The Smiley Smile Message Board

Quite ironic that I posted in the Iain Lee Mike Love Book thread talking about the pervasive use of ducking, dodging, and cherry picking many Mike Love apologists use - and then I just see that Janet Maslin of the New York Times talks about Mike Love cherry picking his facts, "dodginess" is seen throughout his book.

"He writes, with a distinct air of superiority, that he got more out of meditation than they could possibly have been getting from all that substance abuse. And yet his Eastern wisdom (he was a direct disciple of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the only Beach Boy to go on that famous visit to the maharishi’s ashram in India with the Beatles and Mia Farrow) and highly evolved attitudes did little to keep him from messing up his life.

He had a bad habit of impregnating women at home, then marrying them, having constant affairs on the road, watching the marriages break up with very young children involved, and then repeating the whole process."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/books/in-good-vibrations-summer-fun-soured-by-mike-loves-score-settling.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/books/in-good-vibrations-summer-fun-soured-by-mike-loves-score-settling.html?_r=2)

I can't wait to read this book.

Thanks for sharing the link.  I have to acknowledge the author for making me laugh and keeping it concise, as she did.  This is looking more and more like the sadly predictable stuff many of us feared.  If it's as she describes, what an embarrassment to the great legacy of that music.  I guess, we'll see.

But it's only the NY Times.

'Mr. Love goes out of his way to diss Carl and ignore his contributions to the group, both musical and diplomatic, whenever he can."

Now I'm pissed off.

Well we are never going to see them all on stage again.

Interesting...

Huh..I bet he was inspired when he stole 'Sherry She Needs me' and called it 'Tricia'. 'Wrinkles' was pretty inspired, huh? I bet Gemini Paul McCartney never wrote out of inspiration. Likewise, Brian was desperate when he wrote and produced Pet Sounds, huh?

You know what? Screw Mike Love. I'd say it to his smug face, too.

My God...

"Pisces Brothers" is the worst song released by a a beach boy. Terrible.

And he goes into his long preamble just like he did with his other sh*t songs . No taste. Terrible.


Writing purely b inspiration is a total hack move. Counterintuitive. But true.

If he had any real talent, he'd write all the time ,regardless of inspiration.His songs might suck. But at least he's doin' it.

Hey, maybe he is good. I'm no scholar.

What abut this song "Jailbait" ?

I wanna look it up. But I don
t wanna be on record looking it up.
Mike Love "Jailbait" is bad enough. Not to mention it's very close to "Make Love Jailbait" .

Was he tryin' to compete with Brian's borderline creepy songs of the period, or what? Is it any good*?

*obviously not , but still, lemme know....

 :'(   Poor, poor, pitiful Mike.  He has ALWAYS been his own worst enemy.  He will add to the always growing list of those who have 0 time for him with this specific foray into the evil world of useless and mind numbing envy.  

There is no doubt that Mike always wanted to be known as the smart, good looking, cool, creative, sexy Beach Boy with the undeniably best and most admired singing voice.

He has NEVER been any of these things.  Never and at NO TIME along the entire length of his 55 years as the guy who benefited most from the efforts of everyone else connected with the project known as The Beach Boys has Mike Love really ever been 'the man'.  When the 50th anniversary tour showed that people universally acknowledged Brian as the true Beach Boy of note...Mike-Eddy flipped out and forced an end to those special anniversary events in spite of their success and in spite of the momentum the tour had picked up as it rolled the Beach Boys back out into a brightly lit state of currency.

All he ever really did was write lyrics to SOME of their successful songs over the first 5 or 6 years of their growth.  When he could no longer keep up with the maturation and the expansion of the concepts the real creative force of the group had in mind he was replaced.  He had to be.  He just couldn't deliver the 'goods' as the demand for something bigger and better became increasingly more apparent.  Thankfully Brian found others who COULD fulfill the promise of a brave new future for the group.

That this miserable excuse for a human being couldn't fathom his being left out in the creative cold, to the point where it forced him to question Brian's every move and to berate Brian for having the guts and the instinct to GROW, only helped derail one of the most important musical voices of the 20th century.  He should forever hang his head in shame.  But he won't.

