass.

Yes, every time Mike does an interview, he stirs our feelings about him yet again, and we have the same debate about his character. However, there's a big difference between his grudges and ours. That is, the things he's griping about took place, for the most part, years ago. The things we're griping about (Mike griping) take place regularly, with every interview he does. Our issue with him is that he just never seems to change or take very much responsibility for his part in these conflicts. We can't let go because he's STILL blaming Brian for his mental illness. He's STILL bringing up addictions and contrasting them with his meditation and health-consciousness. He's STILL complaining about Murry's actions. And all this when the surviving parties against whom he speaks really have very little to say about him in return. I feel like my feelings about Mike are a wound that scab over, and I make peace with him, only to have him come along and pick at the scab every few years. Yuck. I just feel bad for him at this point, because he'll never have any peace.

I'm sure journalists approach him hoping he'll start griping. But he could say, "You know, I don't want to talk about this. It's all been said. Why don't we talk about the music?" Or "I'll tell you some funny stories about the Beach Boys." The guy is a living legend. Why would he want to continue to play the role of rock and roll's most bitter frontman?

I'm experiencing the best and worst of Mike this week - his worst being on display in this interview (or almost any other of his interviews) and in that lawsuit extract. But I'm also finally reading "The Lost Beach Boy" by Jon Stebbins and he comes across as a pretty decent guy from David Marks's account, and even saved his life.

I think his problem is not only that he lacks self-awareness, but also lacks awareness of a lot of other things.

One of the more interesting aspects of Mike's character is the contradiction between his almost 50 years practice of TM, and his proudly professed materialism coupled with his seeming lack of introspection. Not to mention the bitterness.
 
Where is the insight? The perspective? Where is the young man who wrote the lyrics to 'The Warmth of the Sun'? I hope we see this side of Mike in his upcoming book.

Mike was ripped off, but that injustice has been redressed, or as redressed as it is possible to be without rewinding history. He's almost 75. Time to let go of his grudges, however justified, and be thankful for all that life has given him.

Thankful for the genius of Brian, and the brilliance of Dennis and Carl, without whom Mike would now be at best a retired small business owner. And even thankful for Uncle Murry, who cheated him of credit and money but who was instrumental in allowing Mike to live a life of wealth, fame, and creative fulfillment.

I wish Mike the peace of releasing his grudges, his anger, his pride, and his hurts.

Maybe that's part of the problem.  How differently would he have been regarded if was widely known at the time that he was writing the lyrics for the hits?  Redressing it 30 years later can't do much in that regard, because the wider world won't really give a toss at a later stage.  If he's concerned about his position in history, it's a hell of a thing to be robbed of.

At this stage, he can let go all his grudges and live easy, perhaps be a bit more liked by a few people, or he can be a grouchy old man, regularly pissing off about 30 fans on the internet by talking about his grudges.  But there's little difference in those two positions, really, compared to what he's lost.

Amy and Clark, right on.  He may get a few jabs in against Brian here and there, but Brian probably doesn't really care one way or another what Mike says/does outside of the legal hassle.  However, in the end, he is only hurting himself.  He certainly isn't improving his chances of joining Brian in "the room" anytime soon.

Cam, we are all addressing your point.  It's not that no one is outraged about what offended Mike, it's that (a) the legal victory remedied his complaint well beyond the amount for which even Mike thought he deserved, yet; (b) he won't let it go; (c) he shows almost no compassion toward Brian's medical condition; (d) when he does he usually either precedes it or follows it up with other negative comments about Brian (sometimes in the same article), which communicates a lack of sincerity; (e) he mostly takes little to no responsibility for his part in the mess.

It isn't that no one is outraged, it's that there is nothing left about which to be outraged, yet Mike keeps talking as if there is, and he keeps attacking a person with a medical problem as he does so.  People don't like people that behave like Mike.  They don't like hearing someone attack another person when that person made him a millionaire, has admitted his wrong, has a diagnosed medical problem, and is mostly complimentary in return.  Nothing will change for Mike's public perception until *he* changes the image he projects to the world through these articles.

EoL

So the topic is feelings and you deflect to  finance. The topic is Mike and wrongs done him and you deflect to Brian and "wrongs" done him that aren't Mike's doing or were reactions to wrongs done Mike (except the 2004 suit). And I'm the deflector?

I think you just illustrated my point too.

On Planet Cam, Brian is the Real Villain.

Where did this idea come from that Mike wasn't known as a lyricist for the BBs and his feelings were hurt?  Everyone knew at the time that he wrote lyrics, as did Gary Usher and Roger Christian, for Brian's music in the early years.  There were plenty of listed credits.  Whatever songs he wanted more credit for, i.e., "Goodnight my baby, Sleep tight my baby..." he got in a lawsuit later.

So you agree that some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike.

First off, who said you were "insane"? I never said no such thing. This whole forum would be insane if that is the case. I offer this to you, Mike was around between 1967 and 2002 too. Brian went through multiple lawsuits with him in those latter times, yet he went out on tour with him for a whole season. I figured that you would see things more like Brian, especially since you know him and know his demeanor better than most us. As I say quite a bit in here, we take this stuff much too seriously. I think Brian has a better perspective on all this stuff, than many of us do. Lastly, you go see Brian until your heart's content, but please don't tell us to go see Mike, because some of us don't happen to see things your way. As a matter of fact, I have no desire see either this year. Mike was here in NJ last night for 2 shows and I didn't go. Last week I passed up pre-sale tix for Brian's show in September. Honestly, I've lost the desire to see any of them, anymore. You guys have made it clear that it sucks to be a Beach Boys fan. That we have to take sides and only enjoy the side that was picked.

Exactly.  Which lyrics would have improved Mike's place in history?  By the time Mike was attempting anything that would have appealed to the hipsters and artsy crowd he was playing catch up, he had already missed the boat.  Those early songs, as much as I love them, including many of the lyrics, aren't getting anyone into the poetry HOF, including Brian.

EoL

Dunno.  My error, I guess.  The list of amended credits from the lawsuit (I know some aren't much justified) is over 30 tracks, from the start up to Pet Sounds.   I wasn't aware there were many original listed credits for Mike.

Hi Cam, I'm glad you are putting in the "(or whatever)" because in my case 'outrage' would be way too strong, but yes, I think your statement is correct. I don't know what your family structure is, but if you have siblings or kids, I'm sure you've seen one sibling hurt another's feelings. Hopefully it's redressed more or less fairly, but sometimes the hurt feelings are still hurt. One sympathizes for a while. But sometimes someone will bring up the same incident over and over and one's sympathy wanes and eventually just becomes eye-rolling or exasperation. The time comes when bringing up old squabbles becomes tiresome, particularly if there's been acknowledgment of the wrong and an attempt at righting it. Mike Love needs to forgive and move on.

Edit: let me add that, as one of three very squabbly siblings, I've been in Mike's shoes. Things have happened that I didn't feel were ever sufficiently acknowledged or redressed and I harped on them, trying to get the acknowledgement I wanted but eventually I recognized, as Amy says, that I was only hurting myself. I wasn't getting the acknowledgment; people were increasingly irritated; and I was miserable. The only solution is to find a way to make peace with it on your own.

What?  You mean "teenage gambler...sittin in his rambler" didn't blow you away?

He DID get credit for most of the songs that he co-wrote. Some of them, he didn't. I totally agree that he deserved credit for the great California Girls. (And if he wanted to claim credit for forgettable lines like "good night, sleep tight," fine. IMO, it's kind of like Ringo claiming credit for Helter Skelter because he screamed, "I got blisters on my fingers!"). And so did the judge. Legally he got the credit.  Totally deserved it. And Brian later admitted that Mike deserved it.

The point (at least, my point) isn't whether Mike's loss is so great that he has a right to be grouchy. Sure he does. He can say whatever he wants. He can answer whatever questions he wants, however he wants. The point is, is it worth it to continue to feel so bitter? Really, what is it accomplishing? He's actually preventing himself from being happy. And, if he does care about how people see him, he may actually be making his public image worse, thus making it more difficult to see him as an artist, first and foremost. But maybe he can't see it any other way. If so, it demonstrates a notable lack of perspective at age 74, and that's a shame. Like everyone, he deserves the peace that often comes with getting older, when one realizes what's really important. He's healthy, has 8 children, a wife, a busy career.

But it's "OK, Mike. You're right. Here are your songwriting credits. Oh, you still feel bitter? Then maybe this isn't REALLY about songwriting credits, is it?"

drbeachboy, there's a handful of posters whom I would describe as being the Voice of Reason round here and you're one of them. So don't be put off by the side-takers.

It seems to be contagious, this side-taking business, as if you only count if you takes sides. That's bullshit. I and many others here who love the Boys and their music are not taking sides and never will.

So no, it doesn't suck to be a fan----no way!   

Could not have said it better myself.

EoL

Agreed!  Don't miss out on the shows because of the negative people on this board. 

It's no wonder Carl died young. A lifetime of dealing with his brothers' out of control behavior, an abusive father...and being in a band with Mike.

Very sad story to read, and Jackie standing on the chair playing Brian was telling. Sure, Brian has his mental demons but as has been said by others, Mike has some sh!t going on as well.

He has first world problems. The Beach Boys fans have had to go home each night to pay the bills and mortgage. I think Mike has forgotten or never grasped that. His hang-ups over credits etc read to me like a guy who has been wealthy and successful since he was 20 and is, or has never been in touch with the real world. Michael Jackson to a lesser degree.  

Cry me a river.

Thanks for that, it is appreciated. You know, until I found this forum, I never felt like my fandom was in jeopardy. Until the Internet, most Beach Boys fans were pretty united in their fandom. We had each other to share to our experiences. Now, it is just take a side and come out fighting.

I think there are a lot of people on this board who aren't 'on a side' generally. I think if one band member says or does something upon which you negatively comment people think you are on a side but you can think there's too much digital vocal manipulation on NPP without being #teamMike or think that Mike Love should stop harping on his grievances without being #teamBrian.

#teamBrian ;D

The thing is: the actions that Mike speaks of (which he continues, in 2016, to be outraged over) occurred 50 years ago. The songwriting snubbing, unfair and completely uncool as it was, happened that long ago. The issue was also rectified decades ago too.  I can understand why there would still be some lingering hurt feelings... but a grudge that causes him to publicly bring it up over and over again STILL? It's hard to understand why that feeling wouldn't have subsided, but I truly, honestly feel very bad for Mike that he's still hurt over it though.

The only logical way one of us on this board would continue to be comparatively MORE outraged/upset/whatever against Brian for the snubbing (compared to feeling similar feelings about Mike's current feelings) would be if Brian *continued* to write songs with Mike in 2012/2016, use Mike's lyrics on hit songs, and not properly credit Mike properly for them. In a case like that, yes, I would think people would think that Brian was acting very craptacular by continuing to do this snubbing. Then you'd have a case where opinion would probably shift toward feeling comparatively more sorry for Mike in a very legit way.

But that simply ain't the case. Of course, to Mike, not getting to co-write the 2012 BB album in exactly the way Mike wanted to probably equates to the same type of non-crediting snubbing (even though it is not at all the same) - Mike IMO feels he DESERVES and is OWED the opportunity to write with Brian alone in a room - which IMO is ridiculous.

Mike, as far as I know, is the only guy in the BB history except Landy who has tried to lean hard to make damn sure that songs include his input, come hell or high water. Nobody else makes those demands (of course Mike feels his past hits entitle him to such), but it's that very entitled attitude that makes him unlikable. Past hits don't give him that right. Tons and tons of fans love the band specifically for all the NON-Mike written material, like 90% of Pet Sounds... Brian proved he could (and by necessity, in some cases could only) make his most beautiful/deep music without Mike. This is not to diminish Mike's many truly great contributions. Yet Mike is not Brian's equal, and I think very few people would think that Mike should in 2012, in all fairness have been entitled to an absolutely equal or predominant amount of creative control of the band's songwriting.

And it isn't a contest either in terms of how outraged/whatever people are of one incident over another. I'll say right here, unequivocally, that it was a sh*tty thing to do for Brian to not credit Mike when he should have been credited, although I do feel that Murry's lack of ethics and bullying behavior loomed large over Brian's actions - still, that doesn't exactly excuse it or make it right.

Us fans don't look at these incidents in a bubble without context of the entire band's history, as well as the mental illness/emotional capacity of the members. I think that very, very few people think it's good/fair/appropriate for Mike to have been screwed out of legit song credits like California Girls (the straw-grab of WIBN excepted).

Maybe we don't get to tell the Boys how to feel because we haven't walked in their shoes.

I will say that the Pamplin thread has made me more #teamBrian than anything else has. It really clarified for me how much he was hounded, actually forced, on all sides to perform as others wished and not as he did.

Exactly Emily!

That's incredibly sad to hear, and I wish petty squabbles on a message board weren't spoiling your enjoyment so much. Personally, I'm going to go and see two Brian/Al/Blondie shows in May, and I'm certain I'll enjoy them (hopefully as much as the 2002 Pet Sounds shows, since it's Pet Sounds again). And if Mike and Bruce (and maybe Dave) announce any UK shows this year, I'll go to some of those, too, and enjoy them. And if anyone wants to revoke my Brianista and/or Kokomaoist cards for that, let them.

We are only having a discussion, we can't dictate or make a bandmember feel a certain way if they're not going to feel that way.

I haven't walked in Landy's shoes, yet I can "tell" the ghost of Landy that he was being super sh*tty by taking advantage of Brian, and I think you'd probably agree. And you're able to call Brian out on sh*tty behavior (as I too am), like the songwriting snubbing, but somehow you cannot say the same about Mike at any point.

I will say that Brian snubbing Mike over, California Girls, for example, was not excusable, it was not right. Can you bring yourself to say the same about any action from Mike to Brian? That Mike ever did something to Brian that Cam would qualify as simply wrong, not right, f*cked up?

I hope to see both this year too (thanks to your persuasion!). I haven't seen live music in about two decades.
Eta: well, I've seen random musicians in subway stops and bars and the like.

I wonder what Carl thought about with Brian back then? If he was pushing Brian as well, it seems Brian didn't hold it against him. He was even Brian's best man at his wedding. I think the relationships that these guys had with each other is much more complicated than what we want to believe. All the stuff that happened throughout the years between these guys, it has never stopped them from getting together when they want to. Look at the years in the not too distant past when Brian and Al had issues, even after touring together. To this day they still tour together. We don't fully understand their bonds with each other and we probably never will, as it should be.

I agree. Their relationships are profoundly complex, as family relationships are. Theirs more so, because of the additional ties that continued to bind them in adulthood.
Eta: what I meant by my comment is that, due to that thread, BW has an infinite amount of empathy from me, not that I've gotten a hardened "anti" view of the other band members.

I think the total set of songs, up to and including Pet Sounds, for which Mike was credited pre-trial was:
Surfin' Safari
Surfin'
The Shift
Catch A Wave
Surfers Rule
Our Car Club
A Young Man Is Gone
Custom Machine
Fun Fun Fun
In the Parkin' Lot
"Cassius" Love vs. "Sonny" Wilson
Warmth of the Sun
This Car of Mine
Little Honda
Please Let Me Wonder
And Your Dream Comes True

If one looks at the band with that as Mike's list of credits, Mike is basically an unimportant figure in the band's creative process, the fourth most important lyricist after Brian, Gary Usher, and Roger Christian. Most of those are filler album tracks and the couple of genuinely decent lyrics could be put down to the songs being cowritten by Brian (who, if the original credits are to be believed, wrote many lyrics solo that are much better than Mike's).
In fact the story looks like "Brian collaborates with various writers, like Gary Usher, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, and Roger Christian, to write albums based around different themes. He occasionally lets his cousin Mike, who co-wrote the first two singles with him, write the odd album track -- and once even let him co-write an actual single, Fun Fun Fun. Then, after Mike gets jealous and falls out with the latest lyricist, Van Dyke Parks, Brian decides to collaborate with Mike more, and around that time the band stops having hits."
When you add in the songs in the lawsuit, Mike suddenly becomes co-writer of one of the more substantial bodies of work of the rock era.
We can argue all we like about exactly how much of the current credit is deserved (I think it largely is, but some examples such as Wouldn't It Be Nice are clearly not deserved, and would have been struck off the list had Brian had even vaguely competent legal representation), but I don't think it unreasonable to think that Mike would have had at least a *slightly* better reputation had he had those credits from the beginning.
(Not even touching whether he should still, twenty-plus years after the credits were awarded, be complaining about them.)

I think that while it is in part about the credits, it's ultimately about a sense of entitlement that he must have, but it's difficult for him to specifically put that into words in an interview and say "I feel I deserve to write songs with Brian in a manner I see fit", or "I feel I have a right to derail a reunion if I don't get my way on this".  I can understand someone feeling that way - but only to a point, a point which Mike IMO crossed many moons ago.

Yep. Whatever else one thinks about the band members as people or their actions over the years, one can't help but feel for Brian when it comes to how he and his mental illness were treated in the 70s and 80s.

I can't help but think that California Girls not being credited to Mike is, without a doubt, the most egregious example in BB history of a person not getting credits for a song, compared to the amount they legitimately contributed. It's shocking, really.

I don't think that the public had any doubt that Mike was a lyricist in a big way for the band's material at that point though... I think he was known as the often lead singer, the corny guy doing the chicken dance/telling jokes, entertaining the audience as an emcee, as well as the guy who wrote the lyrics to many fun songs (and some deeper songs too).

So, while a huge hit like California Girls would have been a nice feather to add to Mike's cap, I think that the absence of his credits on that song (for example, because there were more songs too of course) couldn't have made *that* big a difference in terms of Mike's public perception... at least so I would think. (Doesn't mean I can't completely understand him feeling severely burned by not being credited on a huge hit like that, amongst other tunes too). Yet I don't think it would have given him really any more significant cred amongst Mike's peers, even though it's possible Mike today (and for decades) may feel the opposite - that a Cali Girls credit, for example, would have made him have more industry respect (and more money of course).

But it got me thinking... in the early to mid sixties, Mike's proper crediting - interspersed with some slightly/moderately/very surprising instances of non-crediting - then more proper crediting happening, then the very egregious California Girls snub... it doesn't make a lot of sense how this could have happened if Brian didn't do the specific California Girls snub for some reason in particular. I wonder if perhaps at this point in 1965, it was a passive-aggressive move to let Mike know that he didn't want to keep writing with Mike? Perhaps an egregious instance of non-verbal communication?

It seems obvious that Brian was having the itch to move into other musical territory and not have a guy (who he often creatively clashed with, despite some remarkable results like Today Side B) dragging his feet and making things more difficult for him during songwriting, not to mention trying to make sure he keeps getting to be the main collaborator. Brian must have felt stuck.

Not that Brian snubbing Mike for California Girls would necessarily logically equate to some magic world where Mike just recedes into the background and ceases being a thorn in Brian's side... but it just seems too big a song for this to have happened by accident. Maybe Brian hoped that Mike would be discouraged from wanting to so badly be the primary co-writing partner if he was gonna get treatment like this. Which I would think would have possibly, in part, come as a reaction to where Brian felt pressured by Mike. It's the inconsistent crediting pattern that makes me scratch my chin and try to deduce a reason for. I am not saying that Mike is responsible for himself not being credited, just that this may have been a contributing factor in the mind of Brian - perhaps.  

Not that Brian knew for sure it was gonna be a monster hit when he wrote it and left Mike's name off the credits... but when you have a guy experiencing mental illness, coupled with a propensity for passive-aggressive moves, I do wonder if this theory holds any possible water. It may of course be totally bunk too.

I was just scrambling about trying to find such a list, so thanks!

Thank you for posting this.  I love Mike, always have, always will.


He's dead right about some things, dead wrong about other things, that's just who he is.  I can't hate him for it, just like I can't hate Brian for being dead wrong about a lot too.  Just wish the two of them would put down the battle axes and get back together.

But -- assuming the list of songs in the lawsuit to be correct for now, California Girls *wasn't* a specific snub, more a general pattern. Looking at the albums from the year or so before that, Mike co-wrote seven songs on All Summer Long, including the massive hit I Get Around, and was only credited for Little Honda. Mike co-wrote three songs on the Christmas album and was credited for none. Mike co-wrote every original on Today! (including the big hits Dance Dance Dance, Help Me Rhonda, and When I Grow Up) and was only credited for Please Let Me Wonder. Mike co-wrote eight of the eleven originals on Summer Days, and was only credited for And Your Dream Comes True.
The question, if the post-lawsuit credits are accurate, isn't why Mike was suddenly "snubbed" on California Girls, but why he was actually credited on And Your Dream Comes True, Please Let Me Wonder, and Little Honda, and only those tracks, over a four-album period where he was the primary lyricist.

I agree.

Are there any contemporary interviews with Brian or Mike in which they discuss the writing of the songs? Do we see Brian actively lying about or actively acknowledging Mike's authorship in the years before the lawsuit? Or Mike bringing the issue up? Do we know the process of registering authorship? Was it generally Murry or someone else who did it? Did Brian actively engage with Sea of Tunes or was he passive and it was actively handled exclusively by Murry?
It is really egregious and also odd. How did it happen that it sat there uncontested for so many years?

I've heard audio interviews from Brian in the Landy years where he says things like "Mike is mad at me because I left his name off California Girls" or "Mike is mad at me because my dad left his name off California Girls" -- I'm pretty sure I've heard both those. (I've only specifically heard him mention that one song, which I think is one reason that one gets brought up more than the others). I can't cite specific interviews, I'm afraid.
There's also a passage in the Gaines book (which I no longer have a copy of) where Tony Asher talks about being surprised to hear Brian claiming to have co-written lyrics which Asher wrote on his own, and Van Dyke Parks has talked in interviews about pulling Brian up about his name not being on Wonderful in the mid-90s.
In one recent thread on this subject on this board, someone linked to some Mike interviews from (IIRC) the late 70s, where he talks about it a bit.

Somewhere on the net there's a blow by blow of the court case from someone who sat in the gallery.  Essentially Brian has always acknowledged that to the best of his memory Mike's correct about his assessments, or Brian just doesn't remember that particular song.   He even basically admitted to it on the stand several times.  Mike also was on record in court as saying he didnt' want to sue Brian and wanted to settle for a token amount (and having the name added) but that Brian's handlers wanted to take it to court.  Brian basically never personally contested it.   

Glad to hear it. I'm absolutely certain you'll love both bands, and I can't think of many better reintroductions to the world of live music.

Certainly sounds like a frown-worthy pattern.

That link is http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovevwilson1.html

You asked why people are outraged by Mike's hurt feelings rather than by the people who supposedly caused them. I explained why IMO this was the case. Putting it even more simply for you, because they consider Mike's hurt feelings have inadequate justification or at least inadequate justification for the level of his 'hurt'.

Could you help us understand the battle axe Brian needs to put down?  I think most here have a hard time seeing where Brian is still fighting.  And as it seems he isn't still fighting Mike, one must ask what motivation he has to get back together with someone who continues to be aggressive toward him?

EoL

Oh please.  Open your eyes.  I'm not going to break out the crayons and construction paper for you. 

I think ultimately too you can't underestimate the fact that Mike sees addiction as a weakness that can just be willed out of your life.  He also sees mental illness this way.  He's completely wrong.... but that's how he sees life. 

To him, Brian never being able to get back to "old-school Brian" has never made any sense.  After all, Mike thinks he personally is everything he ever was.  Hey, want to hear my new song?  Did you know I still write?  Don't I look thin just like before?  I've worn these hats for 50 years!  etc. etc.

So ultimately what you have is Brian is a fraction of what he once was in Mike's eyes, and Mike can't figure out why Brian doesn't just act normal, so he comes up with 15 different explanations and 15 different things to be pissed off about when it comes to Brian.

Most of us wouldn't hold grudges for 50 years; no matter how bad the slight was.  First off, Mike is the type that can hold a grudge forever, and second, Brian's illness prohibits him from ever fully accepting repsonsibility for what Mike feels Brian did.  Mike seems incapable of realizing that Mike is completely sane but also can't accept responsibility for the things he's done to Brian. 

It'll never be resolved, but hopefully they can each bite their lip long enough to work together for the fans.  Like you alluded to, though, most normal humans (you, I) don't hold grudges for 50 years because we're able to eradicate those we hold grudges against from our lives.  Brian and Mike are forever joined at the hip, even more than families often are because they're famous and most of the world views them as cousins. 

See, this is why I *don't* want them to "bite their lip long enough to work together for the fans". They spent decades doing that, and it didn't make either of them very happy people, from what I can tell. They're in their seventies, and should do whatever's best for *them*, not us. Much as I loved the reunion tour, and artistically would have liked to see it continue, I don't want to see them spending whatever time they have left doing things they don't want to do.

Please explain this further, Andrew.  I guess I need the crayons and construction paper.  Yet, I'm out of the house for probably 12 hours, so will have to search your reply then. Sorry, but I will look tomorrow.

Mike got a settlement for song credits a long time ago, that Brian either was oblivious to, or didn't fight with his father about.  Mike seemed to take a very long time to contest the credits (well, until after Brian got some money from A&M).  Then he got his apparently generous settlement.  Then, several years later he made some pretty intense statements about Brian's involvement with the BBs after the mid-60's, that obviously don't add up.  But we're burying that little item, aren't we?  Good job.  

That "borderline frivolous lawsuit" also included a truly awful description of Brian and his band that clearly wasn't justified by the reviews, nor Brian's contemporary artists who were clearly delighted, and an attack on Al Jardine that seemed to have nothing to do with the lawsuit.  Sorry, but there's something wrong here.