Now he's chosen to demonstrate just how shallow and jealous he's always been and he's done so in print so that even the slowest among us can see that T.M. never/ever worked for Mike, that he is only capable of wading in the shallowest of waters, that his has always been NOTHING more than a desperate attempt at headline, credit and money grabbing.  It's there in print, with it's ongoing hatred and dishonesty, for ALL to see and reference.  Love.  In this case it's only just a name...misspent on a sniveling, wretched old bully who has faked his way through a career wasted on a bogus presentation and an obvious misrepresentation of everything he's pretended to be.

So what is he?  He's a guy who's best days ended 50 LONG years ago.  He is a con artist who fooled a LOT of folks into thinking that he was something other than the sad and spoiled loser who now considers himself to be an author.

For once he got it right.  Mike Love is the author of his own demise.

And that's one thing he really DID author!

The part that surprised me most about this review was Janet Maslin calling Long Promised Road a "full" biography of Carl, and the book's anything but that.

Plus, that statement that "Mr. Love is the only link to the Beach Boys of memory."  OK, if the sentence read, "to the original Beach Boys" that would be another matter. But Bruce was there from California Girls till he got temporarily exiled in the '70s.  I get the feeling that Ms Maslin's not all that well versed in the history of the band.
 

Ouch! :lol

C'mon. Not every reviewer has to have a complete, comprehensive knowledge of the history of the band, and I think she got the broad strokes down pretty well. I can excuse the NY Times for not delving into Bruce's fractured history as a Beach Boy in a review of a book by Mike Love. It's unnecessary and beside the point. And, look at the Boys in their striped shirts on Ed Sullivan-- no Bruce.

Are reviews written by anyone other than an avid Beach Boys fan invalid? Or is an entire review invalid if it contains one tiny half-of-a-factual error?

The deal with the Manson stuff is that I'd have to guess that when someone is shopping a memoir to publishers, a "MANSON CONNECTION!!!!" is one of the big selling points, to distinguish it from the million other rock and roll memoirs full of adultery and drug use and bad business deals.

It will be interesting to see how much Brian's book feels the need to play the "Manson Angle." I'm guessing not as much.

How much Dennis should be at fault for his Manson connection is of course highly debatable. I've never been a big student of the Manson part of the saga. But I'm *pretty sure* Dennis was not aware of Atkins's potential as a murderer when he let her babysit kids. I mean geez. Unless the story includes Dennis later gleefully joking to Mike, "Ha ha! Remember that time I let a murderer watch your kids!", I would presume Dennis as much if not more than anybody else understood, in the aftermath of the Manson murders, the gravity of his previous connections with all of those people. Haven't numerous sources suggested Dennis was in some respect scared s***less in the aftermath?

Once again, Mike is like the elderly parent still berating his family members about their screw-ups from 30-50 years ago. And he's doing it to a dead family member to boot.

Considering how few leads Bruce sang over the years, and how minimal of a role he plays in current live shows, I'm fine with the characterization of Mike being the only link in the current touring band to the Beach Boys of memory.

I don't sense the writer of this review is so unfamiliar with the topic of the band as to not even know who Bruce is. She seems familiar with Mike's 2005 lawsuit (which she notes Mike does not mention in the book), which tells me she has to have some level of deeper knowledge of at least aspects of the band.

Typical of Mike to not mention the 2005 lawsuit defeat in his book. It's all about the success of other lawsuits for him.

The thing I STILL don't get about the songwriting credits issue is that Mike *WON* the lawsuit. He got a monetary settlement, and got his name on the songs and thus of course future royalties.

The wrong was righted in a resounding victory for Mike in court, over TWENTY years ago!

SUBSEQUENT to winning that lawsuit, he engaged in several projects (Stars and Stripes, C50) with Brian.

So what exactly happened just *in the last few years* to make him RE-ANGRY about it? *Especially* when he (and others) have noted on numerous occasions that the trial even moving forward instead of settling was something Brian likely didn't want any part of and would have and/or could have settled the lawsuit. Mike has specifically said in old interviews that he DOESN'T blame Brian.