Enlighten us.  He won't go into the room with Mike?  Mike wasn't the hero of Love & Mercy?  What is the battle axe?  If you mean that Brian doesn't want to write with Mike anymore then your symbol of a battle axe is completely inappropriate for the point you are trying to communicate.  Mike continually belittles Brian -and his wife- and harasses him through the legal system.  Brian just kind of takes it, says mostly nice things, didn't bother to put up a fight in court, and doesn't want to spend a lot of time with a person who, in various forms, abuses him.  That's called wisdom, not a battle axe.  Mike carries a battle axe, as this article proves once again.  So please enlighten us with the crayons and construction paper.  Explain to is the battle axe of Brian Wilson.

EoL

Exactly, Mike is a bully and possible "trigger" for BW if he pushes BW too hard as usual.

It's not in Mike's DNA to take responsibility for the wrongs he has committed and somehow he seems to have passed this DNA on to his biggest fans.

EoL

All by deflecting and blaming the victim.

Just read through the 8 pages of this thread. Thanks to all the regular posters for their contributions. New thread, same objectives.

Getting back to the article, I have read interview after interview where Mike blames the end of  the C50 on his lack of access to Brian.

Yet, here Mike tells the tale of he and Brian alone in the back of a car, stuck in a traffic jam in 2012 (with Jackie driving). This lack of access seems to be another false spin Mike is weaving!

Yeah BBs spent the  most alone time with each other in decades on the C50.

I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to explain...


Those are two of the possibilities. The other obvious possibilities are that Mike is lying or mistaken and he didn't deserve those credits at all, or that Brian was actively complicit (as Mike has sometimes claimed and at other times not). There's the possibility that credits were missed off accidentally rather than on purpose. There's the possibility that in some edge cases there can be genuine disagreement as to what counts as a songwriting contribution (for example "409" was apparently written entirely by Brian and Gary Usher -- but then Mike came up with the "she's real fine my 409" intro idea and "giddy-up" backing vocal line -- is that a songwriting contribution or just an arrangement or production idea on the same level as a guitar solo?) There's also the possibility that all of those things apply to different extents for different songs.



Yes.


No-one's "burying" anything. It was a stupid, frivolous lawsuit, with no legal grounds. I said so ten years ago, I say so now. If anyone cares enough, I'll say so ten years from now too.


I agree. Those are bad things. I don't think anyone in the whole thread has suggested they aren't, and I'm not sure why you're asking me to "explain" otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt:
I believe Mike Love's lawsuit about Smile was completely unjustified both morally and legally.
I think the description of Brian's performances in the document quoted is incorrect.
There are numerous obvious factual errors in that document.
The stuff about Al in that document had nothing to do with anything in the suit, and was uncalled-for.
Brian's band are the single best live band I've ever seen.
I actually prefer the completed 2004 Smile to the unfinished 60s recordings.
From my very brief meetings with them, as far as I can judge, Al Jardine is a more personable man than Mike Love is.

I've not, at any point, *EVER*, said anything about the 2005 lawsuit that contradicts any of that. So quite what you want me to "explain" I don't know.

On the other hand, I *do* think that the 2005 lawsuit is, fundamentally, an uninteresting topic for discussion. It was uncontroversially decided the right way, and all one can learn from it is that Mike Love is a somewhat litigious person -- something almost no-one would deny.

The lawsuit around the songwriting credits is far more interesting, because it actually tells us something about the creative process that led to the music we all love; because it was and is more controversial (nearly everyone agrees that Mike deserved some of the credit he got, but almost no-one agrees that he deserves *all* of that credit -- California Girls on one side and Wouldn't It Be Nice on the other being the obvious cases here); and because it gives us an insight into why the various band members might have problems with each other, and how those problems have affected the band.

So people talking about that lawsuit and not about the Smile one aren't "burying" the Smile lawsuit -- they/we're just talking about those things that are *actually interesting to talk about*, about which a wide range of possible views can reasonably be expressed, and from which it might be possible to gain a greater understanding of the band.

There's literally nothing worth saying about the Smile lawsuit, once one has said "this is clearly a nonsense" -- or at least no-one has been able, in ten years, to find anything else worth saying about it. Perhaps, rather than accusing others of "burying" things -- rather than just not being particularly interested in talking about one aspect of a fairly wide-ranging thread -- you might try finding something interesting to say about it yourself?

Actually haven't we been told by the LA Times or something that Brian's lawyers enlisted Mike to testify for Brian in making their case against Irving Music and they would restore his due credit?  Then Brian's lawyers didn't do what they agreed to and Mike lawyers had to sue to get his credit established.

I'm largely indifferent to Mike Love. Up til know he always struck me as a vaguely ridiculous figure. This article certainly didn't change my opinion.

However that law suit info that Empire of Love posted is really eye opening. That's just vile.

It seems to me that what M Love really wants is respect that he doesn't get from the music industry or his peers. He assumes this is because he didn't get  credit for writing some of  the lyrics for some of BBs earlier hits, so he sues and wins (though it seems now his credits are over stated). Did this win him the respect he thinks he deserves? Nope.

If anything it seems his lawsuits have made him more reviled.   

I'm pretty sure Debbie actually meant for that to be directed at Ron, who said something about not wanting to "get the crayons and construction paper out to explain" or something like that.

So hopefully our friend Ron indeed does get his crayons out and shows us that "battle axe" Brian has been wielding.

Wow - Just getting back after a few days away and all this to read and process...  :)

Good luck.  :lol

Trying to think of a case equivalent to Mike's : closest I can come up with is Johnnie Johnson, Chuck Berry's pianist and uncredited co-writer on most of Berry's classic tunes.

Of course, Mike wound up in a mansion, Johnson wound up driving a bus.

Uh, what we got here is the winning post for this thread. A genuine five wooter, by krackie.  :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Johnnie was also a thousand times better musician and more important to the history of rock than Mike is. Mike wasn't even the best surf rock frontman, that was Jan Berry.

It seems to me that it is impossible to repair Mike's hurt feelings because his real problem is that he resents Brian being more talented than he is. So Mike can be given full credit for everything he contributed, he can have every penny to which he is entitled, and still he isn't satisfied.

It is very sad that we're not all equally talented, good looking and rich. But that's life.

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

A quick survey of the BB catalog from this time period indicates Brian had a hand in either writing or recording the following:

Heroes and Villains
Wind Chimes
Surf’s Up
Vege-tables
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Good News
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin’ Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game of Love
Cool Cool Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait Too Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs  A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here in the morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin’ Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Trancendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton Fields
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She
Take A Load Off Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon & Fairway
Sail On Sailer
Falling In Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Ding Dang
California Feelin
Child Of Winter
Good Timin
It’s OK
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He’s So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
Let Us Go on This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
We Gotta Groove
My Diane
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kind Of Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Santa Ana Wins
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
Soul Searchin

Brian was too ill to do anything from 1967-2002 beside collect royalties on the back of Mike Love's hard work?  That does seem even remotely close to a true statement.  I don't know about all of you but some of my absolute favorite Beach Boys songs can be found in this list.  This makes me ask why Mike would misrepresent the facts in regards to Brian's contributions during this time period, to this great of a degree, in a lawsuit?  Something isn't right here.

EoL

Everyone does. It's laughably wrong.

Ha, yeah, I would hope so.  When I read a claim like this, and consider many subsequent claims and the constant tearing down of Brian in regards to the past (drugs and debilitating mental illness) and the present (controlled by his wife and managers), it comes across as an eerie combination of jealousy, defamation (toward Melinda), and historical revisionism.

EoL

Have we established that he is a victim? In your somewhat biased opinion but not all of us agree with you.

And I love Empire of Love's list of Brian's work during those years he supposedly contributed so little.

"Victim". Give it a rest.

Well. Once again Mike gets the opportunity to repair some of the damage to his reputation, and instead, he just confirms what people have been saying all along. You would think, by now, someone would clue him in that he's his own worst enemy. Seriously, for someone who does all this meditating, Mike has to be one of the least self-aware people ever. I guess that's to be expected, though, since his primary reason for selecting  T.M. as a spiritual practice was that he didn't have to make any personal sacrifice.

Once again, when contacted to comment on Mike's interview points, Brian takes the high road and declines to argue them.

I think this quote from Al basically sums it up. “Mike has his own vision of what the Beach Boys are, and he doesn’t need us anymore,” says Jardine. “It’s like, ‘Wow, that hurts.’ I mean, he’s obviously a terrific singer, and, oh, gosh, he’s just so clever with lyrics, but his strength was his ties to Brian, who is, let’s face it, the golden goose of all time. I think he really just wants to be back in the locker room at Dorsey High, being that guy who threw the most touchdowns – he has to have that recognition.”

Al's meditation seems to be working. He gets it. I'm guessing the golden goose got tired of being the golden goose a long time ago. And, if that's how Mike still sees him, it's unlikely they'll be writing in a room anytime soon. Oddly enough, it seems that Jackie might get that, too. “I don’t want to make you cry, but would you greet him as being your cousin and collaborator in music first, or just as a collaborator?" Of course, Mike can't get to the point of seeing any of that and falls back on how vilified he's been.

The way I see it, even though he's trying to play the victim,  Mike really has everything he's entitled to. He's been given credit and recompense for all of those lyrics from the past, and without any real contest from Brian. He has the rights to the touring band, which he worked to keep afloat, and uses The Beach Boys name to play as many shows a year as he wants. He has a big house and money. He's in the spotlight.

The one thing Mike Love doesn't have is the respect and legacy that cousin Brian has.  Frankly, I don't see that changing any time soon.

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  :)

EoL

To be clear, I don't bring up this old (but not as old as some would say) lawsuit just to drag Mike through the mud (he doesn't need my help to do that).  I bring it up for two reasons:

1. To show a pattern of behavior that continues to this day, mostly through the media; and
2. To show Mike isn't the innocent victim.  He was wronged many moons ago and those wrongs have been as righted as possible.  Yet he continued to seek revenge through the courts and the media.

I would ostracize my cousin too if he treated me this way, especially if he did so in public every chance he got.  He makes it hard for us to see him as the victim - as he claims in the RS interview (“I’ve been ostracized,” he says quietly. “Vilified. In other words, f***ed with.”).  Talk about old...

EoL

I think that Al nailed it.

I suspect that one of the reasons C50 crashed and burned was that each night the final introduction and the loudest applause was reserved for Brian Wilson and that irritated Mike to no end.

Yes, Al was on the money.
And I think the applause for Brian had to be one of the irritating factors leading to the end of C50, certainly. I went to one of the shows, and I will freely admit that Mike MADE the show what it was. He really is such a pro onstage. You can relax and enjoy yourself because you know he's up there having a good time. Brian is just not that guy. But the audience knows that it's Brian who created most of the music, putting in the effort not on stage but behind the scenes. And like it or not, many audience members have empathy for a guy who looks uncomfortable onstage, especially knowing what he's been through. If Mike resents the adulation for Brian, then he just doesn't have the perspective to understand where it's coming from. Mike thinks he's the one scoring touchdowns during the shows, so how come the water guy is getting all the applause? Well, the water guy orchestrated the brilliant play. (Forgive me if that's a bad analogy. I'm not a football person.)

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

Well, this has certainly gotten more interesting, even if it is tedious reading.  

While I apologize to Mr. Hickey for addressing him instead of the correct poster in my rush to go out the door and hear my niece perform (never post in a rush I keep telling myself), I did have questions about his thoughts that the 2005 suit should just be dismissed in all of our eyes for not being "interesting."  And imagine how heartbroken I was to find that my posts aren't interesting to Mr. Hickey.  

Reading this new information, I guess I have to concede that Mr. Love is a highly charitable figure.  He is clearly a "job creator" for the legal field - those he employs and the legal teams his respondents have to hire.  There are probably also process servers, court employees, heaven knows how many people benefit from this.  Possibly this information isn't "interesting," but it could be enlightening I'm thinking.  

Frankly, I think that the 2005-2010 lawsuit addresses a lot of Mr. Love's questions in the RS interview.  Many of us are exhausted by his relentlessly repeating the same old complaints, in the press and in the courts.  

Mike's hangup is that after finally getting his due from songs Brian chose not to credit him on years ago, he now has to listen to people claim that he 'stole' credits from Brian. Reguardless of how mentally ill somebody is, cheating someone is still cheating.

A qualifier here.  I really like Al and his work.  That said, I respectfully disagree.  Brian did get huge applause.  I saw multiple shows.  Brian stood in the shoes of both of his brothers.  No other band member was in that situation.

First, many (such as myself) had only seen Brian on a Landy-cameo, more than 20 years after seeing the Beach Boys live.  This means playing a full show with the band.   I never saw Brian at a full show, until C50 or on TV at the 25th Anniversary.

Second, although all eyes were on both Dennis and Carl during those highly charged tribute videos, many wept openly to see Brian as the highly unexpected sole survivor of his family, and as boomers, many had experienced similar losses and had great empathy for Brian for many reasons.

Third, perhaps none of the other members had suffered the losses such as Brian (and not just sympathy for a sibling - but the complex relationship of being co-creators and co-founders) and although not height- compromised, standing as a giant, rising above such loss.  

There is a dynamic, outside of the band, that transcends this different recognition for Brian.  It could likely be related to what he told Carl, when he was so sick, "I'm going to stay around for awhile."  Maybe the dynamic that was tapped-into for L&M - that makes the movie about his personal journey, and not related to the band he was involved in.  

Brian gets this extraordinary kind of applause at his solo shows, and I think not just for his music but his ability to move forward, that people have found to be courageous because of who he is as a human being.  Each of the band members were given plenty of C50 applause, and all merited it.   JMHO  ;)

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public (http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public)

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

Sounds like Mike's legal team behaved not too dissimilar ethically-speaking from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department (made famous/infamous via the Netflix series "Making a Murderer") in the initial case, where Steven Avery was falsely imprisoned and then released after decades (irrespective of the second, more questionable crime in the show). Mike's team was actually willing to go to the lengths of planting evidence and having fake people completely, blatantly lying in order to try to "prove" their side, and this was proven to be the case.

In both cases, to think that the knowledge of this behavior didn't go all the way to the top is rather unlikely. Does anyone really think the a team of lower-level employees would go totally rogue and do that with zero knowledge by the big boss? Nobody's life was on the line in Mike's case, but the thought that an utterly fake person/story was drudged up and concocted is very, very icky and devoid of ethics.

My empathy for Mike's crediting screwjob doesn't evaporate with this knowledge, but his ethics do take quite a beating in my mind, especially when he repeatedly calls out his bandmates' ethical lapses. Maybe lawyers planting evidence like that was intended as a counterpunch to Brian not settling for the lower amount in the earlier songwriting case.  

That whole move was twisted as f***.

CD - there is sort of an easy rule of the road in a lawsuit.  The client controls the goal, whether they prevail or not; and, the lawyers control the means, generally meaning the paperwork.  

During the course of the litigation, defendants are dropped or by advancing information, others get them dismissed as defendants.  That list of filings and dismissals doe not look unusual because of the necessary rules that have to be complied with.   This is a too-broad a brush.  

Non-Lawyer clients, don't have the education to do their own legal work hire and entrust others to do that.  Lawyers are human and often reviled. And, when they cross the line, ethically, are disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, as they should.  But they are a necessary evil in society.   :lol    

There is no doubt that some very underpaid prosecutors are so hungry (and overworked) because they want to win a big case to break out into private practice, or go into politics and make a name, that they overlook "exculpatory" or evidence that tends to make the defendant innocent, and there are rules in place to fix that.  Many innocent people have gone to prison unjustly and by the same token, many guilty people have gotten off unpunished, because their private attorney could out-maneuver the prosecutor. So it cuts both ways.  Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose.  

It is too bad, because they give good attorneys a bad name, just like any other profession.  Just sayin'.  ;)

I don't think that Mike was necessarily the mastermind of any plot, anymore than Brian was the mastermind of a plot to not settle for the lower amount Mike was willing to settle for in the earlier songwriting lawsuit. But do you think it's realistic a savvy guy like Mike could have had zero awareness of any attempts of a strategy that had to have taken crafting/planning?

Imagine for a moment, the thought of being a very rich person, hiring a lawyer to prove some point of being legally "wronged", and that lawyer creates a false person with a completely fake backstory. For one, wouldn't a client ask the lawyers where/how they found this mysterious person? Classified ad looking for people who were confused and "harmed" by a giveaway CD?  ;D And for two, after it came out in court as completely fraudulent, wouldn't this already known litigious, rich client most likely sue the lawyer for doing such an action behind their back, which further drags the client's name through the mud by association? We're talking false planting of a person, not just "bad legal advice". Seems unlikely to me that said client would just take that lying down. Maybe a bad lawyer talked Mike into it, and he went along with what he thought was a harmless ruse that would prove his point.  And maybe not. I'm just talking about what's likely and what's not. I'm trying to be open-minded here, but how likely is something like this to occur completely behind the client's back? Not just in this case, but in other cases with wealthy clients?

CD - The lawyers may have come up with a "theory of the case" and ran it out.  So, wealthy or not, this thing is "billable hours" and a problem with the profession so who knows?  And, it could have caused confusion, and that is sometimes unpredictable.  As, is the lawyer-client relationship, because we don't know all of the facts and circumstances.  We only know what was "filed."

As I look (through that lens) to the beginning of the band, I see the initial Murry nonsense and Brian being browbeaten into whatever arose, while they were all too young to enter into a contract.  And Murry did kick the door down and the band, still does give him credit for that.  I think Murry created a huge mess that took decades to unravel long after he died.    

Maybe Murry thought he was entitled to them all working for him.  It appears he had control of the catalog and people in the industry looked the other way.  We can't turn back the hands of time, but just look at documents that show the legal control relationships that arose over time.        

It is easy for people who don't understand these relationships to finger-point.  There are some brilliant lawyers out there, some greedy ones, some lazy ones and some real dummies as well.  It is no different from any other profession.  ;)

Hi all,

We have all read the article and had our say.  No use rehashing old lawsuits.  It only hurts the people doing that.  I am sure that Brian and Mike would rather their fans move on and simply enjoy the music.  We had our soap opera.  Now it is time to listen to great music.  The old lawsuits happened the way they did.  Aren't any of you into the upcoming concerts?  I only hope that we can enjoy The Pet Sounds Tour and The Beach Boys.  There is a saying: learn from the past, live in the present and plan for the future.  Both men are doing just that.  Time for the fans to do that as well.  Remember the beating a dead horse saying?  In an Elvis songs Elvis sings please forget the past. The future looks bright up ahead.  Brian sang a song called Lay Down Burden.  Mike sings about having Fun, Fun, Fun.  When we analyze old lawsuits are we really saying we want to change the outcome?  I do hope that people can go forward and enjoy life.     

the text of Mike's lawsuit is nothing short of libel. oh the irony

The problem is Mike has not just moved on. This interview has just been done and he still has grievances and that is why we end up discussing the situation yet again. Let's hope that from now on Mike can let go of the past.

And this is obviously the appetizer to the main course - the book. We'll be knee deep in the big muddy once Mike releases his, aww big muddy.

We conjectured this much when the announcement of the book came out. As I recall, many of us were shouted down by the usual suspects to approach the book with an open mind. I think we have a pretty good idea how this is going to play out. C'est la vie.

Exactly, Mike Love never changes in being a douchebag.

Hi all,

Interviews are planned and rehearsed.  Mike is going to be Mike.  Brian has recently made a statement and moved on.  I am going to follow Brian's lead. 

   The songwriting credit debacle may have been legally rectified, but for Mike, the emotional burn and betrayal will never go away. I can understand that, but his never ending carping only reinforces every negative Mike Love stereotype known to humanity.

  I do think Mike's rep as a creative force would be greater today had he been given proper credit at the time.

  A few questions:

  It seems generally accepted that Mike wrote (more or less) all the words to "California Girls". But what was the general pattern of the Brian-Mike collaborations? How much lyrical contribution did Brian make on say "I Get Around" and "Help Me Rhonda" ? Does Mike claim to have written "all the words"?

He claims to have written all or most of the words to those two, yes -- and in the case of "I Get Around" to have come up with the "round round get around" part as well as the lyric. In other cases, he claims less -- on Wouldn't It Be Nice, he apparently came up with only "good night baby/sleep tight baby" on the tag, and I'm pretty sure his contribution to "409" was only "She's real fine, my 409" and the "giddy-up" backing vocals.
I think that on the songs where another lyricist is also credited, Mike's contributions were usually of the latter kind. Where he and Brian are the only credited contributors, it's more often, though not always, the former.

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards. 

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

Ang - More likely than not, the author had a punch-list of questions that he wanted answered.  Mike appears to have cooperated to this hot button set of questions rather than bar them from the discussion.

Interesting, that the author calls Kokomo "insipid" and that is a value judgment.  Mike was one of four composers on that, and by similarly credentialed composers. Brian was prevented from singing on Kokomo by Landy as I remember but made sure he sang on the Spanish version.  

You bet if Brian was not imprisoned by Landy it would have happened.  And, on Endless Harmony Brian says as much without directly mentioning Landy.  

Mike is clear about Murry's role in setting the ball in motion with the royalties issues.  That is history.  And not uncommon for show-biz parents to have their hands in the coffers.  Murry somehow controlled the catalog which he sold.  Is this what you do to your kids and their business partners?  

But the author does get some new light shed on the early days with the kids going to "Wednesday-night youth meetings at the Presbyterian church and come home singing."  And he was absolutely correct in going after the Landy book.  

What is the important take-away? "- but if you take this music... what it has it has meant to so many people."

That is all that matters, here.  ;)

  

I've given this a whole heap of thought.  I'm done with Mike.  I won't buy his book.  I've already read it.  That said...I'll leave him with a little 'friendly' advice...  2 things...

  If Mike really truly wants to be recognized professionally as an equal to his cousin Brian he needs to do 2 things.  ...1...He needs to stop publically bashing the Beach Boys 'brand' as he's harming the corporation and its potential to continue earning.  [I would have already fired him for THIS specific ongoing blunder.]  ...and 2...He should immediately arrange to have a Mike Love doll [or action figure as some might refer to is as] manufactured and made avaialble to the quivering-with-anticipation public.  [He might well increase sales of said doll some 97.5 fold by including free pins with every purchase.]

The book, the book  Not the only one who walk's on water.  Finally the truth comes out.  Film rights available?

Another look at the article, Mike is still slaving away at "Mike Love Not War". What's it been, 15 years in the making? He's already released 2 or 3 songs from it. And he will never get permission to use the Beatles singing.

I mean, WTF?

It's no SMiLE... ;)

Well in Mike's defense, I guess he's pulling an Al Jardine with this solo album :)

I think the only takeaway one can have from this... after giving it much thought myself... is that Mike is an emotionally damaged man, or someone who, while they are capable of many normal, healthy emotions, is just stuck in a negative vortex, where they endlessly lash outwardly to those around them. It's almost like he can't help himself. I mean, one would think that he could see how he comes off, but I actually truly think he is not capable of it.  Once could surmise that part of that stems from the songwriting screwjob he received as a young man. That must have irreversibly warped him but good.

I have relatives like that, and it's just so incredibly sad, infuriating, and frustrating to see the futility in hoping they "see the light". As much as what Mike says pisses us off, seems illogical, etc, if one looks at it as though it is a form of mental illness (very different than the type Brian suffers from, but a type nonetheless), it's easier to switch the disgust more to a level of empathy and pity. Not that it's easy - he continues to shoot himself and the brand name in the foot - but more and more I do tend to just feel really, really, really sorry for the guy because I think he's not emotionally right in the head, and I'm not sure he can help himself.  

It's sort of how I feel about Phil Spector too. Not comparing the two men's talents, nor am I comparing the ways in which they've caused damage around them... only that they are both talented fellows who just became their worst enemies in a huge way, and seemingly are literally completely unable to help themselves out of that endless funk. The very talented Billy Corgan seems to be that way too. It sucks.

That doesn't mean that I think many of Mike's actions are defensible, just that I think he is literally not able to help himself. It still frustrates me a ton and will probably continue to do so, and people who just blindly defend him will remain infuriating to me, since they - much like Mike - don't help Mike's cause, and their arguments and question-dodging are laughable.  The other sad thing is that Mike or his defenders would probably take offense to the mental illness train of thought, even though it's coming (personally speaking) from a good place of trying to find a way, any way, to empathize. I am waiting for people to rush to say this is wrong to try and diagnose someone from afar - and I'll just say that it's just my opinion which can freely be dismissed, and that people similarly were trying to diagnose Brian from afar for years too. Mental illness manifests in many forms. I wish Mike peace and happiness, but it seems very, very clear to me that he'll never find it, and that the egotism has eviscerated his better judgment.

I agree.  But I'm NOT gonna EVER cut him another break.  Enough already.  Friggin' 'ingrate'.  He may very well be 'ill' but in addition....He's just a fool.

Judge Thomas (or his clerk) has a good sense of humor.
Among other gems:

The central issue before us is whether American claims for
relief can be asserted on the basis of conduct that only
occurred in Great Britain. The defendants think not. Love
wishes they all could be California torts.

ETA: I finally completed reading the 3 legal links in this thread. There must be SmileySmile.net threads on the 2005 case, right? I'm going to look for them.
But, reading between the lines, that case was edging toward saying that Brian Wilson having any career at all violates his fiduciary duties to BRI as his career would compete with the Beach Boys trademark and license.

The fraudulent CD purchase was the only thing (barely) tying three of the claims (and some further dependencies) to the US. Without it, they probably wouldn't have brought the case at all. If the lawyers hinged the entire case on a fraudulent act without running it by ML, I'd think he'd have a malpractice case.

Well sure, Al took his time but he did release the sucker. Mike had it finished like 7 years ago. I've heard it.  I mean, how many albums has he done that no one will release?  Country Love, First Love, Unleash the Love, Kokomo Christmas,  Mike Love Not War (which, it says on wiki, he wants to get Neil Young to sing on). Not to mention "Looking Back with Love" being long out of print.