So who is the target of his ire? Brian again? Murry? It's not enough of beating an old issue to death to harangue a deceased Carl and Dennis about decades-old drug and alcohol abuse? Now he's going back almost 50 years to complain about Murry? Remember Murry? The guy about whom Mike said in 1992: "I'm so glad he wasn't my father", which implies Mike was and is well aware that the Wilson brothers have far more serious things to complain about Murry than Mike does.

I work for an old man. My father is an old man. Many of my uncles are old men.

What I have learned is that their opinions become very ossified over time. They see the world through their particular lens, and NOTHING can change it. They are always right, those they disagree with are always wrong (and possibly gay/socialist). No amount of evidence or logic can dissuade them from a ridiculous opinion (See also: Trump, Donald, campaign for the presidency by).

Stubborn old men are the bane of existence, in my expert opinion.

Old women, meanwhile, are almost universally a delight (with the exception of accomplished female bassists).

What's even more perplexing if not alarming is that Mike's opinion has not only ossified, it has become more intense and vitriolic just in the last few years. As if something has made him more angry about *that* issue. Weird.

well, "boasts and grudges": what could one expect but a true history of the man's feelings.  But this is the NYT; for you Brits, it's degenerated into a parody paper like your Guardian. JM hints that ML may be a Trump supporter!!! Oh no. The NYT has a campaign to elect HRC, and anything written by someone who is/was/could be tolerant of republican history and views must automatically become a demon, so JM has an axe to grind. Likely Mike does too. But, I wonder: is it true that Dennis let a Manson girl baby sit? Seems possible.  Is it true that Murry screwed ML out of money and credit? I think so, so some gripes and boast are just real.

Since the NYT is a Leftist propaganda rag, I'll choose to read the book for myself.

I think the political stuff can be left to the Sandbox. I think the reviewer went quite light on Mike in terms of criticizing his politics. Most media outlets have a political slant (e.g. the Fox News Channel outlets Mike frequents on a regular basis), and I'd say on the scale of "Media Outlet's Political Ideologies Influencing Book Reviews", this particular review ranks pretty low.

The review maintains that Mike professes in his book to be above talking about his political affiliations, and I would argue he hasn't been very shy about that in many cases. So it's a germane point to mention in a review of a book where they're trying to get a sense of how forthcoming and honest Mike is being.

You mean, a credible source of journalism.

"Since the NYT generates detailed, professional and accurate journalism, I'll choose to live in la-la-land, Islam isn't a religion, Ann Coulter is a great thinker and racism doesn't exist."

I think the reason Mike is still angry even after winning his lawsuit and living a life that most could only dream of, is that Brian will always be the hero and Mike the villain.  Fair or not.

That all makes sense. I'm just curious what in the world restarted his latest round of rage on the topic. My best guess is simply that he has had way less of a vested interest in making nice with Brian or anyone to do with Brian post-C50.

Is it really possible that Melinda makes Mike more angry about Murry? As in, just more people in Mike's mind who are around Brian and keep Brian from being what Mike thinks Brian should be?

Don't get me wrong, I understand why even a wrong that is righted is something people might not still get over. Or, sometimes we get over stuff but we might randomly remember something and be angry about it for a bit.

But I'm curious what the point of Mike's rage is now. There's nothing left that can be done. If the statue of limitations had run out and Mike couldn't sue for the songwriting credits or something, his sour grapes would make way more sense. I'm curious if the book gets around to Mike explaining *what in the world he wants anyone to do it about it now*.

I guess the idea is that he just wants people to know that someone else is the a**hole.

Very confident that aliens will visit NYC Thursday before that happens.

"That all makes sense. I'm just curious what in the world restarted his latest round of rage on the topic. My best guess is simply that he has had way less of a vested interest in making nice with Brian or anyone to do with Brian post-C50."

Why was Mike so angry the night he and the group were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  That was one of the crowning achievements of the group's career, totally deserved.  He should have been all smiles and happy that night and celebrated the achievement.  Instead, he goes off all angry and gives a ridiculous speech and embarrasses himself.  Go figure.     