What we need is a three CD Mike Love box set "Made in Kokomo".   :wall

I sincerely doubt Mike's album could ever be as good as Al's.

Here's a typical example, from the latter part of 1964, starting at about 2:50 in the interview. While Brian doesn't claim to be the sole author of all the songs he mentions, one can easily come away with that impression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4N4BSs4Ic

Capitol PR also generally focused on "Brian Wilson songs," without mentioning his lyrical collaborators.

He's out of his frickin' mind if he thinks that will ever happen. Brian had too many co-writers for Wilson/Love to stand out in the Goffin/King, etc level. Plus a lot of Brian's best and biggest songs were written with writers other than Mike.

I don't hate Mike like OSD or smileBrian do, but he ain't nothing special either. As a singer, he's Jan without the flatting, as frontman Jan was way better, funnier and had sex appeal. I still can't believe how dumb the Beach Boys were for putting the best looking guy they had behind the drums and putting a balding old man as the lead singer. Imagine if they had a real manager like Brian Epstein instead of Murry.

I'm not sure which other famed songwriting partnership Mike realistically would have thought the Wilson/Love partnership would be regraded as similar to, with the exception of the Lennon/McCartney one, since he's brought up the Paul McCartney/chopped liver analogy before. 

Problem is: I think that Mike may have just wanted that type of recognition too much from the start, or moreso as time went on into the mid 60s. I think Brian sensed this, and I cannot imagine he felt he could just freely navigate with other cowriters (beyond a little bit here, a little bit there) without enduring some major guilt trips. And that sucks. It really, really sucks. He doesn't seem to have been emotionally equipped for increasing family/business guilt trips like that, particularly at a time when he was dealing with so much other stuff.

If a hypothetical properly credited + more widely recognized Wilson/Love partnership would have similarly grown to become incongruous with what Brian wanted (as Brian clearly wanted to stretch out considerably from working with Mike), having a writing partner who felt *even more* entitled due to more fame/recognition may have been exactly what Brian *didn't* want back then, anymore than he wanted to work with an entitled Mike Love in 2012.  If Brian (who shouldn't have had to feel the need to make promises, and should have been granted the freedom to do as he wished - sorry Mike) had to make repeated collaboration promises of the "next album", would a properly credited/more emboldened Mike have made things any easier on Brian? It's hard to say how much of Mike's personality would have been the same or was warped by the crediting screwjob, but I find it hard to imagine Mike Love in any scenario would not get snippy/jealous.

I find it very curious how Brian was very specifically extraordinarily generous with songwriting credits with collaborators *other* than Mike Love. I cannot think this inconsistency was some accident. Does anyone think it's an accident? Rocky recently pointed out in his thread how Brian gave him a credit for adding basically very little to nothing. I recall reading that Brian went out of his way to make Van Dyke a very generous offer of a songwriting split for SMiLE at the time of its inception as well.  I'm sure if Mike got a whiff of those deals, he'd be fuming and feeling very, very burned and treated very differently/worse than other collaborators (which of course he'd be correct and justifiably hurt about).

The question is why did this inconsistency occur? Is Murry the ONLY reason? Did Brian just feel guilty for how Mike got treated, and then subsequently try to make it up to *other* people by being overly generous? Was this clearing his conscience? Or perhaps was the way Mike was being treated, as late as California Girls in 1965, additionally due to some sort of grudge or passive aggressive behavior by Brian's due to ongoing issues with Mike? Not that Murry was no part of it (of course he was), but I think there could conceivably have been more to it as well. If Brian was behaving passive aggressively with the California Girls credit, it would stand to reason he would have been motivated by something, and I think this may be due to resentment over Mike expressing a continuing collaboration entitlement. Yes, California Girls was a hit song, I love the song to death myself, it's maybe Mike's best lead vocal... but maybe feeling constricted as Brian did made him act out. Could keeping Mike's credits at bay on this particularly groundbreaking new song have been something Brian secretly desired, if he thought more public Mike recognition would have made Mike even more entitled/guilt trippy, at this very moment in time when Brian was seeking out other collaborators for entire albums? I wonder.

If that's the case, it certainly doesn't make Brian's behavior right, but this possible theory (that's all it is) would seem to connect some dots as to why as bafflingly egregious a screwjob as the California Girls credit happened. Mike was being treated unfairly and like crap, but I have doubts that greed and/or fear of Murry were the only factors. Brian may have felt Mike's guilt trips were unfair/crappy and could have been returning the bad treatment.

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

Hell no. Not Jan without the flatting. Mike's a much more accomplished and nuanced singer than Jan, God rest his soul. Dennis was great, but no frontman. The list of Wilson-Love collaborations is pretty impressive, I say. Who knows how he would be regarded if the "Brian did it all by himself" legend (and the cheating over songwriting credits) had not occured.

Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me - the final couple of exceptions notwithstanding, I think you may have nailed it. However, unless I missed something, Mike never laid a claim to "Little Deuce Coupe", and that wasn't a song for which he was awarded co-authorship status.

You're entirely right. For some reason I've had that in the list in my head forever, but having checked Mike never had anything to do with that one. Oh well -- strike that example, But the rest, I think, still stands.

Thanks, Custom Machine, for this.  At about 6:00 Al talks about how, first, Dennis conceived the original idea from surfing, second, Brian wrote the music, and third, Mike wrote the lyrics.  (I surely hope this was included for the court in the lyric lawsuit as evidence coming from within the band.) 

And, despite the magic synergistic quality from within the origins, and the live performance, poison is flowing from Murry's pen, undermining the band members.

The Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them.   ;)   

Interesting theory. Now, How about the Christmas Album co-writes? Wasn't Brian still touring with them, and using the guys as main performers for the tracks?

I don't know anything about the writing process for those songs, but I would assume in those cases that Brian brought the songs into the studio and Mike reworked the lyrics -- and the same for the added credits on All Summer Long.

What we could *really* do with is something like the Song By Song book series, or the interviews with Lennon and McCartney where they both separately talked about who did what on each song. I'd *love* to see a book-length track-by-track interview with Brian, Mike, Van Dyke, Tony Asher and any other living co-writers, looking at the 60s stuff, while that's still possible. Doubt we'll ever get it though :-/

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Smile Brian - Did you watch the video that Custom Machine linked?

Did you read the cases?

The original poison in the well came from Murry.  It flowed for decades following his death.  Like Pinocchio's nose, it just got bigger as time went by.

Let's remember the work arrangement for the nascent Brother Records... The Boys schlepped around the world performing the music, while Brian worked writing Pet Sounds and Smile.   When they came home from schlepping to far flung places, they recorded the vocals and became part of the process, so they had two jobs.  It is like a working parent, working outside of the home.  You go out to work then you come back to work.  :lol 
 
And while this concerned some different factors, the thread is about the interview and the article.  The other case just became part of the discussion.  ;)

According to Brad Elliott (on PSML) documentation shows that, kind of like Tony Asher, before 1967 Mike didn't necessarily get his full credit even when he got credit: ie. Mike got only half credit for his lyrics to Good Vibrations.  It's hard to pick out a pattern.  

So you are arguing BW deserved all the legal malice from Mike because of the sins of Murry?

Mike got greedy after the first shakedown in 1994 and tried to do it again in 2005 without success. The same BW working his ass off in the studio process referred to in the lawsuit as "BW surrounded by druggies, drug dealers, and plagiarizers"?

While Mike did the "heavy lifting" on the road of banging groupies and messing up songs the other guys were singing (live in london, thanksgiving tour)

We are discussing a different part of the interview.

Smile Brian - did you see the Thanksgiving Tour?

Funny, I didn't notice you in the crowd... :lol

Yes it was. Both lawsuits, though, were brought up in the original article, so we've been discussing both. The songwriting credits one is, to me at least, much more interesting. The 2005 one was just a straight case of Mike absolutely, and indefensibly, being in the wrong.

Again plague, why did BW have to pay ($) for the sins of his father with constant lawsuits from Mike Love. I guess blood being thicker than water doesn't work in Mike's mind.

Andrew - p. 9776.  Love v. Sanctuary Records Group.  "Thomas, Circuit Judge...This appeal presents the question, inter alia, of whether the Lanham Act and California's common law right of publicity apply extraterritorially to events occurring in Great Britain.  Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that such claims are not viable, and we affirm the judgment entered by the district court."

Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner to bring the action.  It was not dismissed at the outset, so the trial judge must have considered some evidence advanced, otherwise it would never have gone to trial.   Britain has no right to publicity as in the US.  We don't know if the project was submitted to BRI, for approval or, if it may have been required.    

"The district court dismissed the claims for violation of California's statutory and common law rights of publicity after holding that English law, which does not recognize a right of publicity, governed." p. 9777.

Another factor was where BigTime.tv directed the action and the court found was to be Great Britain.  It was a "not my problem" decision, for the judge, whom some might find amusing with the "Love wished they could all be California torts." (I'm thinking his personal opinion is bleeding into the decision.)  JMHO

So, on p. 9781,"[3] Because BigTime.tv did not purposefully direct any of the relevant intentional acts in California, it was not subject to the jurisdiction of a court in that state."  Although, on p. 9783, "At most de minimum conduct occurred in California when a handful of copies of the paper were delivered without the CD, and a handful of copies of Good Vibrations were sent to Wilson's attorney in California."

California does have an interest in the right of publicity.  p. 9783 addresses that. "...permits celebrities...to control the commercial exploitation of the celebrity's likeness" and is based on its interest in "...safeguarding its citizens from the diminution in value of their names and likenesses." (citing Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1202.)
 

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.  And his photo/the band was used, albeit allegedly small, was used on the packaging.  So, there was some kind of a tie to support the claim.  

We don't know all of what was submitted as there is only a decision, here.  We don't have the actual exhibits or testimony and there are more questions than answers.  Or, at least I would.  ;)

          

Smile Brian - when someone else is running your business and doing all the paperwork, and you don't have good personal representation, protecting your interests, and depend on, and, expect that uncle to "do the right thing," and find that he didn't do it, and they are dead (as Murry was) someone has to respond, and that was Brian because unfortunately, Murry was "unavailable."

So if your uncle stole your car, and cleaned out your bank account when he broke into your house, and found your ATM card, what would "you" do?   ;)   

Not sue the living day lights out of cousin BW and instead go after Murry's estate.

Plenty of things go to trial which are ridiculous on the face of it. The SCO vs IBM case, for example, which has dragged on for thirteen years but which any unbiased observer would have said, back in 2013, was a clear-cut case. Something not being dismissed at the outset doesn't make it any less blatantly wrong.

That, and that alone, is the one tiny aspect of Mike's claim that is justifiable. Whoever designed that cover shouldn't have used a photo of the Beach Boys without their permission. That doesn't justify any of the other nonsense in Mike's suit.

Andrew - over time, crazy or inappropriate time-wise photos have been used for their promotion; things over which there may be little or no control. 

Here, someone seems to have had some control.  It would not have gone to trial if first, Mike had no standing (your right to sue based on some injury or damage) or it survived a motion to dismiss, for any number of "testing' motions that test the "sufficiency of the complaint." It would not have gone to trial if there was nothing of merit.  Just not enough to prevail. 

You are saying it is wrong.  Or I could say it is wrong.  But both of those "opinions" are not what the "referee" or trial judge is looking at.  I might disagree with a holding in a case, or you might.   On the top of p. 9787 and the first full paragraph do give standards and case law for the Lanham Act to enforced outside of the US.   

At any rate, it is done and over with, for over 10 years.  Smile came out since, and C50 happened.  It is water under the bridge and simply an answer that the interviewer asked.   
Appeal courts generally don't like to disturb lower case decisions.  Most are affirmed.   

20 years after he is dead? 

What estate?  :lol

But these lawsuits tie into this article well, Mike is an emotionally ill man who will try to rewrite history and take money from BW at all costs if his ambulance chaser lawyers are available.

Smile Brian - on what basis are you giving Mike a diagnosis?  Medical school?

Ambulance chaser lawyers!  :lol

And, I think that is not considered ethical now.  :lol

So, if Mike is emotionally ill, will you now carry the same compassion for him as you do Brian?

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

Also from that July 8, 2010 Court of Appeals ruling (which is easily Google-able):

The district court awarded attorney's fees after finding that the copyright claims “bordered on frivolous and were not objectively reasonable” and that they “contributed to the bloat” of a “vastly overpled ․ case.” The district court saw Love's theory of the case to be fatally flawed from the outset. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.dpuf

While I don't want to overstate the use of such language, it isn't as though you see *in every case* the court throwing around terms like "bordered on frivolous", "bloat", and "vastly overpled."

Also very troubling is an entire entry in the complaint back from 2005 that basically just rips Al Jardine a new one, even though he's not even a party (not even indirectly through BRI) to the lawsuit. For no apparent reason other than to provide "background" to the group's history, Jardine is characterized thusly; after which Brian is then compared and equated:

5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.

 6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

I have to say, reading the original 2005 complaint, it's just a really ugly, nasty document. I'm AMAZED Brian or Al wanted to get back on the stage with the guy that okayed that document. It drips with vindictiveness, sour grapes, decades-old grudges, and so on. Reading the 2005 complaint actually makes this recent Rolling Stone piece all the more telling.

Reading the appeals decision, not only was there the admonishment mentioned (and others including court fees being ordered paid to eight defendants by the plaintiff), but other points were dismissed "with prejudice", which also does not happen lightly when written in court decisions. Several of the main points seem to have been based on fabricated evidence or otherwise, including the issue of the CD giveaway which is the crux of the case and the issue of where the plaintiff (Love) was a legal resident in order to file the suit under specific guidelines depending on the state. When it was found a different state of residence had been filed in the lawsuit than was actually the case, it was not only dismissed but got "strongly admonished" by the court.

The takeaway is, among other points and inaccuracies, the evidence of the plaintiff's witness who claimed confusion over buying the CD on Ebay turned out to have been a fabrication on several levels, and the attempt to claim legal residence in California was called out by the court decision because they found the actual residence at that time was established in another state. So trying to claim a violation under the California unfair business practices banner isn't valid unless there is a legal residence in California, and the court found no basis to claim a California residence in order to file under that California guideline.

What was surprising is how much was dismissed outright, with prejudice, with admonishment, etc...including defendants named in the suit who the courts found had no reason to be named, yet the case continued to be appealed up to the 2010 9th Circuit opinion that ended it.

I have to wonder what was behind the decision to continue appealing a case that on nearly every point from the original filing was subject to so much rejection, dismissal, and even punitive actions against those filing it by just about every court that had to decide on it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As awful and misguided as this 2005 attempt, done by Mike (or in Mike's name), was against Brian, et al; it was unsuccessful.

For perspective, that would put it far, far below the other two awful and misguided yet "successful" affronts mentioned in the interview, done by a Beach Boy (or in the name of a Beach Boy) against another Beach Boy.

Hey Jude - I was very clear in exactly the text I used.  I did not wander into another court phase.  It had page numbers which I provided.  

The test is generally "where you intend to return."  ;)

At least these guys kept these disputes out of their music, unlike John and Paul (although How Do You Sleep and Too Many People were both great songs). 

It is as basic as the 9th circuit decision spelled it out. The first amended complaint in the district court listed a Nevada residence for the plaintiff, the second amended complaint had changed that to a California residence (ostensibly so a legality specific to California's unfair business practices which does not apply in Nevada could be referenced in the case), the court "strongly admonished" the plaintiff Love for those actions.

I know Mike had to sue for credits which even the article suggests was Murry's fault and Mike admits Brian was cowed by his father. Of course, this was put right.  What is the other 'awful' thing?Mike complains of so much - Dennis cheating  with Mike's wife for example.

But I don't accept that wrongs that have been righted are more serious than an attitude that seems to persist today. The court case was one sign of that attitude but though that case didn't succeed Mike still seems to bear considerable ill feeling towards Brian and Al.

It seems to me that the difference between what was done to Brian and Al by Mike and what was done to Mike by Brian or at least Brian's father is that Brian and Al were subject to a malicious attack which failed to succeed because it lacked truth and Mike was denied credit but then reparation was made in full.  The wrongs to Mike have been righted. Has Mike ever apologised or shown remorse for the 2005 case? Apparently not.

GF - if I had to guess, that probably would have been on the lawyer.  

Mike might "draft lyrics," but I highly doubt he "drafted the complaint."  And, he may have thought that owning property would or even living part-time in  CA (as people do with summer residences, even longer time-wise than the main residence) may have supported it.   We only know what is fed to us in the decision with the minutiae in the middle. Just sayin'.  ;)

Umm... not quite.

"Brian" (aka "Thank You") fingers Mike, Murry, and others, even though it's unreleased (but released on promo cassettes).
"Looking Back With Love" (song) has a Charles Manson reference, kept in/signed off by Mike even if he may not have written it.
 

Mike approved every word of that 2005 lawsuit.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Good thing you guys aren't accusing Mike of horse thievery. You'd have him strung up without a trial.

6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

Could you imagine if that segment was quoted verbatim in Mike's forthcoming book? Could you imagine the fall out among the general music (non message board) public? I mean - he signed off on it. What a brush fire. And to think that he would be oblivious to the blow back. He would...witness the RS article. The man just doesn't GET IT.

Two things I can't pass up in this post:

1. It is unclear from Al's statements whether he is talking about the very first song or so that they wrote, or every song they had written up to that point, or if he is just steam-of-conscious/semi-nervously answering the question.  At one point he does say Brian wrote the songs and Mike the lyrics, but then the context seems to be the very first song.  And since Mike had not written all of the lyrics up to this point there is clearly some limitation to the statement anyway.  I can't see any court giving too much weight to his statements in this context.

2. "Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them."

This is historical revisionism of the worst sort.  If you believe Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because of Murry, you have lost all credibility, at least in my eyes.  

This is an absurd claim.  Capitol focused on Brian's songs because (a) no one else could do what Brian was doing and (b) relatively speaking, lyricists of Mike's caliber (on the early songs) were a dime a dozen.  Those lyrics, as much as I personally like many of them, really aren't very special.  Brian's music makes them come alive.  Further, it's been said by several that Brian wasn't bringing a blank page to Mike, in many cases.  He had song titles, ideas, and sometimes lyrics that Mike tweaked.  Do we even know how many of the hits he wrote from scratch?  Maybe his real claim to fame isn't even being a good lyricist, maybe it is being a pretty darn good lyrics tweaker.  Do we really even know.  Regardless, Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because nobody really wanted songs written by the other guys - because they couldn't compare in the slightest.

Let's keep it real, don't re-write history, it is repulsive.

EoL

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is beneficial. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy and can't figure out that he is inadvertently responsible for so much of his own pain, as well as others'. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

FP will be disappointed if you leave out the yes women.  ;)

Of course actual clients don’t actually draft these complaints. But I would assume Mike stays in the loop on any pending legal activity he is paying lawyers for.

Certainly, if his lawyers were taking a very specific tact and strategy (e.g. changing the state of residence for the purposes of legitimizing some element of their complaint), Mike would have been aware of and okayed this decision. This wasn’t a little tiny nugget buried in the minutiae of the case. It was basically a hail mary attempt to keep a part of the case valid.  

Subsequently, the court strongly admonished Mike (as the plaintiff) for doing this. It doesn’t mean anything he did was illegal, or that he was going to be thrown in jail for it. But it also means the court found the tactic objectionable enough to “admonish” him. Basically, as I read it, the court is calling BS on their tactic.

People are characterizing Mike in a negative context for this particular lawsuit, *that’s* where the topic of this lawsuit is coming into play in this thread, and I think the court *admonishing* Mike for elements of his case in addition to the court using terms like “bloated”, “bordered on frivolous”, and “vastly overpled” would tend to be pretty strong support for such a characterization.

I think I get where you’re coming from. When it comes to the guys in this band, and specifically Mike more so than the others, you want to always give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to legal wrangling. Anything and everything has a hypothetical/theoretical explanation that doesn’t involve someone just being an a-hole. I simply disagree; sometimes. It’s a very dicey topic to get into, but when we’re talking about legal cases and rulings and the *presiding courts* start characterizing Mike negatively via the most objective fashion possible, I think that stretches beyond the benefit of the doubt when the topic at hand is essentially simply “I think Mike filing that particular lawsuit was lamentable and objectionable.”

Yes people! :lol

I don't get where Mike Love is coming from.  He is very aware of his public reputation and is uncomfortable with it, and feels like he has not been given a fair shake.  At the same time, he is unwilling to change, seems very rigid. 

The title of Mike Love Not War is a ridiculous name for a new album.  He should reconsider.

Has he ever blamed his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech on a failure to meditate before?   

Look, I just got on Smile Brian for diagnosing Mike, so why on earth would I answer your question? I have empathy and understanding for Mike too. As a matter of fact, I have it for all the guys in the band. It doesn't mean I go around diagnosing and assuming certain things on a public board. I am not a gossip monger. It is not what I come here for. I come here to read and discuss the band and the music. I know Mike did this interview and is subject to some of this scrutiny, but playing doctor isn't part of it. This stuff is the part of human nature that I absolutely abhor.

Looking at that list of songs, it's even more difficult to understand how or why such a blatantly misleading or false claim would be made in a legal filing. This was 2005, a decade after the case about songwriting credits had been decided, and after that decision made it possible for all future official credit listings and releases of the songs decided in the case to reflect what was decided by the courts should go to Mike as a credited co-writer.

In other words, the credits being sought were given and changed where necessary regarding those songs from the case.

With that in mind, what is hard to not only justify but also try to come up with a basic rationale to explain is why there would be language in a lawsuit filed a decade later that offers this statement : "Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties", when there are some very prominent and familiar songs on that list of BB's songs that are credited to Mike and Brian. Hits and fan favorites, too.

I'm still trying to find any rationalization for a legal document filed in 2005 that seems to blatantly ignore the fact that not only was Brian making music for the Beach Boys, but that he was co-writing a decent amount of that music with Mike, a fact that Mike knows firsthand as Brian's co-writer.

The song credits case in the 90's settled the issue and gave Mike the credit for the songs he co-wrote. In light of that, and the colossal "wrong" done to Mike as the lack of proper credits has been described for years up to the present in 2016, why would the same person who suffered such a wrong then had it righted and fixed attempt to do a similar thing in lessening Brian's involvement with the Beach Boys' 1967-2002 music as listed above? And especially through those songs that Brian not only was involved in recording with Mike but also co-wrote with Mike and was always credited as such?

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

It's highly unlikely Mike wrote any of the filings. Why would he? That's what he (and everyone else) pays lawyers for. But I also don't doubt for a second that he signed off on all of it and read all of it.

If there was anything in that paperwork that the lawyers would especially need input from their client on, it would be the "background" section.

I'm curious why "Mike didn't write the filing" is now being used, apparently, as a means to defend him. Nobody is complaining about single typos or slightly inflammatory, subjective rhetoric in the suit. But the comment about Brian being "essentially too ill" to do anything put collect royalties between 1967 and 2002 is demonstrably false, and I don't find it very plausible that Mike Love didn't read that very specific "background" section of his own lawsuit filing.

The "background" section uses numerous sweeping generalizations which smell to me like an angry client asking lawyers to cut down and minimize Brian (and Al for some reason) as much as possible. The swipes at someone who was not a party to the lawsuits but who was involved in separate litigation (Al Jardine) drip even more with invective.

Curious...when was the first time Mike initiated a lawsuit? Was it during those Landy years in the late 80's or were there times a lot earlier?

You know, I can understand some ambivalence about Mike Love. I can also understand defending him as an (at this point) underdog with an understandable wound, but trying to make a neutral out of the 2005 lawsuit isn't going to work.

Also, in looking at the original 2005 lawsuit filing, I found one little bit that I've been searching out for a long time. During numerous discussions in the past several years about the touring name license, some have (I believe) contended that Brian never has and never would threaten to take Mike's license away. I always countered that, according to Mike's lawsuit filing, in at least one case Brian allegedly *did* threaten just that. So I finally found the section of the lawsuit that makes this contention, with my bolded/yellow emphasis:

116. Defendants intentionally engaged in the aforesaid acts or conduct relating to the promotion of the Smile CD and the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD, which prevented plaintiff from performing his contract with BRI to use The Beach Boys trademark or that caused performance under the contract to be more expensive or burdensome. In particular, by misappropriating the Trademark and the name and images of the band, and by “giving-away” Beach Boys classic hits, defendants have caused performance under the contract (License) to become more expensive and burdensome. In his capacity as one of the four Directors of BRI, the defendant, Brian Wilson, in concert with the other defendants, has further interfered with the performance of plaintiff’s contract with BRI by the following acts: (a.) organizing and orchestrating the described scheme; (b) failing to disclose the scheme to BRI and to plaintiff; (c) threatening to vote to revoke the license in the event plaintiff either individually or in his capacity as a Director of BRI attempted to obtain legal redress for defendant, Brian Wilson’s illicit conduct – thus engaging in extortion to shield himself from liability; (d) making promises and inducements to Alan Jardine, a co-director of BRI, in order to induce Jardine’s vote to revoke the license and to block BRI from seeking legal redress for Wilson’s interference with the license; (e) threatening to revoke the license and either tour with Jardine or remove the touring license from the marketplace in order to promote Wilson’s touring band; and (f) engaging in several years of touring activity in competition with the license, and undermining its effectiveness in the marketplace while remaining as a Director of BRI.

I'm guessing all this stuff fell flat in terms of legal arguments, especially the contention that essentially amounts to contending that Brian merely touring as a solo act "undermines" the license.