This thing of people taking turns to bring up a ML quote and proceeding to criticise the man is getting tiresome. And before anyone comes out with a "he brings it upon himself", everybody here, and most specially the moderators, is responsible for the seemingly unredeemable shitty turn this board has taken this last year.

Because, deep down, he is insecure enough to have wanted the props from the Beatles, Jagger, etc. Just like the hopelessly nerdy (in an uncharming way) kid trailing after the cool kids hoping to get their attention and approval. I think that night, whatever resentment he felt toward his cooler (and more successful) contemporaries became too much. Ergo, his RRHOF speech.

Why are you still here?

And yes, he DOES bring it on himself! Only a fool would say otherwise.

I dunno. A thread about a Mike Love book is kinda going to be A LOT of taking Mike quotes and discussing them. Invariably some of that will be criticism.

If you don't like the whole "taking a Mike quote and criticizing him" thing, I'd suggest not reading threads on a book *written by Mike*.

There's really only two main angles on analyzing his book. It will either be a quick, broad review (like magazines will offer), or it will be a much more specific commentary on specific points or passages or comments.

Does Mike bring it upon himself? Well geez, he CHOSE to write a friggin' book. What does he want to happen? What does he think will happen? I'm not interested in a quick 5-minute "Good Morning America" press junket interview where the interviewer hits the same bullet points (rise to fame, Brian/drugs, Manson, and Mike "keeping the music alive").

I think I heard there's an opening on that "other board" where you'll be much happier. And...they have a Mega Mod.

"This thing of people taking turns to bring up a ML quote and proceeding to criticise the man is getting tiresome. And before anyone comes out with a "he brings it upon himself", everybody here, and most specially the moderators, is responsible for the seemingly unredeemable shitty turn this board has taken this last year. "

I agree that sometimes the criticism is excessive and unfair, he wrote great lyrics and held the group together for years.  But the RnR Hall of Fame speech, he owns that and all the bricks thrown his way.  Unless you liked the speech?         

Hey professor, guess what....???


BENGHAZI!!!!!!

(https://legendary-digital-network-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/1c2f82a1-0fc0-48e8-a798-f27e521f9859__DrSteveBrule-2-1.jpg)

Dude, thanks for that. Politics aside (I was being intentionally playful but also reckless with the topic, for which I beg pardon), let me get back on track:

At this point, it may be that the BB are each nearly allegorical: Mike has to be the villain and has to be bitter or else he ceases to be "Mike Love." It's a bit like asking a character named Sleep not to be tired. Brian can only be the fragile child genius. They are set in their ways not just by temperament but  and cultural history itself have created and now reified their personae.

Mike did once write that "as for the past, it's all behind us," but that was a fiction.

Also, of course, we live in a Rashomon world: Mike must see history with his own eyes, which does not mean objectively or fairly. If the goal is to find the truth, per se, we will wind up only finding a series of individual truths, each unique to the witness.

I will read Mike's book not to find the "truth" but to see how he feels about events he experiences. This is the point of reading one man's perspective. I will also continue to hope that the BB will all play together. I don't think that this book, or any particular assertion of dispute or personal perception of injustice, will determine the still unwritten final chapter of the BB history.

Good One SDJ - And, hey Professor, time for the Sandbox with this one.

Now I'm really intrigued to actually read the book.  I actually searched for Carl using the online search tool on Amazon and I didn't see anything where Mike was dissing Carl.  What on earth could Mike dredge up about Carl?  Aside from drug use, obviously. 

1)Good question

2) Exactly, and consider the source.

How did Dennis come to be choosing babysitters for Mike's kids anyway? Bonus points for answers that don't entail negligence on Mike's own part.

That is a good question...I didn't think they were ever particularly close, so it does seem a bit odd

Well, if Mike has something bad to say about Carl, he will be the first.

Roger Daltrey handled being in a similar situation to Mike with total grace. Of course, he did have the luck to be the sex appeal of the Who, whereas Mike had zero to negative sex appeal and of course Dennis was the sex appeal of the Beach Boys. I imagine that is part of why Mike hates Dennis so much.

Just a question why the name Autotune?