I'm very neutral on the concept of Brian allegedly threatening to vote to take Mike's license away. But assuming Mike's own filing is true (and even if it exaggerates the "scheme" of doing so beyond what it actually was), it is interesting that the idea of attempting to take the license away has been batted around at some point.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

Rogue lawyers, yeah right!!!! :lol

If there were some hard evidence, I'm sure you'd find a way to disprove it with research. Does it seem very likely that the client would not have had anything to do with so many aspects of the suit, and that there was a rogue conspiracy happening behind the client's back, including concocting fake people, writing out mean-spirited documentation, etc? (Waiting for your inevitable non-response). I am no legal expert, but imagine that would be pretty rare. OJ conspiracy type rare.  And then, how likely would it be for the client to just be passive about it after the fact? To have let the rogue lawyers just have done all that stuff behind their back, and additionally just do nothing legal about those corrupt doing-awful-things-100%-behind-their-client's-back lawyers after their corruption came to light?

Why is it so hard to imagine the remotest of remote possibilities that Mike could have been angry and bitter, and approved some of this stuff? Even one little portion that may have been overboard? Especially when he could have felt threatened, as was pretty clearly evidenced by HeyJude's legal quote.  

People who feel threatened and are angry are known to do/say/approve nasty legal things. It does happen.

Sobering. That's a smoking gun in my opinion. The whole premise (going back to the 70's) that POB was a threat to the Beach Boys, and that Brian Wilson songs belong within the domain of the Beach Boys, and nothing else. Golden goose, indeed.

I've always suspected that, but I don't feel any sort of 'gotcha' having read that. I feel dispirited. It's a drag. Tragic even.

No wonder BW broke down back in the 1970s, his creative spirit was tied to a "brand" or else (visits from rocky and stan). ;)

Lots of tragedy in all of this, definitely.

For what it's worth, my reading of all of this is that Brian probably never had any intention of taking the license back or voiding it. I would guess, in this theory, it was more a case of "Seriously, you're going to file a frivolous, vindictive lawsuit like this? If that's the case, then let me refresh your memory as to exactly *who* voted to give you the license...."

I think Mike's case probably also fell apart because he is contending that Brian, by doing anything in his own best interest, is doing wrong by BRI. Problem is, Mike's touring operation isn't a BRI operation. When he (presumably) votes as a member of BRI to give himself (or whatever company runs Mike's tour) the license, he's acting in his own best interest. Now, Mike could of course argue that he feels it's also in the best interest of BRI. But that's completely subjective. He'd have a tough time arguing that Brian is trying to hurt his own company (BRI) by touring as a solo artist, especially when Brian indeed continues to take a percentage of the license fee from Mike's tour.

What does he think, Brian is double dipping by getting a (relatively small) cut of Mike's touring and also touring solo? I'm sure Mike would be free to *also* tour solo alongside either his own touring BB's or to grant the license to some other entity and tour solo.

But yes, it's all tragic, and nothing much came of it. Obviously, no vote to actually take the license away took place (as far as we know, and we do know for certain that Mike never lost the license). I'm not sure who won or lost in this stare down. Brian didn't have his bluff called and proceed to attempt to take the license away from Mike. But Mike's case was largely if not wholly a failure. I guess it was kind of a wash.  

I also find in interesting that a contention was made that Al had to be "induced" to vote against Mike. Especially back in 2005, would Al have needed any persuasion to do that? One would think not. Then again, ironically he may have needed the BRI license proceeds to pay for his lawyers in litigation against BRI (!), and perhaps wouldn't want to vote to revoke a BRI license unless an alternative (e.g. Brian and Al) would fill the income void. But I also think, both then and certainly now, my guess is that Al would be happy to simply "remove the license from the marketplace" now that he's able to tour with Brian.

Interesting (and sad and tragic) stuff.

Not that any of this matters AT ALL, but it makes me wonder; when Al and Dave did that short post C50 tour with Brian, and then followed with Jeff Beck - does that bother Mike Love?

It shouldn't. If mean, why would it? Regular touring with all the accouterments of a well vested lifestyle, but does it? When I read legal briefs such as the above cited, it makes me think that he's a lot more thin skinned than people give him credit for.

We go to the shows. It's all about the music, right? And it's all good. There's plenty of music for everyone. But it seems as if someone still isn't happy. And it ain't too hard to figure out who.

I will address your question directly.  There is far more than assumption at play here:

1. Mike is a sharp guy, and by all accounts very intelligent.  It would be very difficult to persuade me that he did not read, and therefore approve of, the wording in the suit.

2. The statements in question are typical Mike Love talking points that we have all read and heard over and over again.

3. Mike has never disavowed the suit, at least not publicly.

4. Mike has never filed a lawsuit against the attorneys who represented him.  Given he is no stranger to legal strong arming and lawsuits, this strongly implicates him.

So, yes, we have a lot more than assumptions.  We have an intelligent man, we have motive, we have past experience with similar statements coming directly from Mike and we have a failure to disavow or sue.  All evidence points to Mike.  In fact , we have everything except the smoking gun.  It's a very strong case.

EoL

Well put. In addition, looking at the 2010 appeals court ruling, it appears Mike attempted to use an "advice of counsel" defense in some of his appeals, arguing that he should not be punished (the punishment in this case being paying a myriad of attorneys fees to a myriad of defendants) for his lawyers' litigation strategy.

This appeal was also rejected (with some yellow text emphasis added by me below). The court used additional characterizations to describe the complaints, including "unreasonableness", "bad faith", "frivolous", and "unreasonable": 

D

In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards, Love attempts to assert what he calls an advice of counsel defense. He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy.

The only case that Love cites in his brief that could support an advice of counsel defense is Takecare Corp. v. Takecare of Okla., Inc., 889 F.2d 955 (10th Cir.1989). In Takecare, however, the exceptionality finding that supported an award of attorney's fees was based on the defendant's wilfully illegal use of a mark after having received notice of infringement. Id. at 957. The court held that “a party's reasonable reliance on the advice of counsel may defuse otherwise wilful conduct,” but that the defendant failed to prove reasonable reliance. Id. at 957-58.

Here, the district court's finding of exceptional circumstances was based not on wilful out-of-court conduct by Love, but rather on the unreasonableness of his Trademark claims and his continued pursuit of the claims in bad faith. Similarly, the Copyright attorney's fees were awarded based on the frivolous and unreasonable nature of those claims. If plaintiffs could evade attorney's fees awards by showing that the litigation was conducted based on the advice of counsel, attorney's fees would never be awarded to defendants under the Lanham or Copyright Acts. Cf. Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Very Minor Leagues, Inc., 223 F.3d 1143, 1148 (10th Cir.2000) (“[W]e disagree that there should be, or even could be, perfect harmony between the standard for awarding attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant. When attorney fees are awarded against a defendant, the court looks to whether the defendant's acts of infringement were pursued in bad faith. When attorney fees are awarded against a plaintiff, the court looks to the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the lawsuit and the manner in which it is prosecuted.”). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.XK4RWysG.dpuf

Actually, I find the 2005 case far more interesting for at least two important reasons.  It raises the following questions:

1. Does Mike really believe these things?  If so, maybe he does struggle with mental illness as other posters have suggested.  This is an option I had not previously considered until it was brought up yesterday.  It is intriguing because if it is proven to be true it would illicit more compassion towards him (though his blaming and abrasive nature would still be more difficult to stomach than Brian's more passive temperament).

2. Is Mike willing to pervert the truth to this degree for money and/or satisfying his ego?  This is a real consideration.  If he denies Brian's vast contributions during this period (notice the suit was amended, but never to correct the dates), might he also exaggerate his song writing contributions against a largely passive and helpless Brian when even more money and ego were on the line in the original song writing credit lawsuit?  If the answer is yes in the 2005 suit, and clearly it is, what does that say about the prior suit?

To make the point, here is an updated list of Brian's song writing/recording/producing during the period in question:

When I Get Mad I Just Play My Drums
Crack The Whip
Little Red Book
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game Of Love
Italia
Cool, Cool, Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait To Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here In The Morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Transcendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Loop De Loop
Santa’s Got An Airplane
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton fields
Tonight You Belong To Me
Tonight My Love
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
A World Of Peace Must Come (album)
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
Raspberries and Strawberries
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She?
Take A Load Of Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
Cows In The Pasture (album)
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
Lady Love
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
Silly Walls
Awake
Now That Everything’s Been Said
Beatrice From Baltimore
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Spark In The Dark
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon And Fairway
Is Jack Reilly Really Superman
Burlesque
Sweet Mountain
Tennesse Waltz
Slip On Through
Mama Said
Superstar
Everybody
Starlight, Star Bright
Forever
Down Home
Baby I Need Your Lovin/Gimme Some Lovin (medley)
Sail on Sailor
Mike Come Back To LA
Some of Your Love
Snowflakes
Shyin Away
Fallin in Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Just An Imitation
Clangin
Ding Dang
Battle Hymn of the Republic
California Feelin
Child of Winter/Here Comes Santa Claus
Good TImin
It’s OK
You’re Riding High On The Music
Lucy Jones
Honeycomb
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me/Tallahassee Lassie
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
I’m Begging You Please
Let’s Put Our Hearts Together
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
They’re Marching Along
Little Children
Marylin Rovell
That Special Feeling
Let Us Go On This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Lazy Lizzy
Sea Cruise
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
Hey There Mama
I Saw Santa Rockin
We Gotta Groove
You’ve Lost That Lovin Feelin
My Diane
The Boogie’s Back In Town
Cruise To Harlem
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Everybody Wants To Live
It’s Trying To Say
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kinda Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Don’t Be Cruel
Christmas Day
How About A Little Bit Of Your Lovin
How’s About A Little Bit
It’s Like Heaven
Almost Summer
Do Ya?
She’s Just Out To Get Ya
Basketball Rock
Bowling
Santa Ana Winds
Boys and Girls
Sunshine
Oh Darlin
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Night Bloomin Jasmine
There’s So Many
Be My Baby
River Deep, Mountain High
Greenback Dollar
Why Don’t They Let Us Fall In Love?
Bucks
Children Of The Night
I’m A Man
Stevie
Sweetie
Love Ya
I Feel So Fine
Oh Lord
Yeah!
You’ve Been Good To Me
City Blues
Black Widow
Let’s Do It Again
In The Nighttime
The First Time
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
The Lost Song
I’ve Been Through This One Before
Walking On Water
What’s Wrong With Starting Now?
Wondering What You’re Up To Now
You
A Bad Time Soon Forgotten
Water Builds Up
I’m Broke
Don’t Let Her Know She’s An Angel
Walkin The Line
Miller Time
After The Storm
A Little Love
All Over Me
California
Christmastime
Heavenly Bodies
I’m Tired
It’s Getting Rough
Labor Of Love
Magic
Magnetic Attraction
Pair Of Troops
Turning Point (a.k.a. So Long)
Just Say No
Brian/Thank You
The Spirit Of Rock And Roll
The Tiger’s Eye
Christine
Living Doll (a.k.a. Barbie)
Let’s Go To Heaven In My Car
Carl And Gina
Melt Away
Love and Mercy
Nighttime
Heavenly Lovers
Hotter
Magic Lanterns
Too Much Sugar
Rio Grande
Saturday Evening In The City
Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long
One For The Boys
Let It Shine
Meet Me In My Dreams Tonight
He Couldn’t Poor Old Body To Move
Doin Time On Planet Earth
Being With The One You Love
Goodnight Irene
In My Car
Country Feelins
Daddy’s Little Girl
Metal Beach
I Sleep Alone
Concert Tonight
I Do (a.k.a. Do You Have Any Regrets)
Let’s Stick (Get) Together
The Waltz
Smart Girls
Someone To Love
Rings
Make A Wish
Rainbow Eyes
Is There A Chance
Save The Day
Fantasy Is Reality/Bells of Madness
Sweets For My Sweet
This Could Be The Night
In My Moondreams
This Song Wants To Sleep With You
Gettin In Over My Head
Desert Drive
Soul Searchin
Chain Reaction Of Love
Dancin The Night Away
Elbow ’63
Everything’s Alright With The World
Frankie Avalon
God Did It
Goin Home
In The Wink Of An Eye
It’s Not Easy Being Me
Mary Anne
Marketplace
Must Be A Miracle
Slightly American Music
Some Sweet Day
Turn On Your Love Lights
What Rock And Roll Can Do
You’re Still A Mystery
Proud Mary
I Can Hear Music
Melinda, Honey
Our Babies Have Grown Up On Us
Right Before Your Eyes
Rock And Roll Express
Everything I Need
Miracle
This Isn’t Love
Your Imagination
South American
Where Has Love Been
Dream Angel
Cry
Lay Down Burden
Sunshine
Happy Days
Joy To The World
We’re Still Dancing
On Christmas Day
Silent Night

I would put that output up against almost all song writers of the pop/rock era with few exceptions - and this doesn't include songs written for TWGMTR and NPP.

If Mike can stretch this far, might he also have embellished his contributions to the early songs?  I think we all know he got less credit than he deserved in some instances.  But perhaps there is reason to question some of the credits he won.

I am sorry to ramble.  This is one of my favorite BB topics.  I don't care to own all of the demos, it doesn't matter to me who whispered what on a given demo and I've never made a Smile comp (my favorite era is Summer Days through Pet Sounds).  But I really would like to know who wrote what, including the recent Brian output that many question.  It all fascinates me for some unknown reason.  Thanks for bearing with me.

EoL

And that doesn't include all the times Brian toured with them - admittedly, it was sporadic, but not unusual to find Brian on stage with the guys after 1976.

From late 1976 through some time in 1982, I'd say Brian was a pretty "regular" touring band member. He missed some shows, increasingly so in 1981 and especially 1982. But I think one could call him a regular during those five or six years. I don't think he missed that many shows from 1977 to 1980 in particular.

And certainly, with the exception of "Summer in Paradise", had some level of involvement in every studio album they recorded during this weirdly wide "1967-2002" time frame. Especially weird is that they choose 2002 as the cut-off for this supposedly inactive time frame. This ignores numerous solo albums and several solo tours.

This horse is barely breathing, but Mike Love paid his lawyers and lost close to a million dollars in fees and costs in the first round. He retained the same lawyers on appeal. Had the lawyers been 'rogue' and pulling all those shenanigans without his knowledge, and he was out 1.5 million or so dollars because of it, I hardly think he'd use the same lawyers to proceed further.

There were periods of time in the early 80s where Brian's presence was the only reason why a Beach Boys show was even allowed to occur, due to the one Wilson minimum rule.

I think he probably justified stretching that far, and embellishments like WIBN (and possibly others) as a way to overcorrect for legit screwjobs like California Girls. I think that simply playing dumb/denying that Brian contributed that long list of songs from the 70s and beyond was motivated by revenge, to even the score (and then some) for how he felt he'd been treated. I don't condone it, but I understand it, especially growing up among revengeful people like his uncle Murry.

It's pretty obvious. To think this is utterly, ridiculously far-fetched is to be on par with the Flat Earth Society. Mike got f*cked with, stewed for decades, then busted a microchip in trying to fix the problem. Why grasp at straws trying to prove that's somehow out of character?

Yep. Waiting for Cam to chime in with a rebuttal theory on this.

Great point Emily, that had not occurred to me.  Another compelling piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that Mike either believed what was said in the lawsuit or was willing to "embellish" as needed.

EoL

Cam is parsing every word. ;)

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

If so, deflecting blame for his actions once again...

Just because unscrupulous means could potentially have been their strategy, does that by necessity mean he zero awareness and/or no ability to sign off on what the lawyers did and what the legal statement said? I'm willing to concede he may not have been the "mastermind", but why can't you concede he could possibly have even just gone along with someone else's bad ideas? That's an impossibility of the highest order?

cool video Thanks for sharing,, also I think the lady was starting to get "Hot under the collar" for Dennis around the 7:24 mark ,,,lol....

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

"Love Is a woman" doesn't count?

Doesn't it say this was claimed "In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards"?

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

Seriously, Cam, if you lost a case and a million dollars in costs and fees, which isn't a given - the costs are only assigned to the plaintiff if the plaintiff's suit is considered exceptional (ly frivolous or some such term, I don't have the document open) - and you found out that the reason you were facing those costs was that your attorneys had offended the court with sanctionable work that you didn't know about, and you also learned that they'd filed such a defamatory complaint in your name without your knowledge, would you continue to work with those lawyers or would you feel maybe you didn't have so much faith in them anymore?

Took a moment to sink in, but thanks for a great laugh!

Quite a bit different.  Al willfully and actively and repeatedly abused the brand without a license before his failed lawsuits, which were I think pretty much blamed on his lawyers and the offended co-owners of the brand as I remember.

Mike's lawyers filed a suit which failed and his lawyers filings had no force. It's not like he wrote and signed his own unilateral unsanctioned license and then actively operated under it in breach or anything like that. Mike's lawyers were also terrible and they also lost and Mike paid for their failure to have any effect by paying the defendant's legal fees apparently.

Doesn't it say that in appeal he sought to not be punished for his lawyers litigation plan?  It sounds like he did not have faith in their plan.

Far out Cam... Honestly!

you're welcome...

Well the lawyers wrote that too, so I guess not. Sounds like Mike Love just gives them a few mil a year with orders to "Go after Brian Wilson! I don't care how you do it!"   :-D ludicrous, right?

Forget it, Jake. It's BeachBoytown.   ;)

I think the difference is that you have a weird grudge against Al Jardine (complete with comically overwrought descriptions of his evil deeds that read just like Mike Love's 2005 complaint) and will go to the ends of the Earth to defend Mike Love. That is by far the simplest explanation.

You can see it in the post above. When it concerns Al, then "Al willfully and actively" did things. When it comes to Mike, it's conveniently "Mike's lawyers" doing everything.

Hey Jude - "willfully and actively" are legal terms of art. Of course they were in the pleadings (which the judge called "overpled") that is absolutely on the lawyer and not Mike.  Thanks for your "benefit of the doubt" comment. It does extend to all the members.  And, I gave Brian the "benefit of the doubt" for 20 years since I saw them perform live, and patiently waiting to see Brian. I appreciate it.  You know karma. One day I may need it myself.  ;)  

As I recall, the deal with the license to use the name brand, was a "condition precedent" which, if adhered to, would permit use of the marketing of the name in connection with performance.  And, the "style" must also be adhered to, which I interpret to be no "poetic license" in performances and fidelity to the originals. It appears to be a "pay to play" scenario.  They all benefit from the work of the Touring Band, so let's be balanced and remember that when the Touring Band plays, they all get a check.    ;)

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

Exactly. Certainly clients have to defer to their lawyers in some areas. But it's the client that makes the decision to bring a suit in the first place, and I've read enough lawsuits and judgments to feel that the 2005 lawsuit reads like a fuming client telling lawyers to throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. My guess (and it's a *total* guess) is that a good counsel would have told Mike that this stuff was frivolous and advised against it. Ultimately, if a client wants to do it, a lawyer will do as their client wishes, and will load the suit with as much ammo as they can, however weak the arguments are.

In this case, the court characterized the thing as "over-pled", bordering on frivolous (and I believe in another case some elements are outright called "frivolous"), they were admonished for the laughable "if I own property somewhere, I can change my place of residence for the sole purpose of filing this lawsuit" tactic, and so on.

Do we know for sure that Mike kept the same legal counsel through to the appeals process? I can't believe anyone would keep a lawyer who pulled those shenanigans with somehow magically coming up with a US EBay buyer who was "confused"  upon purchasing the CD in question. The court seemed pretty troubled by that episode in particular. 

It's typically a client who makes the decision to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Since the whole thing was nearly laughed out of court, with admonishments and harsh rebukes from the courts, I'd say the initial decision to bring suit is one of the main instigators of everything.

And again, a variation of the "clients just go along with what their lawyers say" defense was *specifically* rejected in the appeals process on this very case. Mike contended he shouldn't be punished for his lawyers' legal tactics, and the court shot that argument down completely, and rightly pointed out that pretty much everyone who loses a case could make that argument.

If indeed Mike was still retaining the same counsel and/or same law office in his appeals case, and if he never filed any malpractice lawsuits or anything of that nature, that would have further undercut any argument that he was poorly advised. 

Hey Jude - would it not have been avoided altogether if a meeting was called when any of the members was going to release material that had a BB background?  I am thinking that this is a breakdown in communication and could have been avoided by a sit-down with all parties to discuss it.  So, the members don't read about a new release in the newspapers or online, and are always keeping the other members in the loop. Sort of pro-active rather than re-active, and after the fact.  JMHO  ;)

Hey Jude - that is a tough one.  The job of the client is to "teach the lawyer" the facts of the potential case.  I have had to do that on more than one occasion. The client brings preliminary evidence to get evaluated.  And, the fact that Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner, made his position one, that the court had to listen to. 

Each time you hire a lawyer you have to educate them about the background and all the facts.  If you hire someone else, you have to do the whole thing over again - it is like changing doctors, not an easy thing to do.   

And it is called "ineffective assistance of counsel" - I don't know what became of that issue.  Remember that a judge is either elected on popularity (depending on the jurisdiction) or appointed by a governor, likely, if that lawyer has made contributions to the campaign of that governor.  They are just "lawyers with a robe" on.    ;)

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

And after reading and re-reading so much of this, it is still impossible to think of a justification for including some of those statements related to the history of the band in such a filing, especially where some are untrue on the most basic levels of accuracy, while others target people who had nothing to do with the specific case or the lawsuit whatsoever.

GF - this is the process whether you agree with it or not.  Given other forms of "justice" around the world, I'd rather this one.  Just sayin'.   ;)

I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.

The lawsuit have become one of the things Mike love is most famous for. Brian Wilson is most famous for writing pet sounds. Funny how an attempt to reclaim credit for songs he did write went so badly, partly because it was not just one lawsuit and he was taking the band's name and image entirely for himself at the time. His whole scheme over the years has been pretty obvious.

What does that mean. What 'justice' systems don't you like? Or are you just typing for the sake of it :p

Nobody is criticizing the way the legal system works. They're saying Mike Love comes off as an unsympathetic character in that 2005 case, some would argue a vindictive, angry plaintiff. You can agree or disagree with that characterization, but "that's how the legal system works" doesn't answer the subjective question of whether Mike Love's actions are objectionable in some fashion or another.

Further, even within the confines of legal theory, to defend a suit the court so harshly criticized will tend to undercut one's credibility in discussing such legal matters. The "legal system" doesn't need any defending here. If I think Mike Love filed a ridiculous lawsuit, I'm not attacking "the legal system." If anything, one could argue "borderline frivolous" cases show disrespect to the legal system.

Hey Jude - you can only appeal on the stuff you raised originally.  You cannot bring in new issues.  

Clients don't always agree with an outcome.  And there are cases where one side pays the other side's costs if they lose.

Sometimes the "correct" party loses. We have thousands potentially of innocent people in jail who had bad lawyers or prosecutors who wanted that win.  It is often a crap shoot.  

Or cases where each party bears the cost of legal and other fees.  It depends.  Mike had an absolute right (as do all Americans) to go-the-distance with the case.   ;)

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things, potentially, get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you?  

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying any of this. At all. Nobody has once said Mike doesn't have the legal right to bring lawsuits. You're attempting to link negative opinions of Mike with some sort of anti-civil rights movement. It's insulting frankly.

If you don't want to ever paint one single thing about Mike in a negative light, that's cool. But don't assume those who do are trying to subvert the justice system or something.

Hey Jude - at each juncture, there are criticisms of this suit.  Mike had a beneficial ownership interest and had "standing" to bring the suit, whether a message board agrees 10+ years down the road.  Yes, it is related to the right to be heard.  I did not use the term civil rights.  It was more a "business interest" not a civil rights (in terms of discrimination) issue.  And yes,  people don't like the pleadings.  We cannot change that. 

Maybe the Smiley board should have had a "sidebar" with the judge or Mike's lawyer? (I'm kidding.)    :lol

It is water under the bridge and people are still yammering away.     

  So Brian may have lost the previous case in error?  ::)  So what you are saying is Mike has more money than sense?

No, Mike has the right to "exhaust all his avenues" for appeal.

That is the way the system works. 

It's pretty simple... Derp + ;)! The Derp-wink!

Auuum-bop-derp-wink!

Yes. Philip H. Stillman, Stillman and Associates, Cardiff, California, for plaintiff-appellant Mike Love is listed as M. Love’s lead attorney both in the original case mentions here: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/#q=stillman
And in the appeal, here: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public


Apparently not – if you believe M. Love’s background (I guess you think the lawyers made it up), they had discussed it. That seems to be when B. Wilson issued his “threats”.


Exactly. It’s absurd to think that the lawyers just made the facts up out of wholecloth.


Yes, and as the appellate court stated, “The mere fact that a plaintiff has statutory standing does not make his legal and factual arguments objectively reasonable.” In this case, the trial judge and at least two of three appellate judges agreed on the decision.


No one is making the argument that he didn't switch lawyers mid-trial. The point being made is that he kept the same lawyers for the appeal, which is a new matter. Often people switch lawyers for appeals because it’s a particular specialty. He kept the same lawyer. If he felt that the lawyer had given him ineffective, or indeed effectively negative, assistance, it’s hard to imagine to anyone who is thinking reasonably about the matter, that he would’ve retained him again.

I tried on this board to maintain neutrality and not be on a team because while I’m not a fan of Mike Love particularly:
- I haven’t felt like being mad at him was necessary for my enjoyment of the Beach Boys (I still don’t)
- I felt like there was no need to struggle with people who enjoy his work (I still don’t) and I’ve learned that I really like and respect some people that I perceive to be his particular fans
- I can really understand the feeling that the public has chosen a “baddie” and relentlessly and unfairly picks on that person for anything that can possibly be construed as a misstep and I think Mike Love sometimes falls in this category (I still do)
but in the context of the 2005 case, the extent to which (a very few) people are going to put lipstick on a pig is truly absurd.